Righteous Jews
My Life as a Holocaust Denier

By Paul Eisen

January 2008

In December 2004 I completed my essay "The Holocaust Wars." Nearly 17,000 words long, the essay was the result of six months' dedicated reading1 and the final piece of a trilogy beginning with "Speaking the Truth to Jews" and followed by "Jewish Power". The manuscript sat on my desk for four months while I wondered what to do with it and in May 2005 it was posted at my request, on Israel Shamir's website. There was hardly any response other than from the revisionist community which was, as expected, positive.

A couple of weeks later, again at my request, it was circulated by Gilad Atzmon on his private e-list. Now controversy broke out centering on the proposed appearance by Gilad at two Socialist Workers Party events. Two Jewish Marxists,2 Roland Rance and Tony Greenstein and others were outraged that a declared anti-racist organization like the SWP give a platform to someone who defended and circulated the writings of, if not an actual Holocaust denier, then certainly an apologist for the same.

Gilad denied the charge of Holocaust denial, but not only defended my right to think, speak and write as I liked, but also the quality of my thinking and my writing. The essence and tone of the controversy may be found in a published email exchange between Gilad and Tony Greenstein.

The SWP stayed committed to hosting Gilad who, despite picketing largely by anti-Zionist Jews, successfully appeared at both events. At the first of these—a book-signing at Bookmarks, the SWP bookshop—I, a Holocaust denier, was refused entry.

The controversy raged over the internet for some weeks until June 26th when an article by Jewish, ex-SWP Trotskyite now Neo-Con journalist David Aaronovitch, appeared in The Times entitled "How the Far Left Got into Bed with the Jew-Hating Right".3

The article was largely an attack on Gilad and Israel Shamir with me in a non-speaking walk-on part as "Eisen the Holocaust denier." Like Adolf Hitler's infamous portrayal of the Jew as "a maggot in a rotting body ..." I had metamorphosed into that lowest of animal life forms, the maggot at the bottom of the food chain—a Holocaust denier.

Until now the attacks had been from Jewish activists, mainly Marxist, anti-Zionist Jews; but now they spread. Colleagues, associates, and even friends slowly but surely began to distance themselves—some in genuine horror and shock—others with shrewd, maybe wise, calculation at the effects on their solidarity careers. Even those closest in opinion hurried to find opportunities to state again and again that they, categorically, absolutely and completely did not deny the Holocaust.

Stalwarts of the Christian solidarity community with whom I had worked closely for years, began to distance themselves. Prominent members of Christian organizations with whom I had had close and friendly relations, now expressed 'concern'. There were moves to cancel the appearance of Sabeel's Naim Ateek at the forthcoming Green Belt solidarity event if I remained on the Executive Committee of Friends of Sabeel UK. In response to a request by Roland Rance, the Executive Committee of the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign began to discuss my possible expulsion and also whether the PSC should continue to work with Deir Yassin Remembered.4

Over the next weeks and months high-profile and well-regarded Jewish activists moved to either denounce me, distance themselves from me or work quietly behind the scenes to ensure my marginalization. These included Uri Davis, Jeff Halper, Jeff Blankfort, Michael Rosen, and Uri Avnery.5

All this was initiated and guided by Jewish activists, largely Marxist and self-declared anti-Zionists. A petition damning me and my writing was begun by Joel Finkel and endorsed by Sue Blackwell who, after consulting 'Jewish colleagues',6 promoted the petition and denounced me. Overwhelmingly but not exclusively Jewish,7 the list included Jeff Halper, Uri Davis, and Uri Avnery.8

Most Palestinians held their silence9 except for a handful—Nur Masalha and Aref Nammari signed the petition and Reem Kelani took the opportunity to publicly denounce Gilad as an anti-Semite.10

While I had, been prepared for attacks by Jewish activists and their supporters, nothing could have prepared me for the effects on my family.11 These people who I love and who love me, and who, despite many disagreements, had taken pride in my Palestinian solidarity activism, now before their eyes, saw their kind, gentle and loving son, brother, husband and father, turn into that most loathsome of life forms—a "Holocaust Denier." Their anger I could bear—harder to bear were their tears.12

The Holocaust Wars

The "Holocaust Wars" was written in three sections. The first called "Scum" (It was Joel Finkel's calling Ernst Z�ndel and his wife, Ingrid Rimland, 'scum' which prompted me to write "The Holocaust Wars") describes the struggle of Ernst Z�ndel, currently in jail in Germany for Holocaust denial. This section attempts to contextualize and re-humanize Ernst Z�ndel and Holocaust revisionism. It also attempts to contextualize and re-humanize the person of Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist regime, and, indeed, the German people. It was this section, provocatively placed at the very front of the essay, which most outraged Jewish activists and their supporters.

The second section, "The War for the Truth," examined the Revisionist community, its scholarship and its struggle. Although I stopped short of coming out in definite agreement with them, I did (and do) acknowledge that I found their case compelling. This section also contained what was, for me, one of the most interesting aspects of these enquiries—under the heading "How Could This Be So?"—a discussion how, if the Holocaust narrative were to be proven false, it may have come about and how it came to be so widely accepted.13

The last section was called "The War for the Spirit" and was concerned with the ideological, spiritual and religious meaning of the Holocaust narrative and the use to which it has been put to enforce Jewish power. For me, this was the most important section of the essay but I doubt whether many critics got that far. I suspect most skimmed the first couple of pages, categorized both it and me, and then acted accordingly. (Norman Finkelstein replied a full ten minutes after I sent him a draft with the instruction not to bother him with such nonsense.)

Since writing the piece I've re-read "The Holocaust Wars" several times and I stand by every word-every word that is, except for three corrections, all in the first section. The first is where I described Ernst Z�ndel as "a gentle, good-humored man, kind and honest." I have now added at the beginning of that phrase the words "by all accounts". (Some critics were still not satisfied and contended that I could not possibly so describe someone I had never met. I don't agree).14 Second, I changed my description of those who spoke for Z�ndel in his mid-eighties Holocaust trial from "heavyweights such as Robert Faurisson, Mark Weber and David Irving" to "revisionist heavyweights such as ..." The third and last correction occurred when I amended the sentence, "Millions of Germans loved Hitler, who for twelve years impacted on them as no German has or probably ever will, and, though they never say so, must, deep down still cherish his memory". I added the word 'some' before the phrase "... must, deep down, cherish his memory".

Holocaust Denier

The process of marginalization is a curious one. Slowly and cumulatively it takes place and in no time at all acquires a momentum all of its own. My own needed no help from me. Within weeks I had ceased to be an individual and had become the brand-"Eisen the Holocaust denier". As sure as "Beanz Meanz Heinz" I was a Holocaust denier and, once branded, no more need be said. It sufficed that, whenever my name was mentioned some anti—Zionist Jewish activist would jump up and remind the company of what I was—the rest would take care of itself.

Did I protest? Not one bit. Did I fight back? Not at all. I told myself that to protest my innocence was to grant legitimacy to the accusation but also I rather relished my Christ-like posture—hanging there for the whole world to see. But the real reason for my failure to fight back was, quite simply, that I was terrified out of my wits. Nothing in my life up till then had prepared me for the hatred I experienced.

Racist! Nazi! Holocaust denier!

Now the net is just full of it—"Eisen the Holocaust denier", "Eisen the racist", "Eisen the Nazi", "Eisen the anti-Semite" and all apparently disseminated by people who have neither met nor spoken to me. And, I'm sure in most cases, have not read anything I have written except for selected quotes presented out-of-context to them by others. As I came wearily to say; if someone would tell me what a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, and a racist is, then I would gladly say whether I am one.

They call me a racist. But what do they mean?15 Am I the elderly couple in the inner city neighborhood who, in the privacy of their own home, confess to each other their bewilderment at the changes caused by the influx of people who look, speak and even behave, so differently to them? Am I the hooded Klansman who lynches a black man and douses with petrol and sets light to his still living body? Or am I one of the perfectly ordinary racists who gathered round to watch?

They call me a Nazi. But the Nazis are dead and gone so I can't be that kind of Nazi. I could have been the medium-grade office clerk who joined the party because his boss did, or I could perhaps be a Fuhrer-besotted housewife at a party rally. I could be an old Nazi who, like any old Bolshevik dreaming of revolutions past, sits and dreams of past glories. But I don't think so. National Socialists, like any number of other '-ists' are usually folk who know for sure how the world should or should not be and so often are not afraid to use force to make their point—and I'm not like that at all.

They call me a Holocaust denier. But "Holocaust denier" is just an abusive term for a Holocaust revisionist—the slur being that Holocaust revisionists are like flat-earthers, people who have lost all touch with reality and deny that anything unpleasant at all happened to Jews at the hands of the National Socialists. They do not. 'Holocaust denier' along with 'racist' 'neo-Nazi', anti-Semite and all the rest is just one more non-definable term of abuse used rather like 'witch' in the Middle Ages—a curse to silence those with whom one does not agree.

But let's set the record straight about my racism, Nazism and 'Holocaust denial". Do I believe that ethnicity is important to many people? Yes I do. Do I find notions of physical, cultural, emotional, and spiritual differences between people interesting and worthy of consideration? Yes I do. Do I see any group of people inherently superior to any other? No I do not (though there may well be certain areas where one group is better than others). Am I sympathetic to National Socialist ideology and do I want to reinvent that ideology in the present day? Of course not. But do I think that National Socialism has been unequally demonized when compared to other equally violent and destructive ideologies? Yes I do.

And as for my 'Holocaust denial', I wasn't at Auschwitz, so I don't know exactly what did or did not take place there. Nor am I any scholar, but I've had a fair look at the evidence and as far as I can see, the revisionists have got it pretty much right. But I'm not a hundred percent sure and I say so, so technically I suppose I'm not a denier.16 Whether I say this from conviction, cowardice or simply an inability to sever that final link to whatever, I can't say. But I have no doubt that Robert Faurisson, the greatest of all living revisionists, would rage at me for such equivocation.17

No, Holocaust revisionism or 'denial' if you like is confined to three main contentions in the typical Holocaust narrative, namely:

  • That there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or the National Socialist regime to systematically and physically exterminate every Jew in Europe.
  • That there existed homicidal gas-chambers.
  • That the number of Jewish victims was around six million.

Having examined all these contentions and found them questionable to say the least, it seems to me that a Holocaust revisionist (denier, if you like) is an entirely honorable thing to be. So why should I rush to deny that I am one?

In his article David Aaronovitch quoted me as writing about the gas-chambers: "No one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or anywhere else even one of these chemical slaughterhouses. No one is capable of describing to us their exact appearance or workings. Neither a trace nor a hint of their existence is to be found ..." Aaronovitch got this wrong. I did not write those words. They were written by Robert Faurisson whom I was quoting. I was urged to protest this inaccuracy which I did successfully with the Press Complaints Commission.18 (It is the amended version that appears in the article accessed by the link above.) But now I'm not so sure about this. Professor Faurisson's words were honorable and courageous and probably accurate, so even though I didn't write those words, why should I now rush to disown them?

The same is true with Ernst Z�ndel. Why should I not support Ernst Z�ndel? Ernst Z�ndel has never committed an act of violence, nor has he ever called on anyone else to commit an act of violence. Ernst Z�ndel has never discriminated against anyone, nor has he called on anyone else to discriminate against anyone. Ernst Z�ndel has never stifled anyone's freedom of expression, nor has he ever called on anyone else to stifle anyone's freedom of expression. So why should I not support Ernst Z�ndel's right to think, speak, and write as he pleases? And why do those who go on and on about these rights fall strangely silent when it comes to Ernst Z�ndel and the other revisionists? And why is it that so many of these folk, so busy, busy, busy defending free speech, at the same time work so hard to create a climate in which that freedom may be so easily denied? Joel Finkel believes in free speech and he calls Ernst and Ingrid 'scum'.

But I also support Ernst Z�ndel and Holocaust revisionists because both Ernst and the revisionists are essentially truthful (though one doesn't have to agree with everything they say). It is true that the Holocaust narrative is gravely flawed and could stand some serious examination. It is true that Adolf Hitler and National Socialism were, respectively both human and the creation of humans and both may well not have been any worse than many other brutal regimes and their leaderships, notably Bolshevism.19 And regarding Ernst's alleged 'racism' it is also true that ethnicity, to my mind simply a mix of biology and culture, matters a lot to people and it may be that the human individual is moved as much by his or her ethnicity, roots and faith and, yes, genetic makeup, as by his or her class and aspirations.

Anyway, I like Ernst. Jeff Blankfort tells me that since I hadn't met him I was ill-advised to write of Ernst as being "a gentle, good-humored man, kind and honest and with those qualities often found in the strangest places: a fine mind and a good heart."20 Well perhaps I was, but long before I met Jeff I believed him to be a nice guy and a great activist.21

And I like Ingrid Rimland too, a brave, principled woman with a delightful way about her. I also support Ernst Z�ndel and the revisionists because they, along with the Palestinian people, are amongst the bravest people on the planet. I may not agree with everything Ernst Z�ndel does or believes, but his flamboyant activism makes me both laugh out loud at his antics while standing in silent awe at his courage.

But above all I support Ernst Z�ndel and the revisionists because they, along with the Palestinian and other Arab peoples are the ultimate victims of, and resistors to, an abusive Jewish power. (Why else are they dealt with so harshly?). Also, they're the most feared. As Robert Faurisson said, above all, Zionists fear the weak—those with nothing left to lose. And they fear the weapons of the weak: The stones and martyrdom of the Palestinians and the words of the revisionists. They fear the Palestinian Intifada but they also fear that other Intifada—that of the revisionists.

So to those who say that the subject is irrelevant and ask why I or anyone else should spend any time at all in the distasteful activity of working out precisely how many people died and by what manner, and especially to those who wish to discuss the abuse to which the Holocaust narrative has been put but do not wish to examine the narrative itself, I say this: I am not interested in the hydrogen cyanide traces in brickwork or how long it takes to burn a corpse. But the fact is that there is a probability that a lie of massive proportions is being peddled big-time and savagely enforced. It seems to me that we must know if this is true. So while I will not myself be engaging in this research, I do support those that do.

And to those, who with querulous, bewildered expressions ask if it really matters if there was or was not a decision to kill all the Jews, whether it was done by shooting, gas-chambers or any other method and whether it was one, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, one, two, three, four, five or six million Jews? After all, they say self-righteously, is not one death one death too many? And does it matter if it was pre-planned or whether it was by gas, massacre or typhus epidemic? These folks mean to deceive.

Under cover of feigned sensitivity and mock horror they conceal their own deep Holocaust worship. So to them I say that it does matter. Firstly, it matters because the truth matters. But more than that, it matters because it is those three key areas: that Hitler and the National Socialists determined to physically exterminate every Jew in Europe, that in the main this was done on an industrial scale by use of homicidal gas-chambers and that in the final end, six million Jews perished, It is in these contentions that the Holocaust cult resides. Without these iconic embellishments the very real story of the assault on the Jews of Europe ceases to be the Holocaust and becomes just one more terrible atrocity in a history of terrible atrocities. It is these which turn the Holocaust narrative into a religion and it is those which turn its denial into a heresy.

And to those who tell me that questioning the Holocaust is just a diversion and my time would be better spent marching, leafleting and chanting slogans I say, where have your slogans and marches got you? And to those who say that writing in support of Ernst Z�ndel and the revisionists serves only to provide weapons for those who would secure the oppression of the Palestinians and others I say: Where has your caution got you? In 2002 in London Marc Ellis called on a largely Jewish audience to "Abandon strategy!" I agree. Abandon strategy. Forget, "if I do this will they do that?" Forget "If we say this will they say that?" And, most of all, forget "If we do this will they call us that?" Those times are over. Resist. Defy. Speak out.

Why bother?

I read recently a letter written by Germar Rudolf from his cell in Stammheim Prison, Stuttgart. The letter examines why Rudolf became a Holocaust revisionist and why he was prepared to pay such a terrible price. The fact is that Germar Rudolf was never much interested in World War II or, for that matter, in the Holocaust. What interested him were the whys and wherefores of lies, delusions and propaganda. Why are they created, how are they propagated, maintained and enforced and why do we believe in them? So for Rudolf, Holocaust propaganda is not an historical issue but an ideological issue. Nor does there seem to be any single motive for Rudolf's interest, rather a mixture of personal history and personality. From childhood, he tells us, he was blessed or cursed with an insane curiosity and with, what he describes as, "a greatly overdeveloped sense of justice." We also learn that he was brutalized by his father.

At eighteen he learned of the post-war expulsion of twelve million Germans from East Germany and Eastern Europe and it is from then that he dates his interest in history. He became "a very patriotic German—still within the mainstream yet at the right edge of it." But, never did he touch upon the Holocaust topic. "The usual claims about it seemed indubitable, undeniable to me, truth chiseled in stone, self-evident."

But in 1989 he came across the writings of Paul Rassinier, the father of Holocaust revisionism and everything changed. On his liberation, Rassinier, A former French communist, partisan fighter and eventual inmate of Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps, began to hear stories of mechanized exterminations in Buchenwald—a claim he knew to be untrue because he had been there—so he wondered what anyone might wonder: If they can lie about that, what else can they lie about? Now, there was no stopping him.

"For 15 years, every time that I heard of a witness anywhere, no matter where in the portion of Europe that was not occupied by the Soviets, who claimed to have himself been present at gas exterminations, I immediately went to him to get his testimony. With documentation in hand, I would ask him so many precise and detailed questions that soon it became apparent that he could not answer except by lying. Often his lies became so transparent, even to himself, that he ended his testimony by declaring that he had not seen it himself, but that one of his good friends, who had died in the camps and whose good faith he could not doubt, had told him about it. I covered thousands and thousands of kilometers throughout Europe in this way."

And for the young German patriot Rudolf: "He opened my eyes and allowed doubts. Not more, just doubts."

Like all post-war Germans Rudolf had been raised not to doubt, which in itself maddened him as did the increasing persecution in Germany of anyone who raised the issue.

"... at once I knew—and a little research confirmed it—that any doubts and a dissenter is relentlessly ostracized, persecuted, and even prosecuted with no chance of defense. So I said to myself: This is outrageous, unacceptable, against all norms and ideals of this society, and the fact that there is no other topic where dissent is more severely suppressed is evidence enough for me that it is also the most important topic. He who is sure of being truthful is relaxed; only liars call for earthly judges."

"Give me a meaning of life!" Young Germar had demanded and now he had found it. When so many powerful people worked so hard to stop one peaceful dissident, it must be because he has something that can, and will, rock the world. It was that simple.

"I was sure I was right, and unless I was convinced by rational, scientific arguments that I was wrong, I was not going to give in. They made the mistake to provoke the blood out of me by persecuting me. That's it. No negotiations any more. It's me or them now. My father didn't manage to break me with stick, whip, fists, or by using me as a missile, and so they won't break my will with violence either. It only gets stronger with every beating."

That is Germar Rudolf: a bloody-minded contrarian with enormous will power.22

"The only way to take this away from me is by killing me. Period. Anybody who punishes me for merely exercising my human right of being a human, a creature able to doubt and explore, will meet my utmost unbreakable resistance. I won't allow anybody to reduce me to a submissive slave. Nobody."

Germar Rudolf, along with Ernst Z�ndel, Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Jurgen Graf, Udo Walendy, Carlo Mattogno, Erhard Kempner, Wolfgang Froehlich, Michel Adam, Pedro Varela, Gary Lauck, Gunter Deckert and many, many others have paid, and are paying, a terrible price and none more terrible than the price obviously paid by Rudolf as indicated in the dedication of his Lectures on the Holocaust: "For Tamara, Kay, and Natalie. Hoping that one day they will understand."

Deny the Holocaust!

That Jews suffered greatly from 1933-1945 is not in question23 but the notion of a premeditated, planned, and industrial extermination of Europe's Jews with its iconic gas-chambers and magical six million are all used to make the Holocaust not only special but also sacred. We are faced with a new, secular religion, a false God with astonishing power to command worship. And, like the Crucifixion with its Cross, Resurrection etc, the Holocaust has key and sacred elements—the exterminationist imperative, the gas-chambers and the sacred six million. It is these that comprise the holy Holocaust which Jews, Zionists, and others worship and which Ernst and the revisionists refuse.24

Nor is this a small matter.25 If it was, why the fuss, why the witch-hunt, why the imprisonment of David Irving, Germar Rudolf and Ernst Z�ndel? And it's not just them. What may be a massive lie is being used to oppress pretty much all of humankind. The German and Austrian peoples who, we are told, conceived and perpetrated the slaughter; the Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Rumanian, Hungarian, peoples etc., etc who supposedly hosted, assisted in and cheered on the slaughter;26 the Americans, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Italians (but not the Danes and the Bulgarians) etc. who apparently didn't do enough to stop the slaughter; the Swiss who earned out of the slaughter and the entire Christian27 world who, it seems, created the faith—traditions and ideologies in which the slaughter could take place—and now the Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim peoples who seemingly want to perpetrate a new slaughter—in fact, the Holocaust oppresses the entire non-Jewish world and indeed much of the Jewish world as well. Stand and have done with it. Deny the Holocaust.

  1. Key pieces were Joel Hayward's 1993 MA thesis The Fate of Jews in German Hands. This was the first piece of revisionist literature I read and was most appropriate in that the young Hayward was, like me, totally astonished at what he was reading. Hayward ran into endless trouble and in the end recanted. I also read everything by Robert Faurisson and key works by Germar Rudolf, particularly "Lectures on the Holocaust".back to text
  2. I wondered whether to change this to 'Marxist Jews'—a not unimportant difference rather like 'American Jew'/'Jewish American.back to text
  3. The link is to the piece amended after I had successfully won my case with the Press Complaints Council.back to text
  4. Both organizations were saved further trouble by my resigning. At the time I feared any conflict could result in further publicity and my family simply could not take any more. Now I know that my real reason for resigning was that it became clear to me that I was no longer welcome in these organisations and I simply found this too painful and humiliating to bear.back to text
  5. Of course the vast majority of people simply remained silent but there were some who openly and repeatedly demonstrated their solidarity e.g. Dan McGowan, Henry Herskovitz, Gilad Atzmon, Sarah Gillespie, Israel Shamir, Francis Clark-Lowes, Gill Kaffash, Amjad Taha, Randa Hamwi Duwaji, Cambridge PSC, Rosemary Ernshaw, Fr. Michael Prior RIP, Ernst Z�ndel; Ingrid Rimland.back to text
  6. Sue seems to define her left wing credentials in general, her solidarity with Palestinians in particular and her all-round right-on "goodness" by her willingness to accede to the wishes of Jewish activists and by bowing endlessly to Jewish power.back to text
  7. My favorite Jewish signatory was "Annette Herskovits of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship."back to text
  8. The list has subsequently been taken down, perhaps because of its lack of success in attracting signatories outside the usual circles.back to text
  9. Quite the right response, in my opinion.back to text
  10. My favourite Palestinian response was from Palestinian playwright Razanne Carmey I said that one of the reasons I had written "The Holocaust Wars" was because I wanted to know what it felt like to be a Palestinian. Razanne's response: "So now you know."back to text
  11. It's supposed to be behind us now of course. But recently I read the testimony of a Jewish deportee describing how she had managed (or not) to accommodate her wartime experiences. The woman painted a word-picture of a pool into which a stone is dropped. The initial ripples gradually subside until the turbulence is completely gone. Now the surface is calm and still—but the stone still lies at the bottom. "My feelings are like that stone," she said. With regard to my family, so are mine.back to text
  12. "I go to bed with tears in my eyes and I wake up the same." Family email.back to text
  13. For the source of this, read the fascinating: The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes by Samuel Crowell.back to text
  14. I have now met Ernst and a more gentle, good-humoured, kind and honest man you could not hope to meet.back to text
  15. Recently I heard one child call another child "racist". They were arguing over possession of a ball and both were white.back to text
  16. Since completing this essay I've come to enthusiastically accept the term "denier" for two reasons: a) The Holocaust narrative is a false and abusive 'god' and so I absolutely deny it, in that I want to put as much moral distance between myself and it as I can; and, b) To evade the term is to agree with the accusers that there's something bad about it. Well, there isn't.back to text
  17. See his words to Mark Weber of the IHR.back to text
  18. They were very professional about the whole thing. Here is the text of my final letter to them: "Thank you for your letter of 31 October and thank you handling my complaint to the PCC. Under present conditions in the matter of how we were depicted in the Times article there can be no real justice for myself or indeed for Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shamir. However, within the context of my specific complaint i.e. the misattribution of a quotation, I was very pleased with the way the PCC, and particularly you, dealt with my case. Thank you."back to text
  19. Of course they might have been a great deal better. The more I read the more it seems that the post-war, post Holocaust Anglo-American (and Zionist) version of events is little more than 'the history of the victor'. The question is: how far can this go? Could I ever get to a point when I will see National Socialism as a necessary and an even (gasp) beneficial corrective to Bolshevism? Also, what about the Jewish component in all this? We know there was enormous Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution but again, to what extent? Could it be said that the revolution was, in effect, a Jewish coup against the Russian people and thereafter against all the peoples—Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Rumanians, Hungarians etc. etc.—amongst whom Jews had lived?back to text
  20. A fair picture of what Ernst is like may perhaps be gleaned from a viewing of Setting the Record Straight, the 4 hour DVD account of his courtroom struggles made by his wife Ingrid. Also, see the book Letters from Cell #7—a collection of his prison letters written mainly to Ingrid. Both are available from Ingrid Rimland, 3152 Parkway, 13-109, Pigeon Forge, TN 37863 USA.

    Dan McGowan DYR founder who visited Ernst in prison wrote this: "An admirer once described Ernst Zuendel [sic] as 'an outgoing, good-humored man who is blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and practical ability. He maintains this infectious spirit even under very trying conditions. He is an unusually alert and sensitive individual with a keen understanding of human nature. He inspires confidence, loyalty and affection.' On December 7, 2006 I witnessed his trial in Mannheim and found this description to be uncannily accurate."back to text
  21. I did meet Jeff in London and he did seem to be nice guy and a great activist. Alas, he has, since cut off all links with me because of my continued support for Ernst Z�ndel.back to text
  22. Since writing this I have met Germar (now released). I spent three days in his company and, in that time, he must have spoken for about eight hours. He spoke about aspects of the Holocaust and Holocaust revisionism, his own struggle, his erstwhile Catholic faith, Germany and Germans then and now, the Third Reich and Hitler, his own present state and relationships and his hopes and fears for the future and many, many other topics. And, speaking fully and fluently in English with an astonishing grasp of facts and interpretations, not once did he repeat himself.back to text
  23. For what its worth, the true story of Jewish suffering 1933-45 moves me far more than any 'Holocaust'.back to text
  24. It seems to me that opposing the Holocaust religion whilst blindly maintaining the gas-chambers is a bit like saying you're not a Christian but you believe in the Resurrection.back to text
  25. It certainly isn't. Some argue that the entire post-war Anglo-American western discourse, essentially Zionist, is founded on the Holocaust 'religion' and it is to this discourse we owe Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, 1948, 1967, The Yom Kippur War, two Intifadas, two Lebanese wars, two Gulf Wars and God knows what else.back to text
  26. In my view all these countries and peoples have been comprehensively rubbished in the western discourse. Is it a coincidence that they are the countries in which Jews have most recently lived and which stand most accused, (by Jews), of anti-Semitism?back to text
  27. Mainly the Catholic Church. For information about this aspect of the relationship between the Catholic Church and Jews, go to the magazine Culture Wars published by E. Michael Jones. The July/August 2006 (Volume 25 No 8) has an article: "Cardinal Bea and the Jews". Also, see "Pope John Paul II and the Jews: an Evaluation".back to text