This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
There is a global network of lawyers and judges coordinated from offices in Tel Aviv devoted to the advancement, in their respective countries, of the interests of the state of Israel—by the agency of their countries’ legal systems. Called the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (or IAJLJ), it reprises the much-reviled National Socialists of World War II Germany in many ways, including the use of “code language,” starting with the use of “Jewish” to disguise a legal offensive in behalf of a nation-state as a religious association, complete with tax-deductibility.
In keeping with the best precepts of sophisticated propaganda practice predating even the benchmark career of Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, they do not neglect to artfully craft the announced subjects of their conferences, held in critical venues throughout the world at least annually. One scheduled for November in the very city that once served the National Socialists as their capital, Berlin, bears the righteous-sounding title of “Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era.”
As with extremist groups everywhere, the lexicon of the “faithful” suffices to distort meaning in the apprehensions of out-group observers, as the smear term “Holocaust denial” is stretched to encompass any effort at honest inquiry into any material issue concerning German-Jewish relations in the war years, particularly: (a) the number of Jewish deaths involved; (b) whether the German people or their government intentionally launched a genocidal program; and (c) whether and how poisonous gas might have been used in the purported genocide. Of course, the term “Holocaust” itself was propagated in perfect Orwellian fashion to provide a ready handle for all manner of fixing of guilt and claiming of victimhood, of which the two words just discussed are but one example.
Then appears the hallowed phrase “Freedom of Speech,” as though our lawyers and jurists proposed to set about protecting or maintaining it. Make no such mistake: their purpose, a moment’s reflection will clearly disclose, assigns freedom of speech the role of being an obstacle to the attainment of their purpose, and as such an obstacle, of course, an object to be breached, overcome, obliterated to whatever extent the IAJLJ’s agenda requires. Finally, the target ambit, the Internet, is listed not as a territory to be conquered, but rather, as a period in time (“Era,”) though the arena is famously populated, and used, by uncountable droves precisely as a redoubt of free speech as yet less compromised than the traditional media, all under much better control of the agents in league with whom the IAJLJ crafts its strategies. This remains to be suborned, and over time, with coordination in all the varied jurisdictions of the world, and the force of the law, guided by the sure but unseen hands of members of the IAJLJ, should suffice to bring this chaos of anarchic freedom to heel as well.
All in all, a fine demonstration of lawyerly obfuscation—here, of course, the chief weapon to be deployed. It is extensively on view in the titles of the sessions in the program, as well.
All countries, for reasons not directly related to the IAJLJ’s goals, but in all cases for reasons closely comparable with the IAJLJ’s in kind, already regulate the Internet, those (the Anglo-Saxon group) with public traditions of free speech displaying the most unseemly laggardliness, hence the aforementioned “Era.” In one view of the undertaking, the IAJLJ wishes nothing more than to piggyback its own particulars upon initiatives already underway in countless territories and regimes where the specter of free exchange of ideas has raised its unwelcome head. From Tel Aviv, its appearance might roughly resemble that of a global game of ideological “Whack-a-Mole.”
At first blush, the chosen venue of Berlin for this conference might appear ironic in view of the IAJLJ’s identity and specific purpose. But, like the conference title just analyzed, it is nothing of the sort, for Germany today remains as firmly under the heel of its conquerors as it was when supine in the ruins of its conquest in 1945. Germany might well qualify as a world “leader” in the prosecution and punishment of “Holocaust denial” by its own citizens and those of other countries, on its territory and outside its territory, in its national language and in other languages. For good measure, it is a “leader” in the persecution of “war criminals” from the conflict that ended 66 years ago.
Of course, Germany has laws on its books prescribing severe penalties (but little real definition) for the offenses of both kinds, and this arrangement is in fact one of the historical approaches to be mooted in the conference for the extension of the assault on free speech into the newly opened reaches of the Internet. The title of the presentation by Tatjana Hörnle (the program misspells her surname), “Holocaust Denial via the Internet: The German Penal Code Approach,” is especially chilling, but then, the Germans (Hörnle is on the faculty of the Humboldt University of Berlin) have never been as given to Tarnsprache (veiled speech) as their detractors have made them out to be. Further evidence of a congenial setting is found in that nine of the twenty-four persons presenting at this event are associated with German institutions or government, including the one presenting on anti-Semitism in Iran.
The infamous Wannsee Conference of January 1942, at which purportedly the organized genocide of the Holocaust was set in motion, occurred in a suburb of Berlin. This conference advances a vision every bit as horrific as that attributed to the earlier one: systematic destruction of the processes by which humanity pursues the ever-elusive Truth.
Holocaust revisionists wishing to use the Internet are but the named targets of this insidious conclave. The true and effective victims of this initiative must encompass all those who value freedom of expression and inquiry, and the truths that ultimately emerge from the rough-and-tumble of untrammeled intellectual intercourse.
Bradley Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, founded in 1989, argues that the Holocaust story should not be the preserve of some at the expense of others, but should be open to a free exchange of ideas for all.
NOTE: This article was sent to 1,700 individuals in the press in Europe and North America.
Additional information about this document
|Title:||International Lawfare in Defense of Holocaust Orthodoxy|
|Sources:||Smith’s Report, no. 187, December 2011, pp. 1f.|
|First posted on CODOH:||June 2, 2012, 7 p.m.|