Zundelsite - Nizkor Exchange - Part III

Much like a soap opera, the Zündel-Nizkor exchange comes in installments. Below, please find the latest missive from Jamie McCarthy, which we bring in its entirety - that is, replete with links to other documents and previous references that may be a bit confusing.

Mr. McCarthy's letter is followed by Ernst Zündel's response.

Jamie McCarthy writes:

Mr. Zündel, I'm going to give you my personal responses to some of the issues you raise. There are a number of factual matters which need to be objectively corrected, but I'd like to offer my subjective opinion on some matters, as well. And I do (finally) have an offer for you.

I do apologize for the lateness of this reply. I've been very busy doing programming work for Nizkor, and trying to keep my clients happy.

Allow me to present a few minor points before getting to the topic I most want to talk about.

First point ( abusive and unfair ) :

You write:



Nizkor has not done this.

Nizkor links to your site on this page: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/other-sites/denial-promotion.html

We do not call your site, or any other, a hate-monger site. In fact, we do not use the word hate-monger anywhere on our web.

We do refer to you as one of the most prominent Holocaust revisionists. This is the only editorial comment we have made about you on our web site. Is this what you call abusive and unfair ?

Here is an example of something I would call abusive and unfair -- from the current News Flash on your site:



You are implying that Ken McVay (and the Nizkor site):



Mr. Zündel, your own words belie your claim that it is Nizkor that is being arrogant and using strident tones ; that we will offend and shock ; that we indulge in temper tantrums and spoiled-brat attitudes. But I will not expend further time on your inflammatory rhetoric, because my primary interest is discussing the facts of the Holocaust with you and other deniers.

Second point (consulting with other revisionists ) :

In my email of the 11th, I stated the following:



Your reply to this began:

You then began discussing Canada's hate laws and so on. But those laws are not what I asked about.

As an aside: I must admit that I find it difficult to believe on the one hand that you post the 66 Q &A on your web site, and on the other hand claim that you'll be imprisoned for speaking your mind and that you have to consult your lawyers about everything. If you were frightened of the law, you wouldn't be doing what you're already doing. And in any case, I can't see how a single link to Nizkor could be questionable in any way.

Nevertheless! I did not ask you about your reliance on attorneys. I understand that legal matters can occasionally be confusing and nonsensical. I asked you why you need to consult with other revisionists. (And scholars, which I assume means revisionist scholars.)

That question remains unanswered.

Third point (a table of contents of cross-links) :

You write: In the spirit of cooperation I suggest that you create an up-front Table of Contents on which you specify which document on our site you are referring to or challenge when you post your replies.

This is a good idea. In fact, it's such a good idea that I had come up with it myself already. Nizkor was going to do this anyway.

In fact, Nizkor will establish a table of contents of web pages which address specific Holocaust-deniers' web pages all throughout the web. We will organize them by site, of course, so your web site will have its own table of contents.

I haven't done this yet because there is so far only one such page at Nizkor: (It addresses Greg Raven's web site; it's six months old; no, he hasn't commented on it or even shown any acknowledgement that the page exists.)

I will notify you via email when this page has been set up.

Fourth point (freedom on the net) :

I assume that your discussion of the freeness of the net was prompted by my asking you to join us on alt.revisionism. You begin by saying how wonderful the world-wide web is; then you say that you are not necessarily free to express your views; then you explain that you want an honest exchange via web sites.

You say: Let us not be so smarmy and pretend the Internet is 'free.' We both know better. You point out that your previous service provider cancelled your access. To which I say, yes, they were free to do so, and they did. They were under no obligation to accept your money if they did not want to -- that's the way things work in a free society. Now, you have found another provider that will continue to work with you, as they are free to do.

What more did you expect, Mr. Zündel? That service providers would be obligated to provide you with service? Nonsense. The Internet is not a public train system that has to sell everyone a ticket. On the contrary, it is the most free system that there could possibly be: no one is obligated to do anything they don't want to.

You've found a provider who will give you access, evidence that the free market works. And if your current provider changes their mind, there will be dozens of others who will be happy to help you promote your material. And even if you don't find a single small-scale provider who will take your money, you have your choice of backbone providers, who take absolutely no notice of how you choose to use their wires. It would cost more, but then no one said freedom was going to be free.

Contrary to what you claim, there is no goon squad, nor any network terrorists who monopolize newsgroups and stifle them. That's absolute nonsense, and insulting to myself and my acquaintances who take the time to respond to Holocaust-denial with reasoned facts. We couldn't monopolize or stifle a newsgroup even if we wanted to -- it's just technically not possible.

Your contention that there are ethnic-specific limits to being allowed to use the Net, I find to be utterly ridiculous. This is a claim which I'm sure you know to be totally without basis, Mr. Zündel. Please tell me which ethnic groups are not allowed to use the Net!

Fifth point (offensiveness and open debate) :You state that newsgroups such as alt.revisionism exist in a sewer. I disagree. alt.revisionism, and all newsgroups, are like a crowded cocktail party.

At a party, you may be engaged in a serious conversation about weighty matters with the four or five people standing near you. Others, possibly in the next room or possibly just ten feet from you, may be arguing about something which you find uninteresting, offensive, or inane. They may even be yelling, or running around with lampshades on their heads.

The important point is that you don't have to pay any attention to the immaturity unless you want to. Modern Usenet software makes it easy to hold a discussion with a select group of people. If any party-crashers get too obnoxious, you can use what's called a killfile to completely and utterly ignore them. Or you can comment briefly to your fellow conversationalists on how rude they are. Or both.

And unlike a real cocktail party, once they're ignored, they can't affect you at all -- no fistfights on Usenet, and no police to respond to the neighbors' complaints about the noise! (Well, there are self-appointed net.cops , but they usually respond only to gross violations of netiquette. )

You say that I have resorted to abusive, foul-mouthed methods. I challenge you to tell me where I have been abusive or foul-mouthed. On the contrary, I present my rebuttals with courtesy and restraint. What I have to say is not always easy to hear, but I do present it politely. And I resent, a little bit, your saying that I am abusive and foul-mouthed when that is not so.

Yes, there are immature people who say things that you will find offensive. And you imply that the reason that Greg Raven, Bradley Smith, Fritz Berg, Michael Hoffman, and Ross Vicksell left Usenet was that they found it to be offensive.

I don't think this is true. You make it sound as if I, and people of my mindset, are solely responsible for the content of alt.revisionism, and the lack of Holocaust-related discussion on the net in general. I'll grant that no one is a perfect lady or gentleman all the time, and that includes people of my mindset. But I think you need to look at the other side of the coin.

If I and people of my mindset are rude, there must be a reason. You seem to think that we are naturally rude people, that our supposed rudeness has had no provocation other than revisionists stating their claims.

This is not the case. We are ordinary people, amateurs at history and the Holocaust, drawn from all walks of life. The one thing that we do have in common is that we've been exposed to Holocaust-deniers, Jew-haters, and Nazis who are rude in the extreme and who often have little respect for netiquette:

Fritz Berg joined us on alt.revisionism in 1994. Many people were offended by his references to Jewish trash, and his comments about how ugly Jews are. Here is how Mr. Berg chose to respond to Barry Shein, at one point:

After reading Shein, can anyone really be surprised that the Germans would [put] people like him in concentration camps during WW2.

Many people find Ron Schoedel's postings to Usenet to be offensive. Mr. Schoedel is a Reverend in the Christian Identity movement who refers to Joel Rosenberg as Jew-el Rosenburg, and who has written:

Arrogant? Joel the jew? Les, buddy, you get the award for UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR. jew-boy Joel gets the award for arrogant hymie of the year.

If you claim that alt.revisionism is too much like a sewer, let's at least not have any misunderstandings about which sort of people are chiefly responsible for that.

The tone on alt.revisionism has partly been set by people such as Milton Kleim. Mr. Kleim has urged other white supremacists and neo-Nazis to use Usenet, not for discussion, but as a 'hit and run' style recruiting tool. NOW is the time to grasp the WEAPON which is the Net, he writes. He has counseled his cyber guerillas specifically to ignore the Enemy's dedicated lackeys like Ken McVay, and if they do get sucked into discussion, to manually cancel [their] posts to prevent unnecessary debate.

Many people have been offended in the last two weeks by an anonymous Internetter who cracked security at several European computers. This person then illegally used those computers to send unsolicited white-supremacist propaganda to tens of thousands of people around the world.

This is net abuse on a colossal scale; it's one of the largest mass-emailings ever conducted. It may even result in a prison term for the perpetrator -- not for the content of the message, but for illegally breaking and entering computer systems to do it.

Many people were offended when Greg Raven grossly violated netiquette by sending unsolicited denial propaganda in email to over seven hundred individuals, many of whom had lost family members in the Holocaust.

This deliberate, calculated act of extreme rudeness would result in cancellation of service from most service providers. Yet Greg Raven is still posting freely from Kaiwan. What was it you were saying about world-wide agitation to silence the Revisionist voice? On the contrary, Mr. Raven has been given much more slack than most people would or should get!

I've listed only a few examples here. After incidents such as these, it's amazing that people of my mindset are willing to engage in reasoned discourse.

And willing we are. Given a suitable forum!

Now, you are surely in favor of free expression. But debate requires more than the mere ability to express one's views. Debate requires a forum where arguments can be presented, countered, and defended with ease and speed. And it requires archiving what has been said, so that it may be reviewed.

The web offers none of these things. Believe me, I know. I've been maintaining the web page at (link given) to keep track of our correspondence. This letter is only the seventh that we've exchanged. I've had to spend a great deal of effort to showcase both your text and mine, to archive our writings, and so on. It's a pain. So much of a pain that I frankly have no desire to engage in the sort of debate that I routinely participate in on Usenet. To link and archive and cross-link and double-check that many web pages would occupy me twenty-four hours a day. It's not worth it; I'd spend five times as much effort on technical matters as I would actually reading what you write, and responding to it.

Usenet, on the other hand, is perfectly suited to open debate. That's basically what it was designed for.

The freedom to speak one's mind goes along with others' freedom to say things that you will find offensive, Mr. Zündel. If you cannot accept this reality, if you refuse to enter alt.revisionism because some people may happen to use obscenities, then I find your calls for open debate to ring hollow. You don't appear to really want open debate. You want debate with a restricted clientele. (I don't suppose I'd even be invited, since I'm so "abusive" and "foul-mouthed.") And you want it on your own terms, terms which I find to be unnecessary and time-consuming obstacles, for reasons stated above.

If what you want is open debate, it's waiting for you on alt.revisionism. You can join us at our little 24-hour party, and if people offend you, you are free to ignore them.

And if what you want is something else, then please don't pretend.

Sixth and most important point (your offer and my counter-offer):

You write:

I will create a link to Nitzkor [sic] at the bottom of every single document we post if you are willing to do likewise. I will not create links to specific documents to which you choose to respond...

Well, I thank you for the offer; it's more than I've gotten from any other pro-revisionism site.

(And, I checked your site just as I was about to send you this letter; it seems you've made good on this promise. But I'm not sure why you need to refer to Nizkor in such a derogatory manner. That only makes it more ironic that you have wrongly accused Nizkor of referring to your site in a derogatory manner.)

I appreciate your making the effort, Mr. Zündel, but this is not at all what I was looking for. The web is hardly conducive to debate even at its best, but what you've done does not help matters one bit. Debate requires specific answers to specific arguments. A standard "click here to visit Nizkor" link at the bottom of every page in no way links argument to counterargument, or claim to rebuttal.

It does nothing whatsoever to advance debate.

Also, as an aside: it is quite easy for your site to use standard "boilerplate" headers and footers, it is quite difficult for Nizkor. Your site and mine use different software. I am busy enough getting files up at all, much less editing each one to be sure it complies with your wishes. I can only maintain the site in my spare time. I don't get paid for it. I don't have time to write one more piece of software to put custom footers on each Nizkor document.

Furthermore, linking to another site on every page is messy, in my opinion. Such links are traditionally kept on a separate page, for good reason. If people want to find web sites with viewpoints opposing Nizkor's, we have a thoughtfully-laid-out listing of other sites, only one click off our home page. Your site, and dozens of others, are included, and they're very easy to find.

You go on:

I will not create links to specific documents to which you choose to respond, simply because of the time and costs involved in linking specific references. For us, this is a logistics and manpower consideration - we simply don't have the resources to do this as you suggest. We don't have tax-supported funds to help us in our efforts.

The question of which of us is better-supported financially has been dealt with in Ken McVay's open letter, which was sent the day before you posted this response. I presume you've had a chance to read it by now.

Specifically regarding your implication that "tax-supported funds" support the maintenance of the Nizkor web -- again, this is simply totally false. It is extremely irritating that you persist in making such false statements about our project.

First of all, no "tax-supported funds" have gone into the Nizkor project at all. It is totally financed by private donations. Second of all, volunteers maintain the Nizkor web.

No funds whatsoever, and especially no tax-supported funds, go to support the "logistics and manpower" (and womanpower) necessary to have gotten the Nizkor web site up and to keep it running smoothly. Only the hardware and the net connection see those funds. The hard work on the web pages, countless hours of it, is done exclusively by volunteers.

When you think of the literally hundreds of unpaid hours which I have personally invested in the upkeep of the Nizkor web, I believe you'll understand why it irritates me that you claim that I and my fellow volunteers are making use of "tax-supported funds."

You conclude:

We can automate links at the bottom of each document, but we don't intend to hand-link every petty argument that you might choose to throw at us. We have to husband our resources and focus on our goals - not yours.

I understand perfectly that your goals take top priority for you, just as Nizkor's goals take top priority for me.

I do not understand why you refer to cross-linking argument to counterargument, claim to rebuttal, as something "petty." That's what open debate is! I'm afraid that this only reinforces my belief that open debate is not really what you're after.

As you surely have concluded by now, I must decline your offer to link our sites with links at the bottom of every single page. Nizkor will not reciprocate.

However, I would like to make you a counter-offer. Since your lawyers have apparently agreed that a link to Nizkor is acceptable, then the only obstacle in your way must be the "logistics and manpower" required to actually write the code to insert the links.

I hereby offer my own services in this regard. On your pages where it is appropriate, I will gladly download your HTML code, and add a single sentence near the bottom that reads something like:

A reply to this web page is available on the Nizkor web site, at (URL here).

That's it. No tricks, no suggestive wording, nothing which you might object to. The neutral phrasing should be perfectly acceptable to each of us. And, if and when your site has a reply to something on Nizkor, I will be happy to include a link to it at the bottom of Nizkor's web page, with the wording:

A reply to this web page is available on the Zundelsite, at (URL here).

I will then email you a copy of the new HTML code, which will be exactly the same as the old code except with that one sentence added. You or your webmaster may then simply copy it over the old file.

(After checking, of course, that I have not done anything sneaky. I give you my word that I would not do anything so unethical, of course, but I expect you'd want to follow a "trust but verify" policy. I'll be happy to suggest software tools which can verify my change quickly, with almost zero "logistics and manpower" required.)

After you copy the new file over the old one, the link will be in place, and Nizkor will not have to bother you about it anymore. A few seconds of your or your webmaster's time will be all that's required. A small price to pay for "Letting Both Sides Be Heard," as Mark Weber beseeches us to do on your web page http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/incorrect.006.html.

So there you have it, Mr. Zündel. This is a real offer from Nizkor, an offer to help both sides be heard.

I'd still much prefer that we meet on alt.revisionism, where it is much easier and quicker to discuss the issues. But since you will not agree to that, then we can at least directly link one site's arguments to the other site's rebuttals, and vice versa.

What do you say, Mr. Zündel?

Seventh and final point:

To be frank, Mr. Zündel, I am growing a bit tired of having to correct your erroneous statements. I've spent a great deal of my time in this reply explaining why your incorrect assumptions are incorrect.

In the future -- and I say this with courtesy and respect -- please try not to make false statements concerning the net and the Nizkor Project. It wastes both of our time when I have to continually make corrections, and it means that my responses will be longer and less focused on the more important issues which should concern us.

Thank you. I await your reply.

Jamie McCarthy

Ernst Zündel responds:

This is in reply to your communique of October 7, 1995.

In a previous letter to Nizkor I stated that I did not wish to be engaged in a lengthy, largely unproductive one-to-one correspondence, and I am not happy having to go back on my own rules. I really do not have the time to keep on doing this, and from your letter I can sense that you, too, seem to feel that the discussion between the "Holocaust Promoters" and "Holocaust Deniers" must go on, and that we should not waste our time berating each other's shortcomings.

So let us try. I read your letter carefully and with great interest, and I believe that we have something with which we both can live. Let's hammer out the ground rules - but then let's get on with the task. My main reaction to your "offer" is that I am wary.

I think it is not intellectually honest when you claim, as you did in your last letter, that you have not referred to my site as a "hate mongering site" or spoken of me as a "hate-mongering man." You may not have done so on the Nizkor Project per se, but that is the raison d'etre of Nizkor's campaign against me - isn't it? What am I to make of statements such as the ones below, for example, when I read in the draft of "Nizkor Objectives and Funding," retrieved from the FTP archives, that Nizkor has been set up to

With the above, Nizkor defined and character-assassinated all the Holocaust skeptics and Holocaust Revisionists in blanket statements as "haters" and as anti-democratic subversives - without giving hard evidence or proof for the negative characterization. "Hate" on our part is your a prior assumption.

Is Nizkor not, therefore, in the business of finishing off the "hate mongers" - simply by labeling anyone who questions anything pertaining to the "Holocaust" as a "hater" or "hate monger"? So what's all this schmalzing that you are all for free speech and for a fair and open dialogue?

You list me as ". . . one of the most prominent Holocaust Revisionists," referring to the Skeptic write-up as "Giving the Devil His Due" - is that not to demonize me? What else would you call it? My original point was merely that what you can do with impunity at Nizkor, I cannot do to you. Just take the above and read it as though I had written it, with Nizkor as the target.

Do you see my point? Were the Canadian "hate laws" not breathing down my neck, I could easily call you people at Nizkor "hate mongers" with far more justification - for what many of the authors and sources that are paraded on the Nizkor site do with great impunity is to spread lies and rumors which create hate for and dislike of Germans! (After all, the "Nazis" have not been around for fifty years!)

So, yes - there definitely operates a form of eth(n)ic censorship in that some groups have Free Speech privileges over others. Could I call Jews "kikes" and Blacks "niggers" because some members of these ethnic groups might have behaved abonimably? You can call me a "Nazi" anytime and get away with it

. It may come as a surprise to you, but the word is offensive to me. And, not too incidentally: Nizkor is supported by a synagogue, is it not? Under the sub-heading "Funding," in the above-mentioned document, we read:

Synagogues are churches, and churches are tax exempt institutions in that donations to projects like Nizkor can be subtracted from income taxes due. In other words, the public underwrites your work, at least in part.

This is not true of the supporters of the Zündelsite.

Is it, in light of the above, any wonder that I ask: Do you mean what you say when you claim that you want an open dialogue? Or do you just want to smear me while having some fun doing so? To quote from a recent article that ran in Australia featuring you and Ken McVay as the fearless warriors and me (quoting McVay) as one of the "hardcore hate monger(s). . . who are really only fooling 'folks with low self-esteem. . . " what am I to infer?

You, by contrast, are swimmingly described as ". . . another one of the loose band of net surfers to balance the hate. . ." "Objective" journalistic slanting? To quote additionally from the Sydney Morning Herald, "Dark Side of the Net", 4/9/95: "McCarthy says that confronting and exposing haters is the only way to deal with them on the Net. Many people, he says, argue that extremists should be ignored, that paying attention gives them publicity.

He disagrees, although he thinks academics and professionals should not waste their time. 'For professional historians to debate the deniers, or even discuss the Holocaust with them, would be like Carl Sagan debating whether the earth is flat. It would be undignified at best, and would lend the wackos credibility at worst. But on the Net, we're exclusively amateurs. We have no dignity and no credibility to lend. (emphasis mine) When the deniers get their asses kicked by a bunch of computer programmers (you?) and a service station manager, ( McVay?), it doesn't do much for their cause." So is that the agenda? How would it then be possible for us to work together and do meaningful linking with reasoned and civilized arguments? Are you truly interested in arriving at truth through discourse? If not, and taking you by your own words above, why should I waste my time? Which brings me to another point you keep on advertising unctuously:

That I have chosen the unwieldy Web as a platform for debate because I cannot handle Usenet. In your own words, ". . . alt.revisionism, and all newsgroups, are like a crowded cocktail party. At a party, you may be engaged in a serious conversation about weighty matters with the four or five people standing near you. Others, possibly in the next room or possibly just ten feet from you, may be arguing about something which you find uninteresting, offensive, or inane. They may even be yelling, or running around with lampshades on their heads." Would you go to a "party" with people ". . . running around with lampshades on their heads" if you had memories, as I do, of people being hanged at Nuremberg after kangaroo trials for "crimes" that were never committed - by them or by others? (The former US Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone referred to Justice Jackson at Nuremberg as ". . . running a high grade lynching party. . . ")

Via news groups, we get gems like this (by one LMarcus126@aol.com):

Is that the level of "scholarship" over which I should get excited? You know perfectly well why I chose the Web at this time as a platform: because it requires at least a minimum of grace, good manners, scholarship and reasoning. The readers of the Zundelsite are for the most part young men and women from many universities world-wide. I will take my chances with them.

So this is my bottom line: If Nizkor wants to conduct itself in a civilized fashion, we'll try to link with you. If that is not a possibility, we'll work alone. We have so far. We don't need Nizkor. I'd like to find a middle way to start some dialogue, but I won't link to nonsense.

Therefore, I repeat my previous proposal: Each party on their own, with one-way linking to the article(s) or posting(s) to which each party cares to respond. I don't see why each of us can't keep on linking independently as we see fit and as it suits our purposes. Just set up your Table of Contents, put it up-front, and give us your best arguments. The Zundelsite won't have a "Table of Contents" expressly for you because our raison d'etre is not to demolish you - as yours is to demolish us - but we already have a link to Nizkor on every document we post, which will take readers straight to your Table of Contents.

There you can shine to your heart's content. People can read, reflect and decide for themselves what is hard thought, forensic evidence, common sense and serious research - or what is merely anti-German hate wrapped up in sophistry. Please be my guest and post as many counter-arguments to our articles on your site as you wish and link them all to us. I will read your postings and will reply to serious challenges.

I genuinely want a dialogue with honest, decent people. But what I do not wish to get into is scattered, massive linking that's nothing more than "kicking asses" and hot air. If it is "Internetabuse" you want, Usenet is tailor-made for you - I want a scholarly debate and not a spitting contest. In summary: We have already linked specifically to you on every document and will continue to do so until further notice. It would be nice indeed if you would do the same. It does not require special software as you implied in your previous letter. Boilerplate links can be done in three ways: 1. via glossary 2. via clipboard 3. via an extra word processing page kept simply on your desk top. It is called "copy-paste" and takes less than five seconds.

I am not telling you anything you don't already know. One last word in conclusion, and then I hope we can stop behaving like cats in a barnyard and get on with the business at hand. And it is this: You, Sir, have never met me. You have obviously not begun to search out and study serious Revisionist work. By your own words I can tell that you haven't - as per your words in the newspaper article quoted above. What makes you qualified to judge my work or other Revisionists' work?

My guess is you have never heard or seen a tape that I have made. You know nothing about me as a person. You don't know what I stand for, and what I do not stand for. You only have the image the media created of me - "arch villain of the Right," "Neo-Nazi," "racist," "hate monger" and on and on, ad nauseum - and you have joined that party line, maybe with all the best intentions in the world. But it is still the party line that serves political, financial and social interests that lead to where some of us do not care to go.

I realize most people have no notion whatsoever that they are being manipulated". . . at the behest of special interest groups and being groomed and stroked." But just stay tuned and think. Apply your critical intelligence - but use the acid test both ways. And don't think for one moment that it does not serve a political agenda to have a "Ken McVay clause" on the legal books in Canada! (Article by K. K. Campbell, "Censorship on the Net: Ottawa's Position," Toronto Star, September 27, 1995) Nizkor is a convenient political tool of the already powerful and influential- and don't you kid yourself! The Holocaust is the tap root that has for fifty years been nourished artifically on people's best intentions, sympathy and trust.

You may be one of them. I'd like to think you are - you certainly are bright enough to judge me on my merits. To do so, you must read, reflect and analyze - not just react like Pavlov's dog the moment you hear "Holocaust denier." It is on the backs of decent people's best intentions, sympathy, empathy and trust that the so-called "Holocaust" has grown into that vast, immoral, manipulative monster - in two words, an extortion industry. It has already syphoned off from post-war Germany more than 100 billion DM ! With my two trials and with my life and everything I am and know, I have hacked through its tap root. Now that monstrosity is dying. The Holocaust promoters know that it is dying - why else would they need "hate laws"?

Is it not to protect their lies and rackets from exposure? You and I aren't enemies. The so-called "Holocaust" and its promoters have made us into enemies - when all along, we had, and have, a common enemy. Is that not food for thought? Were I not so consistently portrayed by you - and people like yourself who think they serve a "noble cause" - as that crazed, bumbling fool and "Nazi" occupied with notions about UFOs and such whom righteous people couldn't possibly take seriously, I would undoubtedly have been assassinated long ago. I am convinced I owe my life in part to that convenient, politically useful image.

The media has invented me for you so you - intelligent, articulate, quick-witted, clever and, no doubt, still young and idealistic - can serve the "noble cause" of "kicking ass." Show us you can do better, and we might cross-link, too. For now it is one-way. Don't kid yourself - you are not fighting us because we are so silly or so evil or so hateful. It is because we are so right.

Sincerely yours,

Ernst Zündel