Why the Sudden Clampdown on Revisionists? : Melbourne Indymedia

Virtually unreported by the mainstream media and given little prominence even by those outlets that have reported it – probably so as not to alert too many – recent weeks have seen a major clampdown across the planet. On both sides of the Atlantic historians, researchers and investigators have been arrested, detained and deported to Germany to face charges of “Holocaust Denial”.

Among their number is German born Ernst Zundel, who immigrated to Canada in 1958 to work as a graphic artist. In the 1980's, he published a book called "Did Six Million Really Die?" and thereafter continued publishing and questioning conventional notions surrounding holocaust.

In 1985, he was charged with “publishing false news" and a series of trials followed between 1985 and 1988. In his defence he brought in gas chamber experts, other historians and cross-examined a number of Holocaust survivors, who reportedly fell apart under questioning.

In 2003 he was arrested for an alleged immigration violation while visiting the United States. Thereafter he was deported back to Canada, where he was held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security jail for nearly 2 years before being deported back to Germany.

Upon arrival in Mannheim, Germany, the 65-year-old Zundel was charged with “Holocaust Denial”, an offence that carries a penalty of up to 5 years in jail.

Likewise Germar Rudolph was also recently deported back to Germany to face similar charges. A German-trained chemist, Rudolf re-examined Auschwitz and Birkenau in 1989 for traces of Zyklon B, the gas the Nazis are supposed to have used to gas millions. As a scientist, he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and therefore, in the eyes of German law, was judged to be “denying the Holocaust”.

He was sentenced in Germany to 14 months in jail but fled to the US before he served time. However he was arrested on November 18, 2005 in Chicago, and extradited back to Germany.

Similarly, British historian David Irving was arrested on November 14, 2005, while visiting Vienna at the invitation of students from the city’s university. He was to have spoken of Adolph Eichmann’s offer to Jewish leaders in Budapest in 1944, to release Hungarian Jews in exchange for cash or trucks.

However, before he could address students he was arrested on charges brought against him nearly sixteen years ago, of publicly denying aspects of the Holocaust.

According to an Austrian state prosecutor, if convicted he could face up 20 years in jail.

Not only have America and Canada been deporting individuals to Germany to face the “Holocaust Denial” charge, the Netherlands has too.

A Belgian national, Siegfried Verbeke was charged with denying the holocaust in August this year, after he questioned the Anne Frank story. Two months later on October 6th, the Netherlands agreed to extradite him to Germany, where he faces 14 months in prison.

So why the sudden clampdown on Revisionists and why now?

It’s been suggested that the Internet has panicked the Zionists, who to a large extent owe their power and influence to the Holocaust. After all, Israel was founded on its memory and if it’s proven to be a lie, or at least a gross exaggeration, the power the Zionists hold over ordinary Jews could be undermined. For the very notion of the Holocaust has been used not only to extract financial redress from other nations but also to keep ordinary Jews compliant.

In effect, it’s become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.

Formally the likes of Ernst Zundel might have been written off as cranks or extremists but Internet changes that. It allows isolated individuals to question, often quite convincingly, the official line touted by the establishment and the mainstream media.

Moreover, the Internet illustrates that the accused are not “Holocaust Deniers” – in the sense that they deny the Holocaust ever took place – or “right wing extremists” intent on resurrecting the Third Reich. That’s what the mainstream media would us believe but almost without exception, the accused admit that the Nazis were guilty of gross human rights abuses. What’s at issue here are the numbers of dead, how they died and whether there was any clear plan of genocide at all.

In effect these men were engaged in historical inquiry, trying to establish the truth and broadcasting their findings, and that cannot be allowed in the New World Order.

Without even questioning what happened during the Holocaust, we should be asking ourselves: if it’s necessary to exact such draconian measures against those who ask questions, what exactly is being protected here? Are historical truth and the memory of dead holocaust victims being defended? Or is it one of the foundations of the New World Order, modern Zionist power?

Finally, a 1948 Red Cross report details nearly a quarter of a million Jews died in Nazi concentration camps but found no evidence of Genocide. This is in distinct contrast to the figure touted nowadays by the mainstream media and portrayed by Hollywood. At the time the Red Cross was a neutral body with no political axe to grind, so why the difference? And we need to ask ourselves, not only why there is such a difference in the numbers but also why those who ask such questions are being silenced?

Like they say: “he who controls the past, controls the present…” and our perception of past events shapes the way we look at the world around us now. The Zionists understand this and know that the idea of the “Holocaust” is crucial to their power. Which is why such harsh measures are being exacted against those who ask too many questions.

The oft-quoted Arab saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has never been so apparant as it is when the forces of radical Isalm meet and greet the Neo-Nazi movement.

This shouldn't come as any surprise as even back as far as pre-World War II, Hitler played host to the famous, virulent anti-Semite, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- who is quoted, among other things, as saying it would be worth the lives of 10 million Arabs to destroy all the Jews.

Hitler came damn close to exterminating European Jewry during his reign, a feat that is widely envied in the Islamic world.

The problem is -- even some in the Left have a problem with massive exterminations of Jews and the reputation that Hitler gained by trying to systematically eliminate them.

In order to make anti-semitism (from Nazis and Islamofacists) more palatable to the moderates you have to eliminate the reputation of Hitler.

That is the driving force behind Holocaust denial -- to claim Hitler wasn't that bad, he didn't REALLY kill that many Jews -- and I'm sure he had a really good reason.

By eliminated -- or casting doubt upon -- the spectre of the Holocaust, you make Hitler ( and the philosophy of Nazism) more acceptable.

That fact is -- the Holocaust happened. The Nazis not only filmed what they did, they left meticulous records of who they killed and how they killed them. The camps are still there for us to see, the survivors, Jews and non-Jews alike, all give the same account. The Holocaust is as documented as any event in History.

Therefore, those who seek to change the record (or at least cast doubt on it) are doing so not out of their desire to see the historical record set straight -- but, from a much more insidious motivation

Is it true that you are a cop agent, Nigel? I can't think of any other explanation for this site.

Of course such neo-Nazi rubbish was not writen by a supporter of Palestine. The poster above claims it was and here we get to a favourite theme on MIM: Nazism or Zionism, your choice. Which suggests that MIM is crawling with cops and provocateurs. In the real world, the most active anti-nazis are also anti-Zionist. A racist ideology is a racist ideology, even if there are different opinions on who are the übermenschen.

Unsurprisingly enough, none of the Zionist "anti-Nazis" on MIM responded to this peace of Nazi drivel:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/99107_comment.php#99142

(previous comment edited out-ed) The above tirade could be translated directly from the pages of "Der Sturmer" -- the anti-semitic magazine published by the Nazi party in the '30s.

It's an old story -- poor Christians being oppressed by evil, manipulative Jews. This has been the justification for Holocausts, pogroms, and other exterminations and persecutions of Jews over the last two millenia.

Jews (and all other decent people) will legally fight attempts to revise the historical record of the Holocaust because of the agenda behind it.

In order to take the stigma of Hitler's reputation from the Nazi cause -- it is necessary to downplay the Holocaust and make people believe that any Jews that were killed probably had it coming.

Once you convince people that Hitler didn't really do anything that bad -- you can make the the Nazi agenda more palatable to Mr. and Mrs. Trailer Park.

"Jews (and all other decent people) will legally fight attempts to revise the historical record of the Holocaust because of the agenda behind it."

Jews have sought the implementation of laws that make certain research illegal and imprisonable. This is an outrageous situation.

The "Chosen People" don't like to be subject to scrutiny like everyone else. What are you afraid of really? The Zionist version of history will be found to be grossly distorted?

I think the laws Jews have pushed for will only arouse suspicion and resentment. What kind of criminals push for laws to hide the truth? If your version of history is correct you will not have any trouble countering false information.

It may be legal to persecute Holocaust researchers but it is just another case of the law being an ass. It will never be moral to ban research.

If you think that Muslims are backward what kind of medieval inquisition is this?

Have they got you rattled Nigel?

First hint of criticism and Nigel's falling over himself to appease his attackers. You ought to see someone about that, it's a bit unhealthy.

Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between the first commentary and the two that you hid?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=99930

The amount of racism & religious villification on Indymedia is really shitting me. Anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Black (check out some of the comments in this thread: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/99744_comment.php#99862 ) & anti-Jewish. To call for this filth to be removed is not calling for censorship. There's a difference between free speech and free bandwidth.
The fact is that this stuff gets left up, along with over-the-top sectarianism (including calls for the government to close down left publications and organisations - this in the age of "anti-terror laws"!) plus alot of personal flame wars, defamation of individuals, with names and sometimes photographs of the targets. On a thread a couple of months ago calling for the government to close down a left publication (ie. calling for the government to extend its war on civil liberties), Nigel not only left the original post up but removed responses attacking this pro-police state provocation. On other threads he has allowed individuals to be defamed but deleted their attempts to defend themselves.
I'm not calling for far-right hate sites to be banned. I actually think David Irving-style holocaust revisionism has little impact but legal sanctions, such as those being used against him now in Austria if anything only give him credibility he wouldn't otherwise have. Also its rather bizarre to make denial of one particular holocaust a crime whereas denial of another - that of indigenous Australians - is this country's official ideology!
However, the evolution of MIM into a right-wing hate site while pretending to be progressive needs to be exposed.
What is your agenda, Nigel? Why do you do it?

Holocaust research, and the right of people to conduct and publish such research, is not necessarily a right wing issue. Freedom of thought and expression is a universal human right. To say that "To call for this filth to be removed is not calling for censorship" defies logic.You want MIM to arbitrate what is publication worthy along lines consistent with your sensibilities and beliefs. That is censorship, do not insult our intelligence. I understand that sexist and pornographic content may be removed from MIM because it is not consistent with MIM's objectives but to censor political content amounts to fascism.

The article and comments you link to illustrate how open discourses expose false premises. The ridiculous propositions of the anti-black racists were exposed as nonsense by the comment which you linked to directly. MIM worked, a flawed process of logic proposed an unsound premise but the fallacy was readily exposed with one simple reply.

The issue you raise about Aboriginal genocide is salient. If society adopted your adhoc approach to censorship the Australian History Wars would have had an interesting outcome. Henry Reynolds could have been imprisoned for his work and Keith Windshuttle would probably have been called as a witness for the prosecution. Would you support that outcome? Why is one peoples history sacrosanct and anothers not? Maybe it would be OK if you could prosecute Windshuttle?

So do you want free speech to be universal or do you personally want to arbitrate on what is and what isn't debatable in a supposedly free and democratic society? You might be easily influenced by, and vulnerable to, the rantings of trolls but I like to think I have the faculties to sort shit from sugar.

You and Nigel should both butt out of my mind. I am a consenting adult and resent either of you trying to gatekeep the information I can access.

In my post I specifically said that I didn't believe in censorship, not even of racist filth.
What I did say is that if MIM wants to be viewed as a progressive, alternative source of information it should be that and not a platform for racists, religious bigots, pro-imperialists and those who believe in censorship (ie. the government shutting down alternative media, something that has been called for from this site).
There are plenty of extreme right-wing & racist websites, not to mention the mainstream media, that should satisfy your desire to read such crap.
If Nigel and others responsible for MIM want its politcs to be in a spectrum between mainstream and neo-Nazi, I guess that's their right, but others have a right to then expose it for what it is.

"Holocaust research, and the right of people to conduct and publish such research, is not necessarily a right wing issue." ~ if by "holocaust research" you mean denying the millions killed by the Nazis, then, actually, it is a right wing issue.

" I understand that sexist and pornographic content may be removed from MIM because it is not consistent with MIM's objectives " ~ leaving aside that this site is awash with sexist content (and Karl Pentel's racist, homophobic, crudely drawn pornography generally gets hidden but not deleted); if its OK to remove stuff that "is not consistent with MIM's objectives" then does that mean that racism, religious bigotry, support for government censorship and defamation ARE consistant with MIM's objectives?

In the lead article it states that:

"Finally, a 1948 Red Cross report details nearly a quarter of a million Jews died in Nazi concentration camps but found no evidence of Genocide."

Given that we are consistently told six million Jews died and that that was the pretext for giving Palestinian land to Zionists I think it is only fair that historians should be able to examine all the evidence.

If they misconstrue or fabricate evidence then they should and would be exposed. Holocaust research is not holocaust denial, it only seeks to establish theextent and truth or otherwise of some aspects of the holocaust. This "holocaust deniar" canard is similar to the "any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic" canard. Locking up people who dispute the 6 million figure shows something is amiss.

If it was good enough for the Red Cross to dispute the 6 million figure at the time it happened why can't anyone else subsequently question the dogma?

Oh, for fucks sake!
by no longer amazed (well, maybe just abit) Wednesday November 23, 2005 at 03:29 PM

So in MIMworld one has to be a holocaust denier to support Palestine? I guess thats what resident pro-imperialist Zionist racists Spinifex and Nazihunter have been saying for along time. This is why I'm highly suspicious of the agenda behind this repulsive site.

A few facts:
Yes, the Nazi holocaust did happen.
The fact that several million Jews, Romany, lesbians & gays, communists and others were slaughtered by Europeans does not mean that the inhabitants of Palestine, who had abosolutely nothing to do with the Nazi holocaust, should have had to lose their country and be ethnically cleansed.

Has it occured to you that the statement about the 1948 Red Cross report could be a lie?
Opposing the racist Israeli state is not anti-semitism. Denying that 6 million or so Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis is.

If MIM was a remotely progressive site pointing out these truths would not be necessary.

Just to repeat: The crap in the post above is exactly what Israeli propoganda makes out opponants of Zionism believe. I have never come across an anti- Zionist in the real world who believes such shit. That includes both Palestinians and other supporters of Palestine: Muslims, Christians, Marxists and Libertarians. None of them believe such shit.

Yet in the virtual reality of MIM there seem to be only 2 alternatives: defend Israel or defend Hitler.

Great to see you can manage to distill disparate issues into one simple false dichotomy.

"defend Israel or defend Hitler"

"Given that we are consistently told six million Jews died and that that was the pretext for giving Palestinian land to Zionists I think it is only fair that historians should be able to examine all the evidence."

"This "holocaust deniar" canard is similar to the "any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic" canard"

Its also a false dichotomy that features prominantly in Israeli propaganda.