German courts are forbidden by orders from higher up to accept such motions to introduce evidence, as is stated in Article 97 of the German Basic Law: “Judges are independent and subject only to the Law.”
Germany’s Basic Law, which was negotiated between German politicians and primarily the U.S. occupational forces right after WWII, is considered to be its constitution, although formally seen it has never been approved by a referendum of the German people, hence lacks formal legitimacy.
One hideous feature of German legal standards is that, when it comes to “the Holocaust,” it pits human dignity against the right to search for the truth. According to this “logic,” the human dignity of all Jews – those who suffered back then and those who live today – depends on everyone accepting the orthodox Holocaust narrative. And since the protection of human dignity is the first and most important article in the German constitution, this has priority over everything else.
What I pointed out first in court was the fact that denying us the search for the truth is an even more serious violation of human dignity than denying the Jews a certain narrative of a detail of their history. After all: what sets us humans apart from bacteria and insects? Isn’t it the capacity to doubt our senses and to systematically search for the reality behind the mere semblance.
Resistance Is Obligatory – Germar Rudolf
In Germany, if a person is taken to court on the charge of Holocaust Denial a truly Orwellian law exists that it is illegal to submit evidence to the court that refutes the alleged gas chambers or any other aspect of the Holocaust narrative. It is illegal for the defendant to defend their position. If the defendant attempts to defend their position in court the defendant will be found guilty of Holocaust Denial and further fines or years of imprisonment will be added to the defendant’s punishment for attempting to defend his or her position. If the defendant’s lawyer attempts to defend their client’s position the lawyer will also be charged and convicted of Holocaust Denial as happened to German lawyer Sylvia Stolz.
The truth is no defense. In Germany you can go to jail for telling an audience what the curator of the Auschwitz Museum said about Auschwitz. Can you call the curator as a witness? No. The truth is no defense. One can go to prison for reporting scientific findings regarding the alleged homicdal gas chambers. Is science a defense? No. They criminalize the honest practice of science. It is a crime to speak the truth.
The precedence of individual rights and the distinction between the expression of opinion and claims of fact underlie the prohibition of the so-called “Auschwitz-Lüge” (“Auschwitz lie”). The expression was first coined by right-wing extremists and anti-Semites both in Germany and elsewhere to deny the systematic mass murder of European Jewry in Auschwitz and other concentration camps under the Nazis. The “lie,” they maintain, was invented by Jews to defame Germans and to exploit them financially. In the meantime, the expression has acquired a broader meaning and now serves as a shorthand description of assertions denying that the Holocaust occurred.
The Criminal Code, in its Sections 185, 189 and 194, prohibits the defamation and denigration of the character of deceased persons and make such denigration punishable by law. The statement that Jews were not persecuted during National Socialism is clearly false. The mass murder of Jews in the gas chambers of the Third Reich is a historical fact that has been proven by countless witness statements and documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research.
In dealing with denial of the Holocaust, criminal law clearly finds itself in conflict with the right to express one’s opinion. While recognizing that prohibiting the “Lüge” represents a limitation of the right to free expression, German jurisprudence holds that the injury to the personal honor of those defamed (Jewish citizens) weighs so heavily that it takes precedence over freedom of expression.
In a ruling issued in April 1994, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed that Holocaust revisionism is not protected under the Basic Law’s guarantee of freedom of opinion. “In weighing the importance of free speech against that of individual rights, courts must consider on the one hand the severity of the offense caused by Holocaust denial to the Jewish population in light of the suffering inflicted upon it by Germany. On the other hand, the opinion expressed is not particularly deserving of protection,” the constitutional court judges wrote, “stemming as it does from a claim of fact that has been proven untrue. This court has consistently protected the personal honor of those defamed above the right of others to make patently false statements.”
The “Auschwitz-Lüge” may also be prosecuted under Section 130 of the Criminal Code, which makes incitement (Volksverhetzung) a punishable offense. The current German legal interpretation of incitement protects public peace and human dignity. The constitutional foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany recognizes no interest that could justify injuring the personal honor and dignity of some of its citizens and promoting enmity and hatred toward them. Germany is not, incidentally, the only nation that considers denial of the Holocaust to be beyond the limits of free speech. France passed a law in 1990 that makes it a criminal offense to dispute the facts of the Holocaust as recognized by French courts or the 1945 international war crimes tribunal held in Nuremberg. A similar law exists in Italy.
Sylvia Stolz “The Reality of Freedom of Expression”
In this video, Sylvia Stolz, who has been called the German Joan of Arc, discusses her experiences as a trial lawyer defending Ernst Zündel and others who have been charged with holocaust denial. A question that people have been asking for a long time is that if the holocaust is based upon such solid evidence, and can withstand historical scrutiny, then why is it against the law to question it, as indeed is the case in France, Germany, and certain other countries?
But the picture of just how repressive things can get in countries where laws like this are on the books is darker and more Kafkaesque than most of us realize. Stolz describes the arbitrary and coercive parameters set by the German legal system when defense attorneys attempt to submit evidence or mount a rational, reasoned defense of their clients. In cases where defendants are charged with holocaust denial, normal judicial procedures and rules of evidence are in essence tossed out the window, making a legal defense practically impossible. What comes through loud and clear from Stolz’s talk is the complete, utter insanity of holocaust denial laws. Here is a bit from the video description:
In the speech, Stolz discusses her experiences as a defence lawyer for so-called Holocaust deniers in Germany, and describes the Orwellian system of state-enforced repression there which denies defendants (and their lawyers!) the right to explain themselves under threat of additional charges for the “repeat offence” of expressing a forbidden idea, even in their own defence in a court of law. Stolz further relates how the subject of the Holocaust itself has never been clearly or adequately defined by the German courts through the normal channel of judicial findings-of-fact in precedent decisions. Instead, the courts have relied on the arbitrary doctrine that the facts of the Holocaust are “self-evident” and thus in no need of proof, despite the obvious objection that the arguments of the “deniers” themselves clearly demonstrate that those facts are indeed contestable and thus cannot be “self-evident” by definition.
In the face of such abuses and absurdities, other lawyers might throw up their hands and simply walk away: Sylvia Stolz has the courage to call injustice what it is, and take a stand. Her speech is an extraordinary document of our times, a deeply moving call “to think what is true, to feel what is beautiful, and to want what is good.” Wherever you may fall along the ideological spectrum, if you believe in freedom of expression, this speech is a must.
Stolz has been arrested, jailed and stripped of her license to practice law. And on February 25, 2015 she was sentenced to 20 months in prison for “racial incitation”… on the basis of statements she made in this speech. The talk was given on November 24, 2012.
Holocaust skeptic Vincent Reynouard sentenced to two years prison in France
In light of all the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ free speech hoopla, the French regime just confirmed their fraudulent stance on the issue by sentencing a man, Vincent Reynouard, to two years in jail for his non-violent historical opinions concerning the ‘Holocaust.’ The ‘free speech’ sham continues in the Talmudic Republic of France.
In France, Holocaust revisionists are now treated as dangerous criminals
Vincent Reynouard, condemned for having the wrong view of history as it pertains to WWII and “Holocaust,” has now been refused a bank account. Is not the right to have a bank account a basic right of citizenship, necessary for carrying on one’s business in modern society … and not a privilege to be taken away for political reasons? This signals that questioning the “Holocaust” is intended to be utterly stamped out, not just discouraged. Also that the private sector is being forced to carry out the policies of the political governmental sector. And it also signals that Vincent Reynouard’s work in this field is effective, ie. successful, and as he is a younger man than Robert Faurisson and not likely to pass from the scene soon on his own — he must be stopped. Reynouard rightly speaks of a religous taboo, saying that “in our modern secularized societies, the Hitlerian “gas chamber” has become a religious taboo. He cites a columnist writing for L’Express: “Holocaust denial is not a hypothesis [to be debated]; Holocaust drew a line beyond which doubt is a crime.” Imagine that this is accepted in a supposedly Democratic society!
Why ‘Holocaust Denial’ Laws are Dangerous
Justice applied selectively is not justice. It is a form of injustice. Because “denial” laws prohibit dissident views about only one chapter of history, they are inherently unfair. They inhibit historical inquiry and restrict free speech.
“Holocaust denial” laws are the result of a well-organized, long-term Jewish campaign. In 1982, the Institute for Jewish Affairs in London, a London-based agency of the World Jewish Congress, announced that it was launching a worldwide campaign to persuade and pressure governments to outlaw “Holocaust denial.” The anti-revisionist laws that were subsequently enacted in several European countries reflect the success of this initiative. Germany enacted its “Holocaust denial” statute in 1985 (amended in 1994), France in 1990, Austria in 1992, Belgium in 1995, and Slovakia in 2001. Underscoring the organized nature of this campaign, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists in June 1998 called for new and more severe laws against “Holocaust denial.”
The ‘Holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
GENERAL REVISIONIST ARTICLES
The Holocaust is the greatest murder-mystery of the 20th century. Six million Jews, we are told, perished at the hands of the Nazis—in gas chambers, ghettos, and concentration camps. They were starved, suffocated, and shot. Their bodies were buried in mass graves, or burned in the ovens of Auschwitz, or on open flames. And all simply because they were Jews. It was the embodiment of evil, the greatest crime ever perpetrated.
Traditional historians claim to know about this crime in great detail. They have documents, photographs, and hard evidence. They have incriminating testimony from key Nazis. Some of the gas chambers have survived. And they have innumerable Jewish eyewitnesses. According to some, it is the “most well-documented event in history.”1
And yet, when we ask detailed and pointed questions, our historians fall short. They don’t really know when, where, or how the Jews died. They have no technical explanation of how it was possible, for example, to gas thousands of people per day in a single room, and then to dispose of their bodies—such that not a trace remains. They cannot find the mass graves that allegedly held thousands of bodies. They cannot explain wartime aerial photographs that show a disturbingly calm Auschwitz camp. And they refuse to even consider a raft of contradictory evidence. In fact, many aspects of the traditional story simply don’t add up. The deeper we look, the more puzzling the picture becomes—and hence, the great mystery.
As with any murder, we, as investigators, would like to examine several aspects of the crime; these would include the motive, the means by which it was conducted, and the bodies of the victims. We would furthermore like to consider all ancillary and related evidence that might support, or refute, the traditional story. As we will see, all these areas are problematic, from the conventional standpoint.
Comment by Jewish Revsionist Paul Eisen:
This is from the excellent revisionist website Inconvenient History.
I don’t often post straightforward revisionist pieces because I think this is best left to specialists and scholars. But this is different. This is the clearest and most comprehensive overview of the subject I’ve seen.
I hope it’s read widely by all Holocaust worshippers, by all the Jewish apparatchiks and their lackeys who promote it and by all the state and institutional bodies who enforce it.
On the traditional view, the Holocaust was the deliberate murder of some 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime during World War II. Hitler’s intention all along was to kill the Jews, and many died in specially-constructed gas chambers. The corpses were burned in crematoriums, and the ashes scattered. Some of the most infamous extermination camps—Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec—were completely dismantled and have all but vanished, as have the remains of the victims.
Revisionists believe, on the other hand, that there was never an intention to kill the Jews; rather, the Nazis simply wanted them out of Germany. They believe that there were no homicidal gas chambers, and that the number of Jews who died during the war, from all causes, comes to less than 1 million—and perhaps only 500,000 or so.
Traditionalists call revisionists “Holocaust deniers,” because, they say, the revisionists deny that the Holocaust happened. But this is obviously a misleading claim. Revisionists accept that Hitler wanted a Germany free of Jews, and that he forcibly removed many of them, seized their property, and sent many others to labor camps. They also accept that Hitler knew that many Jews would die in the process. Depending on your definition, this could certainly count as a “holocaust.” Revisionists do deny, however, that 6 million died, and they do deny that the Nazis constructed homicidal gas chambers. They do not deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor do they deny that many thousands of them died.
SOME TROUBLING FACTS
So, how can the average person begin to check these claims, to see where the truth lies? Start with the “6 million” figure. How plausible, in general, is this number? The war in Europe ran for roughly 2,000 days (or 5½ years: Sept 1939 to April 1945). If the Germans killed 6 million Jews, then they must have averaged 3,000 per day—every day, 365 days a year, for five and a half straight years. And of coursethey also must have burned, buried, or otherwise disposed of those same 3,000 bodies per day. This fact, in itself, seems highly implausible, especially given all the other urgencies of war.
But isn’t the “6 million” figure documented in hundreds of history books? The number itself is, but not the details. Given all we supposedly know about this event, one would expect that there would be a clear and concise breakdown of the number, showing roughly where, and how, 6 million died. Experts like Raul Hilberg claim that there are three main categories of deaths: camps (primarily the 6 main “death camps”), shootings, and ghettos. So, the experts should be able to show us how many died in camps, how many by shooting, and how many in the ghettos—such that the numbers add up to 6 million. But they cannot do this. The reader is invited to look at any mainstream published source for this information; it does not exist. One can find numbers individually for each camp, or each ghetto, but virtually never any total to 6 million. This strongly implies that there are serious problems with the overall picture.
Furthermore, the “6 million” number has a history that long precedes WW2. One can find various accounts of “6 million suffering Jews” as far back as the 1860s. In major newspapers like the New York Times and the Times of London we find about 2 dozen occurrences of that number in the six decadesbefore Hitler even came to power (in 1933). And it shows up another 2 dozen times before the end of the war—a miracle if it were true. This all suggests that the number was more symbolic than factual.
The situation in Germany prior to 1933, back to at least the 1850s, was of a dominant Jewish minority, vastly disproportional to their size of 1-2% of the population. This is very well documented, for press, entertainment, academia, and several sectors of business. Given the tragedy of WWI and the crushing war reparations, among other things, it is understandable that Hitler and others wanted to completelyremove the Jews from German society. And in fact this is, apparently, all they ever wanted—ethnic cleansing. Hitler’s first letter on the topic, from 1920, speaks directly to this need to remove them. Same with all his speeches through the 1930s, even into the war years.
Hitler, Goebbels, and others used words like vernichtung and ausrottung, which are flamboyant terms for removal or elimination. But they do not entail murder. The press always translates these terms in English as ‘extermination’ or ‘annihilation,’ in a literal or physical sense. But the press was doing that for decadesbefore Hitler. NY Times articles dating back to the 1870s decry the “extermination,” “annihilation,”, and even “holocaust” against the Jews in various countries—it really is striking how common this theme is. Again, one senses that any action against Jews is portrayed in the harshest possible terms.
THE GAS CHAMBERS
The gassing story is rife with problems. Allegedly, the Nazis crammed up to two thousand people intoenclosed rooms—some underground—and dumped cyanide pellets on them. But this is senseless, because (a) the rooms generally had neither windows or ventilation, to vent the poisonous gas, (b) the pellets would keep emitting poison for hours, killing anyone who went inside, and (c) there is no plausible way to remove the bodies in a timely manner. The Dachau camp has, today, a single gas chamber with two metal chutes for the gas pellets. However, just 20 meters away are five delousing rooms (for clothing and bed linens), each with a well-engineered cyanide gas circulation machine. It makes no sense to use a ridiculous method to kill people, when a proper one existed in the very same building.
And for all that, cyanide gas killed only about 1 million Jews, we are told—all at Auschwitz. By contrast, more than 2 million were gassed with “exhaust gas from diesel engines.” Not only is this even less workable than gas pellets, but it is nearly impossible to kill someone in any reasonable time with diesel exhaust—not enough carbon monoxide in it. Some traditionalists now argue that they were gasolineengines, with higher monoxide content. But this does not solve the many practical problems and inefficiencies of pumping engine exhaust gas, of any kind, into a sealed room.
Killing thousands per day is one problem; disposing of the bodies is another. How do you completelyeliminate a corpse? The usual line is: burned in a crematorium. But the crematoria all were designed with individual person ovens, and each took about an hour to burn one body. All of Auschwitz had a total of about 50 ovens, and thus could dispose of perhaps 50 x 20 hours = 1,000 bodies per day. And that’s at the largest of all death camps. Smaller camps like Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec had precisely zeroovens. Hence all the bodies, we are told, were burned in the open air, over big log fires. But this seems to be technically impossible, at the rate claimed—up to 6,500 per day.
Furthermore, crematoria and open-air fires create a lot of smoke—smoke that would be visible from both ground and air. As it happens, we have 10 reconnaissance air photos of Auschwitz from 1944. Of all these, only one photo shows even a single smoking crematorium chimney. Four photos show small fires burning, but only from one very small corner of the camp. Evidence of mass burning is strikingly absent.
But what about all the Holocaust witnesses? Well—what, after all, did the victims witness? Enforced evacuation and encampment (true), people dying en route (true), people catching typhus and dying in the camps (true), dead bodies stacked in and around the crematoria (true), people separated from family members and disappearing (true). And all this amidst a major war. Such true facts get mixed with rumor and wild speculation, and suddenly we get stories of 2,000 Jews getting gassed in a basement of a crematorium, “5 million dead at Auschwitz” (NY Times), “6 million exterminated,” etc. These are the kinds of issues that true Holocaust researchers should be investigating.
Why I Call Myself a Holocaust Denier by Paul Eisen
(Paul Eisen is a Jewish Revisionist)
My family were ordinary folk – ‘twice-a-year Jews’ we used to call them. But like most of us second and third generation, upwardly mobile, North London Jews, our Jewishness filled our lives. And, at that time, that meant Zionism and the Holocaust. For me, my family and our friends, a post-Holocaust Israel meant quite simply ‘never again’.
But, while seemingly ordinary, my family was also rather extraordinary. My father was unusually tolerant and free-thinking, and my mother too was unusually lively in her thinking. A born rebel, there was nothing she loved more than to burst a balloon. As for me, I started off, first as the family tsaddik – awfully concerned with God and my Jewishness (though always strangely at odds with other Jews) – then the family dissident-intellectual. By young adulthood, you would have found me somewhere on the Zionist left – unquestioning in my support for the Jewish state but wishing it would not behave quite so badly and stop embarrassing me in front of my friends. However, when it came to the Holocaust, my faith was unwavering….
But how could the Holocaust not be true? by Paul Eisen
How could the Holocaust not be true? How could such a delusion and deception have taken place? How could all those survivors be so wrong in their testimonies? How could all those perpetrators be so wrong in their confessions? How could all those documents, unspecific as they are, have been falsified? Arthur Butz called his groundbreaking revisionist study “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”, but a hoax of this size and nature just defies belief. Conspiracy theories rarely convince, nor do those who propagate them, so surely the sheer absurdity of the revisionists’ claim tells us all we need to know. So, if revisionism is to have any credibility at all, it must demonstrate how, if false, the Holocaust narrative, as we know it, came to be.
A Brief History of how the Masters of Make-Believe made the world believe in Death Camps
Auschwitz as we know it is a Hollywood creation
Today’s Hollywood Jews are the heirs of the original crop of wartime Hollywood producers and directors who were called into service by the U.S. Army to “document” the concentration camps. Although they were not allowed into Auschwitz-Birkenau or Majdanek which were under the tight control of the Soviet Union, they actually had better film-making opportunities at the camps located in Germany proper which had suffered from intense American bombardment. With supply lines and infrastructure smashed to pieces, horrific scenes in these camps caused by hunger, poor hygiene and disease were not hard to find in 1945.
To tell the story, let’s go back to the beginning when George C. Marshall, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, called upon award-winning Hollywood director Frank Capra to head a special section on morale to explain to soldiers “why the hell they’re in uniform.” Marshall explained to Capra that these were not to be “propaganda films like those created by the Nazis and Japan, but sensitive and objective troop information films.” That, however, they were not.
Holohoax 101 – The Fundamentals of the Holocaust Hoax
66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust
Decalogue of Inconvenient Facts about the Holocaust (so-called)
Was there Really a Holocaust? By Dr. E. R. Fields
“The Thirty-Nine Lashes Against the Hoaxacaust” by Eli James
Holy Holohoax. My Government Wouldn’t Lie To Me.
World War II Negative Stereotype has to be Stopped
Holocaust Revisionist Websites
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
Holocaust Handbooks – Taboo-Breaking Books and Documentaries
jan27.org – Commemorating the Revisionists Who Introduced Sanity to the Auschwitz “Death Camp” Narrative
Holocaust Hoax Museum | Deny the Gas Chamber Myth
The Holocaust Historiography Project
Inconvenient History – A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry
Winston Smith Ministry of Truth
One Third of the Holocaust
Friedrich Paul Berg’s “NaziGassings.com”
Carlos Whitlock Porter
Dr. Fredrick Töben