Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 1999 - Ingrid A. Rimland
Somebody sent me an excellent article by one David Myatt on the Holocaust tale, which I am chopping into four parts - which is one fine way of ending the last four days of 1999, I say.
For me, this last series makes 366+365+365+365 ZGrams (= 1461) in total - not all of which, of course, were written by me. My thanks to those of you who contributed or graciously let me borrow from you when schedules were tight or when I was traveling. It has been an enormous help.
Even so, my part in getting these ZGrams out each day and posted on my website has not exactly been easy. There have been many ups and downs - and times when I felt a bit discouraged when there was "friendly fire" I felt I did not deserve. But all in all, I have to say my work has been one monumental labor of love, appreciated widely, and I intend to carry on in Y2000 - as long as I feel that I have an impact on what is happening in cyberspace, and as long as my readers support me.
Now to Part I of the Myatt essay:
There are several excellent reasons why the story of the Jewish Holocaust is a fictional tale - a product of Zionist propaganda - and why the so-called evidence which is produced, and which has been produced, in support of this story is suspect or false. These reasons should raise doubt in anyone possessed of the faculty of reason - that is, anyone who can think, logically and constructively, and who therefore critically analyses what others say, what they write, or what has been said or written about a particular topic.
Most of these reasons for disbelieving the Holocaust story are scientific or historical, although one reason - hitherto neglected - may be said to be philosophical, and I shall deal with this neglected reason first.
(1) One of the most important reasons to be critical of the Holocaust story - and to suspect that the evidence presented to support it is either suspect or false - is fundamentally a philosophical one. This reason concerns the real nature of National Socialism itself, and the true beliefs, attitude and intentions of Adolf Hitler. There are only two alternatives. Either National Socialism, and Adolf Hitler, were as portrayed by his opponents or they were not. That is, either Adolf Hitler, and his followers, wanted to and did try to exterminate the Jews, or they did not. If they did, then their National Socialist beliefs were indeed wrong, or evil, as portrayed by the enemies of National Socialism. If Adolf Hitler did indeed want to and did sanction and try to exterminate the Jews, in the manner alleged, then his character must at least to some extent have been as it was portrayed by his enemies.
It is fundamentally a question of personal knowledge of, or understanding of, National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. Thus, if one accepts, or knows - from personal knowledge - the true nature of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler, then one accepts or knows that the Holocaust, and other such stories, are propaganda designed to discredit National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. Thus, if the truth is that Adolf Hitler was a noble, just, honourable, civilized person who loved and cared for his folk, with his National Socialism being a practical expression of what was cultured, civilized, noble, just and honourable, then it follows that the Holocaust is a lie or a hoax.
This truth is independent of any amount of evidence which has been, or which could be, mustered against it. If it IS the truth, then any evidence which seems to contradict it must, ipso facto, be suspect or false. An analogy would be the truth that the Earth is a spherical-type planet in orbit around the sun. This objective fact- this truth - exists independent of whether we, or others, believe it. This truth is also not affected by the existence of evidence which some people may have used to show, or try to prove, that the Earth is stationary, with the sun (and other planets) revolving around it. Many people, for a very long time, believed or assumed that the Earth was stationary, just as some people believed that evidence existed to prove this belief or assumption. Such a belief became, in time and in some societies, a dogma which HAD to be believed in, on pain of punishment, just as in such societies many people believed that such a belief had been "proved beyond all possible doubt".
One either accepts, knows or believes that Adolf Hitler was and remained a noble, civilized, person, who loved and cared for his folk - and who therefore could neither have wanted to nor have sanctioned the brutal extermination of the Jews, or others - or one does not believe this or accept it. One either accepts, knows or believes that the National Socialism of Adolf Hitler is an expression of what is noble, just, civilized and honourable - or one does not. If one does not accept or believe these noble things about Adolf Hitler and National Socialism, then one either has no interest in such things, or one accepts or believes some or all of what the opponents of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism have said or written. If one does accept, know or believe that National Socialism was and is noble and civilized - and that Adolf Hitler himself was and remained noble and civilized - then one cannot accept the story of the holocaust, and has to regard any and all "evidence" however and by whomsoever presented, as suspect or false; in brief, as untruthful propaganda.
I, personally, believe I know and understand the true nature of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler - because I have known those who knew Adolf Hitler, and those who were and who are National Socialists - and also because I have satisfied myself by conducting my own scientific, historical and philosophical researches.
Every person should make their own assessment, about the nature of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. However, the National Socialist side of the story is never told openly. It is actively suppressed, even outlawed. That is, those who KNOW the truth - or who believe they know the truth - are seldom if ever allowed to present their case, in public, in print, in the media. Their opponents, on the contrary, can say or write what they want about National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. The result is that most people obtain or receive a biased view. The fact that National Socialists are not allowed, in our societies, to defend National Socialism and Adolf Hitler, is highly indicative.
A suitable analogy is that of a criminal trial where the defendant is charged with serious offences. In this trial, the prosecution employs several professional lawyers, with these lawyers allowed access to any material they like. They further have the luxury of vast manpower and financial resources. In this trial, there is a jury, who are supposed to decide on the guilt of the defendant on the basis of the evidence they hear during the trial. The defendant is only allowed - by the court trying the defendant - to be represented by one person who is not only not a professional lawyer, but who believes the defendant to be guilty, who has little interest in the trial, who cannot even speak the language of the defendant and who actively dislikes the defendant.
The court refuses to allow the defendant to be represented by someone who believes he is innocent. The prosecution is allowed is introduce hearsay evidence, with the defence instructed that they cannot challenge this evidence, as they cannot cross-examine any witnesses produced by the prosecution. Any evidence which the prosecution introduces cannot be challenged by the defence, because the court has ruled that this evidence is factual, accurate and has been proved beyond all possible doubt by expert witnesses the prosecution has brought into court, or whose statements have been read to the court. Such expert witness for the prosecution cannot, of course, be cross-examined by the defence, as their statements cannot be challenged.
The defendant is allowed to make a short statement, in his own defence - but this statement is cut short by the trial judge who orders the defendant to be quiet. When the defendant refuses, the judge orders the defendant removed from the court for "contempt". The defence tries to produce some evidence and statements to prove the innocence of the defendant, but most of this evidence, and the statements, are ruled inadmissible or irrelevant by the court.
The result of all this is, of course, an unfair, unjust, trial. At the end of this trial, the jury are naturally convinced by the prosecution case, and pronounce a verdict of guilty. In effect, the court, the judge and the prosecution are determined to obtain a guilty verdict, and rig the trial to obtain one. The jury never get to hear the other side of the story, just as no one is allowed to speak on behalf of the defendant, not even the defendant himself. What is most astounding of all, is that the jury never even question the fairness of such a trial - they are content to allow the opponents of the defendant to present both the prosecution and the defence case, as they are content to allow a judge who dislikes the defendant, who believes him to be guilty and who wants him to be convicted, to preside over the trial. Such a trial is how the case against Adolf Hitler and National Socialism has been presented, with unchallenged evidence for the Holocaust ruled admissible, and with no one allowed to defend Adolf Hitler or National Socialism.
Such an unjust trial should raise the suspicions of anyone who possesses the faculty of reason and anyone who possesses a sense of justice. The truth is that the National Socialist view of National Socialism, and Adolf Hitler, has been suppressed and outlawed. National Socialism has hitherto been presented and examined - since 1945 - by those opposed to it, just as Adolf Hitler has been described since 1945 only by his opponents.
The philosophical truth about the Holocaust is that until National Socialists - who know, or who believe they know, the truth about National Socialism and Adolf Hitler - can present their case openly and justly, then the whole holocaust story will remain suspect, with individuals unable to make a reasoned and balanced judgment. Every law designed to restrict or outlaw what National Socialists can say, write or publish - in public and in private - is further evidence for the holocaust being a lie, just as every law designed to make Holocaust denial a crime, and every prosecution under such a law, is further proof that the Holocaust is, in fact, a lie.
Tomorrow: Part II of Myatt's essay
Thought for the Day:
"To simplify this argument: If a person wants to find out about the quality of Chrysler cars, would he go to a General Motors dealer and take his word on faith?"