ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                                                        No 284




Landgericht Mannheim [ Mannheim Regional Court ] Case Number: 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96

Criminal proceedings against Ernst Zündel on suspicion of incitement to hatred and violence against segments of the population [Volksverhetzung] and other [penal provisions]

4 April 2006

Dear Dr. Rimland:

     The Mannheim Regional Court is considering examining you as a witness in the criminal proceedings against your husband, Ernst Zündel.  The primary facts in issue are the set-up and ongoing operation of the Internet site ""  As an American citizen, you are certainly not obligated to appear following a summons from a German court in Germany .  Moreover, no coercive measures may be imposed upon you.  The court may, however, attempt to achieve your summons or your examination through officials in the USA by means of judicial assistance.

     I should like to inform you in advance, however, that pursuant to § 1 No 2 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure [Strafprozeßordnung (StPO)], as the wife of the accused you have the right to refuse to testify anyway.  In other words, even if you were examined by American officials by means of judicial assistance, you would not need to give any testimony in the matter.  Pursuant to § 55 Para. 1 StPO, you also have the right to refuse to respond to such questions if answering them would place either yourself, a family member, or your husband in danger of prosecution for a criminal act.  Based upon suspicion of your joint responsibility for the "" Web site, the Mannheim Public Prosecutor's Office is also currently conducting investigative proceedings against you on suspicion of incitement to hatred and violence against segments of the population, according to a notice from the Mannheim Public Prosecutor's Office.  Given the current state of affairs, it is hard to conceive of questions to which a response would not place you or your husband in danger of criminal prosecution (primarily on suspicion of incitement to hatred and violence against segments of the population pursuant to § 130 of the German penal code [Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)].  You would therefore be fully entitled to refuse to give testimony pursuant to § 55 StPO.

     In the present criminal proceedings against your husband, therefore, you could be examined in the matter only if you are prepared to give testimony.  The court therefore requests that you notify it as to whether you are prepared to give testimony as a witness in the present criminal proceedings against your husband, or whether you are invoking your right as a witness to avoid self-incrimination pursuant to § 52 StPO  or your right to refuse to divulge information pursuant to § 55 StPO.   In this case, all further attempts to obtain testimony from you would be pointless.

     If you are prepared to testify, however, then an examination in the main proceedings before the Mannheim Regional Court at a date to be determined would be the first option.  The court would insure your safe conduct for this purpose, i.e. you would not be in danger of being arrested or otherwise bothered in relation to the aforementioned investigative proceedings by the Mannheim Public Prosecutor's Office.  The expenses of your travel and accommodation would be reimbursed.

     If you are not prepared to appear for examination in person before the Mannheim Regional Court , examination via a videoconference link would also be possible.  You would then travel to an as yet undetermined location in the USA , such as a German consulate in your vicinity, and the sound and image of your testimony would be transmitted to the courtroom.  If you are not prepared to do this, then there is the final option of having a consular official conduct your examination on commission.  Your personal testimony in Mannheim or examination via videoconference link would be preferable, however, because the participants in the proceedings, including your husband, would then have the opportunity to address questions directly to you.

     In conclusion, I therefore request your response to the following questions:

1.  Are you prepared to give testimony in the criminal proceedings against your husband before the Mannheim Regional Court on suspicion of incitement to hatred and violence against segments of the population [Volksverhetzung] and other penal provisions, or do you refuse to give testimony based upon the aforementioned rights und § 52 and § 55  StPO ?

2. If you are prepared to give testimony,

a. are you prepared to appear as a witness (with a guarantee of safe conduct) before the Mannheim Regional Court at a date to be  determined, and to give testimony as a witness in the matter?

b. Are you otherwise prepared to participate in an examination via videoconference link and to give testimony as a witness in the matter?

c. Are you otherwise prepared to have a German official in the USA conduct your examination on commission and to give testimony as a witness in the matter?

     I would like to point out that you are not obligated to answer these questions.  In the interest of expeditious handling of the present criminal proceedings against your husband, which would surely also be important for you since your husband is in pre-trial detention, the court would be very thankful if you would show your cooperation by answering the questions listed above.  Otherwise the court must consider an attempt to approach you through officials in the USA by means of judicial assistance.


Dr. Meinerzhagen 

Presiding Judge of the Landgericht [ Regional Court ] 

German high court bans demo in support of alleged Holocaust deniers 14:00:07 EDT Apr 6, 2006

KARLSRUHE , Germany (AP) - Germany 's highest court on Thursday outlawed a planned demonstration in support of far-right activists accused of denying the Holocaust. The Federal Constitutional Court upheld a local court's decision to ban a neo-Nazi group from marching Saturday in Mannheim , where far-right publisher Ernst Zundel is on trial on incitement charges. The lower court had cited concern that the demonstration could turn violent and that the participants could commit hate crimes. A group had applied for permission to demonstrate under the motto "Create Freedom of Opinion," calling for the release of far-right figures including David Irving, as well as Zundel. Irving, a British historian, was convicted in February in Austria and sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust, a crime in Austria as well as in Germany . Zundel, 66, who emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001, has been on trial since November on charges of years of anti-Semitic activities, including denying the Holocaust, in documents and on the Internet. © The Canadian Press, 2006

Lawyer ejected in Shoah denial trial,

A defense lawyer for a far-right activist charged with denying the Holocaust was physically carried from a German courtroom Wednesday after defying a ruling banning her from the trial on grounds that she tried to sabotage the proceedings. Two female police officers had to carry Sylvia Stolz from the Mannheim courtroom after she refused to leave upon the judge's order. "Resistance! The German people are rising up," Stolz shouted as she was taken from the room. Some of the scores of supporters of Ernst Zundel, a 66-year-old German deported from Canada , also left the courtroom. Zundel, who has also lived in the US state of Tennessee , has been standing trial since November on incitement charges for years of alleged anti-Semitic activities including denying the Holocaust - a crime in Germany - in documents and on the Internet. Presiding judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen halted the trial on March 9 to ask for Stolz's removal after she denounced the court as a "tool of foreign domination" and described the Jews as an "enemy people" in earlier sessions. A higher court last week granted his request, though Stolz, one of six defense lawyers, can still appeal. Meinerzhagen said Wednesday that the court intended to invite Zundel's American wife, Ingrid Rimland, as a witness. He said German authorities would guarantee not to arrest Rimland, who is also under investigation for alleged incitement, if she agrees to testify.


From: Horst Mahler -  Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2006 11:26 PM

Subject: RAin Stolz widersetzt sich Geheimverfahren gegen Ernst Zündel

Defence Counsel resists secret trial against Ernst Zündel 


On Behalf of the German Reich, Without Commission - SylviaStolz, Attorney at Law - Personal Response

In the Criminal Case of Ernst Zündel - District Court of Mannheim 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96

Following is my position regarding Dr. Meinerzhagen’s personal attacks on me, which occurred during the session of 16 February 2006 . -translated by James Damon -

 Dr. Meinerzhagen has seen fit to present the extraordinary course of the main proceedings as the result of “unprofessional conduct” on the part of the defense attorney.  He combined that with the explanation that the court intends to ascertain the possibility of removing me from the trial.  With this explanation he intends to mislead the uninformed public about events in the Zündel trial.

The chain of events described here began with my written Defense Brief dated 18 October 2005 .  In this brief I outlined the basic lines of Mr. Ernst Zündel’s defense as I intended to develop them.  I also requested a continuance of the trial until the Federal Constitutional Court makes its decision concerning the incompatibility of § 130 III StGB-BRD (Paragraph 130 Section III) Incitement of the People in Form of Denying Holocaust” with individual rights guaranteed by the Basic Law.

 The criminal court has the responsibility of deciding the matter on grounds of factuality and legality.  In their ruling of 7 November 2005   Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Krebs-Dörr rejected the motions which I had submitted.  Misusing their positions of authority, they also disseminated serious slanders against me.  Without considering the factual content of the defense brief of 18 Oct 2005 , they quoted portions of the brief out of context, thus perverting its meaning.  They disqualified my presentation as “Incitement to Hatred Against Jews (§130 I Nr. StGB) and “Auschwitz Lie Presented in a Particularly Aggressive Fashion.”   They went so far as to use the expression “Incitement against the Jewish population” to describe my reference to “die Richterschaft” (Page 3 of the ruling.)

Neither presiding judges nor their spokespersons are authorized to censure a defense attorney on account of her motion or other conduct of the trial [1] or to declare her conduct as culpable or unprofessional.[2]  It is not the role of the court to supervise the defense or to decide whether the defense is carrying out its duties properly.[3]  The attorney for the defense bears sole responsibility for that defense;  she is an independent agent in conduct of the law [4].

I could have disregarded all that.  I am aware that I have broken the most rigidly enforced taboo in the intellectual landscape of politically correct “Western Values,” and I can endure the aggressions released against me by violating such taboos. 

What I can not tolerate is the proclamation by the above named persons that “under no circumstances” will they allow “discussion of criminal violations of Paragraph 130 Section I during the main trial.”  They threatened to “vigorously reject every attempt by the defense to publicly disseminate incitement” (Page 3 of Ruling).  By “publicly disseminate,” Dr. Meinerzhagen, Hamm and Krebs-Dörr are referring to my reading in the main trial, the evidentiary exhibits I had announced in my submission of 18 October 2005 .  The law clearly prescribes such a reading, however.

In the defense brief I had stated that in defending Mr. Zündel I would attack the “Offenkundigkeit des Holocausts” Manifest Obviousness of the Holocaust) as dogma put forth by Jewish organizations.  I said I would prove with objective and scientifically verifiable evidence that this “Manifest Obviousness” has been illusory from its very inception.

The above named persons were perfectly aware of the weight of my argument from the exhibits submitted with the Defense Brief, namely the book “Lectures on Holocaust” by Germar Rudolf and the evidentiary motion by attorney Horst Mahler, which he had also submitted in his own behalf during the Berlin Judaism trial.  My Defense Brief also included references to the founding speech by the expert on national and international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid, before the Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948, as well as references to Article 146 of the Basic Law and references to ongoing rulings by the Constitutional Court that reaffirm the continuing existence of the Reich.

I also announced that I would submit evidentiary motions designed to prove the following:

1) The Federal Republic of Germany is not a nation or state, but rather, in Prof. Carlo Schmid’s words, an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Domination” (OMF); that is, foreign domination that has not legitimate, but rather purely factual significance;

2) The main victor of the Second World War, by means of this apparatus of foreign domination and in continuation of its war of annihilation against the German Reich, is continuing to pursue its war aim, which is the annihilation of the German nation as a racially and intellectually comprehensive community.

      It is pursuing this war aim by means of psychological warfare, specifically and in particular with the “ Auschwitz cudgel.”

3) Consequently, the prosecution of the German freedom fighter Ernst Zündel constitutes a warlike act by our enemies, who are using the courts of the OMF-BRD as an elite troop against the German nation, specifically in the realm of Holocaust legislation.

The signers of the court order dated 7 November 2005 are in fact declaring their intentions to keep these proceedings secret.  In order to hide their true intentions, they are prepared to abandon legitimate criminal procedure and “muzzle” me by means of a court ordered obligation to present all motions in written form only, without benefit of reading them aloud before the Court.

They would not have arrived at such a drastic decision if they had really believed that the arguments of the Defense were “ridiculous” and the attorney for the defense “out of her mind.”  There is nothing they would have liked better than to see me make myself ridiculous with absurd arguments for which there is no documentary or forensic evidence.  However, they now realize that this is not going to happen.  They know that the arguments of the defense are factually irrefutable.

In Paragraph 130, Section III of Penal Code, the court ruling of 7 Nov 2005 includes the contention that genocide of the Jews (called Holocaust) “is factually presumed” so that “every defense motion to prove this is disallowed” (Page 2 of ruling.)  Let us put this statement to a little test.

Given this tatbestandliche Voraussetzung (presumption that a criminal act has been committed), would not a judge still be required to rule in a Holocaust Denial case, even If he himself (possibly after reading a scientific study such as Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust”) were convinced that the “Holocaust Industry” is a Jewish fabrication?  Such a ruling would constitute a verdict against the truth as perceived by the judge.  Any judge who issued such a verdict would be breaking his sworn oath, namely: “I swear to the best of my knowledge and conscience, to judge and to pursue no ends except truth and justice.”  Would Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Dörr-Krebs (judges in the present Zündel trial) sign statements to the effect that in such a situation, they would judge and act in violation of the oath they took as judges?  This would be extremely unlikely.

The point to be made is: in reaching his verdict, a judge’s misgivings about “Holocaust” clearly constitute an obstacle to his deciding against conviction.  When this happens in a trial, the efforts of the defense to create precisely this obstacle by means of scientifically verifiable evidentiary offerings cannot legitimately be suppressed as “alien to the defense.”  A motion to present such evidence would in fact be the Königsweg (high road) to a verdict of “not guilty,” thus making it incumbent upon counsel to follow this very path. 

In view of this, do the above named jurists still persist in their illegal and unethical refusal to consider evidence?  Do they prefer to leave it to chance and co-incidence, whether or not, on basis of his personal knowledge, a judge has doubts concerning “Holocaust?”

The picture is rounded out by Dr. Meinerzhagen’s procedural disposition announced on 16 February 2006 concerning Selbstleseverfahren, the introduction of the collected texts of Ernst Zündel into the main proceedings.  The court wants a “ghost trial,” a show trial carried out through secret proceedings, in which the public can learn absolutely nothing about what is really going on.  From the very beginning, Judge Meinerzhagen has illegally directed the prosecution, repeatedly disrupted the main proceedings with his machinations, and brought the entire trial to the verge of collapse.

His rulings to muzzle me were acts of despotic supremacy placing „den Makel der Nichtigkeit auf der Stirn“ (“branding my forehead with the Stigma of Invalidity.”)

I hereby give notice that I intend to oppose to the limits of my ability this assault on the most hallowed principles of German criminal justice.  When I circumvent the illegal rulings of Dr. Meinerzhagen and explain the efforts of the defense to the public, I am performing my duty and exercising the right to defend Ernst Zündel and the German Reich.

Sylvia Stolz, Rechtsanwältin

[1] BGH, JR 1980, 218

[2]   a.a.O., RdNr. 29

[3]   a.a.O., RdNr. 29

[4]   a.a.O., RdNr. 29


Letter from Horst Mahler

First of all, I doubt that legally binding convictions will result from the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf and the other combatants in the struggle against the absurd Offenkundigkeit (“manifest obviousness”) of the Holocaust.  However, I must correct an error that Germar made.  In his case, as well as the cases of Zündel and Verbeke, the government might well pronounce sentences considerably longer than five years. 

Five years is the present maximum sentence for the "crime" of denying the Holocaust.  However, Germar and several others have repeatedly "committed the crime."  Consequently the OMF/BRD judiciary (Prof. Carlo Schmid’s Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule) must churn out a sentence of up to five years for each individual instance. 

Then they establish the sum of the individual sentences, and from that they interpolate a total sentence somewhere between the highest individual sentence and the sum of the other sentences.  The absolute maximum would be 15 years.

For a single instance of “Denying Holocaust” that occurred 16 years ago, David Irving has been sentenced to 3 years without probation.  This is wonderful news!  It is the death knell of § 130 III StGB (Paragraph 130 Article III of the Penal Code -- the “Holocaust Denial statute".)  Foreign domination of the Reich is beginning to falter.  If against expectations, legally binding convictions do result from the present batch of prosecutions, I feel certain the "perpetrators" will be set free within 3 to 5 years.  Foreign rule is losing its power to keep them imprisoned for longer than that.  

Without a doubt, Ernst Zündel's case is already bringing about a breakthrough in the judicial world, thanks to a very simple argument presented by Sylvia Stolz in the Mannheim trial.

The ruling by the 6th Criminal High Court of Mannheim District on 7 Nov 2005 contains the official statement that genocide directed against the Jews – the so called Holocaust – "tatbestandlich vorausgesetzt werde" (is assumed regarding the facts of the case”) in § 130 III StGB (Paragraph 130 III of the Criminal Code), and consequently all evidence submitted in denial of this assumption is disallowed.”  Let us see what we can do with this statement by the court.

Given this tatbestandliche Voraussetzung (official presumption that a criminal act has been committed), would not a judge still be required to rule in a Holocaust Denial case, even If  he himself (possibly after reading a scientific study such as Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust”) were convinced that the “Holocaust Industry” is an extortionate fabrication?  Such a ruling would constitute a verdict against perceived truth!  Any judge who issued such a verdict would be breaking his sworn oath: “I swear to the best of my knowledge and conscience, to judge and to pursue no ends except truth and justice.” 

Would Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Dörr-Krebs (judges in the present Zündel trial) sign statements to the effect that in such a situation, they would judge and act in violation of the oath they took as judges?  Not likely!

The point to be made is that in reaching his verdict, a judge’s misgivings about “Holocaust” can be an obstacle to deciding against conviction.  If this should happen in the course of a Holocaust trial, the efforts of the defense to create precisely this obstacle by presenting of scientifically verifiable evidence, can not be suppressed as “alien to the defense!”  In fact, a motion to present such evidence would be the Königsweg (high road) to a verdict of not guilty, and it is ethically incumbent upon the defense to follow this very path.  Or do the above named jurists prefer to cling to an illegal refusal to submit evidence?  Do they prefer to leave to co-incidence, whether or not, on basis of his personal knowledge, a judge has misgivings about “Holocaust”?  Judges in Holocaust denial cases who express a willingness to reach a verdict, even though they consider the “Holocaust” a monstrous swindle, are thereby exposing themselves as dishonorable wretches exhibiting moral turpitude.  They have to be removed from the bench forthwith!

Judges who leave justice to blind chance are no less criminal.  The same is true of those judges who persist in asserting “Offenkundigkeit” even though scientists and historians such as Germar Rudolf have assembled undeniable proofs that “Holocaust” was feigned and fabricated from the beginning.  The sentences imposed by these judges show that at present, the more convincing the proof of fraud by the "Holocaust Industry," the more severe the sentence imposed on the person who exposes it.  Sylvia Stolz included Rudolf's “Lectures” among the trial documents with a pronounced undertone of warning to Holocaust jurists, and it is a very good sign that after she had done so, Dr. Meinerzhagen, Hamm, Dörr-Krebs and Dr. Tittle (presiding judge of Verden District Court in the case of the Bundeswehr physician Dr. Rigolf Hennig) all chose to abandon the Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) argument.

This “assumption regarding a criminal act” that they are now attempting to substitute is a godsend!  Now even the dimmest wit in all the land is able to perceive what the powers of foreign domination are doing to Germany .  Not all jurists in the service of the OMF-BRD are scoundrels!  It was difficult to overcome the fiction of Offenkundigkeit; it cost Revisionists decades of unremitting toil to accomplish this, whereas logical thinking can demolish the government’s “factual presupposition of criminal activity” in the blink of an eye. This thought experiment must be constantly held before the jurists’ eyes.  They must be forced to acknowledge its compelling logic and demand a movement to abolish Paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code, or at least support such a movement.

I am counting on your assistance.  We must apply leverage at other points as well.  The enemy expects to have an easy task in the OMF “courts;”  he thinks that all he will have to do is slander the arguments of Germans who want to be German as  “Nazi propaganda” and he will again prevail, just as in the past.  Now, however, the apparent strength of the enemy is turning out to be a strategic weakness.  The court’s vituperation of the National Socialist world view offers us the opportunity of countering enemy propaganda by judicial means.

Naional Socialism Is a World View

Article 4 of Basic Law provides that “Freedom of religion and avowal of one’s world view are inviolable.”  We are now going to make this our fortress!  A confession of belief in National Socialism must be as little to the detriment of Germans as confessions of belief in Judaism or Christianity.  Since World War II the enemy has successfully denied acknowledgement that expression of support for National Socialism is freedom of confession of a world view.  The enemy did this by contending that National Socialism is “contemptuous of humanity” and therefore not protected by Article 4 of Basic Law.  In refutation of this, we shall strike a blow for our liberation by proving that it is Judaism that advocates contempt for humanity and a horrifying inclination to genocide.  In this way we can demonstrate that it is the devil himself who is demonizing National Socialism.  And whom does the devil demonize? – The Saviour, of course!

According to the findings of Prof. Götz Aly, 95% of all Germans [1] experienced the rule of National Socialism “not as a system of terror and oppression, but rather as a government of social caring, as a kind of benevolent dictatorship.[2]  As late as1948, the majority of Germans (57%) were still of the opinion that National Socialism “was a good idea.”[3] This nation would never have voluntarily inflicted upon itself the disgrace of spiritual self mutilation that has been forced on it.  On its own volition, Germany would not have demonized its chosen leader and thereby itself.  Such a demonization could have been accomplished only by overwhelming military force on the part of the enemies of the Reich, assisted by collaborators of course.  Our enemies continued to wage psychological warfare long after unconditional surrender.  It has been a major part of the never ending military occupation of Germany .

Hitler was the savior of the German people.  The enemies of the Reich, Judaism in particular, forced the War upon Germany in order to put an end to the gospel of the Reich.  As the inventors of modern propaganda, they always knew that given an absolute military victory over the Reich, they would have the means to portray Hitler as the one guilty of the hideous global slaughter of the War. [4]

Now we are finally in a position to expose this deception and present the following solution to the crisis:  “The German nation will not be free again until Germans can again march unhindered under their Hakenkreuz banners, through the Brandenburg Gate.”  At last we are on the proper path to achieving this!

Sieg Heil! 

With patriotic greetings,

Horst Mahler


1) Götz Aly: Nach seiner Ausbildung an der Deutschen Journalistenschule in München studierte er Geschichte und politische Wissenschaften in Berlin , in Politologie promovierte er 1978. 1994 schloß er seine Habilitation am Otto-Suhr-Institut an der Freien Universität Berlin ab. Nach seinem Studium 1973 arbeitete er als Heimleiter in Berlin-Spandau, wurde aber 1976 infolge des Radikalenerlasses für ein Jahr suspendiert. Als Journalist arbeitete Aly unter anderem als Redakteur bei der taz, der Berliner Zeitung und der FAZ. Seit dem Wintersemester 2004/2005 hat Götz Aly eine auf vier Semester angelegte Gastprofessur für interdisziplinäre Holocaustforschung am Fritz Bauer Institut in Frankfurt am Main inne.Hauptthema von Götz Alys Forschung ist die Geschichte des Holocausts und die Beteiligung gesellschaftlicher Eliten an der Vernichtungspolitik im Nationalsozialismus. Dabei arbeitet Aly weitgehend außerhalb des etablierten Wissenschaftsbetriebs. Große Aufmerksamkeit erregte Aly mit seinem 2005 erschienenen, sehr erfolgreichen Buch Hitlers Volksstaat. Aly bezeichnete das NS-Regime als eine „Gefälligkeitsdiktatur“, die durch soziale Fürsorge die Massen ruhig hielt – und die Deutschen damit vom Treiben der Nazis profitierten. Alys Thesen blieben jedoch nicht unwidersprochen. Für seine Arbeit ist Aly mehrfach ausgezeichnet worden, 2002 erhielt er den Heinrich-Mann-Preis, 2003 den Marion-Samuel-Preis der „Stiftung Erinnerung“. Quelle:

2) Götz Aly in DER SPIEGEL Nr. 10/2005 S. 56

3) Der Spiegel Nr. 20/2003 S. 47

4) Meiser, Hans, Das Tribunal - Der größte Justizskandal der Weltgeschichte/ Ein deutsches Drama /Hans Meiser.– Tübingen, Grabert-Verlag, 2005, ISBN 3-87847-218-8 


 On Ernst Zündel

  From:  Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006 3:41 PM

Subject: Prozeß gegen Ernst gestern, 26.4., Fortsetzung 12. Mai, 13Uhr

Andrang gestern wieder recht groß, aber weniger Leute als das letzte Mal. - Frau Stolz und Horst Mahler unter den Zuhörern. RA Rieger NICHT anwesend. Polizeipräsenz geringer als das letzte Mal, jedoch wieder strenge Einlaßkontrolle. Eingangs wurde die Ablehnung einiger Befangenheitsanträge begründet wie auch das Vorgehen gerechtfertigt, große Teile des "Breweismaterial" im sog. Selbstleseverfahren in den Prozeß einzuführen.

Die Zuhörer bekamen indes einiges zu sehen und zu hören:

1. ein Ausschnitt aus einer Sendung des Polit-Magazins FRONTAL. Eine Rainer Fromm muß Ernst 1998/99 in Toronto aufgesucht haben. Im Grunde nichtssagend!

2. Der ganze Mitschnitt des Zündel-Radios FREIHEIT - eine ganze Stunde - zum Thema "Politische Justiz", erste Ausstrahlung; angeblich von den kanadischen Sicherheitsbehörden den Deutschen - BKA - Bundeskriminalamt übergeben.

3. Verlesen Ingrid Rimlands Briefes an Dr. Meinerzhagen. in ganzer Länge.

All dies diente wohl dazu, Ernst als die "Spinne im Netz" darzustellen, also DER Urheber (!) schlechthin.

Ich fahre jetzt nach Wien, wo ich heute Abend einen Vortrag halte - rd. 750km.

Beste Grüße, Günter

FT: Translation:  On 25 April the trial opened with Ernst Zündel’s defence counsel Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz sitting in the public gallery of the court, with Rieger not present. There were fewer police about but the same thorough control checks for those entering the court. The judge rejected the application that he recuse himself on grounds of bias, and also rejected the application that evidentiary material not be accepted without reading it in open court. The court was then presented with 1. an extract from the political magazine FRONTAL – a Reiner Fromm must have visited Ernst in 1998/99 in Toronto . 2. An hour-long copy of Ernst Zündel’s Radio Freiheit discussing political freedom; 3. Ingrid’s letter to Judge Meinerzhagen was read out in full. I presume this will all serve to indicate that Ernst is the string-puller in all this. I am now going to Vienna where I will give a talk – about 750km. Best wishes, Günter.

From: C M -

Sent: Monday, 1 May 2006 2:02 AM

Subject: Dr. Toben - My most recent letter from Ernst Zündel - 25, February, 2006

Dear Curtis,

So much is happening, so much I’d love to comment on, bur because I am restricted to five pages I can’t expand on anything, so I’ll jot it down telegram style and leave it up to you to flesh it out. I know you’ll understand these items because of your medical background, and your expertise in bacteriology and virology. While my last letter dealt most with bird flu in Asia , Thailand , Vietnam , Cambodia and China , which will be the epi-center of any frightening new diseases, which will undoubtedly claim millions, tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions.

Strangely enough, that weird article from the CDC on Geophagy [the eating of dirt and clay] got me to thinking. Somewhere towards the end of the article the author pointed out that important microbes were ingested along with the mineral laden clay/dirt and how those microbes were thought to play an important role in the immune system, in the development of a healthy immune response, especially in children. In other words forget the damage being done to our immune systems by way of vaccinations, perhaps we aren’t getting fully immunized as nature intended because of our deficient diets. According to this article from the CDC, if our immune system isn’t fully charged by our teen years, it never will be. You could eat truck loads of dirt after that critical age, but your immune system won’t respond, the window of opportunity [an optimally healthy immune response] is irrevocably lost! Thus we need to be exposed to dirt as a child, a super hygienic environment isn’t healthy, it’s counter-productive.

If a child is raised in an antiseptic, super clean environment, chances are the child will be a veritable ‘sitting duck,’ for the rest of his or her life!

My sister’s son went to train as a Master Chef at a cooking school, and got the various licenses and certifications required for such work. He told me during a visit in the 1990s that people of the war time generation, and children born immediately after, that we were the healthiest generation to come along, that we, primarily because we had been exposed to the dirt, dust, grit and grime of a post war Germany, that our immune systems were super advanced, super developed. We the miserable, hollow cheeked waifs and strays you could see playing on the piles of debris, rubble and dirt was our playmate, illnesses our constant companions. That CDC article on Geophagy basically asserted the same thing, those exposed to soil early, developed the hardiest immune systems.

I remember my sister hunting for worms in a makeshift sandbox – happily digging away, dirt smeared ear to era. She grew up to be as tough as nails!

My nephew told me about busload of tourists that happened through the restaurant he was working at, the busload was composed of many people of different ages. The seventeen year olds developed upset stomachs as a result of some minor food borne pathogen, but the older generation didn’t even seem to notice, thought the food excellent and well prepared. He said that older Germans of this generation were referred to as the generation with the ‘eiserne Magen,” or iron stomachs! Interesting, eh? So the young mollycoddled generation was incapacitated with diarrhea and the like, while their fathers raised in the late 1950s and their grandfathers before and during the war went on and had a good time, not to mention a good meal!

So, what you may ask has all this to do with the coming bird flu? Maybe a lot - maybe life and death. I was thinking back to my travels in India , South Asia , Hong Kong , Taiwan and Singapore and how closely people there lived intermingled with every sort of animal. When I was a child I, too, lived in an environment surrounded by chickens, goats, sheep, cats, dogs, rats, and their droppings. Often, I was in animal waste up to my elbows. Bird flu can be transmitted via bird feces - remember that. So, I wonder if those living close to the earth so to speak, i.e. those in close contact with the animals themselves and their feces, will fare better than those that have never been exposed, i.e. the generations brought up in hygienic environments. Thus the poor primitive people living close to the earth will be infinitely better prepared or protected to face something on the order of bird flu than their ‘civilized’ cousins.

So, we think just because we have ‘advanced,’ to the point where we no longer live in close proximity to animals, we are somehow healthier, and/or safer from disease. Wouldn’t it be something if the exact opposite were actually the case?

In the case of bird flu, migratory birds are really the problem; they travel everywhere, and crap everywhere. What a mess. The bird flu virus lives for quite some time in the feces of birds. One cannot quarantine birds and their feces; they’ll fly over and deposit the virus anywhere they like. No matter the precautions one takes, at some point, one will come into contact with bird feces. There is literally no way to protect oneself against it, at least not completely, and if we Europeans and European Americans think our cleanliness will protect us, perhaps we’d best think again, perhaps our cleanliness will actually work against us. For if the CDC article is correct, we are about the most immune-compromised people on earth. Think about it, what is it that causes all of these odd allegies that seem so common today. People are allergic to things nobody thought anyone could be allergic to a few decades ago. All of our babies are raised on homogenized milk, pasteurized, sterilized, all cooked to death, enzyme dead.

So, perhaps we are far less equipped to deal wit something like the bird flu than the Asians. So perhaps we westerners are a threatened species, our very cleanliness and hygienic standards will work against us – what a concept. What’s very important here is that we can’t afford, like the Chinese to lose hundreds of millions of individuals, we’d never recover, we’d become extinct. The Muslims, Chinese, Indians, have a built in ‘safety in numbers,’ program – WE HAVE NO SUCH MARGIN! We are not even replacing ourselves currently, 140,000 more Germans died last year than were born, and that includes the non-German migrant population! Italy , Hungary and Russia are even worse off.

I don’t mean to be a Schwabian Cassandra, but logic and common sense dictate a careful look at all these potential dangers and trends – we have in a very real sense left the ideological age behind and have entered the terrible reality of the biological age. We are all keenly aware of what a computer virus can do to our hardware and software; we invest billions annually in measures to protect our computers from these so called viruses, so one wonders why we haven’t learned anything about viruses of the biological kind. Is it that it would be politically incorrect? Are we in some kind of denial? Is it too much for our minds to cope with? Somewhere, we are collectively malfunctioning.

So once again, the only defense seems to be individual protective measures, a pro-active, pre-emptive life style, that is unless we want to follow the dinosaur and Do-Do into extinction. I just read in a German magazine that the bird flu has revealed itself in Nigeria , Africa ’s most populous country. Migratory bird s that are now down there, in sub-Saharan Africa , will soon be flying north and bringing the virus with them.

That’s it from prison.

Ernst Zündel.



Grave Error by Robert Fisk on the Subject of Victor Klemperer’s Diary

Robert FAURISSON, 6 April 2006

Robert Fisk is the journalist of The Independent ( London ) who has made rather a name for himself with his many reports on the current situation of the Palestinians, whom he bravely describes as victims of their country’s invasion and occupation by the Jewish Army. His courage has earned him enemies. Is it in order to disarm those enemies that, from time to time, he stridently takes up the cause of the religion of the “Jewish Holocaust” and heads off to war against the revisionists?

Just recently, on April 1st, he wrote an article entitled “A lesson from the Holocaust for us all. This account fills one with rage that anyone could deny the reality of the Jewish genocide” (Independent, p. 35).

The “account” in question is the book compiled from the testimony of the German Jew Victor Klemperer on the period from 1933 to 1945. V. Klemperer (1881-1960) was the cousin of orchestral conductor Otto Klemperer. He lived in Dresden until the atrocious bombing raids of February 1945, and then in Western Germany . After the war, he went back to Dresden where he resumed his teaching of Romance languages and enrolled in the Communist Party, perhaps out of opportunism or necessity. As far as political convictions were concerned, he, like many Jews of his time, rejected Zionism and held Hitler to be a promoter of that Jewish ideology. What has been published of his 5,000 pages of diary, with, unhappily, many cuts, is gripping. Actually, his testimony is a black mark on those who assiduously tend the “Holocaust” myth.

Robert Fisk portrays V. Klemperer as an “infinitely heroic” man up against the cruelty of the Dresden Gestapo. However, V. Klemperer never showed any heroism. If, in 1941, he spent 192 hours in a cell at Dresden police headquarters, it was merely for … failure to respect the blackout ordered by the civil defence authorities! Besides, according to his own words, the personnel there showed themselves on the whole to be kind, polite and good-humoured and, when the prisoner complained of being bored, he was supplied with pencil and paper as requested. On returning to his rooms at the “Jews House” of Dresden , he was, he wrote, “feted a little as a kind of martyr”. Till the end the National Socialist State kept on disbursing his university professor’s pension. Fisk evokes his hero’s “compassion”, in a certain set of circumstances, for three German soldiers lost in a forest towards the very end of the war. However, if there are aspects of his diary that the reader will find striking, these are, on the contrary, V. Klemperer’s egocentrism, judeocentrism, callousness at times, his desire for vengeance against the Jews’ enemies and his disgust at seeing the German people decidedly set to go on fighting to the end, even after the bombing of Dresden. Nonetheless he is indeed obliged to admit that, on the whole, the German population showed a capacity for consideration towards the wearer of the yellow star, on many occasions with the most touching thoughtfulness. To such a degree that his memoirs, published in German in 1995, English in 1998 and French in 2000, bluntly refute the argument maintained by American author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996), which aims to confirm the German people’s intrinsically perverse and anti-Jewish character. Even Martin Chalmers, who prefaced the Klemperer book’s English edition, took it upon himself to make that remark. Klemperer wrote: “There is no doubt that the people feel the persecution of the Jews to be a sin” (Fraglos empfindet das Volk die Judenverfolgung als Sünde, note of October 4, 1941 ). He related an abundance of anecdotes or “real little facts” along the same lines, all in the everyday life of a Jew in the midst of Hitler’s Germany .

As regards the “Jewish genocide”, Fisk offers us the “Six Million murdered Jews” as an established truth. On the subject of Auschwitz , he specifies that Klemperer had heard about it “as early as March 1942, although he did not realise the scale of the mass murders there until the closing months of the war”. In reality, Klemperer, like many others, had taken note of rumours about Auschwitz at various times during the war but it was only after the end of the conflict and under the Soviet occupation that a certain “Doctor Kussy” was to tell him “appalling things about Auschwitz” and, notably, the gassing of “all those without strength” and of “all wearers of eyeglasses” (note of September 24, 1945; the English version goes no further than June 1945).

Concerning “gassings”, Klemperer had, during the war, noted only the following remark: “People have long been saying that many of the evacuees don’t even arrive in Poland alive. They were being gassed in cattle trucks during the journey, and the truck then stopped on the line by an already-dug mass grave” (note of February 27, 1943), a piece of “information” that was only one amidst so many other inventions of the war propaganda coming from anti-German quarters.

No revisionist disputes the fact that many hardships were inflicted on the Jews by National Socialist Germany and her allies. Those hardships grew heavier as the conflict itself grew heavier. But since “to judge is to compare”, it is important to compare the measures taken against the Jews with those that the Allies, during and after the war, inflicted on their opponents, their prisoners, on the defeated populations, on the minorities that they deemed hostile or dangerous. From this point of view, the assessment remains to be drawn. In any case, the V. Klemperer’s lot was enviable when seen against what tens of millions of civilians and soldiers of both sides had to endure, at least from 1939 to 1950.     

Robert Fisk has wanted to show us his faith in “the Holocaust” and, for that purpose, has chosen to invoke the testimony of Victor Klemperer. In doing so, he has committed a grave historical error, for the diary kept by the German Jew V. Klemperer throughout the entire Nazi period proves most plainly that the Third Reich never followed a policy of extermination of the Jews. The National Socialists treated the Jews first as an undesirable minority, then as a hostile and dangerous group in wartime. They planned a “territorial final solution of the Jewish question”. They never stopped offering to hand over all of their own Jews to the Allies. With the coming of war, they took a great number of police, surveillance, prohibition or confiscation measures. They put many Jews to forced labour. They deported others and interned them in concentration camps. Still other Jews were, in a way, treated like prisoners on probation. Such was the case of V. Klemperer, who was free to move about, in and around Dresden , amidst the German population, but only within the strict conditions decreed by the regulations in force.

In Los Angeles in 2002, at a conference of the Institute for Historical Review, I had the occasion to give a talk on the proceedings and punishment carried out by the authorities of the Third Reich, particularly the military ones, in the cases of crimes committed against Jews. During that talk, I brought up, in passing, V. Klemperer’s diary. Upon getting wind of the matter, R. Fisk strongly protested against what seemed to him an invention on my part and I recall having had to substantiate what I had said. Today, I note that he wants to show us that he has read V. Klemperer’s diary. I am afraid he may have gone over it hastily and suggest therefore that he re-read closely the whole of the work, either in its German version in eight little volumes (Berlin, Aufbau Taschenbuch, 1999), or in its English version in two big volumes and 1,120 pages (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson Paperback, 1998). He will thus learn much about the myth of the “Holocaust” and be better informed about the revisionists, including President Ahmadinejad, whom he sharply — and altogether wrongly — attacks in his article.      

Just for the period from September 12, 1931 to July 17, 1945 , the typed manuscript of notes taken by Victor Klemperer amounts to 5,000 pages, according to the Sächsischer Landtag Bibliothek (Library of the Land Parliament of Saxony) in Dresden .

German edition: Tagebücher, herausgegeben von Walter Nowojski unter Mitarbeit von Hadwig Klemperer , Berlin , Aufbau-Verlag, 1995. Edition consulted: that published in 8 paperback volumes (1,800 pages) by ATV, 1999, covering the period from June 14, 1933 to June 10, 1945 .

English edition: A Diary of the Nazi Years, translated by Martin Chalmers, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London & Random House, New York , 1998. Edition consulted: that published in 2 volumes (1,120 pages in small print), by The Modern Library, New York , 1999, covering the same period as the German edition.

French edition: Journal, translated by Ghislain Riccardi, Paris, Seuil, 2000. In two volumes  (1,851 pages) covering the same period as the aforementioned editions as well as that from June 17 to December 31, 1945 , and containing, in an appendix, a letter dated January 6, 1947 . Translated by Michèle Küntz-Tailleur and Jean Tailleur, this supplement is interesting for the light that it throws both on the period in question and on the author.


More ‘Holocaust’ trials info -

Germany Charges Two With Holocaust Denial, Wednesday April 19, 2006 2:46 AM

BERLIN (AP) - A far-right activist extradited from the United States and a Belgian - both accused of denying the Holocaust - have been charged with incitement, German prosecutors said Tuesday. Germar Rudolf and Siegfried Verbeke are accused of ``systematically'' denying or playing down the Nazi genocide of Europe 's Jews in documents and on the Internet and of stirring anti-Semitic hatred, prosecutors in the western city of Mannheim said. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany , where it carries a maximum sentence of five years. Rudolf, a 41-year-old German who published a study claiming to prove that the Nazis did not gas Jews at the Auschwitz concentration camp, was deported to Germany from the U.S. in November to serve a 14-month sentence for a 1995 conviction on similar charges. Verbeke, a 64-year-old Belgian, was arrested in the Netherlands and also was extradited to Germany in November. Prosecutors in Mannheim already are leading a similar but unrelated case against Ernst Zundel, a German deported from Canada last year.,,-5764759,00.html


From:, Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006

Subject: David Irving Fires Lawyer & Suffers Further Harassment

David Irving Fires Lawyer & Suffers Further Harassment

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Political prisoner David Irving, a world famous historian now serving three years in an Austrian prison for denying Austria’s new state religion of holocaust, has fired his old lawyer and taken on a real fighter.

Lady Michele Renouf reports: “Good news is that David Irving has dumped his left-wing lawyer Dr Kresbach who had issued no protest about the inhuman ban on Irving making any phone calls, even to his family, as punishment for giving press interviews, unless he submits the telephone number and his request to the prison authorities at least a week in advance. Even so, his elder brother waited in all day for such a pre-arranged call Easter Sunday  and got that call when he was out, one week later! There are urgent family, serious legal and business matters about which we need Mr. Irving's authorisation and imput to act in his family and future interests.  Michele“ Mr. Irving has replaced Kresbach with Dr Herbert Schaller, the veteran (80 years old) Austrian lawyer he had in the 1980s (and who Ernst has, though Judge Meinerzhagen wanted him thrown out as "too old"!).  Good man.  He was in the public gallery during David Irving's trial.” By all accounts Dr. Schaller is a real alte kampfer – an old fighter,

just the sort of scrapper a scrapper like David Irving needs. Mr. Irving’s case – an appeal against his three year sentence – comes up in September. CAFÉ is collecting money to assist  David Irving’s defence. Send an e-mail with your VISA and expiry date or mail your cheque to Canadian Association for Free Expression, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada. 


From: Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2006 , Subject: The Macabre Holocaust Numbers Game

Readers, "It's a mistake for patriots to appear to minimize the Jewish holocaust. Its makes them look stupid and insensitive and discredits them." More at I welcome your comments at Have a great long weekend. Henry.

Fredrick Töben comments: 'Holocaust' believers: factual truth-telling above telling lies?

16 April 2006

1. By making the above statement Dr Henry Makow is condoning and propagating pure German hatred.

2. To date Germans are not permitted to defend themselves against such horrendous allegations - note the hunt for REVISIONISTS who refuse to believe in the 'Holocaust'  because the factual evidence does not persuade that the Jewish story of 1.systematic extermination, 2. six million murders, and 3. existence of homicidal gas chambers is factually based. To date the 'Holocaust'  believers have not proven their case

3. This definition of the 'Holocaust'-Shoah shows that anyone who believes in the 'Holocaust' is either ignorant of the physical facts or a liar.

4. 'Holocaust' belief needs to be defined, otherwise Dr Makow can be accused of being a liar when he writes about his personal views on the 'Holocaust'.

5. How can a lie be minimized by REVISIONISTS telling the truth about the 'Holocaust'?

6. On a personal note - my father served in the German armed forces during World War Two. Henry Makow's comment makes my father a member of a murderous regime that exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz . I claim it as my right to investigate such an allegation, as I and others have, and found the assertion that Henry is making to be baseless because to date 'Holocaust'  believers have not proven any of their most serious allegations levelled against members of the German war machine: i. Where is the proof that it was six million Jews that Germans killed? ii. Where is the proof that this killing was done 'systematically' as a state policy?  iii. Where is the evidence for the existence of a murder weapon-homicidal gas chamber?

7. The 'Holocaust' is a lie, a myth and is now a dogma sold as a religion. I have let myself be disappointed by Henry's mindset that has so clearly revealed its own blind spot - just like individuals who claim that the USA government is becoming a Nazi/fascist government. The use of such concepts, as did David Irving recently, indicates a serious breakdown in moral and intellectual integrity.


Publisher charged with defending genocide, 12 April 2006

BARCELONA — A publisher has been charged with defending genocide for producing neo-Nazi books. Pedro Varela is the owner of Europa bookshops in Barcelona and also owns a publishing house which distributes books via the Internet. All the books deny the Holocaust took place, say police. Varela starting publishing books in October last year and has issued thousands of copies of some 20 books. Police raided his bookshop and seized 5,000 copies this week. Varela was jailed for five years in 1998 for similar charges of denying the Holocaust. Neighbours in the Gracia area of Barcelona where his bookshop is situated have campaigned to get rid of Varela.They even persuaded the local council to change the name of the road to Calle Anne Frank, after the child diarist who was killed in a concentration camp. Copyright EFE with Expatica.


Former Austrian politician receives suspended sentence for denying aspects of Holocaust

By The Associated Press , 19:03 26/04/2006

John Gudenus, a former legislator in Austria's upper house of parliament, declared in an Austrian television interview in April 2005 that the existence of gas chambers in the Third Reich should be "seriously debated." In a later interview, he amended the remarks to say that "there were gas chambers, though not in the Third Reich but in Poland." Gudenus's lawyer, Farid Rifaat, argued in a packed Vienna court that Gudenus never generally denied the existence of gas chambers, but that he

simply called for examination of the question of whether they existed between 1933 and 1938. After 1938, when Rifaat said the Third Reich became known as the Greater German Reich following the annexation of Austria, the existence of gas chambers was "indisputable" for his client, he said in comments quoted by the Austria Press Agency. "I am not at all unsure about gas chambers in the Greater German Reich. Concerning gas chambers in the Third Reich, I would still like to express some uncertainty," Gudenus said in his defense, as quoted by APA. The state attorney rejected Gudenus' argument, saying that with his comments, he denied "fundamental elements of Nazi terror," APA reported. Gudenus also was criticized last year for claiming that concentration camp victims on a photo in the Mauthausen concentration camp memorial site looked better than himself. According to Austrian law, Gudenus, could have faced up to 10 years in prison for denying the Holocaust if found guilty by the

eight-member panel of jurors.


Nation-States Gone Wild: The Persecution of David Irving

Mark Hand FEBRUARY 20, 2006

Will the European governments that ban any talk about the Nazis not having murdered 6 million Jews start rounding up the newspaper editors who published the Muhammad cartoons and start putting them on trial for crimes against Islam? European governments and their media mouthpieces appear to use the mantle of free speech to justify publishing supposed insults against Muslims. But what about the free speech rights of people who dare to go against conventional thinking of Nazi atrocities committed against Europe’s Jews?

These Holocaust deniers, revisionists and skeptics don’t have any rights to free speech in many European countries (and Canada), unlike their brethren who dare to publish images of the Prophet Muhammad but don’t face criminal charges. David Irving now must spend the next three years in prison for giving two speeches in Austria in 1989. Ernst Zundel faces up to five years in prison for publishing his opinions on the Zundelsite website while living in Canada.

Should people who downplay the Confederate States of America’s treatment of slaves and the U.S. government’s treatment of Native Americans face criminal charges? Should the people who publicly contend that the U.S. government was justified in killing hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki face criminal charges? Should the people who deny the wickedness of the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq faces criminal charges? Should the people who deny the wickedness of Israel’s conduct against Palestinians face criminal charges? Of course not!

We are dealing with a simple yet extremely dangerous case of nation-states gone wild. Instead of addressing their complicity in modern-day atrocities—such as providing either unabashed logistical support for or tacit approval of the U.S. government’s crimes around the world—these governments arrest people for public speech.

Irving, Zundel and others who face criminal charges of “denying the Holocaust” have not committed violence against anybody. They have not given orders to soldiers to invade and occupy another country. They have not given orders to police or soldiers to arrest and imprison individuals without charges. They have not given approval to secret police, soldiers or prison guards to torture individuals.

Irving, Zundel and others have expressed their opinions about one of the most despicable periods in our world’s history. These expressions might anger people. But these people are not in positions of power today that would give them the means to implement policies that mimic the conduct of the Nazis.

Today, the leaders of liberal democratic governments are the ones with the authority (and police and military firepower) to mimic selected policies of the Nazis and the policies of other notorious regimes in our world’s history without fear they will face the consequences of their deadly actions.

If one does not like what some people might say or write about the Holocaust, then that person should ignore it. If one does not like images of the Prophet Muhammad published in newspapers, then that person should ignore them.

What we should not ignore is when nation-states, with their monopoly on violence, lock up people for expressing their opinions about government atrocities committed 60 years ago. More important, we should not ignore the fact that the governments that are locking up individuals for speaking their mind about the actions of the Nazis are the same governments aiding and abetting (or refusing to denounce and stop) the atrocities committed today by the world’s only superpower and its confederates.

A sign supporting Irving’s release


Top | Home

©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute