The Holocaust-Denial Debate

Mengele - "The doctors found guilty at Nuremberg were actually treating Auschwitz Jews as their physicians"

Peter Myers, February 9, 2009; update July 3, 2009.

My comments within quoted text are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/holocaust-debate09.html.

Please report broken links. Write to me at contact.html.

Back to the previous bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate08.html.

{start of bulletin 9}

Mengele - "The doctors found guilty at Nuremberg were actually treating Auschwitz Jews as their physicians"

(1) Communist death-toll "overstated"? (2) Language - why not use the term 'Holocaust Revisionist'? (3) "Nazis destroyed the evidence" (4) "Nazi tactic of placing the onus of proof on the other side" (5) & (6) Collective Guilt (7) "Anti-Semitism" increases in wake of Gaza war (8) Mark Weber "must go" (9) Mengele - "The doctors found guilty at Nuremberg were actually treating Auschwitz Jews as their physicians" (10) Mass immigration - Jewish groups remain an obstacle to change (11) "It will take some time to deal with all these issues" (12) Lady Renouf - Vile holocaust denier caught in web of lies (13) Leuchter is pretty much discredited (14) Are you realising that you are engaged in something actually dangerous? (15) Wrong Lizard, by Israel Shamir

(1) Communist death-toll "overstated"?

From: Don <NX7933@hotmail.com> Date: 15.02.2009 08:48 AM

> Essential to publish both sides of the story regarding Nazi Holocaust; but ... > From: RW Date: 11.02.2009 02:56 AM

>6. Personally I am also confused about these big numbers of deaths during 20th century wars. This is due mainly to my own ignorance. I have heard that 180 million people died during the reign of the Soviet Union! But I thought the former SU only had a population of 100 million on average.

This is a very good point, since sometimes the deathtoll of the USSR is clearly exaggerated out of all proportion to reality. According to this site the population of the USSR in 1937 seems to have been near 150 million:

http://www.databank.neu.edu/census.htm

> There were only about 156 million citizens in our great socialist state after all.

The population of the Russian RSFSR seems to have been 100 million:

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1937/census/distribution.htm

> Therefore, the total number should be 100,190,330.

In 1989 the population of the USSR was nearly 300 million:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553017/union_of_soviet_socialist_republics.html

> The Soviet UnionÕs total population as of its final census, in January 1989, was 286,717,000, making it the third most populous country in the world, after China and India.

Thus the claim by some that 80 million dead during the entire reign of the USSR seems very suspicious. Presumably most of the killings would have occurred before 1960. This would imply that half of the entire Soviet population was murdered during that period. And this is not even taking into account the alleged 20 million Soviets who died during WWII.

Reply (Peter M.):

Where do you get that figure of 80 million as the death-toll of the USSR?

The source that I use, The Black Book of Communism, says "a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million" (p. x). <http://mailstar.net/courtois.html>

The major part of that occurred in China. The Great Leap Forward, alone, contributed 30 million to the total. The "Let 100 Hundred Flowers Bloom" campaign and the Cultural Revolution contributed millions more. Pol Pot likerwise; others too..

You have mistanly lumped them all under the Soviet toll, because you saw this figure called "the death toll of Communism" or something similar. Then, having overstated the Soviet toll, you use that to argue that Nazi sins have been exaggerated too.

(2) Language - why not use the term 'Holocaust Revisionist'?

From: Don <NX7933@hotmail.com> Date: 15.02.2009 07:35 PM

>Do the 'Revisionists' revise their own views? No, they hold steadfast. > >The other side - the 'Affirmers' - have, on the other hand, revised their opinions. They have revised the Auschwitz toll down from 4 million to 1 million. They have accepted that various books were fake and have removed them from the Holocaust Canon.

This is not true. The revisionists have revised many errors in their writings as new evidence has come along. They have corrected errors made by Leuchter. They have corrected errors made by Paul Rassinier and Butz, among countless others. A good example is when it comes to the "gas chamber" doors at Auschwitz. If you watch David Cole's video, you will find that David Cole questions if they ever existed in the first place, since the museum was unable to produce the door with the peephole. Now, revisionists have found evidence that such doors indeed existed, and have produced evidence that they were bomb shelter doors, not gas chamber doors. This is one example of how revisionists have modified their views when new evidence has appeared.

Then there is David Irving, who still sustains that there were no execution gas chambers but claims to have found evidence of exterminations by mass shootings. So I'm not sure why you insist on such untruths about revisionists, Peter.

Rather, it is the 6 million number by the libelers that holds steadfast. You mentioned that they reduced the deathtoll at Auschwitz from 4 million, but they do not reduce their total deathtoll correspondingly. They have only removed the most obviously fake claims, and only after the revisionists forced them to. Even then, the libelers still insist that there were experiments where the Nazis tried to make soap out of Jews, and similar nonsense. The libelers are so extreme that they insist that it is sacrilege to perform research at Auschtwitz, and thus behave like religious fanatics.

In any case, you seem to be operating under the assumption that in a debate both sides must concede points, regardless of the evidence. Points should only be conceded when the evidence merits it, and not when the evidence does not merit it. Galileo had nothing to concede to the Pope since the evidence was in his favor. Likewise, so far revisionists have no reason to meet the libelers halfway on the gas chambers, as the libelers have produced no good evidence for the gassings. Bishop Williamson has nothing to recant for until the Pope produces evidence of the homicidal gas chambers.

You seem to assume that knowledge always progresses in the manner of the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. But this is not always the case. Galileo is a very good example. There was no synthesis between the Geocentric and the Heliocentric theories. In fact, Galileo was not radical enough! He argued that the sun was the center of the universe, when in reality the universe has no center whatsoever! Likewise, there has been little synthesis between creationism and evolution. Although such syntheses are possible, they have gathered little mainstream scientific support. Meanwhile, in modern physics, attempts to synthesize quantum mechanics and relativity have failed so far.

>So the word 'Revisionist' is not a descriptive term which differetiates the two groups.

Your argument on this matter is disingenuous, Peter. You are well aware of the importance of denigrating labels in order to manipulate discussions. You yourself wrote:

http://mailstar.net/australiana.html

> Calling it "female genital mutilation", bundling a value-judgment with a description, was a way of stifling debate on the topic and on what the ban meant.

Calling revisionists "deniers" introduces a value-judgment into the discussion. It introduces the value judgment that the exterminations of the Jews in gas chambers really did happen, and those who dispute it are denying a truth. The word "deny" often has the connotation that something really did happen, and that the person that disputes it is wrong and "in denial." The word is most often used in the context of criminals who "deny" the accusations against them and profess their innocence.

If you do not like the word "revisionist," then how about the word "disputer," "questioner" or another more value-neutral word? You did not even ask us, and instead proceeded to use the label that the establishment has put on us.

Further, the term "denier" is inaccurate. When you write "denier" you really mean "holocaust denier." When people that don't know anything about the matter hear that people "deny" the holocaust, they assume that the "deniers" are denying everythingÑnot just the gas chambers, but the concentration camps, the deportations of Jews, shootings of Jews, etc. This is not the case at all, and it creates a false impression of revisionists. This is done very deliberately by the establishment in order to create a straw man version of revisionism that they can easily "disprove" by showing pictures of Jews in concentration camps, and the like.

Also, Peter, you seem to be digressing all over the place. You move on to Hitler's views on the Slavs, then on to his plans for re-armament, etc, etc. I thought this was supposed to be about the alleged extermination of the Jews? It seems to me you are more interested in convincing people of Hitler's villainy than you are interested in the Holocaust. That is your right, but I believed that you wanted to discuss the holocaust. I'm not that interested in discussions of whether or not Hitler wanted war. Even mainstream historians have such debates. AJP Taylor is an example of one who claims that Hitler had no desire for war even with the USSR. It is not illegal to have such debates, though it is still a bit of a taboo.

> 1required to kill humans was approximately 22 times lower > 2than that required to kill lice, 300 parts per million as > 3against 6,666 parts per million for lice. This was > 4internal evidence obvious to any interested reader, which > 5Mr Irving certainly was, that the Leuchter report was > 6rubbish.

I have seen this argument before and it is obviously absurd. It is true that a lower concentration of HCN is necessary to kill humans than to kill lice. However, we are told that the gas chambers were operated 24 hours per day, with gassings virtually nonstop. Under such conditions, one would still expect the concentration of HCN in the "homicidal gas chambers" to be higher than in the delousing gas chambers. In addition, for the Zyklon-B to be able to kill 100% of the victims in the amount of time stated by the "eyewitnesses," 15 minutes, the Nazis would have needed to use astronomically high concentrations of HCN. Also, bear in mind that the difference in the concentration of HCN compounds between the delousing gas chambers and the alleged homicidal gas chambers in some cases is a s high as 10,000Ña far cry from the 22 quoted above.

Further, the concentrations found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers were in many cases the same as could be found in any building picked at random (such as churches)Ñsuch concentrations are statistically indistinguishable from zero. In statistical terms, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the walls in some of the alleged "gas chambers" were NEVER exposed to hydrogen cyanide.

In any case, Germar Rudolf has debunked this pathetically lame argument in his works, which I know you possess.

Reply (Peter M.):

A certain amount of "revision" occurs in all camps. Even the Zionists have removed certain books from their Holocaust Canon. The 6 million figure is still touted, but no-one would be presecuted for touting Hilberg's figure of 5.1 million.

Therefore, the word 'Revisionist" is not a descriptive term that differentiates the two groups.

Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry was a decisive turning point. Even though Dershowitz won the battle, his side may be losing the war.

Finkelstein rejects Denial. I see his work as part of a trend towards a 'synthesis" position.

(3) "Nazis destroyed the evidence"

From: Don <NX7933@hotmail.com> Date: 15.02.2009 07:22 PM

>That is, of course, because the Nazis destroyed the evidence. > >This tactic is only possible because the Nazis blew up the alleged gas chambers. If they were only insecticidal facilities, why bother destroying them?

If you believe that there is no hard evidence of the extermination of the Jews because the Nazis "destroyed the evidence" then you are conceding that your thesis is unscientific. Once you say there is no evidence because it was destroyed, your thesis becomes "unfalsifiable," and no longer meets one of the main tests of whether a theory is scientific or not. I could just as well say that the Jews exterminated 100 million Palestinians, and that there is no evidence because the cunning Jews destroyed all of the evidence.

It is very similar to what happens with creationists. They will sometimes argue that a certain fossil was placed there by Satan to deceive us. Such theories are unfalsifiable. There is no way to disprove them. Thus, the believer continues to believe in a self-reinforcing fashion. ...

>We are not just talking about events in the past; given the current economic depression, we are talking about a possible revival of Nazism, through the very dissident movements that we are participating in now. After Otto Strasser's revelations, confirmed with Hitler's own words in Table Talk, that prospect horrifies me; I can't understand why you are so nonchalant about it.

I think it is unfortunate, Peter, but I am starting to get the impression that you cling to the holocaust because you are afraid that if the holocaust is exposed for the fraud that it is, the result will be the re-emergence of Nazi-ism. This is may or may not be the case. But in doing this, you are starting with your conclusion and then trying to find arguments to support it, which is not the scientific way of proceedin; this is the way creationists operate. A scientist uses the scientific method and does not try to tilt his data one way or the other because of the social implications that his discovery may or may not have.

>I would like to see Hitler's supporters take a critical attitude to him. To admit his sins, just as I call on Trotsky's followers to do likewise.

You are mistaken here once more. If you would browse forums that you would undoubtedly consider "Nazi" such as Stormfront you will find debates on the matter. Many hold the view that Hitler would have won WWII if he had not taken an anti-slavic position. In particular, the Russian Nazis admire both Hitler and Stalin. They take what they like from Hitler, and they reject his anti-slavic stance. ...

>One of them was Christopher R. Browning. Surprisingly, I had never come across him until I started this project. That's because he's simply NOT MENTIONED in Denier news or debating emails. They pay no attention to the other side.

I have heard him mentioned, Peter. Bear in mind, however, that revisionists have very limited resources, given the official state persecution of revisionism. Revisionists do not have the resources to immediately address every single statement made by the libelers.

> Browning used Event report 21 of 13 July 1941 together with a number of other similar reports to demonstrate that Sonderbehandlung was used to mean liquidation or shooting or execution.

The revisionists have provided examples from wartime Nazi documents where the word sonderbehandlung clearly did not have a genocidal meaning. Thus we cannot assume that the word has a genocidal meaning. ...

>The Nazis, like the Communists, broke that unwritten law of our civilization. Admittedly, group thinking is part of Judaism too; but that's no reason for us to abandon that core principle of our civilization.

Come on, Peter. Every society has violated this "rule". This is hardly a thing that only Communists and Nazis have done. You are doing the same thing in this very mailing list, Peter, by assuming that revisionists are all Nazis, which is clearly untrue. Paul Rassinier, David Cole, Roger Garaurady and Ahmedinajad are far from being Nazis. You are treating revisionists and Nazis as a group instead of as individuals. You say that Hitler's admirers do not admit to Hitler doing anything wrong, and I know for a fact that this is untrue.

(4) "Nazi tactic of placing the onus of proof on the other side"

From: Don <NX7933@hotmail.com> Date: 15.02.2009 03:32 AM Subject: Nazi tactics or Anglo-Saxon tactics?

> You've fallen for the Nazi tactic of placing the onus of proof on the other side, ridiculing all eyewitnesses, then concluding that there's no proof, and therefore no Nazi Holocaust.

This isn't a "Nazi tactic." In the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, it is up to the accuser to prove his case. There is a presumption of innocence. The holocaust libelers are the ones accusing the Germans, Christians, Europeans and Gentiles of perpetrating the holocaust. Then they put this accusation to cynical use to justify their crimes against Palestinians and to justify the minoritization of Europeans in their own countries through mass immigration. To place the onus of proof on the accusers is an Anglo-Saxon tradition, not a Nazi tradition. Rather, you are placing the onus of proof on the accusedÑthat the accused have to prove their innocence. This is a Trotskyist-Stalinist tactic. It is in the USSR where there was a presumption of guilt. Yet, in spite of this presumption of guilt, the revisionists have succeeded in disproving the extermination gas chamber lie.

On a related matter, philosophers of science have propounded the idea that theories can never be proven, only disproven. A good scientific theory is one that has survived all tests so far. The extermination gas chamber theory has not passed the tests. The extermination gas chamber theory predicts that high levels HCN residues should have been found in the "gas chambers." This is not the case, and the theory has been falsified.

(5) Collective Guilt

From: bill Date: 14.02.2009 01:57 AM

Peter Myers takes me to task for not distinguishing individual innocence from collective guilt. But there is no way to make the distinction in the real world. Let us use war as an example. Suppose I were to argue that soldiers should distinguish between enemy soldiers who are real bastards and enemy soldiers who are merely doing their duty to their country. Kill the former but spare the latter. Absurd? Obviously. No one could tell the difference on the battlefield. Guns could not be calibrated to shoot down the bad ones while taking the good ones prisoner. It would be unworkable. When the Catholic Church expelled Jews again and again during the Middle Ages, it did not distinguish between good Jews and anti-social ones. Nor could it, if it intended the expulsions to be meaningful. It expelled them all. Mr. Myers wants a solution where no one gets hurt. That cannot be. It is not the nature of things; it is not reality. Although I am no National Socialist, I do agree with Hitler on one point: "The process of breaking the Jews is, and shall remain, a bloody one."

Reply (Peter M.):

The Inquisition did give Jews the option of converting. Some converts became Conversos, and if discovered they were punished. But I believe that the others were left alone.

The Pope did protect Jews in ghettoes.

You seem to be implying that accepted practice in wartime should apply in peacetime too. Blood on the streets, presumably. Is not this prospect the reason why certain governments prosecute Deniers?

In the wake of the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government, the proposal of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee for a Jewish Republic in the Crimea, and Golda Meir's trip to Russia which showed that most Soviet Jews still regarded Israel as home, a "Cold War" between Moscow and Jerusalem developed. The Soviet regime removed Jews from sensitive government positions and restricted their further entry. Diplomatic relations between Israel & the USSR were broken in 1953 during the Doctors' Plot, just before Stalin died.

Yuri Slezkine nevertheless shows that Jews in the USSR were able to do quite ok in the professions. Whereas Nazi Germany tried to expel its Jews, the USSR tried to keep its Jews in.

The Soviet policy was the better one. It was Gorbachev who finally opened the floodgates to Jewish emigration; but it would be better if he had not. Making "Aliyah" to Israel only exacerbates the problems in the Middle East.

The point is that Jewish destructiveness can be contained without expulsion, wilthout pogroms, and without denying Jews opportunities in life.

(6) Collective guilt

From: Monique Sulter <m.sulter@worldnet.att.net> Date: 15.02.2009 01:55 PM

> Collective guilt should be applied to the Jews. They certainly apply it to their opponents. Punishment should be collective. How else can the power and the evil of the Jews be broken? ...

Carl G. Jung spoke about Collective Consciousness. With that he meant that in the DNA the consciousness of our ancestors are include. Wild?? Makes sense

Throughout my life I have met judaic people and they all show the same traits. Even at a very young age. Their traits enter every generation through the pores and they cannot help themselves. The fact that they believe that they are God's chosen people is, in my opinion, at the heart of all the tragedies that have befallen this earth. They live a delusionary life and derive great if not the greatest pleasure in undermining those that are not of their denomination.

Mind you the Japanese are not far off

There is too much to be gained in not folling the Judaic herd. Watch the facade and perhaps read the Raven and the Fox by Lafontaine. Much wisdom in that simple fable.

Every time there is a major tragedy, WW2, Bolschevik revolution, WW1, the Opiumtrade in China, The taming of Africa and the diamond mining, the East and West India companies, the African salve trade, etc, etc., dig and dig and you will find the same people as the mastermind.

(7) "Anti-Semitism" increases in wake of Gaza war

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date: 16.02.2009 02:00 PM

U.S. Jewish Leader Sees `Pandemic of Anti-Semitism'

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5156HS20090206

Israel's recent war in Gaza has unleashed the worst outbreaks of anti-Semitism in decades, the U.S. head of the Anti-Defamation League said on Friday. "This is the worst, the most intense, the most global that it's been in most of our memories. And the effort to get the good people to stand up is not easy," Abraham Foxman told Jewish community leaders in a speech in this south Florida resort city. Foxman said Israel's military offensive against the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which began in the Gaza Strip in late December, had been answered with hatred and attacks against Jews "from Austria to Zimbabwe." Most governments were doing too little to stem "an epidemic, a pandemic of anti-Semitism," he said.

Comment (Peter M.):

Israel has lost "underdog" status - victim status - because its violence vastly exceeded anything Hamas did. There's a lesson here about Hardliners. When they get control, their excesses lead to a loss of world sympathy. This "war for minds" is far more important than any physical war.

In contrast, Hitler's excesses "killed anti-Semitism".

This is also a reason for concern about Denial. The hardline variants of it forfeit the support of the middle ground.

"Holocaust Agnosticism" is a better stance.

(8) Mark Weber "must go"

From: bill Date: 14.02.2009 02:45 AM Subject: Mark Weber

Why Mark must go. .

MARK WEBER'S SERVICES TO REVISIONISM

In his standard style, Mark Weber pretends that he has contributed greatly to the advance of Revisionism. And what proof does he adduce? Why, events of the 1980's! Mark Weber dredges up his testimony at the Zundel Trial in Canada as proof of his contributions to Revisionism. Leaving aside the fact that the testimonies of Faurrison, Leuchter and Irving were far more convincing than his own testimony, what has Mr. Weber done since taking over at the IHR to promote Revisionism? In a word, nothing. All the real research and writing that made the IHR world famous was achieved before Mark Weber came on board. Since then, Mark Weber has offered nothing but reprints from now deceased authors. Mark has made the IHR Journal both obsolete and defunct. He now screams that Revisionism is becoming "politicized". (How shocking.) Professor Faurrison, who has done the original research which Mark Weber never did, is using the Holocaust Hoax to attack Israel's brutalization of the Palestinians. What is wrong with that, pray tell?

Mr. Weber emphasizes that Bradley Smith's anti-Holocaust activities aren't going so well, either. At least Bradley tries. That is more than Mark Weber is doing. Mark Weber's excuses become ever more lame. The hard fact is that Mark is a do nothing. He has neither business nor management sense. He has failed as an editor, failed as a publisher and failed as a historian. He has no more excuses to offer. He should be relieved without further ado.

Comment (Peter M.):

This represent a hardline attempt to overthrow a moderate. Weber's material is reable by people in the middle ground, whereas the hardliners would only be of interest to the converted.

(9) Mengele - "The doctors found guilty at Nuremberg were actually treating Auschwitz Jews as their physicians"

From: Dick Eastman <oldickeastman@q.com> Date: 14.02.2009 05:12 AM

Sixteen or 20 physicians were put to executed by American judges at Nuremberg. I have also heard of 50 physicians being executed.

Here is a sample claim -- from http://www.auschwitz.dk/doctors.htm

"At Auschwitz extermination was conducted on an industrial scale with three million persons eventually killed through gassing, starvation, shooting, and burning. Josef Mengele was the chief provider for the gas chambers - and did well! When it was reported that one block was infected with lice, Mengele solved the problem by gassing all the 750 women assigned to it. Mengele did a number of medical experiments of unspeakable horror at Auschwitz, using twins. These twins as young as five years of age were usually murdered after the experiment was over and their bodies dissected."

I submit that this is a total fabrication. Doctors would not be used for such experimentation when doctors were so badly needed for the war effort. The fact is that Auschwitz was a work camp, that Jews were saved from death by the firebombing of German cities. The doctors were murdered by the Nuremberg kangaroo court because they had spent years acting as physicians for the Jews at Auschwitz. The claims about these doctors are incredible and completely unsubstantiated. Many -- see below -- are outrageously transparant lies.

Here is what Asuchwitz really was: http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm

Why were doctors sentenced to death and executed on June 2, 1948? The claims are the most outrageous propaganda to cover for the elimination of these credible witnesses (doctors are humanitarians and their testimony is highly credible) -- and so they had to be eliminated in order to carry out the Holocaust propaganda, the Big Lie to cover up the real crime of International Jewry in perpetrating monstrous crimes behind both world wars.

I notice that you write people off as "hardliners" and only favor "the moderates" -- which kind of talk makes me suspect that in your pride in your objectivity, the man with the opened mind, you have allowed some dishonesty to enter in order to burnish that reputation in the eyes of Zionists you want to impress. Still I like you and appreciate all of the good information you send. I just don't expect you to be honest on this subject any more. (Not knowing the reason behind this change of course, I will not judge you for it.) I assume you also no longer think that Israel could have been involved in 9-11?

I don't post to be liked or disliked, to be though objective and fair; to be considered a signficiant intellectual. I post to save billions of innocent lives with the facts. And I think you are in conflict with yourself regarding your own objectives.

Here are some of the outrageous acusations against these doctors that your position on the holocaust forces you to defend:

"The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected. For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals."

After almost 140 days of proceedings, including the testimony of 85 witnesses and the submission of almost 1,500 documents, the American judges pronounced their verdict on August 20, 1947. Sixteen of the doctors were found guilty. Seven were sentenced to death. They were executed on June 2, 1948.

Exactly 50 years ago, the world learned of the moral depravity of the 20 Nazi physicians who were tried and convicted in Nuremberg for the part they played in the brutal human experiments at Auschwitz

"To measure the limits of the human body, the Nazi physicians subjected concentration-camp inmates to high-altitude experiments, confining them in low-pressure chambers until their lungs exploded" (Silverstein, 1996).

"To discover the most effective way of rewarding German pilots who had been downed in the North Sea, they immersed prisoners in tanks of freezing water for hours, lowering their body temperatures to 26 degrees" (Silverstein, 1996).

"To gain specimens for their Jewish skeleton collection, the Nazi physicians murdered and stripped the flesh from 100 Jewish prisoners" (Silverstein, 1996).

"To compare the effectiveness of vaccines, they injected inmates with malaria, typhus,smallpox, cholera, and spotted fever" (Silverstein, 1996). "They physician broke their subjectsÕ bones and then infected the wounds, fed them sea water until they had seizures and suffered cardiac arrest, operated on them with out anesthesia, . . ." (Silverstein, 1996).

ÒSome bodies were dissected, and their brains sent to research institutes, where scientists tried to determine the physical causes of mental illness" (Fishkoff, 1996).

"Aviram interviewed on woman who survived a killing procedure as a small child, when she was brought along with other children from a mental hospital to the Brandenburg euthanasia center, . . . [She describes] a German nurse hurling German toddlers into the gas chamber, while she herself dawdled over untying her bootlaces" (Fishkoff, 1996).

Eva Mozes-Kor, the president of Children of Auschwitz: Nazi Deadly Camp Lab Experiments Survivors (CANDLES), was, in her words, "a human guinea pig in the Birkenau laboratory of Dr. Josef Mengele." Dr. Mengele conducted experiments with twins in whom he would inject one twin with a germ or disease, and if that twin died, they would kill the other to compare organs at autopsy. "Mozes-Kor almost died after a series of germ injections, but survived with her sister for liberation. She provides this pointed description of atrocity, among others: "A set of Gypsy twins was brought back from Mengele's lab after they were sewn back to back. Mengele had attempted to create a Siamese twin by connecting blood vessels and organs. The twins screamed day and night until gangrene set in, and after three days, they died" (Tarantola, 1993).

Silverstein, M. (1996, October 10). "When Ethics Turned Evil: Symposium explores role of doctors in the Holocaust." Jewish Exponent.

Katz J. The consent principle of the Nuremberg Code: its significance row and then. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA, eds. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code. Human Rights in Human Experimentaticn. New York: Oxford Univ pr; 1992:231-3.

Moreno JD, Lederer SE. Revising the history of Cold War research ethics Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 1996; 6:223-38.

Tarantola, Daniel-Mann, Jonathan. (1993, January 1). "Medical ethics and the Nazi legacy." World & I, Vol. 8, p.358. Zukier, H. (1994). "The twisted road to genocide: On the psychological Horst H. Freyhofer, The Nuremberg Medical Trial: The Holocaust and the Origin of the Nuremberg Medical Code (Studies in Modern European History, V. 53.)

Alexander L. Medical science under dictatorship. N Engl J Med. 1949; 241:39-47. Snell, M. (1993). "Germany's heart: The modern taboo." New Perspectives Quarterly, pp. 1-20.

Lerner BH, Rothman DJ. Medicine and the holocaus:: learning more of the lessons. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:793-4.

Caplan AL, ed. When Medicine Went Mad. Totowa, NJ: Humana Pr; 1992.

Barondess JA. Medicine against society. Lessons from the Third Reich. JAMA. 1966; 276:1657-61.

Judgement and aftermath. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA, eds. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1992:102-3.

The total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbers about 85,000,000 -- all with borrowed money.

Reply (Peter M.):

Dick,

I don't like either of the links you sent - either the anti-Nazi one or the pro-Nazi one. Both had a propagandistic newsreel or "rave" style that leaves me cold. You seem to assume that I would approve the anti-Nazi one, as if I've done a complete turnaround.

My view of 9/11 has not changed at all. I still see it as more "Mossad" than CIA. But, of course, we're not in a position to know for sure. By coming out for Dr Mengele, you're putting your credibility on 9/11 at risk.

I'm disappointed to see what you say about Mengele & the Nazis. I've been sitting on the fence for years, watching Denial material come & go, sometimes passing it on, and now I'm seeing something dangerous in it.

It's not that I've become a ravist Zionist. Numbers like "6 million" don't have any special meaning for me. It's the violence I sense in some of the hardline Deniers that alarms me. Plus, when I started reading up on this topic, I realized that mass deportation of Jews in mid-1944 could not be about "resettlement in the east". That was just a cover.

Probably Otto Strasser's books woke me to it. They're on my website. Did you read them? Best to start with Hitler & I.

When and how did you become a Denier? Did I contribute in any way?

I'm concerned that my own anti-Zionism might have given some people the impression that I was pro-Hitler. I never was. The name of my website, "Neither Aryan Nor Jew" should have conveyed that to you.

I do concede that Hitler & Schacht worked an economic miracle, but Hitler's internal violence and external wars tip the balance against him.

Very few Australians are pro-Hitler. Hitler's ally Japan gave us such a scare that we have no illusions that we would have been better off if the Axis had won.

If Dr Mengele doesn't convince you, study up on Unit 731, Japan's "medical research unit" in Manchuria.

The pro-Nazi webpage you cite says "Auschwitz was repeatedly visited by Red Cross inspection teams who were allowed to speak to prisoner representatives alone,in order to hear first-hand of any mistreatment, chicanery, interruption of mail and parcel delivery, health concerns, food and ration matters etc." <http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm>

They provide no evidence. Can you?

I've already provided contrary information in an earlier email.

(10) Mass immigration - Jewish groups remain an obstacle to change

From: Darryl potts <pottsied@yahoo.com> Date: 14.02.2009 06:53 AM

http://kvetcher.net/2009/01/2340/jews-and-the-larger-mass-immigration-issues/

Jews and the Larger Mass Immigration Issues

by DK

may I suggest that speaking to the Jewish establishment in the expectation that they will negotiate honestly, openly and in good faith, is an abject waste of time.

An establishment Jew Max Dimont wrote in his book "The Indestructible Jews", that the destiny of Western civilisation was, according to himself, "The diasporisation on man into one world, and a synthesis of the Western, Slavic ans Sinic civilisations into one universal culture having the ethics of the Torah for its moral foundation and Jerusalem as its spiritual center."

Firstly the accusatorial title of the Book implies that everyone is attempting to destroy them, and is a continutation of the persecution mythos. The magnificent Jews believe themselves entitled to rule over the lesser thans. That's us and explains, clearly, why they foist themselves upon other peoples who uniformly become tired of them including us in the mythos as "Goyim". The Jew whines that any person who does not play the role assigned to the 'Gentile' is an "anti-semite". To refuse to role play our part effectively disenfranchises the Jew from his religious role and renders him irrelevant.

For this, the Jews hate us all. Why do you aplogise for these malevolent, bloody minded and singularly nasty Prigs ?

(11) "It will take some time to deal with all these issues"

From: patrick <patrickh@ymail.plala.or.jp> Date: 14.02.2009 05:32 AM

Thank you for the very informative mailing! It will take some time to deal with all these issues and many of the previous ones! Patrick Henry in Japan

Reply (Peter M.):

Patrick, I'm just keeping up with this myself. There's a pack of people at my heels, and I'm just staying ahead of them.

From: patrick <patrickh@ymail.plala.or.jp> Date: 15.02.2009 12:10 AM Subject: Re: MacDonald's testimony; Leuchter Report & Van Pelt Report Subject: MacDonald's testimony; Leuchter Report & Van Pelt Report

Thank you very much for the range of information! Let me make the following comments! We must distinguish the core, background, and peripheral issues of the holocaust. ------- The CORE issues are the 1.) what, 2.) where, 3.)when, 4.) who, and 5.) how of the holocaust crime! There are at least the following different ideas in this thread about the "What" of the holocaust. The holocaust means that:

1. Hitler did not like Jews. 2. Many Jews disappeared and must be accounted for. 3. Man Jews died during WW2. 4. Some big-shot Nazis talked about wants to exterminate Jews. 5. Himmler gave a speech in which he talked about an on-going extermination.

However, none of these three ideas begins to get to the establishment`s holocaust accusation of genocide. One important official definition is: "Germans murdered c. 6,000,000 and used different murder weapons including homocidal gas chambers at Auschwitz." ------- An important BACKGROUND isssue is why the holocaust occurred. There are different views:

1. Hitler was G-d`s instrument raised up to punish the Jews for their sins, e.g. eating shrimp and bacon. This is the explanation advanced by some rabbis and would be the paradigmatic Old Testament explanation. 2. Lots of Jews had to die to justify the founding of Israel. This is the Zionist explanation. 3. At that time, a big war was going on and lots of people die during wars. As A. Butz wrote, "During WW2, a war was going on." 4. Jewish crimes against Gentiles (aka humans) explain the holocaust. I was shocked to see this viewpoint represented on this thread. I believe it is totally unsupportable. 5. All Gentiles and especially Germans are driven by a totally irrational and inexplicable hatred of Jews. The is the totally irrational and inexplicably hateful explanation of Eli Wiesel and his epigone, Daniel Goldhagen. ------- PERIPHERAL issues would be, for example,

1. The holocaust as the excuse for Israel`s crimes. A major theme in Finkelstein and an important political problem. 2. David Irving`s, Kevin MacDonald`s, Mark Weber`s ideas about the holocaust. These are interesting but diversionary questions. 3. What would be the best word to describe the events now referred to by the word "holocaust"? At least two other words were used before "holocaust": namely "whirlwind" and "catastrophy." I believe the word "whirlwind" was taken from the Book of Job. Either is a less objectionable word than "holocaust." 4. The holocaust and the political enslavement or subjugation of Europe. Here the holocaust would represent the betrayal of the ideals of the European Enlightenment by Hitler and/or the powerful Semitists (Jewish Supremacists) who worked to bring about WW2. This is also an important and current political problem. -------

Thank you for your efforts and willingness to promote this important discussion! Patrick Henry McNally in Japan

(12) Lady Renouf - Vile holocaust denier caught in web of lies

From: patrick <patrickh@ymail.plala.or.jp> Date: 15.02.2009 12:13 AM Subject: Re: Weekend Australian Hello Peter,

I am forwarding this. I got it from Professor Butz` distibution list. I thought you might be interested in this as a peripheral issue.

Thank you,

Patrick in Japan

FAKER: Vile holocaust denier caught in web of lies

By Andrew Landeryou ? February 15, 2009

http://www.vexnews.com/news/2790/faker-vile-holocaust-denier-caught-in-web-of-lies/

The weird and disturbing industry of holocaust denial is usually populated by dorky pretend academics who wear ill-fitting suits and fantasise late at night about being Fuhrer. "Lady Renouf" is a former model from Newcastle, Australia now living in London who breaks that mould, at least presentationally. In an excellent takedown, in the Weekend Australian magazine yesterday, their Peter Wilson shows that telling lies is at the core of Holocaust denial and that only after some pretty intense questioning did the real motivation come out: she doesn't like Jews.

If only the rest of the filth in Holocaust denial were as honest as this compulsive liar and fantasist.

WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE

SAT 14 FEB 2009, Page 018

PRETTY DANGEROUS By Peter Wilson

London socialite Lady Renouf courts global attention as the attractive face of Holocaust denial. Who would guess she was once plain Michele Mainwaring, a beauty queen from the NSW central coast? Peter Wilson meets her.

At 22, Michele Mainwaring was a beauty queen from the NSW central coast whose titles included "Miss Zhivago" for being judged the local woman who looked most like Julie Christie in the biggest film then showing. By 42, she was a London socialite with a grand house and ballroom who called herself "Countess Griaznoff" and posed for family portraits with her Russian husband and two daughters in costumes that could have been designed for Omar Sharif's film.

Now, at 62, she is known as Lady Renouf, from her short-lived second marriage, and on the wall of her apartment in upmarket Kensington, London, is a photo of her being kissed by Omar Sharif during the brief period they dated about a decade ago.

But it is not her glamorous social life that has recently made Miss Newcastle-Hunter Valley 1968 mildly famous in Britain, Germany and Australia. "This woman is especially dangerous," says Dr Efraim Zuroff, the chief Nazi-hunter at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem, "because she is so attractive and can put a pretty face on a very ugly movement."

That movement is Holocaust denial, a decades-old attempt to play down the Nazi atrocities against Jews and other minorities. After showing no interest in Jews or World War II until her 50s, Renouf now travels the world speaking at conferences, alongside former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and other extremists, arguing that the Holocaust has been massively exaggerated and that in any case the Jews are to blame. The only prominent female denier, the girl from The Entrance, NSW, has met Iran's Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and lauded him as a champion of free speech and democracy despite charges by human rights groups that his regime tortures dissidents and stifles free speech.

Some experts are worried that, as the last witnesses of the Holocaust die, the deniers could gain ground in the West by focusing their propaganda on students at university and high school. The deniers were bolstered last month by Pope Benedict's acceptance back into the Catholic Church of ultra-conservative British bishop Richard Williamson, who claims that historical evidence is "hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler É I believe there were no gas chambers". The political and public outcry across Europe at the pope's decision - not least in his native country, Germany, where Holocaust denial is a crime - shows the depth of feeling that surrounds the issue.

Other Holocaust historians such as Zuroff say the deniers' biggest impact is in the Arab world and among Muslims in countries such as Britain. "For political and religious reasons there is just a closed mindset [in the Arab world] and that is where people openly say the Holocaust never happened," he says. "Or they invert it against Israel - that we are the new Nazis and the conflict right now is us committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians."

With fears of rising anti-Semitism in Europe, and Israel under growing pressure over its conflict with the Palestinians, the denial movement is becoming more than "a loopy fringe group that can be ignored", says Zuroff. "That is why this woman is just perfect for people like the Iranians É they have this blonde, pretty woman speaking in an English accent in Tehran [at a 2006 Holocaust denial conference] and on Iranian TV telling them they are right and the Jews are evil. This is a dangerous person."

My first contact with Michele Renouf is via the intercom of her Kensington apartment. I had just learnt that Dr Fredrick Toben, Australia's best-known Holocaust denier, had been released after 50 days in London's Wandsworth prison and was staying in Renouf's apartment.

British police had used a European Union arrest warrant, issued by Germany, to pluck Toben from a plane transiting through Heathrow last year. A legal team organised by Renouf beat an attempt to extradite him to Germany, where he is wanted on charges carrying a fiveyear jail sentence. Renouf tells me through the intercom in her posh English accent that Toben is standing beside her but will not talk to me until he has safely returned to Australia. (Adelaide-based Toben, once back on home soil, would announce his intention to return to Germany to "thrash it out" with prosecutors.)

Several days after talking through the intercom with Renouf she invites me to a press conference that she is holding in the small Cranley Gardens Hotel, near her apartment, to discuss Toben's victory. Smiling and immaculately groomed in a woollen pantsuit, she is as handsome as one would expect of a woman who has for decades worked as a model in TV and print commercials, now often cast as a well-to-do woman of a certain age.

The British press has stayed away and the small conference room she has rented holds about a dozen Toben supporters, including David Irving, the British historian who was labelled an anti-Semite and a falsifier of history by a High Court judge in a 2000 libel trial. Renouf announces that Toben has left for Australia "but in his stead we have an expert who has come especially from France". Dr Robert Faurisson will discuss "the meat of the issue", the deniers' rejection of the mainstream account of the Holocaust. At this news Irving scurries from the room - fearful, Renouf explains later, that being involved in such a conference would threaten his ability to visit the US.

"Conference" is a loose description. I am the only reporter listening to Faurisson's 80-minute speech, which Renouf films for the internet. Like every other dedicated Holocaust denier outside the Arab world, Faurisson is not a professional historian. An 80-year-old former professor of literature, he began disputing the Holocaust in the'70s and has been repeatedly convicted in France, one of 10 countries that outlaw Holocaust denial. Faurisson's basic claim is that Jewish leaders invented the Holocaust to win sympathy and gain a homeland in Israel. There is no proof that Hitler and the Nazis planned genocide, he says, the toll of six million dead does not add up, and the gas chambers at Auschwitz were not used to kill people. Instead, he insists, the gas chambers were aimed at helping the Jews by using the poison Zyklon B to kill lice in order to fight typhus.

"In Auschwitz I visited by myself what is called Crematorium One," he says. "I immediately saw that it could not be a gas chamber." The room was not sealed properly, one of its doors had a fragile glass window, and the holes in the roof through which the Nazis supposedly dropped gas pellets had been added after the war, he says.

He claims that a plaque displayed at Auschwitz in the'70s stated that four million people had been killed there. That number has now been revised down to just over one million but the "Holocaust industry" still claims that six million Jews died, even though the plaque's toll was out by three million, he says.

Not long after hearing Faurisson I visit Auschwitz. All the time I am there, ringing in my head are Faurisson's claims that the "Hollywood version" of its terrible history is untrue. The camp, in Poland, does have a powerful effect on a visitor but not the one claimed by Faurisson and Renouf.

The Nazis dynamited the largest gas chambers as Soviet soldiers approached in January 1945 and the surviving chamber that Faurisson refers to is the oldest, smallest and most primitive. His arguments crumble a few seconds after one enters that grim, dark room. The thin glass window that he cited proves nothing: it is obviously a reconstruction.

A guide at the camp confirms to anyone who asks that what one now sees in Auschwitz was largely rebuilt after the war by the Polish communists. The four holes in the roof that Faurisson talks about were also part of a clumsy postwar reconstruction but it is easy to see the outlines of the original holes, which are now sealed up.

Renouf wants a televised debate between Faurisson and Laurence Rees, a BBC documentary-maker who did a six-part series on Auschwitz in 2005. Rees tells me he would never take part in such a debate, a position shared by almost all leading historians, who say it is valid to debate details of the Holocaust but not the basic fact that the Nazis deliberately killed something like six million people, 90 per cent of them Jews, and largely with gas chambers.

"It is pointless discussing history with Holocaust deniers," Rees says. "It would be like discussing climate change with members of the Flat Earth Society. My experience is that they do not want to know the answers and they want to suck you in so as to publicise themselves and pretend this is a 'legitimate debate'. It isn't legitimate and it isn't a debate.

"Since the existence and working practice of the gas chambers has been established as a 100 per cent historical fact, getting involved with these questions is like trying to debate the Norman Conquest with someone who maintains that the Battle of Hastings never happened and that William the Conqueror might have been a Martian.

"Can you 'prove' that William the Conqueror wasn't really a Martian? How can you 'prove' he didn't have a funny green pointed head - in fact, isn't that almost certainly why the Normans wore those funny helmets?"

A few days after Renouf's press conference I sit down with her in the foyer of the Cranley Gardens Hotel for what turns out to be a five-hour interview over several cups of tea. Polite and friendly but with a well-mannered reserve, she is quite guarded at first. When she appears on extremist and anti-Semitic radio programs and Iranian TV shows she is billed as a "human rights activist", "political commentator", or "filmmaker", as she has begun making and selling her own films questioning the Holocaust and slamming Israel. She says she is not anti-Semitic because, while she criticises Judaism, she has nothing against Jews. Her critics "always say I am charming but sinister. But if you meet me you actually don't find this hate that they speak about. You find criticism but you don't find hate É Jews who know me like me."

That's a view not supported by my conversations with several Jews who know her. Their anger is not hard to fathom. Over a few hours of conversation an increasingly relaxed Renouf expresses views that do not make her popular in polite society, Jewish or otherwise.

Jews, she says, follow a religion which is dishonest, inhumane, supremacist, hate-fuelled, predatory and treacherous. In fact "it does not deserve to be called a religion at all".

"The definition of a Jew is antigentile," she insists, and it is their own selfish behaviour which has provoked anti-Semitism over the centuries, making them responsible for their own persecution.

While we share biscuits with our tea she trots out cliches - how Jews control Hollywood, the media, banking, advertising, academia and Western foreign policy. "Australia, like Britain, is an occupied country: occupied by proZionist policy," she says. What is more, Hitler had no choice but to put Jews into concentration camps because international Zionist leaders had "declared an economic war on Germany in 1933 to try to destroy Germany".

"So you have to, to protect your own people, put the enemy into the camp. And when you put people into a camp, the risk in close quarters of disease and so on are multiplied. So there were gas chambers, sure, but for delousing. Whether there were gas chambers for murderous intent I cannot say because I have not heard a proper debate."

A shared view of Judaism has made her something of a fan of hardline Islamists. Israel has no moral right to exist, she insists, Hamas and Hezbollah are "wonderful and noble", and jihadist suicide bombers "are reacting to our appalling decision to go to war [in Iraq] on a lie. So we are the culprits".

Praising Muslim attitudes to women, she volunteers that she "would be on the side of the Muslim leader in Australia who said our women are looking like meat" - a reference to Sheik Taj Din alHilali, who provoked a storm in 2006 by saying that women who did not dress conservatively were like "uncovered meat" and invited sexual attack.

The life-long advertising model says she disagrees with compulsory burqas but feels that "the way Muslim women dress basically is better for us than the way women are encouraged to dress in the Western, Judeo-influenced societies, consumer societies which promote the baseness of us É The Jewish influence in fashion, in Hollywood and so on creates the ethos of this kind of women serving-men value system."

Renouf, who has received death threats, expresses these views without any open anger or venom, and often seems surprised when people take offence. She complains that she has been cast as "the most notorious woman in London".

That clearly rankles with someone who values social status - she mentions more than once that she can trace her father's family back to 1086 and the Domesday Book - but it does not worry her enough to make her tone down her views. In 2003 she was expelled from London's prestigious Reform Club for using the club to champion Irving and his views on Hitler, and she has been kicked out of other social groups.

She admits her two adult daughters disagree with her views and "can't bear what I do É because they obviously don't want me to be at risk, and also they have been conditioned like anybody else".

She met their father, Daniel Ivan Zadeh, an Australian psychiatrist of Russian descent, during a trip to the Gold Coast in 1968 as part of her prize for winning Miss Radio 2HD Newcastle Beach Girl. The couple shifted to London in 1970, where they married. IvanZadeh had always been plain "Mr" or "Doctor" but Renouf says the family had once claimed a title through his great-uncle, so she began styling herself as Countess Griaznoff "for my charity work". No such title exists in the major lists of European noble families such as the Almanach de Gotha or Burke's Royal Families of the World.

They divorced in 1990 and the following year, at 44, she married Sir Frank Renouf, the Kiwi financier 28 years her senior who'd recently emerged from an acrimonious split with Susan Rossiter-Peacock-Sangster-Renouf.

The press swooped, obtaining a copy of the new wedding certificate. Michele had listed her father, Arthur, as a deceased hotelier but the press found him alive in NSW. The retired courier driver and photographer for the Port Macquarie News said he had never owned a hotel.

Sir Frank felt humiliated and the marriage did not survive the six-week honeymoon in New Zealand.

Asked about the misleading marriage certificate, Renouf says her grandparents owned a country pub in NSW. Her parents separated when she was 10 and she never really knew what her father did for a living, she says. She'd had no contact with him for several years before the wedding and "I knew that he was dying of cancer and someone had sent me a condolence card so I assumed that meant that he had died".

She says Sir Frank tried to patch things up but she refused and he divorced her in 1995 on the grounds of her alleged "unreasonable behaviour" with a Bulgarian fencing champion, an allegation she denies. Sir Frank died three years later.

She says she did not ask for a settlement and she now funds her activities "with some difficulty". Jewish advertising executives have been giving her less work due to her Holocaust views, she says.

She devotes much of her time to the cause of Holocaust "revision", travelling to Austria, Canada, France and Germany to witness trials of deniers and speaking at a Holocaust review conference held by the Iranian Government in Tehran in 2006.

At that conference she gave a fiery denunciation of Israel and Judaism and afterwards was elected to a committee to organise another conference, alongside Toben and Dr Christian Lindtner, a Danish Holocaust-denier to whom she was briefly engaged in 2007. Theirs was a romance launched by Holocaust denial - they first met early in 2006 at a Danish conference and they next spent time together at the Tehran conference.

What I kept wondering, though, was where her obsession with Judaism had come from. By her own account, "growing up in Australia I never heard anybody even talk about Jews. I certainly had no predisposition, my world was not divided into Jew and gentile. In fact, I thought they all died out like the Pharisees and all the other Biblical sects that you heard about in school."

She says she first became interested in the Holocaust in 2000 when David Irving lost his high-profile libel action against an American historian for branding him a Holocaust-denier.

But she had already been interested for several years in "the anti-gentile nature of Judaism". In 1997 she wrote and published a booklet that appalled academics by rejecting the widely held view that Hitler's favourite composer, Richard Wagner, had expressed antiSemitism in his operas. She met Toben the following year when she was promoting her booklet at the Adelaide Festival.

In 1999 she enrolled in a master's degree in the psychology of religion at the University of London's Heythrop College to pursue her obsession.

But where did it all start? According to Renouf, it was a 1997 argument about a dish of suckling pig. She'd set up a committee of 25 friends to help her organise a dinner to fund a new dressing room for Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, but trouble blew up over the menu.

"I had asked the caterers, The Ivy restaurant, if they could give us perhaps a choice in the main course," she says. "And they suggested for an Elizabethan feast why don't you have suckling pig, a good vegetarian choice and perhaps sea bass, because sea bass is sort of regarded as a glamorous dish.

"When I presented that choice to my coterie one Jewish girl said, 'We regard your offering a choice in the main course as tyrannical and if you are going to insist upon it I am going to resign.' Eventually she said, 'You cannot expect Jews to sit at the table where others might choose pork É '

"The really interesting thing was the fear in the room of the other 24 people. They said, 'Please let's not pursue this issue,' and I said, 'Why, what is your fear?' They said, 'It is anti-Semitic.' I said, 'But for heaven's sake, what is antiSemitic about discussing food?' We weren't eating eyeballs or something that was frightful to us, it wasn't such an astonishing thing, we weren't eating horse or cat or something outrageous.

"It got me terribly interested because it meant that sensible people were being dictated to by this woman's religion even though I happen to know that she eats bacon and eggs. She resigned from the committee and the two other Jews in the room resigned with her."

She refuses to name the woman who objected to her menu, but mentions that she had been prominent in the International Churchill Society. Through that Churchill link I later track down the woman, a retired American art gallery owner named Wylma Wayne, and I speak to her and two other women who were on Renouf's fund-raising committee.

Wayne says Renouf's version of the fight is nonsense. "From what I can remember that [argument] was not really about religion or eating pork at all. She was just being domineering and I objected to her behaviour. I thought it was ridiculous and self-aggrandising to spend all this money on an elaborate menu when the aim was to raise money."

Another member of the committee tells me that at least one of the other women who resigned in support of Wayne was not Jewish.

I put this to Renouf when I meet her for a second extended interview, a four-hour session in her apartment over smoked salmon and cucumber sandwiches, tea and scones. She stands by her version of the suckling pig affair, saying she believes that those who resigned from the committee were indeed Jewish.

I raise another question from the past: while she claims to have graduated from Sydney's prestigious National Art School, I understand that she studied in Newcastle. She says she did some classes in Newcastle but that she definitely graduated from the NAS. The NAS has no record of her studying there, but other archives show that in 1968 she graduated under her maiden name, Michele Suzanne Mainwaring, with a Diploma in Art (Education) from Newcastle Technical College.

Another question concerns her speech to the Holocaust conference in Tehran, in which she said she had been expelled from Heythrop College for criticising Judaism in her essays.

"I was 'asked to study elsewhere'," she told the conference, lambasting Christian "collusion" with Judaism.

The Reverend Dr John McDade, the principal of Heythrop College, remembers things differently and checked Renouf's file to confirm that her account was inaccurate. "She was not expelled at all," he says. "She failed. She simply did not submit her work so she was failed. I have the letter here in which she was formally told that she could not come back because for two years in a row she did not submit her core work for assessment."

When I put that to Renouf she is adamant she'd been expelled. She says the Jesuit-run college had appointed a Hasidic Jew with the power to veto any student and that person had rejected her essays. The college's registrar tells me later it had never had any Jewish person in such a position.

Finally we return to the Holocaust, and the great store she places in Robert Faurisson's nonsense about the plaques at Auschwitz. Time and again she argues that "there is a deficit now of three million people but it is called Holocaust denial if you point out that six minus three equals three, not six".

The fact is that the figure of four million on the '70s plaque was part of Polish communist propaganda and has nothing to do with the current consensus among historians that about six million died in the Holocaust.

Experts say up to 3.4 million were killed at the main death camps - 1.1 million to 1.3 million at Auschwitz, 875,000 at Treblinka, 600,000 at Belzec, 250,000 at each of Chelmno and Sobibor, and 100,000 at Majdanek. At least 1.5 million more were killed by mobile SS death squads in eastern Poland and the Soviet Union, while the rest were killed in various ways such as shootings in Poland and deaths in smaller camps around Europe.

Renouf listens politely but after I have cited those figures she seems not to have heard me. She just repeats that "six minus three does not equal six" then changes the topic.

Perhaps sensing my frustration in the ninth hour of our interviews, Lady Renouf becomes more direct. Her main reason for not believing "the Hollywood version" of the Holocaust, she says, is that she doubts anything said by Zionist leaders. "I loathe Judaism É and I see things through that prism."

She certainly has no plans to drop her obsession. In fact, she intends to move on to what she considers "the new front line" of the Holocaust issue, the school system. Deniers in Denmark have set up a website encouraging schoolchildren to be sceptical about the Holocaust and she wants to run a similar campaign. "This is what we need in this country and this is what I want to do next," she says. "I am determined to get the truth out there."

Peter Wilson is The Australian's European correspondent. His previous story for the magazine was "The family guy" (December 13-14, 2008), about director Ron Howard.

(13) Leuchter is pretty much discredited

From: Palestine Remembered <palestineremembered@googlemail.com> Date: 14.02.2009 10:17

It's a great job you're doing bringing these Denialist things together - but they're not very convincing. Leuchter is (I'm pretty sure) completely discredited - see http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/ Although his cyanide tests are significant, they were done on the rebuilt chambers where you'd not expect any residues (the Auschwitz guides don't tell you this, but the ones they show off are rather poor reconstructions after the war, they're the ones that used to say "4 million gassed here"). Leuchters results are off beam because, for physiological reasons, lice need something like 250 times the concentration of Zyklon to kill them than what humans need. Leuchter got involved in this discussion and trial because he was busy making himself a career building gas chambers to execute US prisoners sentenced to death - for which he wasn't really a bit qualified. These are not historians, they're profiteers. Zundel came to Leuchters defense but he was another profiteer, flogging Nazi memorabilia.

So, as I said, the deniers have contributed a small amount to our understanding of the Holocaust, but they're on the wrong side of history, and they have about as much influence as the Flat Earth Society.

(14) Are you realising that you are engaged in something actually dangerous?

From: Michael McDonnell <mmcd@mmnet.com.au> Date: 14.02.2009 06:03 AM

Are you realising that you are engaged in something actually dangerous, and quite bravely? - that reality exists objectively beyond scholarship and my opinion?? May God edify and guide you.

Reply (Peter M.):

In 1990-91 I became, by default, the leader of a small group of activists of the Far Left and the Far Right, opposing a Japanese plan to build a high-level administrative and research city in Australia, an extra-territorial city not subject to Australian law. It was called the Multi-Function Polis (MFP).

Our Internationalists in the Labor Party were behind it, and bagging all opponents as "racists" and "xenophobes". On campus, the Trotskyists attacked the opponents.

Only I could keep the Far Left and Far Right activists together. That's how I became the defacto leader. Only by keeping those two groups together, could we succeed.

In the end, we won.

I assumed at the time that I was under surveillance by ASIO, our "intelligence agency". You would think it was THEIR job to protect Australia's sovereignty, instead of leaving it to about 20 core activists scattered about the country.

In 1995 I discovered Zionism. Whereas it took two years to defeat the MFP, I've been battling Zionism for 13 long years and, of course, there's no end in sight.

Since then, apart from probably being monitored by ASIO, I've had a sense of danger from Mossad and the Sayanin. Lately, I have wondered if I face danger from hardline Deniers.

(15) Wrong Lizard, by Israel Shamir

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: 14.02.2009 02:58 AM

Wrong Lizard

by Israel Shamir

http://www.israelshamir.net/shamirReaders/english/Shamir--Wrong-Lizard.php

And now for the good news from Israel: General Ehud Barak, the Murderer of Gaza, the Assassin of Beirut, got properly thrashed in the parliamentary elections. One almost feels sorry for the man who diligently massacred hundreds of children and their parents and received no reward from the ungrateful citizens. Before the war, the surveys predicted he would get about 12 seats and that's all got after the war, despite all his trouble.

He went down, and his party, Labour, went down with him. Good riddance! Labour ruled Israel from its inception till 1977 non-stop. They perpetrated the Nakba, turned the native Palestinians into refugees, developed nuclear weaponry and terrorized the Middle East. After a longish break, they came back to power under Rabin and Barak. It is an open verdict who was worse. Rabin was the father of apartheid. He initiated checkpoints, locked the Palestinians in their villages and towns and ordered the army to break the bones of their children. Barak kicked off the second intifada (together with Sharon), rained death on Lebanon and now has waded in the blood-rivers of Gaza.

More good news: the most hypocrite party of Israel, the oh-so-progressive-and-left-wing Meretz, got beaten to a pulp and obtained just three seats. They supported the war in Lebanon and called for the war in Gaza. In both cases, they got cold feet halfway. Zehava Gal'on, Meretz's leader, expressed her concern on the air: we are all for bombing, but we are against the army's entry into Gaza, for one of our Jewish soldiers may get hurt inadvertently. Better to cease fire rather than endanger a single Jewish soldier. The idea that Gazans are also human did not even enter her head.

As for compassion and welfare, they had none. Meretz was against child allowances and other welfare devices. The reason: their wealthy electorate has few kids and many gays. They did not care for undeserving Arabs and observant Jews who are blessed with children. A letter of a Meretz supporter in Haaretz was revealing: Meretz should admit to its self-interest, to neo-liberalism.

With the electoral defeat of these two parties, Jewish National-Socialism turned its place to Jewish National (neo) Liberalism. The power in Israel is firmly in the hands of Likud which is presently divided into two parties, one under Bibi Netanyahu and one under Zipi Livni. There is absolutely no reason to prefer Party A to Party B. Livni was even more pro-war than Bibi, while she is surrounded by Head of Secret Police, generals, ex-Chief of Staff and other famous humanists and leftists.

The electoral success of Lieberman should worry us even less: Lieberman is this pathetic figure of the wrong lizard we are being offered as incentive to vote for the right lizard. Douglas Adams explained why the people of some distant planet hate lizards and still vote for lizards: "Because if they did not vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in." The Jewish political system has to churn out worse and worse lizards in order to convince people to support the monsters in power. As a reward, eventually the wrong lizard will be whitewashed to become a right lizard, and a new wrong lizard will be offered.

The queue of wrong lizards is long. Menachem Begin was a wrong lizard, and the father of Nakba David Ben Gurion used to warn people that if he did not get their votes, Menachem Begin would. Eventually Begin became a prime minister, not better, neither worse. Ariel Sharon of Sabra and Shatila was a wrong lizard, until he was whitewashed by the New York Times and brought in. Now it is Lieberman's turn.

Lieberman is rather a comic figure. His stunt of demanding that Palestinians swear loyalty to the Jewish state was lifted wholesale from Joseph Heller's Catch-22. "All the enlisted men and officers on combat duty had to sign a loyalty oath to get their map cases from the intelligence tent, a second loyalty oath to receive their flak suits and parachutes from the parachute tent, a third loyalty oath for the motor vehicle officer, to be allowed to ride from the squadron to the airfield in one of the trucks. Every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed. They signed a loyalty oath to get their pay from the finance officer, to obtain their PX supplies, to have their hair cut by the Italian barbers."

The wrong lizard had to be whitewashed because despite attempts to scare them people would vote for him. They would vote for him not because they like him, but because they justifiably hate the ruling beasts. It is a protest vote. If a guy is hated by these snotty bastards Barak and Gal'on, he can't be all that bad, or so Israeli hoi polloi mistakenly think. And actually this wrong lizard while at power would be neither better nor worse than any right lizard. Let us face it: all Zionist politicians are beasts.

In dealing with Israel, instead of watching for the results of our hopeless elections, the world might better adopt the adage of David Ben Gurion, mutatis mutandis: "It is of no importance what the Jews say; it is important what we do". Enough talk, it's time for action.

{end of bulletin 9}

On to the next bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate10.html.

Back to the Holocaust Denial Debate menu: holocaust-debate.html.

Write to me at contact.html.

HOME