January 20, 1998

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

I wish I had more time to post to, and follow, the fight-censorship group which I am trying to persuade into some pro-Zundelsite action - a difficult thing to do since, intermittently, Jamie McCarthy and Co, flashing as censorship fighters, are doing deflection maneuvers, as in the snotty and snouty ". . . why should we save Zundel's butt?"

Sad to say, most fall in line. Most find it easier to attack Ernst's motives, character or strategies than to translate their principles into some energetic championship. Alternately, the treatment of choice for your valiant Zundelsite webmistress - gently asking them to come to her defense against the Mighty Wiesenthalers with more than shibboleths - is silence.

Which is okay for now, because at least they let me plant some kernels in the weeds. But what we badly need is some computer expert to send the censors packing by telling them in proper jargonese and no uncertain terms the Internet is NOT a telephone. It would short-circuit them - right then and there!

A few small mini-roots were struck a couple of days ago when one of them (this fellow Lizard I have already introduced to you) wrote condescendingly: "The goal of internet control is indeed the control of information. However, Revisionism is of little importance *in itself*.

Another one, a rather friendly lady otherwise, equated us to the benighted flat earth folks and our arguments to the convenient ". . . the moon is made of cheese."

To which I proffered gentlewomanly:

"For your info, below are two countries that DO take Revisionism seriously - not yet for the right reasons but, hey, who's to squabble? An ally is an ally - not all that many are around! Even that old Commie, Garaudy, is furthering our cause! :)

I was referring to two AFP, January 19, 1998 articles, one coming out of Gaza City, and the other out of Tehran:

First, Gaza City:

"More than 100 Palestinian writers and journalists demonstrated here Monday to protest at the trial of French author Roger Garaudy charged with denying the Nazi holocaust against the Jews.

"The writers marched through Gaza City to the French Cultural Center, carrying signs calling Garaudy's trial 'a surrender to Zionist terrorism,' witnesses said."

And Tehran:

"Iran sharply criticized France on Monday over the trial of French writer and philosopher Roger Garaudy who is accused of denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers. (...)

"Around 160 of the 270 members of the Iranian parliament also signed a petition in support of Garaudy, a former communist who converted to Islam.

"On Sunday, 600 journalists also defended the 84-year-old writer who went on trial on January 8 accused of questioning crimes against humanity."

In other words, the intellectuals of far-off Iran, Dubai and Arabia are well attuned to the dangers to freedom from Zionist censors. The Arab intellectuals go flat out for their fellow Muslim's, Garaudy's, rights - while one of the cosmopolitans' own, the young Revisionist Jew, David Cole, is terrorized into recanting some excellent Revisionist work, with not a peep from any one of them!

Meanwhile, the Toronto Star (Jan. 18, 1998) ran an interesting piece on a matter of much benefit to us that has been percolating for some time.

Titled "Book angers Jewish groups: Work called inappropriate for member of Ottawa's war crimes unit", the article informs its readers:

"Jewish groups in the U.S. and Canada are furious about the upcoming publication of a book co-authored by a key member of Ottawa's war crimes unit.

"The book, A Nation On Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis And Historical Truth by Ottawa-based historian Ruth Bettina Birn and Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist in New York, is to be published in March by Metropolitan Books in New York."

From what has trickled down to us, this is a most courageous book arguing that there is insufficient evidence to say that Germans had, as a people, complicity in the Holocaust. This title strongly rebuts that blatantly talmudic smear called "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust," hyped into bestseller status and meant to cause collective kneefalls of penitence before the Holy H.

The author says that, research-wise, the Goldhagen publication is nothing but hooey.

This has the Holocaust Promoters hopping to their various mind control agencies to stop the voice of truth and to uphold the useful but crumbling taboo. The fact that some of the Goldhagen critics are Jews gives them no protection whatever from vitriolic attacks and character assassination. The Big H has to be defended at all costs!

The Canadian Jewish Congress has already contacted the Canadian Justice Department to suggest that it's inappropriate for Birn, the chief researcher for its War Crimes Unit, to be involved with the book. The CJC spokes person, Bernie Farber is quoted as saying:

"We draw the line at those who compare the state of Israel to the Nazis . . . at a time when the war crimes unit is very much under scrutiny for the job they haven't done."

In other words, always one yardstick for Jews and Israel - another for the goyim. How long will gentiles tolerate this? And when will the day come when ordinary Jews will finally perceive that this is bad for Jews generally?

The second author of this book, titled "A Nation on Trial", is also on the receiving end of Jewish wrath. He is someone by the name of Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish adjunct professor at Hunter College in New York, who has already in the past courageously compared the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians to what is alleged to have happened to Jews inside the Third Reich.

Said Finkelstein: "I believe it's because those who want to mitigate the crimes of Israel find the Holocaust very serviceable.''

That is a line straight out of Ernst Zundel's mouth! Ernst has said for years that the Holocaust has become an extortion tool - both shield and club used by the Israeli Supremacist Lobbyists!

Bernie Farber's reasoning regarding censoring this book is interesting, as quoted in the Star:

"Bernie Farber says that his organization's chief concern is not what Birn has to say but that a key member of Canada's war crimes unit has associated herself with a scholar known to be an anti-Zionist polemicist."

So is he finally and publicly admitting that the Canadian War Crimes Unit is a tool for the Pro-Zionists? Is that what he is saying? Or was that just a slip of his tongue?

If Mr. Zundel speaks likewise, he is called a "threat to the security of Canada," and Bernie Farber testifies against him as government witness behind closed doors in an effort to get him deported.

It is heartening to know that Bettina Birn enjoys some support in her community - and in a dangerous territory like Toronto, of all places. Michael Marrus, University of Toronto's Dean of Graduate Studies, described as a "noted Holocaust historian" and ordinarily a staunch defender of Holocaust orthodoxy, has come to the author's defense.

Says Marrus:

"The attack on Birn is ". . . a scandal in the academic community Her work is a distinguished contribution to the debate.''

Obviously Marrus realizes that the whole Holocaust matter is coming unraveled Big-Time, and he, like other thoughtful Jews, would like to hold on to the reins of the debate as long as possible to help contain and steer it into "less damaging to the Jewish cause" areas.

According to this Toronto Star article, Marrus even wonders ". . . if Birn may be the scapegoat for the failure of the war crimes unit to have any successful criminal prosecutions of ex-Nazis since its founding in 1987, following the recommendation of the Deschenes Commission." The prosecutions have not succeeded, allows Marrus, because ". . . Canadian juries have been unwilling to convict for crimes committed half a century ago. The policy has failed.''

Typical for Marrus, still stuck in his tribalist thinking. Here is a scholarly man, who cannot admit to himself that the jury in the Imre Finta case heard the evidence for nine long months and obviously did not believe the many Jewish witnesses brought by the government.

He cannot admit that the jury concluded that the Jewish "witnesses" were lying.

In his tribal interpretation of events, Marrus totally overlooks the fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court did not believe the obviously concocted and, therefore, perjured testimony in the Demjanjuk case - and set the man free after the travesty of justice which the O.S.I. and U.S. and Israeli courts put this poor man through!

Jewish vengeance thinking is the problem. Not juries. Not courts.

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"She's a civil servant in a sensitive position."

(Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, speaking of War Crimes Unit researcher and author, Bettina Birn)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1998 ZGrams