| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Princeandy
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: See what happens IN A REAL COURT when allowed to question t |
 |
|
THIS IS WHY THEY WONT ALLOW WITNESSES TO SPEAK OR ANYONE TO EXAMINE THE bs
THEY ARE BASING ALL THE REPARATIONS ON.
| Quote: | "Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g1md44tuv307jmpjfc0l3l9lmbdrf4m1td@4ax.com...
By Faurisson
The Unraveling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)
The important victory won by revisionism in France on April 26, 1983,
would go on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in
Toronto. I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to
underscore the impact on one's point of view, and especially as far as
the testimonies on the Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the
first time since the war, Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular
cross-examination. Moreover, without wanting to minimize the
importance of the second Zündel trial (that of 1988), I should like it
to be understood that the 1985 trial already contained the seeds for
all that was attained in the 1988 trial, including the report by
Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath, would
proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.
In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst
Zündel and his lawyer, Douglas Christie. I accepted this heavy
responsibility only under condition that all the Jewish witnesses
would, for the first time, be cross-examined on the material nature of
the reported facts, bluntly and without discretion. I had noted, in
effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewish witnesses had been granted
virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyer thought or dared to ask
them for material explanations about the gas chambers (exact location,
physical appearance, dimensions, internal and external structure), or
about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure from beginning
to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executioners
before, during and after execution).
On rare occasions, as at the trial of Tesch, Drosihn and
Weinbacher,[5] lawyers formulated some unusual questions of a material
nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these always found
themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which
should have been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a
weapon which, indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown
him. At the major Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had
manifested total discretion on this point. At the proceedings against
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not
wanted to raise the question; in a letter on this subject dated June
21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hat selbst keine Gaskammer gesehen;
die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hat sich aber auch nicht gegen
deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself had not seen any gas
chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither did he raise the
issue of their existence].[6]
At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65, the lawyers showed themselves to be
particularly timid. I should mention that the atmosphere was rather
inhospitable for the defense and the accused. This show trial will
remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as on the person of
Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, then Senatspräsident.
During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries, the public
prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys,
as well as the journalists who had come from around the world,
accepted as a complete physical representation of the 'crime weapon' a
mere map of the camp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau,
whereupon five minuscule geometric figures were inscribed for the
location of each of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, with the
words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium", and for Birkenau:
"Krematorium II", "Krematorium III", "Krematorium IV", and
"Krematorium V"! These maps[7] were displayed in the courtroom.
The Revisionists have often compared the Frankfurt trial with the
1450-1650 trials against witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during
those trials, someone sometimes bothered to describe or depict the
witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial, even among the lawyers who
made difficulties for a witness like Filip Müller, not one asked of a
Jewish witness or a repentant German defendant to describe for him in
greater detail what he was purported to have seen. Despite two
judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied by
some German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any
technical explanations or criminological expertise regarding the
murder weapon. To the contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a
Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacency to the point of having himself
photographed by the press while raising the chute cover by which the
SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into the alleged Auschwitz
gas chamber.
And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these
anomalies, to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have
Douglas Christie pose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses
as one normally poses in every trial where one is supposed to
establish whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom, how
and when.
Fortunately for me, Ernst Zündel accepted my conditions and Douglas
Christie consented to adopt this course of action and to pose to the
experts and witnesses the questions that I would prepare for him. I
was convinced that, in this manner, all might change, and the veil
woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away. While I was not
counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were all resigned to
paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope that with
the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his
intrepid lawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into
historical prominence.
From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic
began to creep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every
evening and throughout most of the night, I would prepare the
questions to ask. In the morning, I would turn over these questions,
accompanied by the necessary documents, to lawyer Doug Christie who,
for his part and with the aid of his female collaborator, conducted
the essentially legal aspects of the effort. During the
cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's
podium and unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary
and improvisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses'
responses.
The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of
The Destruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to
such humiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for
a new trial against Ernst Zündel, Prof. Hilberg refused to return to
give witness; he explained the motive for his refusal in a
confidential letter wherein he acknowledged his fear of having to once
again confront the questions of Douglas Christie. From the
cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively brought out
that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,
a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical
extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, no one possessed either an
expertise of the murder weapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an
autopsy report establishing the murder of a detainee by poison gas.
However, in the absence of evidence regarding the weapon and victim,
did there exist witnesses of the crime?
A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of
proceeding to this verification is to confront the assertions of the
witness with the results of investigations or expert opinion regarding
the material nature of the crime. In the case at hand, there were
neither investigations, nor expertise relative to the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what made any cross-examination
difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve as an excuse, and one
might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever more
indispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of
knowing whether the witness is telling the truth or not.
Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-Examined:
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba
For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by
which we were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the
two principal Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I
can do no better than to recommend a reading of the trial
transcript.[8] Pages 304-371 cover the questioning and
cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latter breaks down on pages
445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in fact saw nothing,
that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, he had met
persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adopted
the position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons
if only Mr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was
telling him now!
Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say
about this trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means
of recruiting 'Holocaust' expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul
Hilberg, and witness number one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The
testimony of this latter gentleman had been one of the principal
sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on the German
Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November
1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt. Dr. R. Vrba was
also the author of I Cannot Forgive,[9] written in collaboration with
Alan Bestic who, in his preface, declares with regard to him:
"Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he
took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect
he revealed for accuracy." (p.2).
,Never perhaps, had a court of justice seen a witness express himself
with more assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of
the cross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point
where Dr. R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors
and his lies: in his book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic
license" or, as he was wont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!
In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who
had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet
now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following
question:
"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot
Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you
used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit
him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning
the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness
responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask
him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short
and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:
"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).
Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial
questioning, cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages
of transcripts (pp. 1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in
an encyclopedia of law under a chapter on the detection of false
witnesses.
The Prosecution Gives up on Calling Witnesses
Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst
Zündel, the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any
recourse to witnesses. Canadian justice had apparently understood the
lesson of the first trial: there were no credible witnesses to the
existence and operation of the 'Nazi gas chambers'.
Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this
same lesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there
was talk about the gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any
witnesses who could properly speak about them.[10] The attorney
Jacques Vergès, courageous yet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the
subject. This was a stroke of luck for the Jewish lawyers who feared
nothing so much as to see me appearing at the side of Mr. Vergès. If
this gentleman had accepted my offer to counsel him, we in France
might have been able to strike a tremendous blow against the myth of
the gas chambers.
All the while in France, during several revisionist trials, Jewish
witnesses sometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them
testified before the court as to having seen one or having
participated in a homicidal gassing by hauling bodies out of the 'gas
chambers'.
Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce
and the Demjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how
much false testimony is involved in the matter, has contributed to the
suppression. Several years ago, it happened that I was aggressively
questioned at the rear of a law court by elderly Jews who presented
themselves as "living witnesses to the gas chambers of Auschwitz",
showing me their tattoos. It was necessary for me only to ask them to
look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamber that
inevitably they retorted:
"How could I do this? If I had seen a gas chamber with my own eyes I
would not be here today to speak with you; I myself would have been
gassed also."
This brings us back, as one can see, to Simone Veil and her
declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know what we should
think.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pklr449roj8r6c7ufl47es37l1bef7ahbe@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
"The orthodox holocaust story can not possibly be defended with
rational arguments because its absurdity is overwhelming. We are asked
to believe in the fata morgana of a vast slaughter in killing
factories which left no traces whatsoever - no documents, no bones, no
teeth, no ashes - nothing! We are further asked to believe that the
Allies, who had a large network of informers all over Europe and a spy
in the German leadership (Admiral Canaris, the head of the German
intelligence), did not become aware of this gigantic genocide until
the end of the war, for if they had known about the mass murder, they
would have acted to stop it. Finally, we are asked to believe that the
Jews in Poland, the epicentre of the holocaust, did not know anything
about the Auschwitz gas chambers as late as in August 1944, otherwise
the Jews from the Lodz ghetto would not have gone to Auschwitz
voluntarily - which is precisely what they did, as related by Raul
Hilberg in his standard work about the holocaust (Die Vernichtung der
europaeischen Juden, p. 543/544).
As the Zionist-controlled system of the "Western democracies" is
woefully unable to counter the revisionists with arguments, it resorts
to censorship and brute force in order to silence the dangerous
heretics. And the Jews are gradually transforming the holocaust into a
religion. This is a very clever strategy, for as Robert Faurisson
aptly remarks, one cannot refute a religion with scientific arguments.
Thus, the holocaust museums and holocaust monuments spreading like
mushrooms all over America and Europe are really temples of the new
religion, whereas professional "holocaust survivors" such as Elie
Wiesel are the priests of the new religion. To prove this assertion,
we only have to quote Wiesel himself: "The Holocaust is a holy
mystery, the secret of which is limited to the circle of the
priesthood of survivors" (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American
Life, 1999, p. 211, 212, retranslated from the German). Another high
priest of the holocaust cult, Simon Wiesenthal, goes even further:
"When each of us comes before the Six Million, we will be asked what
we did with our lives... I will say: I did not forget you" (Simon
Wiesenthal in Response, Vol. 20, Nr. 1).
No critical questions about the holocaust are allowed because they are
a blasphemy: They cause immense distress to the eternal victims of
persecution, the Jews, and are an attempt to whitewash National
Socialism - the most evil ideology of all times which made the
holocaust possible! In today's Germany, it is even considered
inadmissible to compare the holocaust with the atrocities of communist
tyrants such as Stalin or Cambodian dictator Pol Pot because this is
regarded as a "relativisation" and "trivialization" of the worst crime
in history.
French Zionist propagandist Claude Lanzmann, the producer of a long
and unspeakably dull film about the holocaust (the title of this film
is Shoa, the Hebrew word for "catastrophe", which is often used by
Jews as a synonym for "holocaust") makes no effort to conceal that the
holocaust cult is to replace Christianity:
"If Auschwitz is something other than a horror of history, then
Christianity totters in its foundations. Christ is the Son of God, who
went to the end of the humanely endurable, where he endured the
cruellest suffering. (...) If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human
suffering with which that of Christ simply cannot be compared. (...)
In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him.
(...) Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ." (Les temps modernes,
Paris, December 1993, p. 132, 133.)
Nowadays, a large percentage of the Jews do not believe in God any
more, but virtually all of them believe in the Six Million. The
Zionist leadership cunningly exploits the holocaust to unite the
World's Jews by keeping them in a constant state of hysteria and
persecution mania, insinuating that only if the Jews stick together
will they be able to ban the threat of a new holocaust.
It goes without saying that very few Non-Jews are willing to embrace
the murky holocaust religion. While the overwhelming majority of
people in the West still believe that the official holocaust version
is essentially true (even if they suspect that the figures might me
somewhat inflated), they are thoroughly fed up with the eternal
lamentation about Jewish victims and Jewish suffering. They simply
don't want to hear it any more. In Germany, opinion polls showed that
a vast majority of the population was against the planned holocaust
monument in Berlin (which not a single major party, not a single
leading politician and not a single big newspaper dared to oppose).
Privately, the politicians are probably as profoundly disgusted with
the endless holocaust litany as the rest of the population, but they
cannot possibly afford to let the revisionists win because this would
shatter the very foundations of the "democratic" system to which they
own their careers and their wealth...
The ultimate weapon against Zionism and the state of Israel
At the end of the year 2000, Israel is a besieged country, but from
the military point of view, it is still vastly superior to its
neighbours, and it enjoys the unconditional support of the United
States. Should any of the Islamic states grow strong enough to
seriously threaten Israel, it would most probably be attacked and
militarily annihilated by America. Russia is not likely to risk a
confrontation with the USA for the sake of the Palestinians. We can
certainly admire the bravery of the Palestinians resistance fighters
who are willing to sacrifice their lives to liberate their homeland
from the alien intruders, but realistically, they have no chance to
win. The Palestinians have stones and slings. The Israelis have
helicopters and tanks. You can't destroy helicopters and tanks with
stones and slings.
When fighting one's enemy, one should always look for his weakest
spot. The weakest spot of Israel, its Achilles heel, is the holocaust
lie to which it owes its existence. The revisionists can give the
adversaries of Israel and international Zionism a terrible weapon. It
is quite true that many revisionists are by no means guided by
political considerations. Some of them - Carlo Mattogno is a good
example - are only motivated by intellectual curiosity: They want to
ascertain what really happened to the Jews during the Second World
War. But even if revisionism is not a political movement, its
political implications are tremendous. The revisionists are
endeavouring to find out the truth, and truth is the deadliest enemy
of Israel and international Jewry. Thus, the revisionists objectively
work against Israel and Zionism, even if subjectively their goals are
often purely scientific and devoid of any political ambition. This is,
of course, the reason why they are persecuted and their books burnt in
more and more countries.
In view of the total Jewish media control and the ever-growing
anti-revisionist repression in many Western countries, it is very
difficult indeed to achieve a revisionist breakthrough. We
revisionists are facing an uphill struggle which can only partly be
explained by our total lack of financial resources. Fortunately the
internet, which the Jews are unable to censure, has greatly improved
our possibilities to make the results of our research known to the
World, but all the same, we should not cherish naive illusions: Not
every citizen of the Western world who is informed about the
revisionist arguments will automatically become revisionist and
anti-Zionist. The average person in the West - and particularly in
Germany - has been so thoroughly brainwashed that a sudden exposure to
the truth can provoke a nervous breakdown or stomach cramps. I have
repeatedly witnessed this myself. Other people would gladly accept the
truth about the holocaust, but as they know that even the slightest
suspicion of revisionism leads to social ostracism, economic ruin and
legal persecution, they understandably prefer not to get involved.
However, if we want to win the war against those whom one of my
Russian friends called "the enemies of God and mankind"..
The logical consequence of all this is that those countries which are
authentically anti-Zionist and real friends of the oppressed
Palestinian people should make the breakthrough of holocaust
revisionism their foremost priority. A tank costs millions of dollars,
yet one soldier can destroy it with a single missile. The revisionists
can provide anti-Zionist freedom fighters with a weapon not even a
thousand missiles can destroy."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html |
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kenneth McVay OBC
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: Poor, dumb Andy |
|
|
In article <kIXKk.7050$sc2.6987@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Poor, Dumb Princeandy <andy@hom!!e.com> wrote:
| Quote: | THIS IS WHY THEY WONT ALLOW WITNESSES TO SPEAK OR ANYONE TO EXAMINE THE bs
THEY ARE BASING ALL THE REPARATIONS ON.
|
Who is "they," poor, dumb Andy?
When will you divulge this, er, "Jewish version" of the Holocaust you
claim exists?
Poor, dumb Andy.
--
"...the antisemite is immune to refutation from either facts or logic.
An antisemite has chosen to live in hatred, without regard to either
facts or logic." (Matas, David. Bloody Speech, p. 37)
The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
halle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: Poor, dumb Andy |
|
|
Kenneth McVay OBC (kmcvay@shell.vex.net) wrote:
| Quote: | In article <kIXKk.7050$sc2.6987@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Poor, Dumb Princeandy <andy@hom!!e.com> wrote:
THIS IS WHY THEY WONT ALLOW WITNESSES TO SPEAK OR ANYONE TO EXAMINE
THE bs THEY ARE BASING ALL THE REPARATIONS ON.
Who is "they," poor, dumb Andy?
When will you divulge this, er, "Jewish version" of the Holocaust you
claim exists?
Poor, dumb Andy.
|
It's the version you keep peddling, dear dumpster.
By the way, may I get a confirmation from you for your statement a while ago
according to which of all the Zyklon B requisitioned by the SS, only 5% was
used for the express purpose of gassing jews to death? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Princeandy
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Poor, dumb Ken ahve you caught on to what we are talking |
|
|
"Kenneth McVay OBC" <kmcvay@shell.vex.net> wrote in message
news:AsCdnaTvr-C61GHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@vex.net...
| Quote: | In article <kIXKk.7050$sc2.6987@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Poor, Dumb Princeandy <andy@hom!!e.com> wrote:
THIS IS WHY THEY WONT ALLOW WITNESSES TO SPEAK OR ANYONE TO EXAMINE THE bs
THEY ARE BASING ALL THE REPARATIONS ON.
Who is "they," poor, dumb Andy?
When will you divulge this, er, "Jewish version" of the Holocaust you
claim exists?
Poor, dumb Andy.
|
What an idiot, dumb, this guy cannot work out from discussions so far that
the jewish version is what he is trying to sell. He cannot work out who they
are who are causing the imprisoning of anyone investigating the holocaust
claims.
Who do you think brought about the laws stopping any investigation into the
lies made by the jews , the catholics, I dont think they care, the Irish? No
they dont care either. I think the jews worry a lot about that.
Below an honest court cuts up the BS.
| Quote: | "Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g1md44tuv307jmpjfc0l3l9lmbdrf4m1td@4ax.com...
By Faurisson
The Unraveling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)
The important victory won by revisionism in France on April 26, 1983,
would go on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in
Toronto. I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to
underscore the impact on one's point of view, and especially as far as
the testimonies on the Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the
first time since the war, Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular
cross-examination. Moreover, without wanting to minimize the
importance of the second Zündel trial (that of 1988), I should like it
to be understood that the 1985 trial already contained the seeds for
all that was attained in the 1988 trial, including the report by
Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath, would
proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.
In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst
Zündel and his lawyer, Douglas Christie. I accepted this heavy
responsibility only under condition that all the Jewish witnesses
would, for the first time, be cross-examined on the material nature of
the reported facts, bluntly and without discretion. I had noted, in
effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewish witnesses had been granted
virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyer thought or dared to ask
them for material explanations about the gas chambers (exact location,
physical appearance, dimensions, internal and external structure), or
about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure from beginning
to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executioners
before, during and after execution).
On rare occasions, as at the trial of Tesch, Drosihn and
Weinbacher,[5] lawyers formulated some unusual questions of a material
nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these always found
themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which
should have been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a
weapon which, indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown
him. At the major Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had
manifested total discretion on this point. At the proceedings against
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not
wanted to raise the question; in a letter on this subject dated June
21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hat selbst keine Gaskammer gesehen;
die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hat sich aber auch nicht gegen
deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself had not seen any gas
chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither did he raise the
issue of their existence].[6]
At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65, the lawyers showed themselves to be
particularly timid. I should mention that the atmosphere was rather
inhospitable for the defense and the accused. This show trial will
remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as on the person of
Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, then Senatspräsident.
During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries, the public
prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys,
as well as the journalists who had come from around the world,
accepted as a complete physical representation of the 'crime weapon' a
mere map of the camp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau,
whereupon five minuscule geometric figures were inscribed for the
location of each of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, with the
words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium", and for Birkenau:
"Krematorium II", "Krematorium III", "Krematorium IV", and
"Krematorium V"! These maps[7] were displayed in the courtroom.
The Revisionists have often compared the Frankfurt trial with the
1450-1650 trials against witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during
those trials, someone sometimes bothered to describe or depict the
witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial, even among the lawyers who
made difficulties for a witness like Filip Müller, not one asked of a
Jewish witness or a repentant German defendant to describe for him in
greater detail what he was purported to have seen. Despite two
judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied by
some German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any
technical explanations or criminological expertise regarding the
murder weapon. To the contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a
Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacency to the point of having himself
photographed by the press while raising the chute cover by which the
SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into the alleged Auschwitz
gas chamber.
And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these
anomalies, to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have
Douglas Christie pose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses
as one normally poses in every trial where one is supposed to
establish whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom, how
and when.
Fortunately for me, Ernst Zündel accepted my conditions and Douglas
Christie consented to adopt this course of action and to pose to the
experts and witnesses the questions that I would prepare for him. I
was convinced that, in this manner, all might change, and the veil
woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away. While I was not
counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were all resigned to
paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope that with
the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his
intrepid lawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into
historical prominence.
From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic
began to creep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every
evening and throughout most of the night, I would prepare the
questions to ask. In the morning, I would turn over these questions,
accompanied by the necessary documents, to lawyer Doug Christie who,
for his part and with the aid of his female collaborator, conducted
the essentially legal aspects of the effort. During the
cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's
podium and unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary
and improvisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses'
responses.
The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of
The Destruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to
such humiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for
a new trial against Ernst Zündel, Prof. Hilberg refused to return to
give witness; he explained the motive for his refusal in a
confidential letter wherein he acknowledged his fear of having to once
again confront the questions of Douglas Christie. From the
cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively brought out
that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,
a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical
extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, no one possessed either an
expertise of the murder weapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an
autopsy report establishing the murder of a detainee by poison gas.
However, in the absence of evidence regarding the weapon and victim,
did there exist witnesses of the crime?
A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of
proceeding to this verification is to confront the assertions of the
witness with the results of investigations or expert opinion regarding
the material nature of the crime. In the case at hand, there were
neither investigations, nor expertise relative to the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what made any cross-examination
difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve as an excuse, and one
might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever more
indispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of
knowing whether the witness is telling the truth or not.
Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-Examined:
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba
For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by
which we were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the
two principal Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I
can do no better than to recommend a reading of the trial
transcript.[8] Pages 304-371 cover the questioning and
cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latter breaks down on pages
445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in fact saw nothing,
that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, he had met
persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adopted
the position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons
if only Mr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was
telling him now!
Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say
about this trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means
of recruiting 'Holocaust' expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul
Hilberg, and witness number one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The
testimony of this latter gentleman had been one of the principal
sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on the German
Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November
1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt. Dr. R. Vrba was
also the author of I Cannot Forgive,[9] written in collaboration with
Alan Bestic who, in his preface, declares with regard to him:
"Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he
took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect
he revealed for accuracy." (p.2).
,Never perhaps, had a court of justice seen a witness express himself
with more assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of
the cross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point
where Dr. R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors
and his lies: in his book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic
license" or, as he was wont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!
In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who
had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet
now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following
question:
"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot
Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you
used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit
him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning
the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness
responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask
him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short
and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:
"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).
Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial
questioning, cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages
of transcripts (pp. 1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in
an encyclopedia of law under a chapter on the detection of false
witnesses.
The Prosecution Gives up on Calling Witnesses
Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst
Zündel, the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any
recourse to witnesses. Canadian justice had apparently understood the
lesson of the first trial: there were no credible witnesses to the
existence and operation of the 'Nazi gas chambers'.
Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this
same lesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there
was talk about the gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any
witnesses who could properly speak about them.[10] The attorney
Jacques Vergès, courageous yet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the
subject. This was a stroke of luck for the Jewish lawyers who feared
nothing so much as to see me appearing at the side of Mr. Vergès. If
this gentleman had accepted my offer to counsel him, we in France
might have been able to strike a tremendous blow against the myth of
the gas chambers.
All the while in France, during several revisionist trials, Jewish
witnesses sometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them
testified before the court as to having seen one or having
participated in a homicidal gassing by hauling bodies out of the 'gas
chambers'.
Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce
and the Demjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how
much false testimony is involved in the matter, has contributed to the
suppression. Several years ago, it happened that I was aggressively
questioned at the rear of a law court by elderly Jews who presented
themselves as "living witnesses to the gas chambers of Auschwitz",
showing me their tattoos. It was necessary for me only to ask them to
look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamber that
inevitably they retorted:
"How could I do this? If I had seen a gas chamber with my own eyes I
would not be here today to speak with you; I myself would have been
gassed also."
This brings us back, as one can see, to Simone Veil and her
declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know what we should
think.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
Stupid what do you think saying the whole shoit and BS you are collecting
reparations on is a load of bollocks.
Wake up mum and have her explain, you have been trying to sell the jewish
version. You have been trying to convince us that they were gassed in
Auswichtz. and oh you want their bs story ok here you are.
Just check it out down below under some famous quote that which is
irrelevant to the discussions except for your attempts to hide under the
rable rather than answer criticism.
Below that you will find the destruction of lying jewish witnesses.
| Quote: |
--
"...the antisemite is immune to refutation from either facts or logic.
An antisemite has chosen to live in hatred, without regard to either
facts or logic."
|
First you mast have anti semitism, not simply hiding behind a term instead
of cleaning up your act. As the jewish racist coontinually do.
Second as you appear to purposely anot to understand the simple fact that it
can hardly be anti semitic when jews are calling you on the lies.
http://www.jewwatch.com/
Not anti semitic, just records of your deeds.
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/mov_pages/20_mov.html
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/rebuttals.html
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/nazishrunkenheads/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/famous-palestinians/
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-world-war-two-killing-surrendered-german-soldier.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/news_2008/080808_overseeing_restitution.php
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/news_2007/071206_Argentina_lost.php
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-lies-hoax-frauds-blackflagops-auschwitz.html#Dr
Mengele & Otto Frank IHR
Seeing there was no gassing except in imaginative stories???
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-lies-hoax-frauds-blackflagops-lublin-051125.html#article
There you go enjoy.
(Matas, David. Bloody Speech, p. 37)
> The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Princeandy
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: Poor, dumb halle who will believe any body who walks up |
|
|
"halle" <hallerih@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_9YKk.82102$_03.59243@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
| Quote: | Kenneth McVay OBC (kmcvay@shell.vex.net) wrote:
In article <kIXKk.7050$sc2.6987@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Poor, Dumb Princeandy <andy@hom!!e.com> wrote:
THIS IS WHY THEY WONT ALLOW WITNESSES TO SPEAK OR ANYONE TO EXAMINE
THE bs THEY ARE BASING ALL THE REPARATIONS ON.
Who is "they," poor, dumb Andy?
When will you divulge this, er, "Jewish version" of the Holocaust you
claim exists?
Poor, dumb Ken hoodwinked by the jews
Libraries, brothels, swimming??IN AUSWICHTZ??? |
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4138523842550891901#0h53m09s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dyBMuSYLGk
| Quote: | It's the version you keep peddling, dear dumpster.
By the way, may I get a confirmation from you for your statement a while
ago according to which of all the Zyklon B requisitioned by the SS, only
5% was used for the express purpose of gassing jews to death?
|
Why did you ask someone who was not a chemist?
Poor dumb halle cannot read either. Zyklon b aont kill you if you sit in a
room of it dickhead.
Another jew wants to sell us the holocaust story.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <harmon@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%harmon@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V are in
their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall-nospam@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B7NukuNuku@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
"jj" <jj@mm.com> wrote in message news:...
| Quote: |
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g1md44tuv307jmpjfc0l3l9lmbdrf4m1td@4ax.com...
By Faurisson
The Unraveling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)
The important victory won by revisionism in France on April 26, 1983,
would go on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in
Toronto. I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to
underscore the impact on one's point of view, and especially as far as
the testimonies on the Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the
first time since the war, Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular
cross-examination. Moreover, without wanting to minimize the
importance of the second Zündel trial (that of 1988), I should like it
to be understood that the 1985 trial already contained the seeds for
all that was attained in the 1988 trial, including the report by
Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath, would
proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.
In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst
Zündel and his lawyer, Douglas Christie. I accepted this heavy
responsibility only under condition that all the Jewish witnesses
would, for the first time, be cross-examined on the material nature of
the reported facts, bluntly and without discretion. I had noted, in
effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewish witnesses had been granted
virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyer thought or dared to ask
them for material explanations about the gas chambers (exact location,
physical appearance, dimensions, internal and external structure), or
about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure from beginning
to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executioners
before, during and after execution).
On rare occasions, as at the trial of Tesch, Drosihn and
Weinbacher,[5] lawyers formulated some unusual questions of a material
nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these always found
themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which
should have been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a
weapon which, indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown
him. At the major Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had
manifested total discretion on this point. At the proceedings against
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not
wanted to raise the question; in a letter on this subject dated June
21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hat selbst keine Gaskammer gesehen;
die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hat sich aber auch nicht gegen
deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself had not seen any gas
chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither did he raise the
issue of their existence].[6]
At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65, the lawyers showed themselves to be
particularly timid. I should mention that the atmosphere was rather
inhospitable for the defense and the accused. This show trial will
remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as on the person of
Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, then Senatspräsident.
During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries, the public
prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys,
as well as the journalists who had come from around the world,
accepted as a complete physical representation of the 'crime weapon' a
mere map of the camp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau,
whereupon five minuscule geometric figures were inscribed for the
location of each of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, with the
words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium", and for Birkenau:
"Krematorium II", "Krematorium III", "Krematorium IV", and
"Krematorium V"! These maps[7] were displayed in the courtroom.
The Revisionists have often compared the Frankfurt trial with the
1450-1650 trials against witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during
those trials, someone sometimes bothered to describe or depict the
witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial, even among the lawyers who
made difficulties for a witness like Filip Müller, not one asked of a
Jewish witness or a repentant German defendant to describe for him in
greater detail what he was purported to have seen. Despite two
judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied by
some German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any
technical explanations or criminological expertise regarding the
murder weapon. To the contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a
Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacency to the point of having himself
photographed by the press while raising the chute cover by which the
SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into the alleged Auschwitz
gas chamber.
And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these
anomalies, to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have
Douglas Christie pose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses
as one normally poses in every trial where one is supposed to
establish whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom, how
and when.
Fortunately for me, Ernst Zündel accepted my conditions and Douglas
Christie consented to adopt this course of action and to pose to the
experts and witnesses the questions that I would prepare for him. I
was convinced that, in this manner, all might change, and the veil
woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away. While I was not
counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were all resigned to
paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope that with
the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his
intrepid lawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into
historical prominence.
From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic
began to creep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every
evening and throughout most of the night, I would prepare the
questions to ask. In the morning, I would turn over these questions,
accompanied by the necessary documents, to lawyer Doug Christie who,
for his part and with the aid of his female collaborator, conducted
the essentially legal aspects of the effort. During the
cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's
podium and unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary
and improvisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses'
responses.
The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of
The Destruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to
such humiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for
a new trial against Ernst Zündel, Prof. Hilberg refused to return to
give witness; he explained the motive for his refusal in a
confidential letter wherein he acknowledged his fear of having to once
again confront the questions of Douglas Christie. From the
cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively brought out
that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,
a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical
extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, no one possessed either an
expertise of the murder weapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an
autopsy report establishing the murder of a detainee by poison gas.
However, in the absence of evidence regarding the weapon and victim,
did there exist witnesses of the crime?
A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of
proceeding to this verification is to confront the assertions of the
witness with the results of investigations or expert opinion regarding
the material nature of the crime. In the case at hand, there were
neither investigations, nor expertise relative to the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what made any cross-examination
difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve as an excuse, and one
might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever more
indispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of
knowing whether the witness is telling the truth or not.
Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-Examined:
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba
For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by
which we were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the
two principal Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I
can do no better than to recommend a reading of the trial
transcript.[8] Pages 304-371 cover the questioning and
cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latter breaks down on pages
445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in fact saw nothing,
that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, he had met
persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adopted
the position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons
if only Mr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was
telling him now!
Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say
about this trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means
of recruiting 'Holocaust' expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul
Hilberg, and witness number one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The
testimony of this latter gentleman had been one of the principal
sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on the German
Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November
1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt. Dr. R. Vrba was
also the author of I Cannot Forgive,[9] written in collaboration with
Alan Bestic who, in his preface, declares with regard to him:
"Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he
took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect
he revealed for accuracy." (p.2).
,Never perhaps, had a court of justice seen a witness express himself
with more assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of
the cross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point
where Dr. R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors
and his lies: in his book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic
license" or, as he was wont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!
In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who
had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet
now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following
question:
"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot
Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you
used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit
him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning
the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness
responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask
him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short
and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:
"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).
Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial
questioning, cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages
of transcripts (pp. 1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in
an encyclopedia of law under a chapter on the detection of false
witnesses.
The Prosecution Gives up on Calling Witnesses
Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst
Zündel, the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any
recourse to witnesses. Canadian justice had apparently understood the
lesson of the first trial: there were no credible witnesses to the
existence and operation of the 'Nazi gas chambers'.
Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this
same lesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there
was talk about the gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any
witnesses who could properly speak about them.[10] The attorney
Jacques Vergès, courageous yet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the
subject. This was a stroke of luck for the Jewish lawyers who feared
nothing so much as to see me appearing at the side of Mr. Vergès. If
this gentleman had accepted my offer to counsel him, we in France
might have been able to strike a tremendous blow against the myth of
the gas chambers.
All the while in France, during several revisionist trials, Jewish
witnesses sometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them
testified before the court as to having seen one or having
participated in a homicidal gassing by hauling bodies out of the 'gas
chambers'.
Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce
and the Demjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how
much false testimony is involved in the matter, has contributed to the
suppression. Several years ago, it happened that I was aggressively
questioned at the rear of a law court by elderly Jews who presented
themselves as "living witnesses to the gas chambers of Auschwitz",
showing me their tattoos. It was necessary for me only to ask them to
look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamber that
inevitably they retorted:
"How could I do this? If I had seen a gas chamber with my own eyes I
would not be here today to speak with you; I myself would have been
gassed also."
This brings us back, as one can see, to Simone Veil and her
declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know what we should
think.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pklr449roj8r6c7ufl47es37l1bef7ahbe@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
"The orthodox holocaust story can not possibly be defended with
rational arguments because its absurdity is overwhelming. We are asked
to believe in the fata morgana of a vast slaughter in killing
factories which left no traces whatsoever - no documents, no bones, no
teeth, no ashes - nothing! We are further asked to believe that the
Allies, who had a large network of informers all over Europe and a spy
in the German leadership (Admiral Canaris, the head of the German
intelligence), did not become aware of this gigantic genocide until
the end of the war, for if they had known about the mass murder, they
would have acted to stop it. Finally, we are asked to believe that the
Jews in Poland, the epicentre of the holocaust, did not know anything
about the Auschwitz gas chambers as late as in August 1944, otherwise
the Jews from the Lodz ghetto would not have gone to Auschwitz
voluntarily - which is precisely what they did, as related by Raul
Hilberg in his standard work about the holocaust (Die Vernichtung der
europaeischen Juden, p. 543/544).
As the Zionist-controlled system of the "Western democracies" is
woefully unable to counter the revisionists with arguments, it resorts
to censorship and brute force in order to silence the dangerous
heretics. And the Jews are gradually transforming the holocaust into a
religion. This is a very clever strategy, for as Robert Faurisson
aptly remarks, one cannot refute a religion with scientific arguments.
Thus, the holocaust museums and holocaust monuments spreading like
mushrooms all over America and Europe are really temples of the new
religion, whereas professional "holocaust survivors" such as Elie
Wiesel are the priests of the new religion. To prove this assertion,
we only have to quote Wiesel himself: "The Holocaust is a holy
mystery, the secret of which is limited to the circle of the
priesthood of survivors" (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American
Life, 1999, p. 211, 212, retranslated from the German). Another high
priest of the holocaust cult, Simon Wiesenthal, goes even further:
"When each of us comes before the Six Million, we will be asked what
we did with our lives... I will say: I did not forget you" (Simon
Wiesenthal in Response, Vol. 20, Nr. 1).
No critical questions about the holocaust are allowed because they are
a blasphemy: They cause immense distress to the eternal victims of
persecution, the Jews, and are an attempt to whitewash National
Socialism - the most evil ideology of all times which made the
holocaust possible! In today's Germany, it is even considered
inadmissible to compare the holocaust with the atrocities of communist
tyrants such as Stalin or Cambodian dictator Pol Pot because this is
regarded as a "relativisation" and "trivialization" of the worst crime
in history.
French Zionist propagandist Claude Lanzmann, the producer of a long
and unspeakably dull film about the holocaust (the title of this film
is Shoa, the Hebrew word for "catastrophe", which is often used by
Jews as a synonym for "holocaust") makes no effort to conceal that the
holocaust cult is to replace Christianity:
"If Auschwitz is something other than a horror of history, then
Christianity totters in its foundations. Christ is the Son of God, who
went to the end of the humanely endurable, where he endured the
cruellest suffering. (...) If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human
suffering with which that of Christ simply cannot be compared. (...)
In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him.
(...) Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ." (Les temps modernes,
Paris, December 1993, p. 132, 133.)
Nowadays, a large percentage of the Jews do not believe in God any
more, but virtually all of them believe in the Six Million. The
Zionist leadership cunningly exploits the holocaust to unite the
World's Jews by keeping them in a constant state of hysteria and
persecution mania, insinuating that only if the Jews stick together
will they be able to ban the threat of a new holocaust.
It goes without saying that very few Non-Jews are willing to embrace
the murky holocaust religion. While the overwhelming majority of
people in the West still believe that the official holocaust version
is essentially true (even if they suspect that the figures might me
somewhat inflated), they are thoroughly fed up with the eternal
lamentation about Jewish victims and Jewish suffering. They simply
don't want to hear it any more. In Germany, opinion polls showed that
a vast majority of the population was against the planned holocaust
monument in Berlin (which not a single major party, not a single
leading politician and not a single big newspaper dared to oppose).
Privately, the politicians are probably as profoundly disgusted with
the endless holocaust litany as the rest of the population, but they
cannot possibly afford to let the revisionists win because this would
shatter the very foundations of the "democratic" system to which they
own their careers and their wealth...
The ultimate weapon against Zionism and the state of Israel
At the end of the year 2000, Israel is a besieged country, but from
the military point of view, it is still vastly superior to its
neighbours, and it enjoys the unconditional support of the United
States. Should any of the Islamic states grow strong enough to
seriously threaten Israel, it would most probably be attacked and
militarily annihilated by America. Russia is not likely to risk a
confrontation with the USA for the sake of the Palestinians. We can
certainly admire the bravery of the Palestinians resistance fighters
who are willing to sacrifice their lives to liberate their homeland
from the alien intruders, but realistically, they have no chance to
win. The Palestinians have stones and slings. The Israelis have
helicopters and tanks. You can't destroy helicopters and tanks with
stones and slings.
When fighting one's enemy, one should always look for his weakest
spot. The weakest spot of Israel, its Achilles heel, is the holocaust
lie to which it owes its existence. The revisionists can give the
adversaries of Israel and international Zionism a terrible weapon. It
is quite true that many revisionists are by no means guided by
political considerations. Some of them - Carlo Mattogno is a good
example - are only motivated by intellectual curiosity: They want to
ascertain what really happened to the Jews during the Second World
War. But even if revisionism is not a political movement, its
political implications are tremendous. The revisionists are
endeavouring to find out the truth, and truth is the deadliest enemy
of Israel and international Jewry. Thus, the revisionists objectively
work against Israel and Zionism, even if subjectively their goals are
often purely scientific and devoid of any political ambition. This is,
of course, the reason why they are persecuted and their books burnt in
more and more countries.
In view of the total Jewish media control and the ever-growing
anti-revisionist repression in many Western countries, it is very
difficult indeed to achieve a revisionist breakthrough. We
revisionists are facing an uphill struggle which can only partly be
explained by our total lack of financial resources. Fortunately the
internet, which the Jews are unable to censure, has greatly improved
our possibilities to make the results of our research known to the
World, but all the same, we should not cherish naive illusions: Not
every citizen of the Western world who is informed about the
revisionist arguments will automatically become revisionist and
anti-Zionist. The average person in the West - and particularly in
Germany - has been so thoroughly brainwashed that a sudden exposure to
the truth can provoke a nervous breakdown or stomach cramps. I have
repeatedly witnessed this myself. Other people would gladly accept the
truth about the holocaust, but as they know that even the slightest
suspicion of revisionism leads to social ostracism, economic ruin and
legal persecution, they understandably prefer not to get involved.
However, if we want to win the war against those whom one of my
Russian friends called "the enemies of God and mankind"..
The logical consequence of all this is that those countries which are
authentically anti-Zionist and real friends of the oppressed
Palestinian people should make the breakthrough of holocaust
revisionism their foremost priority. A tank costs millions of dollars,
yet one soldier can destroy it with a single missile. The revisionists
can provide anti-Zionist freedom fighters with a weapon not even a
thousand missiles can destroy."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
"Matthias Kern" <MatthiasKern@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vauo84dujoljtv7j7lr4jit3ng43lb02k6@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Lest We Forget = So Many URLs Replete With l Documentation of The
Ongoing HOLOCAUST - Perpetrated BY the Christkiller ZYDS/Ivrai/Juden!
These KHAZIREI do not like the TRUTH being exposed!
Especially when it exposes the foul ZYDS!
Another URL with fabulous content:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/born-here/
Feel free to repost and spread the news.
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/dying-to-live/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/lest-we-forget/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/we-are-all-palestinians/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/wanted-parasite-seeks-new-host-country/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/star-of-suffering/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/silence-is-complicity/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionists-are-the-same-as-nazis/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/jews-only-by-pass-roads/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/hasbarapropaganda-manual/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/famous-palestinians/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/aliya/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/these-palestinian-children-are-the-victims-of-israeli-terrorism/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/iraq-war-part-of-israels-expansionist-plans-to-obtain-the-greater-israel/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/occupation-is-not-liberation/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/iraq-bushs-vietnam/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/this-is-who-israel-is-killing-babies/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/226/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/palestinian-independence-day/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/palestine-
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/map-of-iraq/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/iraq-bushs-vietnam-2/
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/iraqi-death-count/
For the real TRUTH about ZYDS, visit the world top-rated website for
JEW-WATCH:
http://www.jewwatch.com
Now with more evidence coming out proving ZYD COLLABORATION WITH NAZIS -
another 51 cases besides the renowned Kastner case - no wonder people
around the world are really disliking the Christkiller ZHIDS!!
Or, other useful websites include:
ZUNDELSITE - www.zundelsite.org
IHR - www.ihr.org
Stormfront - http://www.stormfront.org
OSTARA - www.ostara.org
PAMYAT - http://abbc.com/pamyat/index.html
Edgar J.Steele - www.ConspiracyPenPal.com
AL JAZEERA - http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
THE HOFFMAN WIRE - Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative
Reporting and Revisionist History
Subscribe: HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com
Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library - http://www.ddc.net/ygg
American Renaissance - http://www.amren.com
Campaign for Radical Truth in History - http://www.hoffman-info.com
Reply-To: Frank Arthur - Art@Arthurian.com, And here is my address as
promised, so call or visit, days or night
s:
FRANK H ARTHUR 378 MCDONOUGH BLVD SE ATLANTA, GA 30315 (770) 739-6508 |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
