Translate

Jan 6, 2011

Robert FAURISSON : "On Fred Leuchter" [1 Attachment]

 
[Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook included below]


Robert FAURISSON                                                                     January 4, 2011                                                                                       

On Fred Leuchter 

Michael Hoffman has recently sent me the new, enriched edition of the book he devoted in 1985 to Ernst Zündel's first big trial in Toronto that year. (The second big trial was to take place in 1988.) The present book bears the title The Great Holocaust Trial and the author dubs it the "twenty-fifth anniversary edition."

 
A few days ago, leafing through it to get an initial idea of the contents, I stopped short upon noticing, at pages 147-158, a text from 1992 by Fred Leuchter (the author of the famous "Leuchter Report" of 1988 on the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and author as well of other reports, published in 1989, on the alleged gas chambers of Dachau, Mauthausen, and Hartheim castle). 
 

I retained a vivid memory of this piece which at the time I had found deeply moving and which in 2010, that is, eighteen years after its writing, appeared to me, in light of the many other trying episodes that were to overwhelm F. Leuchter in the interval, more moving still. Its title was "Is There Life After Persecution?", with the subtitle "The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter" (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p429_Leuchter.html). It was his paper for the eleventh conference of the Institute for Historical Review in the U.S. in October 1992, published inThe Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-1993, p. 429-444.

 
I hope that F. Leuchter, despite the condition in which he now finds himself, will somehow have the time and strength to add to that heart-rending story the epilogue that may rightly be expected of him, which would deal with its author's life from 1993 to today. The whole, that is, the 1992 piece and the follow-up that remains to be written, would not fail to be translated into at least French and German.

 
F. Leuchter is one of the most endearing men I have ever met: his intelligence, his probity, his kindness and his courage are striking. His tribulations have gone well beyond what he has been able to tell us up to now. The Klarsfelds, Sabina Citron and the entire band of holocaustic shock troops, singling him out, ruined his life and reputation. Once down on the ground, he saw even some revisionists or semi-revisionists treat him with contempt or condescendence. In London in November 1991, when his hardships and humiliations had barely begun, David Irving dishonourably left him to his fate, before ending up calling him a "simpleton". As for Carlo Mattogno, he maligned the "Leuchter Report" not without taking up the moronic arguments of Jean-Claude Pressac who, however, some years later, was to realise that he himself had defended, with the help and money of the Klarsfelds, a dossier that was "rotten" and good only for "the rubbish bins of history" (sic). I could name the names of a few other persons who have behaved hardly better, but shall refrain from doing so.
 

To end, I prefer to yield to Fred Leuchter himself. Let's hear how he held forth to his audience in 1992. Today, eighteen years afterwards, his declaration, whose substance has been confirmed by time, takes on an arresting significance: 

Much to the dismay of my executioners, the execution was so badly botched that I am able to stand here before you to speak the truth, and to tell the world that it is not myself, but the Holocaust story that is dead. I repeat for the record: I was condemned for maintaining that there were no execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, or Hartheim Castle. There's no proof for the charge, only innuendo, lies, and half-truths. Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and others said this first. They, too, live as victims of botched executions, but nevertheless free to speak the truth in a strong and growing voice that repeats: No gas chambers, no gas chambers, no damn gas chambers! 

Today, there is no longer a single person to come and assure us that he or she has, finally, found proof of the existence of those "damn gas chambers." Spread the word! The magical gas chamber, like the whole "Holocaust", is no longer anything but a tainted product of the industry, business and religion of the "Shoah", even if certain historians, out of conformism or fear, persist in ritually mentioning its existence but without bringing forth any proof. 

At the dawn of the year 2011 we can say it with even more certainty than in the past: on the strict level of science and history, the alleged Holocaust of the Jews with its millions of survivors – amongst whom numerous miraculous ones – and its magical Nazi gas chambers is indeed quite dead. The survival in the mass-media of the vile wartime canard and most phenomenal bunkum of modern times has no more sense to it than the artificial survival of Ariel Sharon, kept by his doctors in an artificial coma since January 4, 2006, that is, for the past five years to the day, without any hope of coming back to life. The last of the Jewish Mohicans to venture to find proof of "the Holocaust" at Auschwitz publicly relinquished his search on December 27, 2009: he was Professor Robert Jan van Pelt. Of the historians who showered us with purported testimony or confessions, I had requested "one proof, just one proof" of the reality of a physical extermination of Jews by Hitler or his associates. Then, going for better precision, I let fly with "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!" Finally, going to still greater lengths for precision, I invited, so to speak, "Holocaust" researchers to go and visit the capital of "the Holocaust", that is, Auschwitz, and then, at the very heart of the camp, stand before the ruins of the big crematorium II, which tell so much; I challenged them to find us the least trace, on or beneath the roof of the alleged gas chamber, of what they called holes and ducts for the pouring in of Zyklon B pellets. For my part, I summed up my observation and its consequences in four words: "No holes, no Holocaust!". Well before that, I had, moreover, published the building plans of that crematorium, plans which, along with a good number of other documents, I had discovered on March 19, 1976 in the archives of the Auschwitz State Museum and which had been kept hidden since the war. Those plans showed that the place which, according to what we are told, housed a homicidal gas chamber contained instead a simple depository, with the characteristic dimensions and layout for the keeping of corpses awaiting cremation.

 
Towards the end of this year, a book to be published in France will amount to a "laying of flowers and wreaths" on the grave of what the American Robert Arthur Butz, in a masterly work published in 1976, already called The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. And justice will thus be done to the memory of Maurice Bardèche, Paul Rassinier, Louis-Ferdinand Céline and a cohort of men and women who, the world over, have preferred accuracy to lies. In the first line I see Ernst Zündel and Fred Leuchter. A hundred other real revisionists stand with them.
 
 

 



Please, see attachment or http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-fred-leuchter.html

Best wishes. RF



--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook

1 of 1 File(s)

Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Jan 5, 2011

Israel Shamir: Julian Assange's Deal with the Devil, by Israel Shamir

 

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net>
Date: Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:57 PM


 

http://counterpunch.com/shamir01052011.html

The Secrets of Wikileaks

Julian Assange's Deal With the Devil

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

In Part One of my report last weekend here on the CounterPunch site I  showed that the US was secretly funnelling money into Belarus to fund the unelected opposition. Previously, the claim had been routinely denied. Now we have sterling proof. It is engraved in a confidential cable from a US Embassy to the State Department. It is undeniable.

That is, if you found the cable and were able to understand it.

And you happened to understand the political background of the cable.

The cables are raw data. Not as raw as Afghan Diaries, the previous coup of Wikileaks, but still quite raw. They are written in obscure state department lingo; much of the story is implied, as the cables were composed for colleagues and definitely not for strangers. They simply have to be explained, interpreted, annotated and then finally delivered to the reader. Dumping raw cables onto the web would not do: you'd never find the relevant cables and probably you wouldn't be able to understand its significance even if you did find it.

The main job of a newspaper or news website is to process raw data and transmit it to a reader. This work requires an experienced and highly qualified staff. Not every newspaper or website has such resources, and none of the independent sites can compete with the mainstream outlets for readership. If all the cables were published in a local newspaper in Oklahoma or Damascus, who would read them? In order to get our news to you, our reader, we are forced to make use of the dreaded mainstream media.

That is why Julian Assange chose to partner with a few important Western liberal newspapers of the mainstream media. Let us make it perfectly clear that we understand that all mainstream media are at their  heart embedded;  in bed with the Pentagon, the CIA, with Wall Street and all its counterparts. Let us also make it clear that we understand that not every journalist on the staff of The Guardian, Le Monde or The NY Times is a crooked enforcer of imperialist ideology; no, not even every editor. We do understand that not everyone is willing to sacrifice their career to field a story that will attract storms of protest. From this point of view, the difference between the soft liberal and the hardline imperialist media is one of style only.

For instance, if they plan to attack Afghanistan, the hardline Fox News would simply demand a high-profile strike against the sand rats, while the liberal Guardian would publish a Polly Toynbee piece bewailing the bitter fate of Afghani women. The bottom line is the same: war.

Modern embedded media constitute the most powerful weapon of our rulers. The modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin succinctly explained their modus operandi: "The embedded media does not care about the content and does not attempt to control it; they just add a drop of poison to the stream in the right moment."

Furthermore, they skilfully arrange the information in order to mislead us. The headline might scream MURDER MOST FOUL but the article describes an unavoidable accident. We do not look beyond the headline, but the headline has been written by the editor and not the journalist who penned the article. Twitter is nothing but a mess of headlines; we are being trained to think in terms of slogans.

In the case of Belarus, the Guardian published three cables the day before elections in order to maximize the exposure and to influence the results of the election. One of the headlines, published on December 18, 2010 said: "WikiLeaks: Lukashenka's [sic] fortune estimated at 9 billion USD". It was a very misleading headline. Wikileaks made no claims about Lukashenko's wealth. Read the entire article, and you will find that it was nothing more than a US embassy employee who had heard a rumor and transmitted it to the State Department. Only in the second to last sentence of the article do they mention that the cable admits: "the embassy employee couldn't verify the sources [sic!] or accuracy of the information".

So a corrected headline would read: "Wikileaks reveals: US diplomats spread unverifiable rumors about Lukashenko's personal wealth." But the Guardian made it appear as if it was Wikileaks itself that made the claim.

Let us suppose that one day Wikileaks will publish cables from the Russian Embassy in Washington to Moscow Centre. Shall we expect to see in the Guardian a screaming headline like: "WikiLeaks: The Mossad behind 9/11!!"

Isn't it more likely we would be soberly told: "Wikileaks reveals that Russian diplomats in Washington report the persistent rumors on Israeli involvement in 9/11"?

Another cable on Belarus published on the same day was headlined: "US embassy cables: Belarus president justifies violence against opponents". Again, a misleading headline, and again the majority will never read beyond it. In reality, this very interesting report contains the debriefing of the Estonian Foreign Minister after his long chat with President Lukashenko. The most interesting factoid was deliberately not highlighted in the article: Lukashenko told the Estonian visitor that the opposition in Belarus would never unite, and only existed "to live off western grants." When you read the article, your eye gravitates to the highlighted section, skipping the valuable information just above. In fact, the highlighted section itself says nothing about justifying violence against opponents. The text says something completely different: "Lukashenko stated the opposition should expect to get hurt when they attack the riot police". Again, it is sterling truth: in every country, people who attack riot police end up getting hurt. In Israel they also get shot, but that's another story.

Thus the Guardian made use of Wikileaks in order to influence Belarus voters and Western audiences, and prepare them for an Election Day riot.

So here we are: in order to get valuable data to the people, Julian Assange had to make a deal with the devil: the mainstream media. It was most natural for him to deal with the liberal flank of the mainstream, for the hardliners would not even touch it. But since the liberal papers are also embedded, they freely distort the cables by attaching misleading headlines and misquoting from the text.

For me, a Guardian reader since I worked at the BBC in the mid-1970s, it is painful to say that the Guardian has become an impostor. This paper pretends to provide the thinking liberal and socialist people of England with true information; but at the moment of truth, the Guardian, like a good Blairite, will switch sides.

Next, the Guardian apparently decided to destroy Wikileaks after using it. The Moor did his job, the Moor may go. The Guardian's embedded editors, understanding full well that the Wikileaks crew won't be tamed or subverted, are preparing a book called The Rise and Fall of Wikileaks. It's not quite released yet; they have still to arrange for the fall.

This will be done in two ways.

First, by slandering the Wikileaks chief Julian Assange. Destroy the head, and the body will wither and die. This is not the place to deal with allegations in detail, but I've never seen an article more crooked and lying than the one the Guardian published recently on Assange - and I've seen some beauties. It is trial by media in the best tradition of Pravda 1937. Its author Nick Davies ingratiated himself into the vicinity of the trustful Julian and then bit him in the best scorpion's manner. Davies wrote years ago in his Flat Earth News that the practice of journalism in the UK is "bent"; now he proven it beyond a doubt by his own writing.

There is no doubt: Assange never raped. The day after the alleged rape, the alleged victim boasted to her friends in a twitter that she had a wonderful time with the alleged rapist. It was all published.

Moreover, if Swedish authorities are primarily concerned about prosecuting Julian for rape, why do they attach a special condition to their demands of extradition, specifically reserving the right to pass him on to US authorities?

Nick Davies clearly performed a cruel hatchet job. But was publishing the article a simple case of bad judgement by the Guardian, or the beginning of a smear campaign? "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", as James Bond in Goldfinger put it neatly. Here is the second attack. The third piece was surprisingly an attempt to smear Assange by association with me.

This last attack was written by Andrew Brown has been described as "The Guardian's resident moron", and with good reason. I always enjoy discussing my views, though Brown completely missed the subtleties and nuances of my writings. Andrew Brown is a man who understands the public's need for screaming headlines. Now we are left with a lot of crazy bloggers who claim I am the Mossad's liaison to Wikileaks and that Wikileaks is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mossad.

I do not for a moment think that anybody sane takes these ridiculous accusations seriously – they are just more things to throw at Julian. I am not a member of Wikileaks, not even a spokesman, just a friend. But even without me, Brown will still be able to attack Assange for quoting Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize winner and "notorious antisemite whose works are being published by a racist site." Quoting a popular blog, Brown "is beneath contempt, and, from now on, beneath notice". Still, the Guardian editors let him off his leash from time to time, to their eternal disgrace.

The second mode of attack on Wikileaks is to use it as a source of misinformation. These US State Department cables are double-edged swords. They are full of rumors, trial balloons, and hopeful thinking. Worse, the newspaper headlines often declare that Wikileaks is the source of the rumor, and leave it to the discerning reader to discover that an embassy staffer was the real source of the story. Readers often do not understand that headlines are little more than come-ons, and reflect a very loose interpretation of the article content. They tend to believe the misleading headline that says, "Wikileaks: Iran prepares nuclear weapons" or, "Wikileaks: all Arabs want the US to destroy Iran". Wikileaks never said it!  It was the Guardian and the NY Times that said it, and loudly. A corrected headline would look like this:

Wikileaks reveals that US diplomats spread unsubstantiated rumours on the Iran nuclear program in order to ingratiate themselves with the State Department

But you will not live long enough to see this headline. Such is the price for using mainstream media: they will eventually poison the purest source.

However, I would rather place my bet on Assange. He is smart, and he has a mind of a first-class chess player. He has many surprises up his sleeve. It is possible that the Guardian will have to rename their book The Rise and Rise of Wikileaks.

The Israeli Angle

Now you can understand the mystery of Israeli satisfaction with Wikileaks. While the US officials were furious at the disclosure, Israelis were rather smug and complacent. Haaretz has this headline: "Netanyahu: WikiLeaks revelations were good for Israel."

Simple-minded conspiracy junkies immediately concluded that Wikileaks is an Israeli device, or, in the words of a particularly single-minded man: a "Zionist poison".

The truth is less fantastic, but much more depressing. The Guardian and the New York Times, Le Monde and Spiegel are quite unable to publish a story unacceptable to Israel. They may pen a moderately embarrassing piece of fluff, or a slightly critical technical analysis in order to convince discerning readers of their objectivity. They may even let an opponent air his or her views every once in a blue moon. But they could never publish a story really damaging to Israel. This is true for all mainstream media.

Furthermore, no American ambassador would ever send a cable really unacceptable to Israel – unless he intended to retire the next month. Yet even supposing this kamikaze ambassador would send the cable, the newspapers would overlook it.

Even with thousands of secret cables about Israel in their hands, the mainstream media delays and prevaricates. They don't want anyone to yell at them. That is why they have postponed publishing the articles. Once forced by circumstance or competition to publish the contents of the cables, you can bet they'll twist the revelations into toady headlines and bury the truth in the final paragraph.

Always kind, Julian Assange attributes this behavior to the "sensitivity of the English, German and French audience". I am not that kind; I call it cowardice, or if you insist, prudence. Any journalist who confronts the Jewish state will be made to suffer.

In such a situation, the mainstream media just can't help us. Professional journalists have families and careers to protect. We can't count on them when the rubber meets the road. We shall never know and will never fully understand the truth behind any Israel-connected event as long as the cables remain only in the hands of the mainstream media.

Edited by  Paul Bennett

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net



--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Gerry Rafferty dies at age 63 [2 Attachments]

 
[Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook included below]




Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook

2 of 2 File(s)

Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Jan 4, 2011

BREAKING NEWS: Assange said newspapers won't publish Israel-embarrassing documents.

 

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=200673&R=R1

Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

JEFF GATES : WIKILEAKS AND ESPIONAGE – ISRAELI STYLE : Veterans Today

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/02/jeff-gates-wikileaks-and-espionage-%e2%80%93-israeli-style/

Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

BREAKING NEWS: Assange said newspapers won't publish Israel-embarrassing documents.

 

Assange said newspapers won't publish Israel-embarrassing documents.




January 4, 111 Tuesday 7 Shevat 3871 19:29 IST pp2_07.jpg gohomeAprint_07.jpg
printlogo_04.jpg


 

ShowImage.ashx.jpg
Photo by: ASSOCIATED PRESS
'Cables to be released on Israel, Lebanon, Mabhouh'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
23/12/2010

Assange tells Al Jazeera newspapers hesitant to publish sensitive info on Israel, cites cables on Mossad's role in Dubai, reports 'The Peninsula.'

 

WikiLeaks will release cables concerning Israel, the Second Lebanon War and the Mabhouh assassination in the next six months, its founder Julian Assange said in an interview with Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

Assange said only a small number of documents related to Israel have been published so far because newspapers in the West that had exclusive rights to publish the material were hesitant to publish sensitive information about Israel, the Qatari newspaper The Peninsula reported, citing the Al Jazeera interview.

RELATED: 

"The Guardian, El-Pais and Le Monde have published only two percent of the files related to Israel due to the sensitive relations between Germany, France and Israel. Even The New York Times could not publish more due to the sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US," he added.

He added that Israel had not tried to contact him, but that he is "sure Mossad is following our activities closely like Australia, Sweden and the CIA."

ShowImage.ashx_1.jpg

When asked if the files related to Israel deal with the July 2006 war in Lebanon, Assange said, "Yes there is some information about that and these files were classified as top secret," and added that there are also diplomatic files about how "Mossad agents used Australian, British and European passports to travel to Dubai." 


The Peninsula also quoted Assange telling Al Jazeera that some of the files regarding Mossad, of which he says there are 2,500, deal with "the role of Mossad in killing Lebanese military leader in Damascus by sniper bullets."

Asked whether there were security service companies providing information to airports and monitoring passengers, Assange said, "There are some files about American and Israeli security companies that tried to intervene in certain areas. For example, in Brazil, the American embassy put some Israeli security companies during the Olympic Games. "
gohomeAprint_07_1.jpg
gohomeAprint_07.jpg
print-date_03.jpg
All rights reserved © 1995 - 2009 The Jerusalem Post.
כל הזכויות שמורות © -2009 נט אפיקי תקשורת אינטר מדיה בע"מ




__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Man declared innocent after 30 years in prison

 

"More reason to be against Capital Punishment." --Michael Santomauro


Texan declared innocent after 30 years in prison

DALLAS – A Texas man declared innocent Tuesday after 30 years in prison could have cut short his prison stint twice and made parole — if only he would admit he was a sex offender. But Cornelius Dupree Jr. refused to do so, doggedly maintaining his innocence in a 1979 rape and robbery, in the process serving more time for a crime he didn't commit than any other Texas inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.

Link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110104/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_exoneration_texas



+++

Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___