27.01.2010
Holocaust-denying bishop to face charges in German court
Catholic bishop Richard Williamson has been charged with inciting racial hatred, after downplaying the extent of the Holocaust in an interview on German soil.
A Regensburg court on Wednesday summoned Catholic bishop Richard Williamson to face trial for inciting racial hatred. The charge was sufficiently minor that the Briton would not be obliged to attend the hearing, which is set for April 16.
Initially the court fined Williamson 12,000 euros ($16,900) for an interview he gave to a Swedish television station - filmed near Regensburg in Bavaria - in which he said he believed between 200,000 and 300,000 Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps, and none of them in gas chambers.
Williamson appealed against the fine, which is why the case will come to trial.
Denying the Holocaust is a criminal offence in Germany.
"The trial will begin at 0900 on April 16 here in Regensburg and should last one day," court spokesman Robert Frick told Deutsche Welle. "Three witnesses, journalists from Sweden who interviewed Bishop Williamson, have been asked to take the stand."
The fine already issued against Williamson could be changed at trial, or he could be acquitted, but a jail sentence was not expected.
Williamson's lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told Deutsche Welle that the bishop had appealed the fine, because he had tried to ensure that his comments would never be seen or heard in Germany.
"In the online version of the video, you can see him tell the interviewer he is aware that his statements would contravene German law and asks him to make sure the video is not published in Germany," Lossmann said.
'No gas chambers'
In the controversial interview, Williamson said: "I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler."
"I believe there were no gas chambers. As far as I have studied the evidence, I think the most serious 'revisionists' conclude that between 200,000 and 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but not one of them in gas chambers," he added.
Williamson claimed that the Nazi concentration camps were not technologically advanced enough to safely carry out mass extermination with cyanide gas.
The case prompted a rare reaction on religious affairs from Chancellor Angela Merkel last year, when she called on Pope Benedikt XVI to clarify that "there can be no denial" the Nazis killed six million Jews during their reign.
Williamson is a member of the conservative Saint Pius X Society of Catholics and was excommunicated by Pope Jean Paul II. His successor, Pope Benedikt XVI, was criticized for reinstating Williamson and three other bishops from the Saint Pius X Society last year.
I hate to even read this article because it only serves to make my blood boil. What a tragedy that these people have nothing better to do than to persue this ridicules charge.
God bless you your Excellency and my thoughts and prayers are always with you. _________________ www.operation54.com
Williamson's lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told Deutsche Welle that the bishop had appealed the fine, because he had tried to ensure that his comments would never be seen or heard in Germany.
"In the online version of the video, you can see him tell the interviewer he is aware that his statements would contravene German law and asks him to make sure the video is not published in Germany," Lossmann said.
What the lawyer of H.E. said is exactly what I was thinking all the time.
From this remark of H.E. anybody with some sense can see that he didn't intend to make his interview public in Germany.
And Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson also tried to stop the Swedish TV from publishing this interview online, with no success. But it was recorded that they have laid an appeal before the German court.
So it is ridiculous to accuse him of breaking the very German law against "Volksverhetzung", i.e. speaking against the official version of Holocaust.
This legitimation of this code of law is not that a certain opinion is not allowed in Germany, as Germany is a democracy and the freedom of opinion must be allowed in the constitution, instead, its legitimation lies in punishing acts which are supposed to break the peace of this country, and a remark against the official version of Holocaust will, as they think, arouse the people in Germany, but than it demands that one make such kind of remarks in public. And the trial is now centered on the question: whether Bp. W. meant to make his remark regarding the Holocaust public.
They summon now three witnesses to the court, but all of them are from the conniving Swedish TV, how can they make sure the these witnesses are telling the truth? They have no witness from the other party.
But doesn't this world wide known interview published online speak clearly enough? And why should the Germans spend so much money on a case which is so obvious?
And if they still want to sentence Bp. W. to the fine? It will violate any sense of justice. As the interview itself is such a strong witness against the accusation.
And that was exactly what the German professor (a member of the Social Democratic Party that is leftist) of law was telling in an interview with "Spiegel" one or two months ago.
I am not a student of law. But the whole process of prosecution seems somewhat odd to me, given the remark of Bp. W. which testified in such an obvious way that he didn't intend to make this interview public.
The German people have an annoying guilt complex about the holocaust (promoted by Britain). Even commemorating Churchill's savage bombing of Dresden is seen as subversive.
Bishop Williamson is a very warm and articulate man. I don't agree with a lot of his views, but he's quite a colourful character nonetheless.
"Bishop Williamson: There is certainly a huge exploitation. Germany has paid out billions and billions of Deutschmarks and now Euros because the Germans have a guilt complex about their having gassed six million Jews, but I don't think six million Jews were gassed.
Bishop Williamson: Now be careful, I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there were a German here, someone who is of the German State, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany. I hope this is not your intention."
From a transcript of the the interview granted by Bishop Richard Williamson.
He made the remarks downplaying the Holocaust in Germany - that's why he says:
"This is against the law in Germany. If there were a German here, someone who is of the German State, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany"
On at least three occasions during the interview he denies that six million Jews were killed in the Gas chambers. But who has ever argued that SIX million Jews were gassed?
It's a great pity His Lordship did not concentrate on preaching the Gospel. He was aware he was breaking the Law when he gave the interview.
"It's a great pity His Lordship did not concentrate on preaching the Gospel. He was aware he was breaking the Law when he gave the interview.
Totally false! I don't think you have a proper notion of jurisdiction. Sorry, but I have to say that.
The point is, the German Law which is concerned here, forbids not the denying nor downplaying the Holocaust in private, the law comes only into force when the denial or downplay is made public.
As he granted the Swedish journalist the interview, he told the journalist it would be breaking the German law if this interview would be made public. So it indicates that Bp. W made the arrangement with the Swedish journalist that this very interview would only be broad casted in Sweden, where it is not an offense to denial the Holocaust in public.
Reference: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §130 (2)
Quote:
(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
It is only liable to prosecution, when it was made in public or in a gathering.
The situation of interview doesn't belong to the conditions, which made the downplay of Holocaust in case of Bp. W liable to prosecution.
Whether you agree with his opinion or not, or whether you find it right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the question whether it is according to the German law that he should be punished for it.
His remark in the interview shows obviously that His Excellency didn't want his interview to get any publicity in German, and if this fact is accepted by the German court, they can't sentence him.
the whole interview of Spiegel with the professor of Law:
Volksverhetzung kaum nachweisbar
Der Regensburger Strafrechtsprofessor Tonio Walter, 38, äußerte sich gegenüber dem liberal-antikirchlichen Magazin "DER SPIEGEL" zum Strafbefehl gegen den Bischof der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X., Richard Williamson.
SPIEGEL: Herr Walter, das Amtsgericht Regensburg hat gegen Richard Williamson einen Strafbefehl wegen Volksverhetzung erlassen. Zu Recht?
Walter: Ich habe erhebliche Zweifel. Zwar ist die Tür zum deutschen Strafrecht prinzipiell aufgestoßen, da Williamson das Interview mit dem schwedischen TV-Sender, um das es hier geht, in Deutschland gegeben hat. Seine Äußerung - eine klassische „Auschwitz-Lüge" - fällt grundsätzlich unter unseren Volksverhetzungsparagrafen. Sie war auch geeignet, den öffentlichen Frieden in Deutschland zu stören, nachdem sie hier bekannt geworden war.
SPIEGEL: Was spricht trotzdem gegen die Strafbarkeit?
Walter: Die Äußerung muss öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung gemacht werden. Auf die Interviewsituation selbst trifft das aber eindeutig nicht zu.
Die Ausstrahlung in Schweden, von der Williamson wusste, war zwar öffentlich, und vom Wortlaut des Gesetzes her könnte das reichen. Da es aber hier um den öffentlichen Frieden in Deutschland geht, läge es nahe, eine deutsche Öffentlichkeit zu verlangen. Das heißt bei Äußerungen im Fernsehen: eine Ausstrahlung in Deutschland.
SPIEGEL: Es reicht nicht, dass deutsche Medien darüber berichteten?
Walter: So sieht es offenbar das Amtsgericht. Das hieße aber auch, dass etwa auf eine Beleidigung unter Chinesen in China deutsches Strafrecht Anwendung fände, sobald hierzulande darüber berichtet wird. Das ginge mir zu weit.
SPIEGEL: Und dass der Film im Internet - und damit auch in Deutschland - zu sehen war?
Walter: Ich bin kein Freund von Williamson, aber ich bezweifle, dass man ihm das als seine Tat zurechnen kann - es sei denn, es geschah auf seine Weisung. Und dass er billigend in Kauf nahm, dass seine Äußerungen in dieser Form nach Deutschland schwappen, wird man ihm kaum nachweisen können.
If there were a German here, someone who is of the German State, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany. I hope this is not your intention.
It shows clearly that Bishop Williamson didn't want to have any German to know about this interview, so it is not consistent to accuse him of disturbing the public peace in Germany (Volksverhetzung means arousing the people in a hateful way, so it demands publicity, if there is no gathering there you have nobody whom you can arouse ).
And when he said: "I hope it is not your intention", it shows he asked the journalist to keep the interview from the German public.
[/quote]
"It's a great pity His Lordship did not concentrate on preaching the Gospel. He was aware he was breaking the Law when he gave the interview.
Totally false! I don't think you have a proper notion of jurisdiction. Sorry, but I have to say that.
The point is, the German Law which is concerned here, forbids not the denying nor downplaying the Holocaust in private, the law comes only into force when the denial or downplay is made public.
As he granted the Swedish journalist the interview, he told the journalist it would be breaking the German law if this interview would be made public. So it indicates that Bp. W made the arrangement with the Swedish journalist that this very interview would only be broad casted in Sweden, where it is not an offense to denial the Holocaust in public.
Reference: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §130 (2)
Quote:
(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
It is only liable to prosecution, when it was made in public or in a gathering.
The situation of interview doesn't belong to the conditions, which made the downplay of Holocaust in case of Bp. W liable to prosecution.
Whether you agree with his opinion or not, or whether you find it right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the question whether it is according to the German law that he should be punished for it.
His remark in the interview shows obviously that His Excellency didn't want his interview to get any publicity in German, and if this fact is accepted by the German court, they can't sentence him.
"Williamson's lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told Deutsche Welle that the bishop had appealed the fine, because he had tried to ensure that his comments would never be seen or heard in Germany.
"In the online version of the video, you can see him tell the interviewer he is aware that his statements would contravene German law and asks him to make sure the video is not published in Germany," Lossmann said."
The only way the Bishop could make sure the interview (given on German soil) was not broadcast in Germany was not to have given the interview at all. Once recorded how could he prevent it being placed on the Internet or broadcast on German TV?
The plain interpretation of the Bishop's words:
"Now be careful, I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there were a German here, someone who is of the German State, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany. I hope this is not your intention."
is that he knew that what he was saying was illegal in Germany. He was giving an interview on camera: this was not a private act, but a public act as he gave the interview with full knowledge that it would be broadcast.
The only way, as far as I can see it, that the Bishop could demonstrate that he did not wish the interview to be broadcast on TV or the Internet is if there was an agreement between himself and the TV company signed BEFORE the interview stating that they would not broadcast anything that might contravene the German Law and setting out that the interview would never be placed on the Internet or broadcast in Germany.
(I am sorry but I do not speak German so do not understand the extracts you quoted.)
However I did find this article on public downplaying of the Holocaust on the Internet.
"Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Convicts Foreigner for Internet Posted Incitement to Racial Hatred"
10] The Court first points to the quality of Section 130 GCC which must be understood as an "offence of abstract-concrete endangerment" [abstrakt-konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt]. For crimes in that category, the law demands that the publication or utterance of racial incitement are of the quality to endanger public peace in a concrete case. The Court rightly interprets this Section to be applicable even before any danger per se has occurred, because it suffices that the specific doing was apt to bring about this danger in a concrete manner.(10) There must be, in other words, justified and concrete reasons to fear that the verbal or written account will destabilize the trust into public legal peace ("öffentlicher Rechtsfrieden"). The Court finds these prerequisites to be met and therefore holds that the defendant's doings were consequently of the quality to endanger public peace. Looking at the internet and its reigning regime of access to information as the medium of communication used by the defendant, the Court holds that there was reason to believe that the defendant's utterances could easily have been received, read or downloaded in Germany.
[11] Obviously, access for German or other Internet-users to the information provided by the defendant, was not problematic. The Court underlines that the defendant - by "participating" in an ongoing debate about German history and the Nazi-crimes - intently addressed his publication to German readers. Thereby, the Court finds that the defendant created a source of information that was of the quality to endanger the communal life between Jews and other groups of the population."
"Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Convicts Foreigner for Internet Posted Incitement to Racial Hatred"
*****
I remain firmly of the view that the Bishop should have stuck to preaching the Gospel and the True Faith in its fulness. This whole business is a sad distraction.....
I do not understand what you mean by Jurisdiction - the German court in the case quoted above asserts jurisdiction over anything put on the internet:
16. The Court ponders at length upon the question of whether Section 9 GCC (crime's effects in German territory) allows a persecution even when the incriminated publication was distributed from a web-site erected in Australia. At the same time, the Court appears to take the matter of the Holocaust denial itself and its incrimination in the Net almost for granted. The political will that backs the incrimination of Holocaust denial is seen by the Court to justify a criminal persecution - even into the wide virtual realms of the Net. As a consequence, the particular quality of the Internet and the effects this has on the matter of free speech is not only ignored by the Court, but in fact made a "non-issue" by placing the decision exclusively within the reference system of German substantive and procedural Criminal law. (op.cit.)
The only way, as far as I can see it, that the Bishop could demonstrate that he did not wish the interview to be broadcast on TV or the Internet is if there was an agreement between himself and the TV company signed BEFORE the interview stating that they would not broadcast anything that might contravene the German Law and setting out that the interview would never be placed on the Internet or broadcast in Germany.
The way you see it is ridiculous.
You are portraying the Swedish TV station as something like a force of nature that bears no responsibility for its own actions. Nobody in Germany would have been "incited" if the Swedes had not chosen to publicize the comments in Germany against Bp. Williamson's stated wish. You say H.H. should be charged because he did secure a written and signed contract but he stated his requirements on video as part of the interview. Nobody forced the TV station to broadcast H.H.'s comments beyond the originally promised venue of Swedish television. Certainly most Swedish TV programs are not put out on the Internet. The TV station chose of its own free will to "incite." If anything, it is the TV station that should be charged except that the law itself is an outrage. Instead, the German court gives a conspiratorial wink to the TV station and decides to persecute a sitting Catholic bishop for stating his personal views.
Ludolphus wrote:
I did find this article on public downplaying of the Holocaust on the Internet.
[...]The Court underlines that the defendant - by "participating" in an ongoing debate about German history and the Nazi-crimes - intently addressed his publication to German readers. Thereby, the Court finds that the defendant created a source of information that was of the quality to endanger the communal life between Jews and other groups of the population."
There is no way you can say H.H. intently addressed his publication to Germans.
Ludolphus wrote:
I remain firmly of the view that the Bishop should have stuck to preaching the Gospel and the True Faith in its fulness. This whole business is a sad distraction....
You and the self-hating German government dare to tell an orthodox Catholic bishop what he is aloud to say in public. You may disagree but how dare you try to shut him up as if you were his superior.
Ludolphus wrote:
He made the remarks downplaying the Holocaust in Germany
It is supposedly significant that Bp. Williamson made his comments in Germany but here you quote that the Germans saying they can persecute anyone anywhere for disputing the enforced "consensus." If so, then citizens in the US could be persecuted by Germany in the exact same way.
Ludolphus wrote:
16. The Court ponders at length upon the question of whether Section 9 GCC (crime's effects in German territory) allows a persecution even when the incriminated publication was distributed from a web-site erected in Australia. At the same time, the Court appears to take the matter of the Holocaust denial itself and its incrimination in the Net almost for granted.
The Stockholm syndrome psychosis of Germans enacted into law creates a global chilling effect on all debate of WWII history. Germans take a perverted, cowardly revenge upon their English-speaking conquerors.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 3188 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:46 am Post subject:
Seems to me that if anyone was guilty of "inciting racial hatred" in Germany it was the Swedish television station. (Still a load of nonsense, though.)
10] The Court first points to the quality of Section 130 GCC which must be understood as an "offence of abstract-concrete endangerment" [abstrakt-konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt]. For crimes in that category, the law demands that the publication or utterance of racial incitement are of the quality to endanger public peace in a concrete case. The Court rightly interprets this Section to be applicable even before any danger per se has occurred, because it suffices that the specific doing was apt to bring about this danger in a concrete manner.(10) There must be, in other words, justified and concrete reasons to fear that the verbal or written account will destabilize the trust into public legal peace ("öffentlicher Rechtsfrieden"). The Court finds these prerequisites to be met and therefore holds that the defendant's doings were consequently of the quality to endanger public peace. Looking at the internet and its reigning regime of access to information as the medium of communication used by the defendant, the Court holds that there was reason to believe that the defendant's utterances could easily have been received, read or downloaded in Germany.
[11] Obviously, access for German or other Internet-users to the information provided by the defendant, was not problematic. The Court underlines that the defendant - by "participating" in an ongoing debate about German history and the Nazi-crimes - intently addressed his publication to German readers. Thereby, the Court finds that the defendant created a source of information that was of the quality to endanger the communal life between Jews and other groups of the population."
"Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Convicts Foreigner for Internet Posted Incitement to Racial Hatred"
and so on
Ludolphus, the source you cited is concretely about the trial of Friedrick Toben, who posted the information himself on internet.
It is a great difference to the case of Bishop Williamson, so, if you want to apply the decision in the case of Friedrick Toben also on the case of Bp. W, you must punish the Swedish TV first, because they are the one who made the interview public, and then all the big German media themselves!
I mean, in the case of Friedrick Toben the intention to reach out to the German public is quite clear, while in the case of Bp. W, he only intended to give the interview to a foreign public.
And even in the very document you cited, one can read the following passage:
Quote:
[15] We might wish to say, along with Stanford's law professor Lawrence Lessig, that "There is a need for the constitutional protection that the [Holocaust-denial] case represents only because there is a real constraint on publishing."(13) The question touched upon by Professor Lessig is possibly the central question concerning the regulability of the internet. It goes like this: how do we account for the sheer openness of communicative space in the Net and still maintain a certain degree of regulatory input with regards to doings considered as damaging and criminal? In other words: if the Net allows anyone to publish anything, it can well be that there is just as much nonsense being put out as there as material with some merit. If, however, our focus is on the truth in reports published and distributed in the Net, we might want to consider ways of how to make it impossible for wrong or misleading material to appear in the web. Obviously, such a claim must be discarded from the beginning: the claim to truth and objectivity connected herewith defies any sense of scientific critique, that we ought to take as our starting point. In the meantime, we might come to the conclusion that there ought to be no credibility-control or, that such control is even possible. Rather, the issue we are still concerned with concerns the understanding that a national legal culture has gained and expressed with regard to a specific problem. If a legal system reflects the political will to outlaw a certain behavior, it must be asked how to make this political intent compatible with the seemingly unrestrained realm for free speech as existent in the Net. The matter becomes especially intriguing when the decision to incriminate a specific behavior is closely tied to the history of the Nation state that wishes to enact or keep a statute aimed against this particular doing.
[16] Indeed, the decision handed down by the FCJ, like many previous ones, does resonate an important and yet endangered and fragile belief in what might be a national conscience regarding the crimes committed under the Nazis. The way in which this expression of political and historical conscience finds its way into the legal argument made by the Court, is everything but easy to decipher. The Court ponders at length upon the question of whether Section 9 GCC (crime's effects in German territory) allows a persecution even when the incriminated publication was distributed from a web-site erected in Australia. At the same time, the Court appears to take the matter of the Holocaust denial itself and its incrimination in the Net almost for granted. The political will that backs the incrimination of Holocaust denial is seen by the Court to justify a criminal persecution - even into the wide virtual realms of the Net. As a consequence, the particular quality of the Internet and the effects this has on the matter of free speech is not only ignored by the Court, but in fact made a "non-issue" by placing the decision exclusively within the reference system of German substantive and procedural Criminal law.
[17] As German Law professor Eric Hilgendorf of Konstanz noted, the matter may be looked at from the other side as well: if we can see German Criminal law as claiming a policeman's role for wrongdoing in the Internet, we need to, for a moment, imagine a foreign country incriminating a German national writing in favor of human rights protection in the Internet.(14) This clearly would be the flip-side to a claim made by German authorities to persecute Internet publications, even when launched "abroad". Professor Hilgendorf instead suggests the applicability of German Criminal law only in those cases where a specific connection of the offence to Germany is given. This proposal of "territorially specified crimes", however, again begs the question of how to define in a satisfactory manner just when this territorial connection is given. In order to meet the reasonable claim made by the members of the International community for clear boundaries to one state wishing to persecute crimes committed outside its territory, there must be a way both to allow and to limit the reach of a Nation state's Criminal law statutes. Yet, by taking refuge in a seemingly simple territorial aspect of the crime, the questions of how to establish this territorial effect in a concrete case remains unanswered. While this is obviously a task for International law and Criminal law doctrine, as Professor Hilgendorf notes, the territorial argument might prove too weak. Even if the intent of the perpetrator to address a German audience is stronger than, say, the simple use of the German language, we cannot deny that it will remain a highly arbitrary procedure by which the territoriality of a crime can be established.
[18] We might want to consider the territoriality proposal in a different light: if we look at the contexts in which the legislator decided to enact a criminal statute, we find traces of a political debate that preceded the statute's enactment and thus provide it with a minimal degree of legitimacy. If we begin to inquire whether there is a territorially specified connection of a particular offence to Germany, we might understand this as our attempt to reevaluate the deliberative processes that preceded the statute. It might well be then in some cases that the contrast between the statute's scope and the behavior found in the Net is too striking as the inadequacy of our (or another Nation state's) Criminal law becomes evident with regard to the nature of the Internet. The process thus is twofold: the first question of whether we still adhere to the statute's intent is one that can and needs to be deliberated well before the implications following from the Internet with its specifics of publication and distribution come under scrutiny. Maybe, though, there is little space for such reevaluation. The border-less world as existing in the Internet seems quite squared with any such national worries. While the Internet, however, like other features of a globalized world, seems to bluntly ask for a drastic revisal or innovation of our legal instruments as they appear outdated and inappropriate, the paradox lies in the fact that we can only go about this ship repair on high seas with these very instruments.(15) Therefore, the difficult exploration into the adequacy or inadequacy of our legal answers to these questions should not make us believe in a tabula rasa with regard to our prior legal experience and memory. Moreover, our task may lie in facing this conflict in its paradoxical nature and in taking a "step back" before we either blindly apply what we have learned to what we don't know or to capitulate before the overwhelming complexity and newness of how things appear to be.
I pray you these passages with patience and carefully.
Even the sentence of Friedrick Toben is not so unproblematical as you assume. And this very problem was also addressed by a judge of the German constitutional court. He sees the StGB. §130 which incriminates the holocaust denial (or downplay) as somewhat obsolete.
"Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Convicts Foreigner for Internet Posted Incitement to Racial Hatred"
I placed above and below the quotations from the German Law Journal was an attempt to make it clear that the quoted material was not about the case of Bishop Williamson.
You stated that I had misunderstood the question of jurisdiction but the parts quoted show that Germany regards publication on the Internet of Holocaust denying - downplaying material as publication to Germany.
How did Bishop Williamson attempt to prevent the Swedish TV company from broadcasting the material on German TV or on the Internet? Did he get an written agreement?
Once the material is broadcast on Swedish TV it is out there and can be recorded and re-broadcast on the Internet without the permission of the Swedish TV company - that is the nature of broadcasting nowadays. (I do not know whether this was the way it ended up on the internet).
The only certain way of ensuring the material was never broadcast in Germany or on the Internet was for Bishop Williamson NOT to have given the interview on camera.
I will look at the parts you quote from the German Law Journal.
I can't help but think that B. Williamson knew exactly what he was doing, voicing his opinion on a recording medium, in this case the Swedes. Somebody had to speak up about the elephant in the room. How far will this Holocaust industry et al go on before someone has the guts to put their foot down? Someone has to let the world know who the true enemies of the church and the world are. At some point the church will have to face up to her fears and deal with the real problem.
How did Bishop Williamson attempt to prevent the Swedish TV company from broadcasting the material on German TV or on the Internet? Did he get an written agreement?
The only certain way of ensuring the material was never broadcast in Germany or on the Internet was for Bishop Williamson NOT to have given the interview on camera.
The very curious thing is Bp. Williamson and Bp. Fellay appealed to the court in Nürnberg-Fürth which is responsible for copyright, that the German court should forbid the Swedish TV to send his interview in internet or in Germany. But the court rejected this appeal because, as you mentioned, there is no written object from the side of Bp. W that this interview shouldn't be broadcast in Germany or in internet.
But don't mixed up two things: in this case we have to do with copy right, and Bishop Williamson can't, as the court said, use his copy right of this interview to prohibit the Swedish TV from broadcasting it in internet.
But in the case with the court Regensburg, we have to do with a criminal code. And whether he has made a written objection is not so crucial, of course it would have been very good with such a written objection. But whether this criminal code can be applied depends on whether the incriminated person had the intention to reach out and to make propaganda to a German public. A written witness could have stopped the prosecution at the first investigation. But without such a witness, the appliance of this law is still questionable. And it is obvious that Bp. W. didn't have such an intention. He even made effort to prevent the publication in Germany, though without success.
the decision of the court in Nürnberg-Fürth:
http://www.justiz.bayern.de/gericht/olg/n/presse/archiv/2009/01854/
For example: If I lent someone an ax with what he killed somebody, am I responsible for the killing?
I truly eschew speaking in legaleee, especially when it degenerates into utter nonsense. I generally choose to refuse to find a way out of such a snare set-up like a speedtrap.
But, if we are going to play their game maybe we should also point to the interviewer himself. After all, he brought up the sujbect. And with such a law you would think that even asking the question should be illegal.
Since we all know that 6,000,000 perished, and most by gas chambers, to even ask the question indicates a need for an attitude adjustment, and possible punishment. Wouldn't you think? Shouldn't he, the interviewer, know this?
In this Brave New, 1984 like world, asking such a question is almost as silly as asking if the sky is blue.
I don't recall Bishop Williamson going off like Robin Williams and adding his "criminal" views of the Holocaust.
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 533 Location: Laveen, Arizona
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:30 am Post subject:
Gloriosae Dominae, surely you jest! Where did you get the figure of 6,000,000 jews; you say "6,000,000 perished, and most by gas chambers, to even ask the question indicates a need for an attitude adjustment, and possible punishment".
That hogwash is probably the most successful conniving jobs in all of history. The Zionists have really taken over your thought processes. As reported by a Jewish writer in the '90's, so many Jews left Europe prior to the '40's that, aside from the fact that there were not even that many Jews in Europe prior to the war, the lie is obvious.
Let our bishops do their job, like telling truths about events that impact our lives.
Gloriosae Dominae, surely you jest! Where did you get the figure of 6,000,000 jews; you say "6,000,000 perished, and most by gas chambers, to even ask the question indicates a need for an attitude adjustment, and possible punishment".
That hogwash is probably the most successful conniving jobs in all of history. The Zionists have really taken over your thought processes. As reported by a Jewish writer in the '90's, so many Jews left Europe prior to the '40's that, aside from the fact that there were not even that many Jews in Europe prior to the war, the lie is obvious.
Let our bishops do their job, like telling truths about events that impact our lives.
My apologies. I was assuming based on my other recent postings on this subject it would be well known that I was being ironic. Not sarcastic, as this is not a joke. I can see in re-reading this how it looks like I'm playing it completely straight. I should have worded it better or put some of it in quotes or something.
My only point was since, it is a "given" according to the German government that 6,000,000 died, it should also be criminal to actually ask Bishop Williamson, or anyone else, that question.
My other point was that it pains me to see the legal manuevers and people straining themselves to try and find an out for the good Bishop against a very unjust law.
But, you are correct that many are indeed brainwashed. And if my post helped illustrate the great majority out there, perhaps it was helpful for a little while. Sorry again for not being clearer and assuming everyone reads all my posts with baited breath and therefore would be able to read my mind.
"According to an annual report published in May by Germany's federal office for the protection of the constitution, 30,000 Germans consider themselves to have extreme right-wing views; nearly 5,000 are militant neo-Nazis.
The report also says 2008 saw 20,000 right-wing criminal offenses and -- most distressingly -- more than 1,000 violent crimes, including at least two hate-related murders. That figure marks a 5 percent rise over 2007. "
These Neo-Nazis seize on Bishop Williamson's remarks on the Holocaust gleefully.
I can't help but think that B. Williamson knew exactly what he was doing, voicing his opinion on a recording medium, in this case the Swedes. Somebody had to speak up about the elephant in the room. How far will this Holocaust industry et al go on before someone has the guts to put their foot down? Someone has to let the world know who the true enemies of the church and the world are. At some point the church will have to face up to her fears and deal with the real problem.
We cannot know what he intended, but your perspective is a simple, and thereby refreshing approach to the problem. If the whole thing is a big lie, then some prominent person, sooner or later, is going to have to publicly affirm it, no matter the consequences.
And I should add that if it is a lie, then it is a lie of such magnitudinous proportions, and of such dire and malicious consequences, that not only would it be good that someone prominent should affirm it, but there is actually an affirmative moral obligation resting on manifold prominent persons to cry out loud about it. No?
Seems to me that if anyone was guilty of "inciting racial hatred" in Germany it was the Swedish television station. (Still a load of nonsense, though.)
Excellent point.
And leaving aside whether H.E. is correct or not (I've read convincing arguments both ways), this is what Fr. Iscara (SSPX) told priests at last years American District Priest Conference in Winona, MN:
(Paraphrased):
"I am not a strong man.
"I cannot even climb the stairs.
"But I would hope that, if push came to shove, I would lay down my life for the Faith.
"But I am not willing to lay down my life for anything besides the Faith.
"And certainly not for the sake of historical truth." _________________ St. Michael the Archangel: Pray for Us!!
I await with interest to find out how "Der Speigel" obtained Bishop Richard Williamson's private e-mails.
I wish the Bishop would name the person or organisation who cliams that 6million Jews were gassed. I thought the 6 million figure was of the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis of which something like a million are claimed to have been gassed to death.
I wish the Bishop would name the person or organisation who cliams that 6million Jews were gassed. I thought the 6 million figure was of the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis of which something like a million are claimed to have been gassed to death.
It's just a ballpark figure, yet precise. It is not 5,999,999, nor is it 6,000,001. It is 6,000,000. Do some research and you will find editorials in American papers stating that 6,000,000 Jews may die because of World War I. This figure magically turns up again after World War II. They must have been consulting some kind of oracle.
My point being that the argument now is simply did Jews and Poles and Hungarians and Gypsies die by gas chambers or not? Sorry, I'm getting carried away. Did Jews die by gas chambers or not?
Auschwitz alone is said to have exterminated 4,000,000 alone. But, recently that number has been reduced to 1,000,000. Even though we have had a net "loss" of Jews killed at this camp, 3,000,000, the figure is still 6,000,000.
The Soviets liberated these camps in 1945. They wouldn't have had a vested interest in making it more horrible, now would they? It's amazing to me that during the Cold War Americans used to know how to laugh at anything coming out of Moscow our Tass News Agency. Even children knew that Russians lied about their economic prowess and what a wonderful country they had. How is it that no one seems to even question these figures based on a camp that was liberated behind the Iron Curtain?
I await with interest to find out how "Der Speigel" obtained Bishop Richard Williamson's private e-mails.
I wish the Bishop would name the person or organisation who cliams that 6million Jews were gassed. I thought the 6 million figure was of the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis of which something like a million are claimed to have been gassed to death.
Is the Bishop serious?
Good thing you didn't express your misunderstanding of Jewish claims in Germany. _________________ St. Michael the Archangel: Pray for Us!!
"The foregoing considerations can be summed up in the following conclusions:
It is a fact that an inflated figure for the number of Auschwitz victims, up to 4,000,000, was often cited in the literature over several postwar decades on the basis of the prosecutorial and judicial authorities and the testimony of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss. However, scholars who researched the problem more closely while following the principles of the historian’s craft—the comparison of various sources and the evaluation of their credibility—defined and continue to define the number of Auschwitz victims as somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000.
In view of the lack of camp records on the overall number of people deported to the camp and murdered there, the only basis for establishing the number of victims of the camp must be sources on deportation to Auschwitz from specific localities, regions, and countries and changes—increases and decreases—in the number of prisoners.
Attempts are still made at times, in line with the methods used by the Soviet commission investigating the crimes committed in Auschwitz, to define the number of victims on the basis of the capacity of the crematoria and the length of time they were in operation. Such calculations are erroneous, since there are no credible sources making it possible to establish either the amount of time that the crematoria were actually in operation, nor the extent to which their capacity was used. 7
Estimates of the number of Auschwitz victims arrived at so far, 8 primarily on the basis of information about deportation to the camp, should be acknowledged as thoroughly verified answers to this important issue in the history of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Further research may only refine, to a minor degree, particular components of this figure. It will not, however, lead to any fundamental changes."
from: Franciszek Piper - Fritjof Meyer, “Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkentnisse durch neue Archivfunde,” Osteuropa, 52, Jg., 5/2002, pp. 631-641, (review article)*
I wish the Bishop would name the person or organisation who cliams that 6million Jews were gassed. I thought the 6 million figure was of the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis of which something like a million are claimed to have been gassed to death.
It's just a ballpark figure, yet precise. It is not 5,999,999, nor is it 6,000,001. It is 6,000,000. Do some research and you will find editorials in American papers stating that 6,000,000 Jews may die because of World War I. This figure magically turns up again after World War II. They must have been consulting some kind of oracle.
My point being that the argument now is simply did Jews and Poles and Hungarians and Gypsies die by gas chambers or not? Sorry, I'm getting carried away. Did Jews die by gas chambers or not?
Auschwitz alone is said to have exterminated 4,000,000 alone. But, recently that number has been reduced to 1,000,000. Even though we have had a net "loss" of Jews killed at this camp, 3,000,000, the figure is still 6,000,000.
The Soviets liberated these camps in 1945. They wouldn't have had a vested interest in making it more horrible, now would they? It's amazing to me that during the Cold War Americans used to know how to laugh at anything coming out of Moscow our Tass News Agency. Even children knew that Russians lied about their economic prowess and what a wonderful country they had. How is it that no one seems to even question these figures based on a camp that was liberated behind the Iron Curtain?
The number of 6,000,000 is a Talmudic symbol with religious implicationd for Messianic Zionism.
The Jews claimed that 6,000,000 were killed in WWI as well, but they were not yet in such control of worldwide media as to preach the lie as incessantly as they are today.
Repitition in media = truth in our "slack-jawed, glassy-eyed TV mesmerized" society. _________________ St. Michael the Archangel: Pray for Us!!
Sadly Neo-Nazi activity in Germany (and amazingly in Russia) is increasing.
When has Neo-Nazi activity not been "increasing"? I have never heard a report that Neo-Nazi activity is decreasing. Every year the hate speech fanatics use the supposed Neo-Nazi threat to justify spreading more hate laws against Christians and normal families. The words of Christ, St. Paul, and the Prophets are now criminalized and Christians sit rotting in jail for quoting Scripture.
Most people actually convicted of Neo-Nazi incidents are Jews trying to attract sympathy or justify persecution of Christians. Taxpayer-funded "watchdog" organizations beat their breasts and rend their garments over such incidents to demand more anti-Christ hate laws.
Yes you are correct the numbers of Neo-Nazi crime increases year-on-year in Germany - here are figures for 2006.
********
German neo-Nazi crime rate sets new high - paper
Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:24pm EDT
BERLIN, March 26 (Reuters) - Crimes committed by neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists in Germany reached their highest level last year since reunification in 1990, a newspaper reported on Monday.
The crime rate rose by 14 percent to more than 18,000 extremist offences, Tagesspiegel daily said, in an advance release of a story to run on Tuesday.
Of the 18,000 offences, 1,100 were acts of violence -- an 8 percent rise from the previous year, it said, citing federal police figures.
In July of last year, far rightists in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt burned the diary of Holocaust victim Anne Frank, causing outrage among German politicians and anti-racist groups."
And I should add that if it is a lie, then it is a lie of such magnitudinous proportions, and of such dire and malicious consequences, that not only would it be good that someone prominent should affirm it, but there is actually an affirmative moral obligation resting on manifold prominent persons to cry out loud about it. No?
If the enforced "consensus" on the Holocaust is a deception, it would only be one among many that incapacitates the people. The biggest deception is the coincidence theory of history which removes the drivers of history from mainstream textbooks. We read of presidents, dictators, and generals but never of the bankers who set wars in motion by financing both sides. If Nazi's had really intended to challenge Jewish power in Europe, they would have focused upon the Rothschilds of Paris and Vienna instead of Jewish tailors in Warsaw.
The effect of modern propaganda prevents most people from comprehending documents written before the twentieth century. Dire papal warnings from nineteenth century encyclicals are ignored without comment by today's Catholics. Eighteenth century encyclicals are not even allowed on the Vatican website. Some traditionalists still remember the papal warnings but most are afraid to speak out.
Yes you are correct the numbers of Neo-Nazi crime increases year-on-year in Germany - here are figures for 2006.
********
German neo-Nazi crime rate sets new high - paper
Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:24pm EDT
BERLIN, March 26 (Reuters) - Crimes committed by neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists in Germany reached their highest level last year since reunification in 1990, a newspaper reported on Monday.
The crime rate rose by 14 percent to more than 18,000 extremist offences, Tagesspiegel daily said, in an advance release of a story to run on Tuesday.
Of the 18,000 offences, 1,100 were acts of violence -- an 8 percent rise from the previous year, it said, citing federal police figures.
In July of last year, far rightists in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt burned the diary of Holocaust victim Anne Frank, causing outrage among German politicians and anti-racist groups."
Then by all means let Church enemies lock up Bishop Williamson and throw away the key.
Are you vouching for the accuracy of these statistics? How many of the reported incidents are false flags? Aren't the vast majority of incidents performed by the very Muslims that Jewish lobbies insisted be brought into Europe? Holocaust aside, the propaganda you posted is used to justify suppression of Christian Scripture.
Even if your statistics were accurate, that would not justify persecuting a sitting Roman Catholic Bishop. Your propaganda in the context of this thread supports the travesty of injustice against His Eminence.
How many of the reported incidents are false flags?
***Do you mean that the victims of the NEO_Nazis are beating themselves up?
Aren't the vast majority of incidents performed by the very Muslims that Jewish lobbies insisted be brought into Europe?
***First I have heard that the Jews brought Muslims in Germany. I thought the Germans creater the Guestworker scheme for Turks due to Labour shortages in the 1970's.
Anyway the majority of the Neo_Nazi attacks are in former East Germany - not many Turks there.
Holocaust aside, the propaganda you posted is used to justify suppression of Christian Scripture.
***Please clarify, I have no idea how attacks by East German Neo-Nazis are used in the way you suggest.
Even if your statistics were accurate, that would not justify persecuting a sitting Roman Catholic Bishop. Your propaganda in the context of this thread supports the travesty of injustice against His Eminence.[/quote]
***The Bishop could have preached the Gospel instead of getting into this Neo-Nazis debate.
You refuse to vouch for the authenticity of your post of a report of an advance release of a story with no direct sources. Your imagery of neo NAZIs beating up victims extends beyond even the claims of your straw propaganda. You indicate that +Williamson deserves punishment for speaking about the Holocaust despite zero linkage to any beatings, much less neo NAZIs beating Jews.
Even if there really were neo NAZIs who beat Jews, and even if a neo NAZIs beat a Jew as a result of hearing +Williamson's comments, that would not implicate H.E. because he never advocated violence of any kind.
You claim to "have no idea" about the connection between your neo NAZI scare mongering and hate laws use to imprison of Christians who quote scriptural condemnation of homosexuals and Jews. I suggest you look it up and stop spreading such propaganda.
Gloriosae Dominae, surely you jest! Where did you get the figure of 6,000,000 jews; you say "6,000,000 perished, and most by gas chambers, to even ask the question indicates a need for an attitude adjustment, and possible punishment".
That hogwash is probably the most successful conniving jobs in all of history. The Zionists have really taken over your thought processes. As reported by a Jewish writer in the '90's, so many Jews left Europe prior to the '40's that, aside from the fact that there were not even that many Jews in Europe prior to the war, the lie is obvious.
Let our bishops do their job, like telling truths about events that impact our lives.
SssssH! The Germans might be listening! _________________ What don't kill you will make you more strong!
Note: The following is an extract of a rebuttal to Michael Matt’s essay “Holocaust Revisionism,” as it appeared on the website of his “Remnant” newspaper on the morning of Feb. 13, (the anniversary of the Allied holocaust against the city of Dresden, Germany).
Mr. Matt writes, "...holocaust denial, in addition to doing grave injustice to the Jewish victims of Hitler's maniacal ethnic cleansing, has proven itself a most effective battering ram against the Church, as well.....the Holocaust denier might as well be in the employ of the harshest critics of the Catholic Church, so useful is he to their cause célèbre. In his corner of cyberspace he does the bidding of secularist puppeteers, dangling from strings he doesn’t even see. He seems to fancy himself the only one in the room with the 'courage' to say what needs to be said. But whatever intentions he may have to defend 'the truth,' his bloviating requires little courage and is easily manipulated into damning evidence for the prosecution in the case against the Church."
Dear Mr. Matt, where did you pick up this term "holocaust denial" which you use so blithely? Surely not from "puppeteers," since you are, unlike the rest of us, obviously immune to manipulation. However, it is interesting to note that you incorporate into your writing the Orwellian neologism coined by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, who dared not take the stand and be cross-examined by David Irving at his "Holocaust" trial in London. Lipstadt has denied the Allied holocaust in Dresden which incinerated tens of thousands of German civilians on Ash Wednesday, sixty-four years ago. The vast majority of Zionists like Lipstadt also deny the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians.
Please explain how revisionists, being unable in their conscience to commit to tales of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, are "doing grave injustice to the Jewish victims of Hitler's maniacal ethnic cleansing"? Do you, Mr. Matt, mean to suggest that if we were to give our assent to what we believe to be a lie, we would be thereby performing an act of justice and charity on behalf of Judaic people? It is not an act of justice or charity to lie for anyone, Judaic or gentile.
In his next section, Mr. Matt does a little "bloviating" of his own, suggesting that the revisionist "Holocaust denier” is "in the employ of the harshest critics of the Catholic Church, so useful is he to their cause célèbre...easily manipulated into damning evidence for the prosecution in the case against the Church."
It seems that Mr. Matt is saying that for the Catholic revisionist to confront a hoax in which Zionists and rabbis have invested so much of their prestige and staked so much of their claim to moral superiority and entitlement -- to challenge this hoax on the world stage damns the Catholic Church in the eyes of the media, in the familiar process of trial-by-media. Matt’s supposition is false. The issue does not concern “looking good” in the eyes of the world media. According to Jesus Christ, we can expect to be hated by the world, and by extension its media, because in our vocation as followers of Christ we are bound to utter truths that infuriate the world-system, which is precisely what Bishop Williamson has done. To suggest that this vocation puts revisionists in the "employ" of the enemies of Christ is a logical fallacy and a calumny.
Futhermore, Mr. Matt declares of the revisionist, "In his corner of cyberspace he does the bidding of secularist puppeteers, dangling from strings he doesn’t even see."
Since Bishop Williamson is not a cyberspace activist, publishing only a weekly column in a blog, one might suppose that Mr. Matt has someone like this writer in mind, in which case I would say that far from directing my steps, the "secularist puppeteers" have obstructed my every move. For example, my book on the rabbinic religion, Judaism Discovered is the only book on the subject ever to be banned by Amazon.com in the history of that company. Last week Amazon even removed the book from its listings. Even used copies cannot be sold through Amazon. Moreover, I was fired from my job as a reporter in New York for producing a documentary on Zionism. My wife was chased down a street by a Zionist mob after my "World War II Revisionists" television series was broadcast. In 1984 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the one-time leading publisher of revisionist books, was torched by arsonists and its half-million dollar book-inventory destroyed.
In 1995 the home of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel was burned to the ground by arsonists. Zundel was put on trial in Canada twice for his publishing activities. The Canadian Northwest Mounted Police seized copies of Dr. Butz's book, The Hoax of the Twnetieth Century from libraries in Canada. This writer's account of Zundel's legal ordeal, The Great Holocaust Trial was regularly seized and burned by Canadian Customs. Zionist terror groups have atttacked IHR staff members, threatened the life of Dr. Arthur Butz at Northwestern University. They have severely beaten Dr. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon, and car-bombed revisionist Francois Duprat. Advertisements for revisionist speeches and books are routinely obstructed and suppressed, and lectures by revisionists at hotels are terminated by the political and economic intervention of powerful elites.
Historian David Irving, with whom I disagree on any number of points, and who is arguably the greatest living authority on the life of the evil dictator Adolf Hitler, served more than a year in prison in Austria for his views. Revisionist Friedrich Toben was taken off a plane in London in handcuffs on an arrest warrant issued for him in Germany for the “crime” of his revisionist cyberspace activism. Dozens of revisionists have been fired from their teaching jobs. Some are living as fugitives because their native European countries seek to jail them.
In what alternative reality does Michael Matt inhabit that causes him to claim that revisionists work for some enigmatic conspiracy of Establishment "puppeteers"? If the Establishment could jail us all, it would. Bishop Williamson alone is being investigated for criminal prosecution in three countries.
With regard to discredit, is there any shame or discredit that ought to be attached to the Zionist power that has visited this disgraceful repression and terror on revisionists? Do you, Michael Matt, scruple to attach any stigma whatsoever to this tyranny in terms of it being "damning evidence for the prosecution case" against Judaism and Zionism? Or is it all a one-way street in which we are always on the defensive, fretting about our image in the media, while the Zionists and rabbis are always the aggrieved parties to whom we must forever offer supplication and reparation? I was under the impression that Jesus Christ gave us the power to be sons of God. Isn’t that what it says in the “Last Gospel” of the Tridentine Mass? We demean our patrimony when we quake in anxiety over how the Vatican and the media are portraying our stand for truth. This emasculated weakness is what is the disgrace, not the manly valor of “Richard the Lionheart” Williamson.
Mr Matt states of the revisionist, "He seems to fancy himself the only one in the room with the 'courage' to say what needs to be said....his bloviating requires little courage..."
Mr Matt, how dare you? Particularly in light of the timid manner in which you declined to publicize and advocate in your newspaper for your colleague, Catholic Navy Lt. John Sharpe, who is being railroaded by the US government for having publishing anti-Zionist books.
In the purple prose that mars his writing, Matt fumes: "...with fanatical fixation, the holocaust denier still insists that the Jews...are exaggerating the number of their dead...Is it so surprising that Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities, singled out solely because they were Jewish, would take issue with those who would attempt to diminish the number of their dead?"
It is a commonplace of history that in every war atrocity propaganda is employed and exaggeration is a centerpiece of that propaganda. In the case of virtually every conflict except World War II, the record is corrected after the embers of bellicose passion have cooled. But according to Matt, it is a case of "fanatical fixation" to challenge the Six Million icon, or to note that in Auschwitz the plaque that was formerly displayed to Pope John Paul II as noting four million deaths has been quietly altered to a figure far lower. The Israelis contest every Palestinian claim of a war crime and cast doubt on nearly every Palestinian casualty figure, but I have not yet read where Mr. Matt has suggested that the Zionists thus engaged are "diminishing" the Palestinians, or that the Palestinians are right to "take issue" with Zionist revisionism.
This controversy is something more than certain Judaics merely "taking issue" with revisionists. They persuade governments in Europe and Canada to lock us up. They persuade the US government to deport revisionists to certain imprisonment. They are implicated in censorship, blacklisting, termination of employment and yes, physical attacks and terrorism against revisionists. To describe these acts with the euphemism "taking issue" is a whitewash.
Matt writes: "Must survivors of the holocaust (and their children) be expected to agonize over the possibility that that number might be a wee bit high?"
Notice his reductio ad absurdum: "Holocaust" revisionism is a teapot-tempest over little more than a casualty number that is "a wee bit high."
Mr. Matt states: "...the revisionist would still have his few admirers assume the preposterous attitude of the crepe hanger, quibbling over the number of dead Jews attributable to Hitler. Please!"
Matt dismisses the revisionists and a Cambridge-educated intellectual like Bishop Williamson who is impressed with their arguments, by reducing the whole of the corpus of revisionist technical and documentary critique of Auschwitz execution gassings as "quibbling over the number of dead Jews."
This sort of prestidigitation will convince Mr. Matt's hardcore “Remnant” newspaper loyalists, but I doubt it will deceive the thinkers in his audience. The struggle between World War II revisionists and the rabbis and Zionists, is not so much about number-crunching casualty figures, but with central Christian issues such as the bearing of false witness, the tendency that Judaism has had to brand Christians and gentiles with the Mark of Cain, and the usefulness of the gas chamber tale for blackmailing the world for financial gain and political capital in the Middle East.
What is more, "The Holocaust" in its manifestation as the rabbinic "Shoah" mystification, incorporated into the Catholic Church by the current and previous Roman pontiff, and made a litmus test for ecclesiastical office, represents nothing less than the derogation of Calvary as the central ontological reality of martyrdom, in favor of Auschwitz. By way of proof we have only to point to the fact that no one goes to jail for denying Chris's death on the Cross or His Resurrection from the dead. Only the West’s most sacred icon, Holocaustolatry, is so protected.
Note: The following is an extract of a rebuttal to Michael Matt’s essay “Holocaust Revisionism,” as it appeared on the website of his “Remnant” newspaper on the morning of Feb. 13, (the anniversary of the Allied holocaust against the city of Dresden, Germany).
Mr. Matt writes, "...holocaust denial, in addition to doing grave injustice to the Jewish victims of Hitler's maniacal ethnic cleansing, has proven itself a most effective battering ram against the Church, as well.....the Holocaust denier might as well be in the employ of the harshest critics of the Catholic Church, so useful is he to their cause célèbre. In his corner of cyberspace he does the bidding of secularist puppeteers, dangling from strings he doesn’t even see. He seems to fancy himself the only one in the room with the 'courage' to say what needs to be said. But whatever intentions he may have to defend 'the truth,' his bloviating requires little courage and is easily manipulated into damning evidence for the prosecution in the case against the Church."
Dear Mr. Matt, where did you pick up this term "holocaust denial" which you use so blithely? Surely not from "puppeteers," since you are, unlike the rest of us, obviously immune to manipulation. However, it is interesting to note that you incorporate into your writing the Orwellian neologism coined by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, who dared not take the stand and be cross-examined by David Irving at his "Holocaust" trial in London. Lipstadt has denied the Allied holocaust in Dresden which incinerated tens of thousands of German civilians on Ash Wednesday, sixty-four years ago. The vast majority of Zionists like Lipstadt also deny the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians.
Please explain how revisionists, being unable in their conscience to commit to tales of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, are "doing grave injustice to the Jewish victims of Hitler's maniacal ethnic cleansing"? Do you, Mr. Matt, mean to suggest that if we were to give our assent to what we believe to be a lie, we would be thereby performing an act of justice and charity on behalf of Judaic people? It is not an act of justice or charity to lie for anyone, Judaic or gentile.
In his next section, Mr. Matt does a little "bloviating" of his own, suggesting that the revisionist "Holocaust denier” is "in the employ of the harshest critics of the Catholic Church, so useful is he to their cause célèbre...easily manipulated into damning evidence for the prosecution in the case against the Church."
It seems that Mr. Matt is saying that for the Catholic revisionist to confront a hoax in which Zionists and rabbis have invested so much of their prestige and staked so much of their claim to moral superiority and entitlement -- to challenge this hoax on the world stage damns the Catholic Church in the eyes of the media, in the familiar process of trial-by-media. Matt’s supposition is false. The issue does not concern “looking good” in the eyes of the world media. According to Jesus Christ, we can expect to be hated by the world, and by extension its media, because in our vocation as followers of Christ we are bound to utter truths that infuriate the world-system, which is precisely what Bishop Williamson has done. To suggest that this vocation puts revisionists in the "employ" of the enemies of Christ is a logical fallacy and a calumny.
Futhermore, Mr. Matt declares of the revisionist, "In his corner of cyberspace he does the bidding of secularist puppeteers, dangling from strings he doesn’t even see."
Since Bishop Williamson is not a cyberspace activist, publishing only a weekly column in a blog, one might suppose that Mr. Matt has someone like this writer in mind, in which case I would say that far from directing my steps, the "secularist puppeteers" have obstructed my every move. For example, my book on the rabbinic religion, Judaism Discovered is the only book on the subject ever to be banned by Amazon.com in the history of that company. Last week Amazon even removed the book from its listings. Even used copies cannot be sold through Amazon. Moreover, I was fired from my job as a reporter in New York for producing a documentary on Zionism. My wife was chased down a street by a Zionist mob after my "World War II Revisionists" television series was broadcast. In 1984 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the one-time leading publisher of revisionist books, was torched by arsonists and its half-million dollar book-inventory destroyed.
In 1995 the home of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel was burned to the ground by arsonists. Zundel was put on trial in Canada twice for his publishing activities. The Canadian Northwest Mounted Police seized copies of Dr. Butz's book, The Hoax of the Twnetieth Century from libraries in Canada. This writer's account of Zundel's legal ordeal, The Great Holocaust Trial was regularly seized and burned by Canadian Customs. Zionist terror groups have atttacked IHR staff members, threatened the life of Dr. Arthur Butz at Northwestern University. They have severely beaten Dr. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon, and car-bombed revisionist Francois Duprat. Advertisements for revisionist speeches and books are routinely obstructed and suppressed, and lectures by revisionists at hotels are terminated by the political and economic intervention of powerful elites.
Historian David Irving, with whom I disagree on any number of points, and who is arguably the greatest living authority on the life of the evil dictator Adolf Hitler, served more than a year in prison in Austria for his views. Revisionist Friedrich Toben was taken off a plane in London in handcuffs on an arrest warrant issued for him in Germany for the “crime” of his revisionist cyberspace activism. Dozens of revisionists have been fired from their teaching jobs. Some are living as fugitives because their native European countries seek to jail them.
In what alternative reality does Michael Matt inhabit that causes him to claim that revisionists work for some enigmatic conspiracy of Establishment "puppeteers"? If the Establishment could jail us all, it would. Bishop Williamson alone is being investigated for criminal prosecution in three countries.
With regard to discredit, is there any shame or discredit that ought to be attached to the Zionist power that has visited this disgraceful repression and terror on revisionists? Do you, Michael Matt, scruple to attach any stigma whatsoever to this tyranny in terms of it being "damning evidence for the prosecution case" against Judaism and Zionism? Or is it all a one-way street in which we are always on the defensive, fretting about our image in the media, while the Zionists and rabbis are always the aggrieved parties to whom we must forever offer supplication and reparation? I was under the impression that Jesus Christ gave us the power to be sons of God. Isn’t that what it says in the “Last Gospel” of the Tridentine Mass? We demean our patrimony when we quake in anxiety over how the Vatican and the media are portraying our stand for truth. This emasculated weakness is what is the disgrace, not the manly valor of “Richard the Lionheart” Williamson.
Mr Matt states of the revisionist, "He seems to fancy himself the only one in the room with the 'courage' to say what needs to be said....his bloviating requires little courage..."
Mr Matt, how dare you? Particularly in light of the timid manner in which you declined to publicize and advocate in your newspaper for your colleague, Catholic Navy Lt. John Sharpe, who is being railroaded by the US government for having publishing anti-Zionist books.
In the purple prose that mars his writing, Matt fumes: "...with fanatical fixation, the holocaust denier still insists that the Jews...are exaggerating the number of their dead...Is it so surprising that Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities, singled out solely because they were Jewish, would take issue with those who would attempt to diminish the number of their dead?"
It is a commonplace of history that in every war atrocity propaganda is employed and exaggeration is a centerpiece of that propaganda. In the case of virtually every conflict except World War II, the record is corrected after the embers of bellicose passion have cooled. But according to Matt, it is a case of "fanatical fixation" to challenge the Six Million icon, or to note that in Auschwitz the plaque that was formerly displayed to Pope John Paul II as noting four million deaths has been quietly altered to a figure far lower. The Israelis contest every Palestinian claim of a war crime and cast doubt on nearly every Palestinian casualty figure, but I have not yet read where Mr. Matt has suggested that the Zionists thus engaged are "diminishing" the Palestinians, or that the Palestinians are right to "take issue" with Zionist revisionism.
This controversy is something more than certain Judaics merely "taking issue" with revisionists. They persuade governments in Europe and Canada to lock us up. They persuade the US government to deport revisionists to certain imprisonment. They are implicated in censorship, blacklisting, termination of employment and yes, physical attacks and terrorism against revisionists. To describe these acts with the euphemism "taking issue" is a whitewash.
Matt writes: "Must survivors of the holocaust (and their children) be expected to agonize over the possibility that that number might be a wee bit high?"
Notice his reductio ad absurdum: "Holocaust" revisionism is a teapot-tempest over little more than a casualty number that is "a wee bit high."
Mr. Matt states: "...the revisionist would still have his few admirers assume the preposterous attitude of the crepe hanger, quibbling over the number of dead Jews attributable to Hitler. Please!"
Matt dismisses the revisionists and a Cambridge-educated intellectual like Bishop Williamson who is impressed with their arguments, by reducing the whole of the corpus of revisionist technical and documentary critique of Auschwitz execution gassings as "quibbling over the number of dead Jews."
This sort of prestidigitation will convince Mr. Matt's hardcore “Remnant” newspaper loyalists, but I doubt it will deceive the thinkers in his audience. The struggle between World War II revisionists and the rabbis and Zionists, is not so much about number-crunching casualty figures, but with central Christian issues such as the bearing of false witness, the tendency that Judaism has had to brand Christians and gentiles with the Mark of Cain, and the usefulness of the gas chamber tale for blackmailing the world for financial gain and political capital in the Middle East.
What is more, "The Holocaust" in its manifestation as the rabbinic "Shoah" mystification, incorporated into the Catholic Church by the current and previous Roman pontiff, and made a litmus test for ecclesiastical office, represents nothing less than the derogation of Calvary as the central ontological reality of martyrdom, in favor of Auschwitz. By way of proof we have only to point to the fact that no one goes to jail for denying Chris's death on the Cross or His Resurrection from the dead. Only the West’s most sacred icon, Holocaustolatry, is so protected.
An interesting article.
Since I suspect this poster has done a bit of readin on this issue, I would like to ask a question:
1) Regarding the "Leuchter Report:" One of its claims in defense of the assertion that no Jews were gassed at Auschwitz was that there were no traces of cyanide found in the bricks tested in the alleged gas chamber. Remnant columnist Thomas Woods, in rebuttal of this, cited a Popular Mechanics article (!) which claimed that the reason no trace of cyanide was found in the tested bricks was because the bricks tested were from a portion of the "gas chamber" remodeled after the war.
What do revisionists say to this? _________________ St. Michael the Archangel: Pray for Us!!
Since I suspect this poster has done a bit of readin on this issue, I would like to ask a question:
1) Regarding the "Leuchter Report:" One of its claims in defense of the assertion that no Jews were gassed at Auschwitz was that there were no traces of cyanide found in the bricks tested in the alleged gas chamber. Remnant columnist Thomas Woods, in rebuttal of this, cited a Popular Mechanics article (!) which claimed that the reason no trace of cyanide was found in the tested bricks was because the bricks tested were from a portion of the "gas chamber" remodeled after the war.
What do revisionists say to this?
My apologies, but I have not read the Leuchter Report, nor the debates on its conclusions.
"Thomas Woods, in rebuttal of this, cited a Popular Mechanics article (!)"... I see the Traditionalist writers are now citing Popular Mechanics articles. Christopher Ferrara cited a Popular Mechanics article as having debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories in a Remnant article. ("But this is only typical of the rhetorical carelessness with which the Bishop has spoken publicly on this and other subjects beyond his competence, including 9/11 conspiracy theories so flimsy they were debunked by a single article in Popular Mechanics magazine." - Christopher Ferrara).
Far from being an independent and unbiased collection of scientists and engineers, this magazine has some very suspicious ties and underwent radical changes prior to the publication of this article and book. Check out this excerpt from a book by David Ray Griffin entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking. ("Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics." -- Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration).
"In the months just prior to the publication of the article on which this book is based, a radical change in PM’s personnel was orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines, Cathleen P. Black. As reporter Christopher Bollyn pointed out, Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the US Information Agency.
Bollyn, describing this Black-orchestrated change at Popular Mechanics as "a brutal take-over," wrote: "In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazine’s former editor-in-chief, was replaced by James B. Meigs. In October, a new creative director replaced PM’s 21-year veteran who was given 90 minutes to clear out of his office." In each of the following six months, Bollyn further reporter, three or four more people were similarly dismissed. Accordingly, the suggestion that this book about 9/11 reflects PM’s long tradition of expertise is misleading.
Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM’s writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for the article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. Bollyn then wrote an essay entitled "9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propoganda for PM." The Hearst Corporation, Bollyn charged, had hired young Chertoff to work on an article supporting the very interpretation of 9/11 that had led to the creation of the department now headed by his older cousin.
As Bollyn leanred, this familial relationship seemed to be something that neither Benjamin Chertoff nor PM wanted to advertise. When young Chertoff was asked by Bollyn if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he replied "I don’t know," then said that all further questions should be put to PM’s publicist. Bollyn then called Benjamin Chertoff’s mother. When asked whether her son was related to the new secretary of Homeland Security, she reportedly replied "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."
From editor-in-chief Meigs’ "Afterword" to the book, however, a reader would assume there was some doubt about this. … After mentioning the conversation between Bollyn and Benjamin Chertoff’s mother, Meigs himself says: "it’s possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related."
Meigs expression of doubt is amazing. He is claiming that he and his crack staff were in a few months able to discover all the central truths about 9/11 – why the planes were not intercepted, why the World Trade Center Buildings came down, what really hit the Pentagon, and what really happened to UA Flight 93 – and yet they were not able to find out for sure whether a member of their own team was related to the director of Homeland Security!" ---
Popular Mechanics lost a lot of credibility in my eyes following their so-called debunking of FEMA Camps on Glenn Beck. I don't know if FEMA Camps are legit or are simply hysteria, but their so-called "de-bunking" was a huge strawman that bordered on intellectual dishonesty and yellow journalism. They tried to basically debunk the FEMA Camp idea based on one illegit youtube video filming something that wasn't a FEMA Camp. I was like, "that's all you have?". The fact that it was Glenn Beck made it all the more suspect. Alex Jones though at times in need of a little polishing here or there tackles the issue with far more integrity and he even predicted the strawman. It makes me question Popular Mechanics credibility in other "de-bunking" they do.
How many of the reported incidents are false flags?
***Do you mean that the victims of the NEO_Nazis are beating themselves up?
Aren't the vast majority of incidents performed by the very Muslims that Jewish lobbies insisted be brought into Europe?
***First I have heard that the Jews brought Muslims in Germany. I thought the Germans creater the Guestworker scheme for Turks due to Labour shortages in the 1970's.
Anyway the majority of the Neo_Nazi attacks are in former East Germany - not many Turks there.
Holocaust aside, the propaganda you posted is used to justify suppression of Christian Scripture.
***Please clarify, I have no idea how attacks by East German Neo-Nazis are used in the way you suggest.
Even if your statistics were accurate, that would not justify persecuting a sitting Roman Catholic Bishop. Your propaganda in the context of this thread supports the travesty of injustice against His Eminence.
***The Bishop could have preached the Gospel instead of getting into this Neo-Nazis debate.[/quote]
Seems to me that if anyone was guilty of "inciting racial hatred" in Germany it was the Swedish television station. (Still a load of nonsense, though.)
Excellent point.
And leaving aside whether H.E. is correct or not (I've read convincing arguments both ways), this is what Fr. Iscara (SSPX) told priests at last years American District Priest Conference in Winona, MN:
(Paraphrased):
"I am not a strong man.
"I cannot even climb the stairs.
"But I would hope that, if push came to shove, I would lay down my life for the Faith.
"But I am not willing to lay down my life for anything besides the Faith.
"And certainly not for the sake of historical truth."
Ah, but I think it is about the Faith and about Christendom.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
