Bishop Richard Williamson goes on trial in Germany July 4

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who resides in London, England, is scheduled, on July 4, to have his appeal heard in Germany concerning his heresy trial. He is appealing the charge that he cast doubt on the modern West's most sacred relic, the alleged engine of destruction in Auschwitz. The following is from his weekly e-mail column. It appears below in English and in German and French translation.

Bishop Richard Williamson's Dinoscopus Column

ELEISON  COMMENTS  CCVI  (June 25, 2011):  CHOOSING  LAWYERS

These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.

In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.

So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.

As for my changing lawyers four times, the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.

However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.

Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.                                                  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

Dinoscopus is always sent free of charge, courtesy of True Restoration Press:
truerestoration@gmail.com

*******************************************************

ELEISON  KOMMENTARE  CCVI. (25. Juni 2011): ANWALTSWAHL    

Die Eleison Kommentare" berichten normalerweise nicht von persönlichen Dingen. Doch kurz vor dem Berufungsverfahren ihres Autors in Deutschland (am 4. Juli 2011) zirkuliert eine Unwahrheit, welche korrigiert werden muß, auch, um ungerechtfertigte Ängste zu zerstreuen. Diese Unwahrheit lautet, daß ich meine Verteidigung gegen den vom deutschen Staat erhobenen Vorwurf der ,,Volksverhetzung" darauf aufbauen möchte, was in der umstrittensten Zeit der jüngeren deutschen Geschichte tatsächlich oder nicht passiert ist.    

Von dem Moment an, da ich wußte, daß ich für meine englischsprachigen Bemerkungen gegenüber den schwedischen Journalisten im November 2008 vom deutschen Staat wegen ,,Volksverhetzung" angeklagt werden könnte, wußte ich tatsächlich auch, daß ich bei einer Wiederholung meiner Aussagen vor einem deutschen Gericht riskieren würde, sofort ins Gefängnis geworfen zu werden. Das ist der gegenwärtige Zustand des deutschen Rechts. Doch wenn ich es vermeiden kann, würde ich natürlich lieber nicht mit Leibketten geschmückt werden.     Deswegen wurde mir von Anfang an geraten, mich auf der Grundlage zu verteidigen, daß meine Aussagen selbstverständlich nicht für ein deutsches Publikum bestimmt waren und damit auch nicht vom deutschen Recht berührt werden. Soviel ist schon anhand der letzten Minute des bekannten Youtube-Videos offenkundig, welches die letzten paar Minuten meines einstündigen Interviews mit den Schweden zeigt. Darüber hinaus bat ich nach diesen Bemerkungen und bei abgeschalteter Kamera die Schweden ernstlich, diesen letzten Teil des Interviews nur auf, "diskrete" Weise zu verwenden.

Wenigstens das müßten sie zugeben, wenn sie aussagen würden - doch können sie nicht gezwungen werden, nach Deutschland zu kommen, und daher lehnen sie ein Erscheinen ab.

Über meine wechselnden Anwälte: Ursprünglich vertraute der Bruderschafts-Generalobere meine Verteidigung dem Bruderschafts-Anwalt Maximilian Krah an, welcher sich entschied, Matthias Loßmann zu engagieren. Dieser ist Mitglied der ( leider ) antikatholischen Partei,Die Grünen" und verrichtete die Arbeit zwar gewissenhaft, war aber vom Fall vielleicht nicht allzu sehr begeistert. Über Freunde entdeckte ich den Anwalt Wolfram Nahrath, welcher die Verteidigung solch heikler Fälle begeistert und sehr erfolgreich vornimmt. Doch Loßmann wollte mit Nahrath nicht zusammenarbeiten, und weil ich in meinem Dilemma nur die beste Rechtsverteidigung suchte, wechselte ich von Loßmann zu Nahrath.    

Als jedoch der Generalobere von seinen Beratern über Nahraths politische Stellung informiert wurde, befahl er mir, wieder jemand anderen zu finden - sicherlich im guten Glauben daran, daß jede öffentliche Verbindung zwischen der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. und einem ,,extrem Rechten" abträglich wäre. Also billigte der Generalobere den älteren und ehrenvollen Dr. Norbert Wingerter, welcher ein konservativer ,,Novus Ordo"-Katholik ist. Doch anscheinend ist Wingerter unwissentlich die Quelle für die eingangs erwähnte, zirkulierende Unwahrheit. Ich weiß nicht warum, aber er scheint unter dem falschen Eindruck zu stehen, daß ich vor Gericht auf dem Wahrheits- oder Unwahrheitsgehalt der erwähnten Episode in der deutschen Geschichte beharren wollte. Gluecklicherweise hatte der Generalobere bereits einen weiteren Anwalt erlaubt, welcher nunmehr gut versteht, wie ich vor Gericht verteidigt werden will.

Liebe Leser, wenn Sie denken, daß bei dem Ganzen die Interessen Gottes in irgendeiner Weise auf dem Spiel stehen (nicht jeder denkt dies), so bitte ich für meinen neuen Anwalt um ein Gebet zwischen jetzt und den 4. Juli 2011. Dieser Anwalt hat seit vielen Monaten hart an diesem Fall gearbeitet, aber riskiert dabei, unter heftigen Druck zu geraten durch antikatholische Beteiligte und ihre mächtigen Knechte.                               

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson          
************************************************************

COMMENTAIRE  ELEISON  (25 juin, 2011):  UN  CHOIX  D'AVOCATS  

Ce « Commentaire » ne s'occupe pas normalement de questions propres à son auteur, mais à la veille de son Appel qui doit s'entendre en Allemagne le 4 juillet, une contre-vérité circule qui a besoin d'être corrigée pour entre autres choses apaiser des anxiétés sans fondement. La contre-vérité, c'est que pour me défendre contre l'accusation d' « incitation raciale » que me porte l'Etat allemand, je veux que le tribunal examine la vérité ou fausseté historique de ce qui s'est passé dans cet épisode le plus controversé de toute l'histoire récente de l'Allemagne.  

De fait, dès le moment où j'ai su que l'on pourrait m'accuser en Allemagne d'avoir commis, par certains propos que j'avais tenus aux journalistes suédois en novembre de 2008, cette  « incitation raciale », je me suis rendu compte aussi que si je tenais devant un tribunal allemand des propos pareils, je courrais le risque de me faire jeter séance tenante en prison. Tel est l'état actuel des lois allemandes et des tribunaux allemands. Or, je ne tiens pas spécialement à me faire orner de chaines, si je peux l'éviter.  

Alors dès le début de l'« affaire Williamson » j'ai suivi le conseil de me faire défendre en faisant valoir que ces propos ne visaient aucun auditoire allemand, et donc la loi en question ne s'appliquait pas à mon cas. Ceci est évident si l'on regarde la dernière minute de l'extrait du film de l'interview faite par les Suédois qui est devenu célèbre sur YouTube. De plus, tout de suite après que la caméra eut cessé de tourner, je les ai abordés directement pour leur demander très sérieusement d'être « discrets » dans l'usage qu'ils feraient de cette dernière partie de l'interview. S'ils venaient à témoigner en Allemagne ils devraient admettre tout cela. Dans la mesure où on ne peut pas les y forcer, ils refusent de se rendre en Allemagne.  

Et pourquoi ai-je changé si souvent d'avocat?  A l'origine le Supérieur Général de la Fraternité St Pie X a confié ma défense à l'avocat de la Maison Généralice, Me Maximilian Krah, qui a choisi à son tour un membre du parti anticatholique - hélas -- des « Verts » pour le remplacer, Me Lossmann. Celui-ci s'est acquitté de sa tâche consciencieusement mais peut-etre sans trop d'enthousiasme. Grâce à des amis, j'ai repéré un avocat enthousiaste et habitué à gagner des cas si délicats, Me Nahrath, mais Me Lossmann n'a pas voulu collaborer avec lui. Dans le besoin pressant d'un bon avocat, j'ai donné mandat à Me Nahrath. Mais dès que le Supérieur Général eut été renseigné par ses adjoints de la position politique de Me Nahrath, il m'a ordonné de trouver encore quelqu'un d'autre. Sans doute croyait-il de bonne foi que toute association publique avec un «extrémiste de droite» ferait du tort à la Fraternité. Il a approuvé l'avocat suivant, l'honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, catholique conservateur de l'Eglise officielle. Etant sous la fausse impression, je ne sais comment, que je voulais engager le tribunal dans la question de la vérité ou fausseté de ces événements controversés de l'histoire allemande, c'est le Dr. Wingerter qui serait à la source, sans s'en rendre compte, de la contre-vérité qui circule. Heureusement le Supérieur Général avait déjà approuvé un cinquième avocat qui comprenait bien comment je voulais me faire defendre.  

Chers lecteurs, si vous pensez que dans cet Appel il y va de quelque façon que ce soit des intérêts de Dieu - pas tous ne le pensent - dites d'ici le 4 juillet une prière pour mon avocat actuel qui travaille dur sur le cas depuis plusieurs mois, mais qui risque d'avoir à affronter une pression forte de la part de puissants eennemis de la Foi, et de leurs serviteurs.  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

*********************************************************

Read More

German is beaten for daring to question a “Holocaust survivor”

A “Holocaust survivor" approves of a beating administered in a library to a heretical German who dared to ask a question of the saint

THE OTHER GERMANS

By Noah Klieger

Noah Klieger recounts unexpected event during Holocaust lecture in Germany

Ynet News Dec. 27, 2010

WITH AN AFTERWORD BY MICHAEL HOFFMAN

I returned from a lecture tour in Germany; 20 lectures in 11 days in nine different cities. In recent years the frequency of the invitations I receive grows, and during my lectures I dedicate much time to the despicable, sadistic behavior of most Germans during the Holocaust – the hundreds of thousands of murders of European Jewry and the tens of millions who were overjoyed by the mass extermination of the hated Jews.

I usually speak before audiences whose grandparents were those Germans. In the case of school children it may even be the great grandparents. Through my personal story I detail the crimes and basic inhumanity, and the audiences arrive in large numbers and always applaud me at length.

My last meeting in Berlin, on the eve of my return to Israel, was organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation at the German capital’s public library. It was a cold evening, -16 degrees Celsius, with snow piling up in the streets and the few cars outside having trouble making their way through it. The organizers expected a small audience, if at all, and I too didn’t expect much.

Yet reality was different. The 90-seat venue filled up within minutes, and dozens of chairs had to be brought in. Here too, the audience sat and attentively listened to my words, and again it applauded at length. As always, I proceeded to take questions. I responded to two women, and then a man stood up, in his 40s or 50s.

“You claim,” he said, and I immediately stopped him: “I’m not claiming. I’m telling facts.” The man continued to ask whether I saw gas chambers with my own eyes, yet before I had time to tell him about the reality I saw in Auschwitz and Birkenau, with the gas chambers and crematoria, several of those in attendance stood up and started yelling “raus, raus. “Out” in German. The man did not comply of course, and then several men charged at him and forcefully dragged him out while beating him up.

Readers at the library who wondered what the commotion was all about were told the man was a Holocaust denier, and everyone was happy to see him thrown out.

This is the first time I’ve seen something like this happen in the dozens or hundreds of times I appeared in Germany thus far. The response of the audience to the provocation taught me that there are indeed “other Germans.”

It is true that even today quite a few Germans are latent anti-Semites. Many are not willing to believe that their fathers or grandfathers indeed murdered Jews, and they cannot speak out only because of the law that bans Holocaust denial and religious incitement.

At the same time, more and more people in Germany are starting to understand in recent years what the Germans of yore did to the Jewish people, and to the whole world. (End quote)

Afterword by Hoffman

Notice the author's megalomania: "“You claim,” he said, and I immediately stopped him: “I’m not claiming. I’m telling facts.”

This is the first law when approaching the "Holy People," everything they say is truth, not “claims."

This is why the book 'The Great Holocaust Trial,' reprinted this month, is important: when these "infallible survivors" were on a witness stand in the Toronto trial of Ernst Zundel, subject to cross-examination by Zundel's defense attorney Doug Christie, their "facts" dissolved into thin air. The butcher's bill for that revisionist victory came years later, when Zundel suffered seven years' imprisonment in Canadian and German dungeons.

Klieger writes, "...during my lectures I dedicate much time to the despicable, sadistic behavior of most Germans during the Holocaust..."

Here we see how the religion of Holocaustianity has as its most perverse component the racist defamation of the "despicable, sadistic" German people. It is illegal in Germany to refer to the Judaic nation in these terms but vile anti-German hatred is licensed as a form of human rights education under the rubric of "Holocaustianity."

Klieger further states that, "tens of millions (of Germans)...were overjoyed by the mass extermination of the hated Jews."

How did you ascertain this figure, Mr. Klieger? What proof do you have that the German people were aware of alleged gas chamber extermination, much less were ‘overjoyed’ by it? Of course I realize that merely posing these questions to your Royal Highness could result in this writer receiving a (justifiable) beating, but I will run that risk.

The rest of the 'report' by Mr. Klieger is run-of-the-mill Talmudic arrogance, violence and terrorism: a German heretic asks a skeptical question at a speech in a library given by a Judaic 'Holocaust" saint. The heretic is beaten and thrown out of the library. The loving, tolerant, humanist Noah Klieger comments, "and everyone was happy to see him thrown out."

As we approach the complete triumph of Judaic supremacy in the West, the Talmudic mentality will no longer need to cloak itself and we will be treated to more of this open gloating over the violent suppression of opponents, which is so at variance with the cinematic and academic mythos concerning Judiasm's relationship with heretics and heresy, i.e. as the forever hunted ones. But when Judaics themselves unleash the dogs and become the hunters there is no Steven Spielberg or New York Times to record it for posterity. It is up to us to do so.

Michael Hoffman is the author of "The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West's Most Sacred Relic" (Independent History and Research, 2010)

***

Read More

Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial” debate on campus

"Academic Freedom and Holocaust Denial Newspeak” 

A Talk by Michael Hoffman

In this approximately 15-minute talk, Michael Hoffman analyzes the thoughtless acceptance of the Newspeak "Holocaust denial" phrase as a universal description of dissenters who dare to question Allied and Zionist dogma. He points to the hypocrisy of approved "holocaust denial " by Zionist professors who deny the 1945 Allied holocaust in Dresden, Germany or the Israeli genocide in Gaza — "denials" which are not a subject of academic controversy or media reproach and do not threaten the university employment or credentials of the deniers.

In the course of this talk, Hoffman confronts Prof. Cary Nelson's arguments in the Nov. 7, 2010 issue of "The Chronicle of Higher Education," about the "Holocaust" and "Holocaust denial" as it applies to the case of Prof. Kaukab Siddique of Pennsylvania's Lincoln University.

Hoffman is the author of "The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West's Most Sacred Relic” (forthcoming from Independent History and Research, December, 2010). He is a pioneer in the study of the psychology and epistemology of Newspeak as applied to public perception of World War II historiography.

Hoffman’s work is made possible by the sale of his books, newsletters and lectures and by donations from truth-seekers. He is an independent scholar and has no corporate or institutional affiliation or sponsorship.

Websites:
www.RevisionistHistory.org
http://talmudical.blogspot.com
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com

Books by Hoffman
"The Great Holocaust Trial"
"Judaism Discovered"
"Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare"
"The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians”

***

Read More