Practical Suggestions for Moslem Use Of Revisionist Works to Counter Zionist Propaganda

La conférence internationale révisionniste de Trieste

An international Revisionist Conference was held by the cultural association Nuovo Ordine Nazionale , on the 6th and 7th of October 2001 in Trieste Italy. Amongst the participants: Mr Jean-Louis Berger (France), Professor Robert Countess (United States), Mr Russ Granata (United States), Mr Ahmed Rami (Morocco), Mr Vincent Reynouard (France), Dr Fredrick Töben (Australia), Jürgen Graf (Switzerland)...

Samedi et dimanche [ 6 et 7 octobre] s'est tenu, dans la salle des congrès de la Fiera, une conférence organisée par l'Association culturelle Nuovo Ordine Nazionale sur le thème: "Révisionnisme et dignité des pays vaincus", auquelle ont participé des personnalités de différents pays.

Towards a Clearer Understanding of Historical Sources and Their Use in Writing about the Orthodox View of the Holocaust

Practical Suggestions for Moslem Use Of Revisionist Works to Counter Zionist Propaganda
By Robert H. Countess, Ph.D.
Beirut, Lebanon [March-April, 2001]

INTRODUCTION

Religion Professor, Jewish activist, and extreme right-wing Zionist Deborah Lipstadt, aptly gave her well financed book written over a seven-year period a religious rather than an historical title: DENYING THE HOLOCAUST. THE GROWING ASSAULT ON TRUTH AND MEMORY Had Lipstadt been committed to a traditionally historical approach, she might have chosen as a title for her book: A Careful Examination of items of Evidence Offered by Dissenting Investigators Contrary to the “Orthodox” View of the Jewish Tragedy in WW Two, or something similar. Such a course of conduct would have been open and positive; her mindset is clearly closed and negative.

By contrast, the Jewish Marxist and belligerent Princeton University Professor Arno Mayer introduced the historical aspect right along with the religious aspect in his 1988 book WHY DID THE HEAVENS NOT DARKEN? THE ‘FINAL SOLUTION’ IN HISTORY. Since a scientific historiography cannot, it would seem, demonstrate the darkening of “the Heavens” (if “Heavens” is a synonym for a Jewish “G-d”) as a response to a “Shoah” (that is, “catastrophe”) tragedy in the WW2 era, Mayer has strangely and unfortunately, as a Marxist and atheist, introduced religion in his title in a way similar to that of Lipstadt.

Lipstadt’s debilitating obsessions are Jewishness and Antisemitism. And her obsessions appear in the warp and woof of each page’s religious fundamentalism-fanaticism. By contrast, Mayer’s book—despite glaring weaknesses throughout—displays historical understanding of the problems with sources as he writes a careful and — in many ways — reliable historiography, even though he is “an historical materialist.” 3

Also, to his credit, he declares that “Critical and scrupulous revision is the lifeblood of historical reflection” and that this is particularly the case for “the Judeocide” or “Shoah”. 4 Without naming Professor Dr. Ernst Nolte of the Free University of Berlin, Mayer condemns what he calls “retrovisionist historians in Germany who today seek to rationalize the Nazi regime by characterizing it as intrinsically designed and essential for the struggle against the ‘greater evil’ of Soviet communism.” 5

Seemingly, Mayer regards “Revisionism” in historiography to be a positive concept. He clearly condemns the Elie Wiesel-style trumpeting of “memory” while, however, having no entry in the Index for this sham “Professor” of Boston University. Mayer quite correctly writes that “Whereas the voice of memory is univocal and uncontested, that of history is polyphonic and open to debate. Memory tends to rigidify over time, while history calls for revision.” 6 Mayer rightly condemns Wiesel since this Nobel laureate is so perverse as to declare: “Some events do take place but are not true; others are, although they never occurred.” 7 In similar fashion, Rabbi Michael Berenbaum has declared that it is the Holocaust that now enables people to transcend the relative realm of shifting values and to move up and into the realm of the Absolute and confront THE Absolute evil: Nazism. 8 Readers can quickly discern that we are dealing here with people of a religious fundamentalist extremism, even though some of their writings are at times classified as History.

Lest the reader be misled into thinking that Mayer would ever consent to participating in a truly open conference on the Judeocide-Shoah-Holocaust, whose speakers might include Revisionists by reputation such as Germar Rudolf, Mark Weber, Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Stuart Hayward, Juergen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, the present writer, et al., Mayer has made it clear in personal correspondence to me that he shares Lipstadt’s patronizing disdain for open debate.9

At least Mayer in principle is head and shoulders above Lipstadt, even though both of them exhibit the characteristic which they call chutzpa and which genuine historians ought not to exhibit in their work.

The astute reader, therefore, will not be surprised to read Mayer’s famous fourteen word “bombshell” on page 362 about the Auschwitz-Birkenau alleged homicidal gassing facilities: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.”10

In contrast to the Mayer book, Lipstadt’s specific references to these alleged and highly controversial rooms inside camp crematoria cover some fifty-two pages of her opus, and yet she couches these alleged gassing facilities in religious-philosophical concepts of “truth” and “memory”— so that, in case anyone disagrees with her grasp of the (apparent) “revelation” of this undeniable “truth”, that person is evil and, consequently, a “denier” of something so obvious (to her) — and by extension, to the entire World!

Lipstadt reminds one of the religious dogmatist who declares that “IF you don’t agree with me about God and Salvation etc., THEN you are going to Hell.”

For Lipstadt, the historical record is apparently locked in lead and set in concrete and, as such, knows no serious problems. Perhaps for her, there may be a disagreement over the dotting of an “i” or the crossing of a “t”, as in debating whether 5.9M Jews were holocausted or 5.92M. Jews were holocausted, but that is it. I find it of great interest that she omits Mayer from her book as does Daniel Jonah Goldhagen.11 Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman in Denying History. Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?12 are very concerned about Mayer’s expression of doubt about the alleged gas chambers’ evidence, but Shermer and Grobman display their “spin doctor” mentality on pages 126-7 when they labor diligently to play down the famous Mayer fourteen word sentence. They quote Mayer’s full paragraph where he wrote that the SS “razed nearly all killing and cremating installations well before the arrival of Soviet troops”; but they FAIL to focus on Mayer’s “nearly all” reference. My question to Shermer and Grobman: IF “nearly all” were destroyed, THEN is it not so that some were not destroyed? Therefore, Mayer should have examined those not destroyed in order to produce some kind of scientific proof that these apparently ordinary structures were what he presupposes them to be: “killing ¼ installations.”

Indeed, Shermer-Grobman and Mayer et al. must not be allowed “to have their cake and eat it” because of the simple scientific requirement for physical evidence. IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, THEN THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CERTAINTY. In English penal law concerning “Habeas corpus” it is the question: “Have you, the state, proper reason to detain this person?” No reason? No Holes in the “gas chamber” roof? No documents? No “killing installations”? No justifiable basis for “Holocaust” dogma, I must conclude.

THE USE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND TRADITIONS

In the following section I shall make use of the sources that are the standards to meet in archaeological research and ancient history before one may properly write a reliable historiography in any field.

“Stones, Scripts, and Scholars”

Professor of History at the University of Miami (Ohio), Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, is a Christian but took his doctorate at the (Jewish) Brandeis University in Boston. He wrote an article with the above title and it appeared in CHRISTIANITY TODAY.¹³ His linguistic training includes a dozen or more Semitic languages and their cognates. He also has a keen interest in Homer and the Greek tradition of Herodotus as they shed light on Old Testament studies.

The three primary sources are 1.) traditions; 2.) documents/inscriptions; and 3.) material remains; and their possible relationships may be seen in the following drawing:

All Historiography Is Based upon Fragmentary Evidence

COMPLETENESS is always the researcher’s goal, but it is NEVER attainable. All research is relative to the finite limitations of the available evidence and the training and experience and biases of the researcher.

Materials are the physical remains and they include pottery shards, wall and house and palace building stones (or wood) and weapons and household utensils and clothing.

Documents are the inscriptional remains found in, for example, royal records, scribal tablets, rock carvings, shards, writing on bones, precious stones, or bark.

Traditions are ideas and beliefs and interpretations handed down orally from one generation to another and they may comprise a few years as well as hundreds or even thousands of years of telling and re-telling.

Each of these sources has its own problematics—and by problematics I mean that the study is not simple and not objective, but rather that there are guesses and hunches involved from the standpoint of the scientist and, therefore, the scientist must avoid dogmatism. Illustration: one may assert confidently that 2 oranges +2 more oranges = 4 citrus fruit — no matter what anyone says to the contrary. (I use oranges since there may be a theoretical mathematician who might argue that in some circumstances 2+2 = x rather than four.) Now, in the field of Historiography, it is foolish to make dogmatic statements about anything in antiquity—with “antiquity” including events of a few hours ago all the way back to thousands of years ago!

Therefore, when using Traditions and Documents/Inscriptions and Materials, one must seek areas where they overlap, as shown in the illustration above with the circles and numbers.

For example, area 4 points to similarity and/or agreement between Traditions and Materials.

Area 5 points to similarity and/or agreement between Traditions and Documents/Inscriptions.

Area 6 points to similarity and/or agreement between Materials and Documents/Inscriptions.

But, with area 7 we see similarity and/or agreement between all three sources and, as such, a scientific conclusion of whatever sort that clearly has taken into serious consideration an area 7-type convergence ought to be the most valuable conclusion for a scientific-historiographical investigation. There might even exist a “7”, however, that we would reject today from a math-science standpoint. For example, what if we found a clay tablet that had 2+2 = 5, along with five oranges (petrified?), and a long line of oral tradition from that region, call it Ypothermia, which said: “My father told me that his father told him that his father told him . . . that 2+2=5? In the year 2001 we would reject such a “7” convergence. Instead, we would say that all three items of “evidence” are faulty and we would point out that evidence itself is not an absolute but must be interpreted by an astute interpreter.

An example may be taken from Emily Vermeule’s Greece in the Bronze Age 14 where she lists plants and animals. In the Homeric corpus, and Linear B clay tablets from Crete, the apple is attested only by Homer’s tradition; the mint plant only in Linear B; but the almond is found only in actual excavations by archaeologists; the cypress appearing in both Homer and Linear B; the coriander in both Linear B and in excavations; but linen cloth in all three.

Until the Englishman, the architect Michael Ventris 1 5, deciphered the Linear B tablets in 1952, we had no corroborating evidence for the Homeric traditions from inscriptional (that is, material) sources. Problems for scholars still abound, however, due to the many gaps in both Homer and Linear B.

The ultimate question for the researcher is always: Even where there is a convergence of evidence from all three types of sources (area 7), is X a true conclusion to be drawn from this apparent convergence of evidence?

For a writer so superficial as Deborah Lipstadt — whose ideological agendum is so pregnantly obvious (that is, to prove “the Holocaust” as she defines it!) — there is NO nagging question to be struggled with. Rather, her efforts are fixated on condemning the Revisionists whose scientific conclusions differ from her dogma.

Holocaustomania, Holocaustology, and The Holocaust Industry

It was Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, I believe, who may have coined the term “Holocaustomania” for that maniacal Jewish obsession with pain, suffering, and tragedy from an ethnocentric focus, the effective consequence of which is that all who disagree with the dogma expounded end up being called “anti-Semites.” He said in this regard that in the distant past, an “anti-Semite” was someone who hated Jews whereas now (from the 1980s on) an “anti-Semite” is someone whom Jews hate.

Little wonder then that the self-centered Jewess Lipstadt might condemn Professor Howard F. Stein for the conclusion he made in his study of Jewish psycho-history according to which “The seeds of anti-semitism do not lie outside of Judaism, but within it, in the self-hate and self-constriction shown in mythic patriarchal biblical days . . . .” 1 6

Holocaustology is a proper field of study — more frequently called Holocaust Studies — and if we follow the advice of University of Toronto Historian Professor Dr. Michael Marrus, this field is no different from other historical fields of study and the task of the investigator is “to get it right.” 1 7

The Holocaust Industry is the title of a book published in 2000 by Professor Norman G. Finkelstein and is subtitled “Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering” 1 8 In this monograph that has stirred up an enormous reaction from Jewish leaders and attorneys in that Industry, Finkelstein writes:

The challenge today is to restore the Nazi “Holocaust” as a rational subject of Inquiry. . . The “Holocaust” industry has always been bankrupt. What remains is openly to declare it so. The time is long past to put it out of business. 1 9

Where does the Jewish right-wing extremist Deborah Lipstadt fit into these terms — Holocaustomania, Holocaustology, and Holocaust Industry?

She is obviously revealed by her book Denying the Holocaust and other statements as being a Holocaustomaniac and, as such, a person not open to rational discourse as one might properly expect from a traditional academic who has succeeded in obtaining a proper Ph.D. But one must be informed that her degrees are not in the field of History per se but rather in Jewish Studies. 2 0 This training does not in itself disqualify her since there are professors with similar training in the field of Religion who do in fact display a rational and calm non-dogmatic approach to Holocaustology.2 1

She does in fact work in a well funded Jewish chair presently that is religious in nature and funded for only someone with her skewed outlook on Holocaustology. One cannot imagine that the Dorot Chair in Jewish Studies at Emory University (Atlanta) might ever be occupied by a Christian or a Moslem or a Hindu or a Buddhist or an agnostic/atheistic Revisionist who might display a thoroughly scientific attitude to the Jewish tragedy—that is, someone who would try “to get it right,” as Michael Marrus has said.

She is clearly a primary leader as a Jewish activist and extremist and a Jewish racialist/racist in the Holocaust Industry, the latter trait being demonstrated by her exhortations to Jews to marry only Jews. 2 2She has become enriched enormously from the financial success of the Industry as it perpetually scams US dollars and Deutschmarks and Swiss gold and Austrian shillings and British pounds and other currencies from millions of pliant taxpayers and bankers and industrialists world wide. Since the London trial of Irving versus Lipstadt (Jan.-March 2000), her top billing as a speaker at Jewish extremist Holocaust Industry events has netted her many thousands of dollars per event as she lies about how eager she was to debate with David Irving in court (while she, of course, made herself unavailable to take the witness stand in her own defense!—a cowardly deed analogous to murderer O.J. Simpson’s wise refusal to take the witness stand in his criminal trial in 1995). The comparison is truly an apt one since Simpson was clearly shown to be guilty by the weight of the scientific evidence presented against him in both the criminal and the civil trials, while Lipstadt stands convicted, by her blatant distortions of Irving and Faurisson and Butz and many other Revisionists, of murdering their reputations for her own personal financial gain. Simpson and Lipstadt are cut from the same cloth: lying to get ahead and stay ahead of the inevitable conclusions from careful forensic scientists. (One day in this 21^st century, these liars will be condemned similarly as the Roman Church came to be condemned for its mistreatment of Galileo.)

The obvious fact that she and her Elie Wiesel mentor types (amongst whom Elan Steinberg, Abe Foxman, Abe Bronfman, Steven Spielberg, Marvin Hier, Michael Berenbaum, and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen) refuse open debate with Revisionist forensic experts is the minimum evidence needed to show that she lacks the proper intellectual equipment to be a professor in any field of academic endeavour. The nature of the university requires open debate among its members, and I suggest that any professor who refuses open debate with highly qualified opponents thereby forfeits his/her right to hold a university appointment—no matter who is buying the job. (Had not millions been given to fund the Dorot Chair at Emory University, it is quite open to doubt whether she would ever have received such an appointment to a prestigious Southern University with its Christian origins.)

If there were a Nobel Prize for cowardice, the judges would be hard put to decide between awarding it to Lipstadt or Wiesel. If there were a Prize for mania (madness), no doubt these two Holocaust Industry fanatics would share it.

Sources for the Study of Jewish Persecution in World War Two

Elie Wiesel has “traditioned” to us his having been freed from three separate German concentration camps. 2 3

Now, if there are inscriptional and material items of evidence that support his personal testimony, then a convergence of evidence in area 7 of our illustration would compel historians and the general public to take very seriously what Mr. Wiesel has alleged. Since, however, nothing of the kind has been found, there is little reason to believe him, especially in view of his wild tales about other matters—namely, the “geysers of blood” from long dead Jewish bodies. 2 4

Although called “Dr.” by the uncritical media and the academic and political gaggle of prominent persons, Wiesel holds no earned doctorate insofar as I have been able to learn, but he has been given a plethora of honorary doctorates. By analogy, Wiesel is as fake a “Doctor” as Robert van Jan Pelt, who claims to have debunked the Leuchter Report, is a fake “architect.” 2 5

As for his “geysers of blood” from Jewish corpses months after their burial, Wiesel offers a tradition rather than hard evidence. In this case, however, he offers a tradition from alleged eyewitnesses to this alleged phenomenon which is thoroughly anti-scientific in nature. For two millennia, critics have not believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ inasmuch as they declare that dead bodies do not rise up and walk and talk and eat and sleep again. And it is most likely, I suggest, that these critics would disagree with Wiesel that Jewish corpses spurted up their blood through packed or soft earth in protest against their murderers—whoever these Goy murderers are alleged to have been.

The decades’ long accepted traditions of Jewish soap and lampshades have likewise been quite discredited by forensic examinations, even though there are still believers in these odd dogmas.2 6

In Denying the Holocaust there is a two-page list of similarly fantastic dogmas of Jewish traditions from “the Holocaust industry” 2 7 and we must ask why it is that in several States of the European Union and in Switzerland dissenters such as Germar Rudolf and Robert Faurisson and Jean Plantin and Udo Walendy and our friend Jürgen Graf —all serious scholars in their own specialities—are prosecuted, fined, imprisoned, and physically persecuted when they openly DENY such rubbish that ought to make any intellectual blush with shame for ever having taken it seriously. Indeed, to DENY these fantasies born of perverted minds ought to be a mark of honour among intellectual and scientific professionals!

Yet, the dissenting intellectual scientific approach is greeted by the likes of Lipstadt as the product of warped minds and perverse spirits in her “Preface to the Paperback Edition” of her monograph:

“In the 1930s Nazi rats spread a virulent form of antisemitism that resulted in the destruction of millions. Today the bacillus carried by these rats threatens to ‘kill’ those who already died at the hands of the Nazis for a second time by destroying the world’s memory of them. One can only speculate about the form of the bacillus’ next mutation. All those who value truth, particularly truths that are subject to attack by the plague of hatred, must remain ever vigilant. The bacillus of prejudice is exceedingly tenacious and truth and memory exceedingly fragile.” 28

Therefore, for Lipstadt there is no requirement for a scholarly confrontation with dissenters who submit carefully constructed scientific arguments — as did Galileo on behalf of his new and dissenting view of a heliocentric planetary system — but instead the requirement is to declare with her emphatic hatemongering spirit that dissenters are as life-threatening as a “bacillus”, thus deserving extermination in a way that the Germans who developed Zyklon B would exterminate the body louse with its death-carrying typhus virus.

Surely, the conclusion must be obvious: to declare the Lipstadts and Wiesels and Berenbaums and Hiers and Wiesenthals and Bronfmans and Foxmans, the van Pelts, for starters, to be what they in fact are: anti-intellectuals, anti-scholars, anti-scientists on the one hand, and on the other hand, radical dogmatists in favor of governmental action and legislation to protect the “Holo-dogma” that these miscreants preach.

As of the date of this writing, the miscreants are winning in almost every nation on Planet Earth except for the United States and the Moslem nations.

In the latter there is, however, very little recognition of the political and social and economic power that the Holo-dogma religion wields over their individual nations. In view of the efforts by many or most Moslems to build nations where Islam is supreme and where sharia is the standard for Law, Moslems—I submit—must realize that the “Holocaust” religion is the major competing religion that would, if not checked, diminish Moslem nation building.

For the Moslem populations in the United States as well, there is a general and uncritical acceptance of the Holo-dogma at face value—which means the Hollywood and TV and media interpretation of “the Six Million Jews killed by Nazi gassing facilities and other extermination methods.” I say this from my own experience with Americans of Moslem background. Such fine people are usually anti-Zionist but they are usually pro-“Holocaust” dogma or at least naïve in their daily acceptance of the orthodox “Holocaust” claims.

The year 2001 is the time to change that outlook and this must be accomplished by means of Arabic and Persian translations and publishing of the best Revisionist books and journals and, then, their widespread distribution to hundreds of millions of Moslems. In addition, there must be official as well as informal sponsorship of Revisionist conferences and seminars inside and outside of Moslem universities; television and radio programs focusing on the issues; and widespread newspaper articles and editorials, so that the major Revisionist scholars can become well known to the millions of Moslems who now live in abject ignorance of them and their stellar accomplishments—as well as of their prosecutions and indeed persecutions.

In particular, Professor Robert Faurisson ought to be invited on a lecture tour of leading Moslem nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, and Pakistan. India should become a partner in this venture as well.

A major breakthrough in the USA occurred with the February issue of ESQUIRE magazine and the Jewish journalist John Sack’s “Inside the Bunker” (pages 98 et sqq.). Mr. Sack went to great lengths to present, from his own viewpoint as a “Holocaust” supporter, a fair treatment of views held by me, some of my fellow Revisionists, and the Institute for Historical Review—with which I have been associated since 1987. He made it crystal clear that SOME of the Holocaust claims we DO in fact DENY are claims that ought to be denied both scientifically and by right.

In this regard, Sack has made “Holocaust Denial” respectable! This long article focuses on the most recent conference of the Institute for Historical Review in May 2000 in California where John Sack was an invited speaker—and a very well received speaker too, I must add! He clearly writes that he found significant hatemongering from Jews against Germans at gatherings he has attended in the past but NONE towards Jews at the IHR conference. He learned well that the Revisionists are open and fair and when inviting him to speak, they do not cancel his speech as did the US Holocaust Memorial Museum twice—December 1998 and January 1999. It seems that his talk on the book An Eye for an Eye 2 9 was “too hot to handle” for influential Jews who DENY that Judeo-Bolshevists imprisoned and tortured and genocided Germans in Poland during 1945-46 just because they were Germans! Jews refused to hear the truth about their own brethren committing the gravest atrocities against innocent Germans, especially since Jewish leaders of the “Holocaust” industry have insisted that there were no innocent Germans! (In the April issue of Esquire there are three letters condemning Sack’s “Inside the Bunker” article, smearing him as delusional and illegitimate etc.—that is, employing the traditional Holo-smear language.)

By analogy, what if Moslems insisted on declaring all Christians today to be guilty for atrocities during the Crusades of the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries—atrocities and imperialistic land-grabbing that I certainly want to be on record as condemning myself. Of course, Moslems of good will today would have nothing to do with such a condemnation of Christians in the present for something done in the past.

I strongly urge Moslems and their leaders at every level of society to promote the widest distribution and use in their schools and universities and media the excellent book by Dr. Roger Garaudy, recently published by the Institute for Historical Review 3 0, in which this courageous but persecuted Frenchman and former Communist and, now, Moslem has documented the hate and atrocities of Zionist Israel. Although his fine book is merely an introduction to the deeds of this immoral, secular, humanistic, anti-God, and anti-international Law Jewish State, it shows only a little of the ethnic cleansing against Moslems and Christians that continues as of this very moment.

But there should be NO illusions about the consequences of such a bold effort by Moslems and Arabs to accept my challenge to publicize the bankruptcy of the Holocaust Industry.

The United States government—my own nation which I am proud to name as my nation in view of many of its principles and of its history, but proud, I must add, in spite of its terrible warmongering deeds of killing, murder, rape, and wanton destruction of innocents since 1861—will pressure every Moslem nation NOT to follow my suggestions. And if simple pressures will not work, the Zionist oriented gaggle of the US government and the Zionist dominated media and academic domains will do everything of an economic nature to stop such Revisionist expansion into the Moslem countries.

Economic bribes and controls over provision of goods and services will be used if necessary to prohibit Moslem nations from pursuing their own best interests in the field of educating their peoples about the Holo-dogma religion—a religion that is hostile to the Moslem religion, regardless of what sect of Islam one belongs to. The power of the Almighty Dollar and the threat of overwhelming American military force will continue to be used to coerce all nations to adhere to the Holo-religion, and this threat must be taken seriously so long as Zionism continues to sway American domestic and foreign policy.

The orthodox Holocaust story has been weighed on the scales of careful scientific investigation—as ably demonstrated by the 608 page handbook Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’—and the story has been found to be wanting! And, although this book clearly affirms that there was indeed a persecution and terribly immoral (but legal) expulsion of Jews from Nazi dominated areas, this magnum opus is being branded “Holocaust denial” literature and is banned in Canada and Germany—with other cowardly countries certainly to follow in line with Zionist pressures.

What an enormous contribution to World Literature it would be if a Moslem benefactor or government would undertake the translation and publication of this unique Handbook into Arabic first, Persian second, and then other languages for predominantly Moslem nations!

This is a challenge that ought to be accepted and acted upon immediately. Along with it should be established in Moslem universities a course of study within History Departments that might be named “The Zionist Fabricated Holocaust and Its Baneful Influence on Scientific Historiography”.

Moslem nations’ scholars and politicians are now in a position to make it clear that the Jewish “Holocaust” — whatever the extent of that definite tragedy was for Jews in Europe — has been deliberately used as a club to beat down all opposition to the Zionist efforts to create and maintain a modern Jewish State, in fact, an apartheid State exclusively designed and developed BY Jews and FOR Jews and TO the detriment of NON-Jews, in this case, Semito-Palestinians. Moslems no longer should be afraid of being called by the cliché expression “anti-Semites” since 90% of the World’s Semites are Arabs, with only some 10% at most being Sephardic Jews. In fact, Moslems may argue convincingly that the MOST anti-Semitic people on earth are the Jews themselves who have hijacked this term and transmogrified it into a whip with which to flog anyone whom they see as “anti-Jewish” or “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel”. For those of us who were anti-Communist vis à vis the Soviet Union, we were not ipso facto ANTI-Russian or ANTI-Slavic, for example. Similarly, Moslems must now be encouraged to make a clear distinction between pursuing ANTI-propagandistic study of the Jewish “Shoah” (“catastrophe” in Hebrew), on the one hand, and being simply ANTI-Jewish per se on the other hand.

Thereupon, Revisionists should be invited as Visiting Professors until Moslem specialists could be trained to do the work themselves. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have broken fresh ground before us and Revisionists—who are non-political and non-ideological as Christians or otherwise—can begin this most important course of study that could bring enormous change to programs of education in Moslem lands.

It is unlikely in coming years that the “Holocaust” industry in the West will, within the context of its dominance of Western education systems, enjoy any opportunity comparable to the grand chance that the Moslem nations now [March 2001] have: that of turning the tide from today’s Holo-propagandizing of young people towards a real training in scientific historiography. Thus, NOW is the time for the Arab states to provide in their colleges and universities the long needed resources for specialists in “Holocaust” studies so that students may acquaint themselves with the fullness of Revisionist research, and hence have done with the Zionist-inspired distortions of recent history.

I naturally extend this exhortation to those here in Italy who are in a position follow it, that is, to bring historical revisionism into the academic forum where it belongs: they must not miss the decidedly exceptional opportunity afforded by the absence of anti-history legislation in this country.

Conclusion

Let us look again at the three circles for Traditions, Inscriptions-Documents, and Materials. For the key dogma of the Holocaust industry and its religion, there are many Traditions of alleged eyewitnesses, but when, on the rare occasions, as at the 1985 Zundel Trial in Toronto, where such “eyewitnesses” have been put in the box under oath and thus obliged to testify truthfully on pain of prosecution for perjury, they have denied their stories and had to admit they did not see what they earlier swore they had in fact seen in regard to homicidal gassing facilities.

Why is it that at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg there was no presentation of scientific evidence to demonstrate these alleged homicidal gassing facilities? Why were the Soviets allowed to prevent the German defense attorneys from introducing documentary evidence and photographs of Soviet atrocities? Why was this infamous Tribunal so clearly similar to a Stalinist “show trial”? Why was revenge a more prominent feature of this Tribunal than justice? (For example, there is NO similar justice today for Palestinians to be administered by, for example, the court in the Hague so as formally to accuse, indict, try, and execute by hanging the leading Jewish-Israeli criminals active since 1948.)

Clearly because the IMT was a Zionist dominated farce. The principles of European and American and Canadian and British jurisprudence were ejected and in their place was the facile acceptance of hearsay testimony and affidavits and, underlying the entire IMT, ex post facto, that is, retroactive law. Allow me to remind everyone that ex post facto legislation, abhorrent to the mind of any equitably disposed person, is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, on the powers of Congress), and yet the US representatives at the IMT brazenly condemned German citizens, military leaders, and German organizations and institutions — all of which bodies were indeed LEGAL under the German constitution of 1933-45. (In similar fashion, the Israeli ethnic cleansing policy in effect since before May 1948 is LEGAL under Israeli-Jewish Basic Law.) The Americans knew full well that the IMT was built on ex post facto law and yet they went along with this Zionist inspired and fabricated “show trial”, this great miscarriage of justice.

For me as one specializing in the field of Holocaust Studies since 1987, I would readily and gladly cease all further work therein IF I COULD BE SHOWN TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG ABOUT THE ALLEGED HOMICIDAL GASSING CHAMBERS, AND ABOUT THE ORTHODOX SIX MILLION OR FIVE MILLION, AND ABOUT THE ALLEGED HITLER DECREE(S) TO MURDER ALL THE JEWS OF EUROPE AND RUSSIA AND EVEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

I have neither the time to pursue nor any interest in pursuing a course of study and lecturing unless I am convinced that I am scientifically correct. (Acknowledging, of course, that that hallowed term SCIENCE experiences enormous changes from generation to generation; thus, what is “scientific” today may be rejected by “scientists” fifty or a hundred years from now!) I have no interest in pursuing a dislike of Jews or any other distinguishable grouping of human beings since I prefer to accept or reject people as I meet them individually. I see no value in being anti-Jewish or anti-Negro or anti-whatever the grouping may be. Abstractions are irrational in this regard. I am, however, anti-Zionist and anti-Communist and anti-Humanist and anti-Evolutionist (i.e., against Mega-evolutionism), for example. I, as a Christian minister of the Gospel, am pro-Christian and I am pro-freedom for the respectful practice of all religious points of view. I am quite aware of the splendid accomplishments of Moslems in science and letters, especially in mediaeval Spain, and I anticipate increased contacts with Moslem academics in the future for myself.

The present world is a very dangerous place, with some parts—the Middle East in particular—more dangerous than others, and I condemn the Zionist invasion and theft and destruction there, and the genocide of the indigenous Palestinian People and assault on their culture and traditions since 1948 on the villainous pretext of “the Holocaust” and the allegations that a certain piece of geography BELONGS TO JEWISH PEOPLE IN A SPECIAL WAY AS A GIFT FROM THE CREATOR-GOD and to the exclusion of other people who have resided there for 3000 years more or less.

Therefore, unless I can be convinced of the truth of the orthodox “Holocaust” story by means of “area 7” demonstration in the chart above, I shall continue to oppose the flagrant and hypocritical imposition of “Holocaust” guilt on Germans in particular and Gentiles in general by means of a Zionist dominated control of human thinking via educational, media and political institutions.

Revisionism today is NOT an ideology as is Zionism; nor is it political or religious as is Zionism. Rather, it is a method for research in History with a specific goal: akribeia (the Greek term AKRIBEIA meaning EXACTITUDE). Hence, Revisionism’s goal is to insist upon the writing of a (not THE!) History of ANY period or person in accordance with the Greek MUSE Clio’s inspiration and, if I may put words in her mouth (Clio-in-der-Mund-gelegte-Woerter!): “getting it right.” We Revisionists must insist upon this method of exactitude especially in the highly abused field of the Jewish “Shoah” where billions of dollars have been bilked from oppressed taxpayers in many nations AND with which a proud Palestinian People, who administered their own country during and after the Ottoman period, have been dispossessed, persecuted, tortured, murdered, robbed, raped, humiliated and otherwise exploited by a rapacious Zionist policy of hostile intent, and whose policy of ethnic cleansing has been extremely successful thanks largely to the financial and military support of the USA and other powerful Western nations.

Terrorism always includes some innocent victims and I strongly condemn terrorism, whether of the Jewish brand or the non-Jewish brand. Genuine revolution by the oppressed (or, Intifadeh) has a long history and each revolution stands to be judged by writers who seek akribeia. As the Zionists overthrew the British, it seems that the Palestinians are now in the process of overthrowing the Zionist criminals. Unfortunately, there are Palestinian criminals also. Revolutions are NEVER clean and clear in their planning or their carrying out. It is not my calling to justify or condemn the Intifadeh now taking place, but I can and do strongly condemn the abuse of History by the Zionist miscreants who use the “Shoah” for criminal ends: the dispossession of a proud Christian and Moslem people of their ancestral land so that a new state run by a fanatical political-religious cabal of zealots can dominate the original majority, dictate policy, and expand its Lebensraum eventually in accordance with “the Greater Israel” concept, that is, to annex either parts or all of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, Cyprus, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.*

Robert H. Countess, Ph.D.

New Testament Greek Text

Director: Theses & Dissertations Press

Email: boblbpinc@earthlink.net

*See Professor Dr. Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Press, 1994), p. 9: “. . . all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia; all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus. An enormous body of research and learned discussion based on these borders, embodied in atlases, books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda is being published in Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support.”

Notes:

1.     Denying the Holocaust. The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. With a New Preface by the Author. Deborah E. Lipstadt. New York: Plume Book, 1994. 278 pp.

2.     Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The ‘Final Solution’ in History by Arno Mayer. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988. 493 pp. [I say “belligerent” because Mayer declared in a letter dated June 10, 1989 that “we do not have a common universe of discourse.”]

3     ”A historical materialist . . . considers it his task to brush history against the grain. . . . The astonishment that the things we are currently experiencing [Spring, 1940. R.H.C.] should ‘still’ be possible in the twentieth century has no philosophic foundation. Such an astonishment cannot be the starting point for genuine historical understanding—unless it is the understanding that the concept of history in which it originates is untenable.” Walter Benjamin, “On the Concept of History” [Spring, 1940]; Mayer, ibid., p. 1. [Of Walter Benjamin, a Marxist of the notorious Frankfurt School, closed by Adolf Hitler in his sixth week of power, it may be stated that his philosophy of history was one of constructing a Jewish History based on rationalizing the past in favor of representing Jewish contributions as positive over against victimization by the hated Goyim (who are in the Talmud depicted as sub-humans). Benjamin was only one of many Jewish historians, sociologists, and Freudian psychoanalysts who self-consciously DENIED the God of Abraham but who deliberately portrayed Jewish behavior from the standpoint of Jewish group identity theory—of course, to the detriment of non-Jews. For a highly detailed discussion of Jewish group identity theory from an evolutionary viewpoint, one may wish to see Professor Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy: A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994); Separation and Its Discontents (1998); and The Culture of Critique (1998) by Praeger of Westport, CN.]

4     Mayer, p. xiii.

5     Ibid., p. xii.

6     Ibid., p. 18.

7     Legends of Our Time [New York: Schocken Books, 1982], p. viii.

8     My paraphrase. See DTH p.55, f.n. 189.

9     “Judging by the tone of what you write, we do not have a common universe of discourse [¼] Thus there are two reasons for my not even considering to take part in the projected conferences of the IHR, which is outside the pale of serious and responsible scholarly and historical debate.” [Personal correspondence of author. June 10, l989.]

10      Mayer, p.362.

11      Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust [New York: Vintage Books, 1997].

12      Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History. Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? [Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. 312 pages].

13      “Stones, Scripts, and Scholars,” [Christianity Today, February 14, 1969. Pp. 8-13].

14      Greece in the Bronze Age by Emily Vermeule [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Pp.317f.]

15      Documents in Mycenaean Greek by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick [Cambridge: The University Press, 1959].

16      “Judaism and the Group-Fantasy of Martyrdom: The Psychodynamic Paradox of Survival through Persecution” by Howard F. Stein [The Journal of Psychohistory (Fall 1978, p. 163)].

17      Personal notes taken during lecture at the January 27, 2000 Stockholm Forum on the Holocaust.

18      The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein [New York: Verso. 150 pp.].

19      Ibid., p. 150.

20      Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 55, f.n. 189.

21      For example, the esteemed Professor Dr. Ernst Nolte of the Freie Universitaet Berlin received the Konrad Adenauer Prize in May, 2000 for his work in Contemporary History, but Nolte’s doctorate is in Philosophy; and the Graz, Austria, University Professor Dr. Ernst Topitsch likewise is a well known for his work in History, yet his doctorate was taken in Classics.

22      Embracing the Stranger by Ellen Jaffe McClain [New York: Basic Books, 1995], p. 18.

23      From Auschwitz in southern Poland [cf. New York Times (Jan. 4, 1987, p.3)]; in the New York Post (Oct. 23, 1986, p.2), Wiesel said that he “recalled the day the Soviets arrived at Auschwitz.” From Buchenwald, several hundred miles westward, and near Weimar in Central Germany [New York Times (Nov. 2, 1986, Sect. 4, p. 2) with a photo of several inmates, one alleged to be Wiesel]. From Dachau, near Munich in Bavaria, over 200 miles south of Buchenwald [Jewish Telegraphic Agency (April 12, 1983, daily news bulletin, p. 3)].

24      Dissecting the Holocaust, op. cit., p. 128, f.n. 348 [See Wiesel’s The Jews of Silence [New York: New American Library, 1972; p. 48.]

25      One may see the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial of 2000 for the cross examination of Robert Jan van Pelt, masquerading as an architect until Mr. Irving pointedly asked if he were trained in architecture, and then if he were a certified architect—with the reply, under oath, being negative to both. [See http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/transcripts.html.]

26      Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 128, f.n. 350.

27      Ibid., pp. 128-131.

28      Denying the Holocaust [New York: Plume, 1993. P. xvii].

29      Eye for an Eye [New York: Basic Books, 1993.] An improved reprint appeared in Spring, 2000, from the IHR but with Sack as the publisher.

30      The Founding Myths of Modern Israel [Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 2000].


Index