Imposing a Guilt Complex

This is not another lecture detailing incongruities of the Gerstein report or technical impossibilities of mass gassings in German wartime concentration camps. Instead, I will deal here with the political and psychological function of the Holocaust campaign in European society today. Because I am a Swiss citizen, I focus here on the situation in my native country, but the story is essentially the same in our neighboring countries – Germany, Austria, and France – and, albeit to a much lesser extent, in other European states.

A few years ago I was employed in the Swiss immigration service, where my job was to interview “asylum seekers.” After I quit that job in January 1989, I wrote a book entitled Das Narrenschiff (“The Ship of Fools”). The title (which is also the name of a well-known 15th century allegorical satire) referred to a ship on the Rhine river where some of these asylum seekers were being lodged while awaiting questioning. Because my book was promoted by an influential conservative editor, it was reasonably successful. I soon became known among right-wing, anti-immigration groups, which often invited me to speak about the immigration problem or to take part in controversial public discussions.

During the past decade, roughly 150,000 illegal immigrants, most of them from non-European countries, the rest mainly from former Yugoslavia, have poured across the frontiers of Switzerland to apply for “political asylum.” Although about 95 percent of the applications are rejected, the vast majority of these immigrants stay for good, with or without residence permits.

Of course, the motive of these immigrants is entirely understandable, and there can be no question of morally condemning them. In view of the often dire conditions prevailing in their countries of origins – more often than not ravaged by repressive governments, civil war, tribal strife and economic underdevelopment – I fully understand the drive of a Kosovo Albanian, Turk, Indian, or African who seeks a better life in the relatively wealthy societies of the West. But what are the consequences of this migration for a small European nation such as Switzerland?

In certain districts of our cities, 70 to 80 percent of the school-age children are now of foreign descent. I needn't dwell on the Babylonian conditions prevailing in the schools there. Quite often the teachers are simply unable to communicate with their pupils, as there are few Swiss with sufficient linguistic skills and enthusiasm to learn Albanian, Turkish or Tamil. Of course, every native Swiss who can afford it has long ago moved out of such districts. Those Swiss who remain are working class people whose children are obliged to bear the consequences of our government's insane immigration policy.

Crime Explosion

A concomitant phenomenon is the explosion of crime, especially of drug-related offenses. Hardly a day goes by, it seems, without the newspapers bemoaning the horrible situation in Zurich, Switzerland's largest city, where drug dealers, nearly all of them foreigners, openly sell their deadly merchandise to young Swiss drug addicts. In August 1994, a group of Lebanese drug gangsters threatened to blow up a couple of buildings if the police didn't stop molesting them. Not that they have much to fear from the police. Because there are no free prison cells available, the local government has explicitly instructed the police to refrain from arresting such people, and in the rare cases when an arrest does take place, the suspect is routinely released from jail after a couple of days.

Stupidity or Design?

When I wrote my book five years ago, the situation – as bad as it was – was not nearly as critical as it as today. I have given much thought to the inexplicable policy of our government. How on earth could lawmakers choose a policy that is so obviously harmful to the interests of their own people? After much reflection, I came to the conclusion that the government consists of essentially decent, but weak and incompetent individuals who have yielded to the pressure of pro-immigration left-wing groups, the predominantly left-wing press and the churches. Government leaders would like to pursue a more reasonable policy, I thought, but they didn't dare lest they be called “racists” by the immigrant lobby. But then, were the governments of our neighboring countries any better? In Italy, a country traditionally plagued by a high unemployment rate and large pockets of poverty, especially in the south, between one and two million Africans have poured across the borders in recent years, while in France and Germany large sectors of major cities are rapidly being transformed into crime-ridden, Third World ghettos.

I finally concluded that the stupidity of the ruling elites' could not adequately explain this disaster. So much stupidity simply doesn't exist. In other words, there must be a master plan of some sort, a deliberate policy to lay the groundwork for a multiracial society in which the native European population would slowly but inexorably be reduced to a minority.

Two Families

Jürgen Graf addresses the Twelfth IHR Conference, September 1994.

Permit me a short digression to tell about two families I personally know. Family A is Swiss. The father, a close friend of mine whom I'll call Albert, is a shopkeeper who sells records and books. With four children between 14 years and nine months of age, his wife, whom I'll call Heidi, cannot possibly work outside the home: she has to take care of the children. If Albert were an employee or a civil servant, he would be entitled to a children's allowance (Kindergeld) payment of approximately $400 a month – a sum not nearly adequate to cover the expenses of the four children. But because he is a shopkeeper, he is considered an “economically independent person,” and as such doesn't receive a penny from the state. Although Albert earns enough to make ends meet, during the past three years he hasn't been able to get away to spend even a week of vacation time together with his family. He can't afford it.

If Albert and Heidi had decided not to have any children, she'd be able to get a job and they'd now be well-to-do “Dinks”: double income, no kids. In effect, the Swiss state penalizes them for bringing into the world and raising four healthy and intelligent children, thus contributing to the survival and well-being of the Swiss nation. If Albert and Heidi had decided to abort the third and the fourth children, they could have done so easily, claiming “social distress,” and the state health insurance would have paid for the abortions.

Family B is Turkish. I'll call the father Ibrahim. He is a decent, law-abiding man who came to Switzerland as a legal immigrant employed by the Turkish government to teach the Turkish language to Turkish children in a Swiss school. Ibrahim has two daughters who both work as shop assistants. His wife, whom I'll call Hatice, once worked as a dishwasher in a restaurant but quit her job because of real or alleged back pains. Hatice now receives a monthly unemployment payment of 2,000 Swiss francs, or about $1,750, which is about three times what a qualified worker earns in Turkey. Ibrahim and Hatice already own two houses on the Mediterranean coast. They rent out these houses, which provide an additional source of income, and they are setting aside the 2,000 francs Hatice receives monthly from the Swiss government to buy a third house. The two daughters are already engaged to Turkish lads who will soon move to Switzerland. Because the daughters are legal residents, their future husbands will automatically obtain Swiss residence permits.

A Multicultural Policy

Considering all the evidence, there can be little doubt about the nature of the policy adopted by the governments of Switzerland and other western European countries: it is to create a multicultural racial melting-pot society by fostering Third World immigration while at the same time encouraging, by every possible means, a lower birth rate of the native European population. These means include absurdly low state child subsidy payments to Swiss parents and promoting the abortion of healthy unborn children. (At the same time, lawmakers and journalists routinely depict the mercy killing of incurably sick people in Nazi Germany as an abject crime against humanity.)

Such a policy can only be regarded as suicidal. It has long reminded me in an uncanny way of a passage in a Romanian novel, Delirul (“The Delirium”), in which the author, Marin Preda, describes the extinction of a rare red bird living in the Danube Delta. Let me quote this passage:

Romanian ornithologists working in the Danube delta have discovered a red-feathered species of bird which displayed an inexplicable behavior. Every year, the fox robbed the bird of its eggs and then put stones into the nest. The bird bred these stones the whole summer long without noticing that they were stones. In order to rescue the endangered species, the ornithologists shot the fox. To the utter amazement of the scientists who watched through their telescopes, the bird then began to run amok. It smashed the eggs with its bill and danced as if it had become crazy. What madness had befallen that bird? What gloomy instinct drove it to self-destruction? Why did it want to die? Nobody could answer these questions. Nature had sentenced the red bird to death, and nobody could commute the sentence.

Reactions to Holocaust Book

In the spring of 1993 I sent copies of my first book on the Holocaust issue to a number of people who had read and appreciated my book on the immigration question. The reactions were sometimes quite interesting. One friend wrote me that he didn't understand why I had ruined a potential political career because of those tedious old stories. Another one wrote: “Why do you write about the horrors of World War Two instead of thinking of the present?” Now, if the Holocaust is a tedious old story, we might wonder why the media talk about it every day and why the propaganda grows ever more intense 50 years after the war. Again and again I've been struck that people simply don't understand the close link between the Holocaust – regardless of whether they believe the story or not – and the suicidal policies pursued by the governments of most western European states.

Puppet Governments

Until April 1991 I accepted the Holocaust story as essentially true. While I thought that the figure of six million Jewish victims was probably exaggerated, it never occurred to me to question the existence of Nazi gas chambers. I was dimly aware that a tiny group of researchers denied the official version, but I made no effort to learn their arguments. After being “converted” to Holocaust revisionism by my friend Arthur Vogt, I first thought that the main reason that the Holocaust story was being kept alive were the German reparations to Israel and individuals Jews around the world. But I abandoned this theory after a couple of months because it did not adequately explain such a gigantic fraud perpetrated on a world-wide scale. The deeper I delved into the origins of the myth, and the more I studied its daily use for political propaganda, the more I became convinced of two things: the governments of the western European states are little more than puppets dancing on the strings of shadowy, hidden forces, and that the gas chamber lie is closely tied to the suicidal immigration policies of the European states.

Atoning for the Past

As already mentioned, following the publication of my book on immigration, I participated in numerous controversial discussions on this issue. In every one of these debates, my opponents invariably brandished the specter of World War Two, Nazism and the Holocaust.

Their argument essentially is this:

While millions of Jews were being gassed in Nazi Germany, the Swiss government idly stood by, closing our borders to the victims of Hitler's racist fury. Therefore we have become guilty, and we must never commit the same sin again by sending political refugees from bloody dictatorships back to their certain deaths. Far from adopting a more restrictive asylum policy, we should atone for the crimes of the past by welcoming today's victims of terror and persecution.

At that time, when I still accepted the orthodox Holocaust story, I responded by saying that the situation today is different from that during the Second World War, and that an Tamil suffering from political persecution in Sri Lanka could more easily seek asylum among the 50 million Tamils in southern India instead of flying to Switzerland.

Imposed Guilt Complex

After discovering the truth about the Holocaust story, I gradually began to understand that one of its main functions is to infuse white people with a guilt complex. Although Germans and Austrians were the main culprits (so the thinking goes), the other western peoples were also guilty because they didn't lift a finger to save the Jews from Auschwitz and Treblinka. Because we were accessories to a crime without parallel in human history, we are no longer entitled to any form of national consciousness, let alone national pride. The only guarantee against a revival of Nazism and a new Holocaust is the obliteration of all racial and national distinctions, and the creation of a peaceful and tolerant multicultural society in which there would be no more racism because there would be no distinct races.

This vision is not new. In 1925, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan European Union – a kind of spiritual ancestor of the European Community – wrote in his book, Praktischer Idealismus (“Practical Idealism”):

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

Utopian Vision

Of course, this vision is pure rubbish. While massive immigration of foreign races naturally leads to a certain number of interracial marriages, the bulk of the native population sticks to their own national and cultural roots, and many immigrant groups, especially those embracing the Muslim faith, simply refuse to assimilate. Thus, the result of alien immigration is not the obliteration of national, cultural and religious differences, but the mushrooming of ghettos and an increase in racial tension that sooner or later leads to violent racial strife. Regardless of whether a global racial melting-pot and the abolition of all national distinctions is desirable or not, this goal is simply impossible to realize.

So who are the shadowy personalities and organizations that induce national governments to adopt policies reflecting the ideals of Coudenhove-Kalergi and his present day successors? The question is a formidably difficult one, much more difficult than the Holocaust story.

In the light of revisionist research, the Holocaust legend is now easy to debunk. Because the purported mass gassings were technically impossible, they did not take place. While it is quite easy to refute the official Holocaust story, it is not so easy to show just what did really happen to Europe's Jews during the war years, and just how many of them perished. Still, demographic studies such as the one by Walter Sanning (The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry), conclusively prove that the figure of six million Jewish victims is utterly preposterous.

'Criminal Traces'

Whereas in the case of the Holocaust story we can work with solid technical and chemical evidence, there is no such hard evidence to corroborate the theory of a coordinated worldwide effort to destroy the white race and Western culture, and ultimately all races and cultures, by massive immigration and miscegenation. If such an international effort exists, those who pull the strings are not likely to publish the transcripts of their secret meetings. For the time being, anyway, we are therefore obliged to content ourselves with what our old friend Jean-Claude Pressac calls “criminal traces.”

Having closely observed the state of affairs in Europe for some years now, and having read the works of eminent researchers such as Johannes Rothkranz, author of Die kommende Diktatur der Humanität (“The Coming Dictatorship of Humanity”) [Pro Fide Catholica, 1991], I believe that the western governments are, to varying extents, controlled by people who consciously pursue the goal of destroying all sovereign nations and establishing a world government.

'The Great Plan'

In March 1993, when the upper house of our parliament, the Ständerat (roughly comparable to the US Senate), debated the so-called “anti-racism” law, there was not a single dissenting voice. (A friend who attended the debate reported on it to me.) One senator from the French-speaking part of the coun try spoke of “le grand plan” – “the great plan” that made the adoption of the law necessary. No one asked him to explain this “great plan.” Everybody knew.

Our lawmakers seem already to be “initiated” into some sort of quasi-secret conspiracy. If so, this would help to explain a lot of otherwise inexplicable phenomena. With the exception of three relatively small right-wing parties, which together represent only one-tenth of the voters, and apart from a few isolated deputies from the mainstream parties, the entire parliament and government essentially agree on two main points: Switzerland must disappear as a nation, the sooner the better, and the Swiss people, as a distinct nationality, must disappear as well.

A clear majority of our people opposes Swiss membership in the European Community, partly for economic reasons but mainly because it would for all practical purposes mean the end of Switzerland as a sovereign nation. In spite of this clear sentiment, all four major political parties – Socialists, Christian Democrats, Liberals and the moderately conservative Swiss People's Party – are outspoken supporters of Swiss membership in that supranational body, in which an anonymous, all-pervasive central bureaucracy centered in Brussels steadily takes ever more of the rights and functions of for merly sovereign states.

'Anti-Racism' Law

All four government parties also endorsed the “anti-racism” law (mentioned earlier), which is designed to muzzle all opposition to mass immigration and to silence Holocaust revisionism. Approved by the lower house of the Swiss parliament in December 1992 and by the upper house in March 1993, this law bans undefined crimes such as “racial discrimination,” “slandering members of a racial or ethnic group” and “advocating, denying or minimizing a genocide or another crime against humanity.” The last section is, of course, directed against the revisionists, and empowers authorities to hunt down and punish individuals suspected of the revisionist heresy.

Illegal immigrants caught by US border patrol police await a return trip to Mexico.

Apart from a few small-circulation right-wing newspapers, the entire press, along with the radio and television, emphatically endorse this policy and seldom, if ever, allow any free debate about these questions – issues upon which the fate of the Swiss nation depends. Virtually all patriotic journalists have been removed from responsible positions in recent years, so that the Swiss media today presents a picture of depressing uniformity.

Deceptive Swiss Democracy

Under these circumstances, elections today are little more than a kind of Punch-and-Judy show in which children breathlessly watch valiant Punch as he fights the evil crocodile, not realizing that both figures are manipulated by the same person behind the screen. Whether one votes for a Socialist, a Christian Democrat or a Liberal lawmaker is of little consequence because all three will support essentially the same policy in parliament.

A genuine left-wing opposition to the System has ceased to exist. While the left-wing ecologists and the few Communists still represented in parliament pay lip service to “anti-capitalism” and occasionally denounce the “new world order” or the “mighty bureaucracy in Brussels,” they share the anti-national ideology of the ruling classes. Indeed, they think that the influx of foreigners is not massive enough – in other words, that the Swiss nation should disappear even more rapidly than it actually is. The right-wing opposition, even though it is largely ineffective and lacks charismatic leaders, is daily branded as “reactionary,” “anti-progressive” and “nationalistic” by the entire media, and its representatives are treated as moral outcasts in parliament.

That's Swiss democracy today. You are free to chose from among an impressive array of newspapers, all of which propagate the same internationalist worldview, while in the evening, you can turn on your television to view such sinister farces as a “Christian-Jewish dialogue” in which some Jewish speakers demand sterner measures against thought-criminals they call “anti-Semites,” “racists,” “fascists” or “neo-Nazis,” while the “Christian” participants piously nod in agreement to every point before apologizing for the pernicious role of the Christian churches in persecuting Jews.

A National Referendum

A recent national referendum campaign shows just how Switzerland's so-called “direct democracy” works in practice. According to our constitution, any organization, group or individual has the right to initiate a referendum, by which the people can vote to revoke an already-promulgated federal or cantonal law. (A canton is roughly comparable to an American state or a German Bundesland.) People have three months following enactment of a law in which to obtain a specified number of signatures from Swiss citizens asking that the law be revoked. On the national level, the number of required signatures is 50,000.

After the “anti-racism” law was adopted by both chambers of parliament, a referendum campaign was launched by an ad hoc group, “Action for Free Speech” (“Aktion für freie Meinungsäusserung”). None of the five leaders of this grass roots group was prominent or nationally known. Although the three right-wing parties represented in the lower house of parliament had opposed the “anti-racism” law, they initially decided not to support the referendum effort because of the hostile media campaign that started immediately after the launching of this initiative. Along with the leaders of the referendum committee, all those who were even suspected of supporting this drive were indiscriminately denounced in the media as “racists” and “anti-Semites.” Almost daily the populace was warned that no decent person would even think of supporting such creatures.

Owing to a lack of funds and poor organization, the referendum seemed doomed to failure from the outset. One month before the October 6, 1993, deadline for obtaining signatures, a second referendum committee was formed, this one politically more moderate and consisting mainly of dissident members of two mainstream parties. These two committees together finally succeeded in obtaining, on time, 58,000 signatures, which was amply sufficient.

Orwellian Propaganda

During the weeks leading up to the referendum balloting on September 25, 1994, Switzerland experienced the nearest thing to an Orwellian hate week it had ever known, except that this “week” stretched out over several months. This intense propaganda drive, carried out by the entire print and electronic media, was so unspeakably primitive that it disgusted every thoughtful and sensitive person. As the media portrayed it, a small group of staunch anti-racists who supported this law was fighting a gallant but almost desperate struggle against a kind of Orwellian brotherhood, a vast network of pitiless racists and neo-Nazis.

Because there are very few authentic racists and Nazis in Switzerland, they had to be invented. As a result, Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists, anti-abortion groups, anti-vivisectionists who oppose Jewish Kosher slaughter of animals, moderate right-wing conservatives critical of the official immigration policy, the 15 or so publicly-known Holocaust revisionists – all were recklessly branded as racists and dangerous pro-Nazi elements.

When three young members of mainstream parties – a Christian Democrat, a Liberal and a Conservative – formed a committee to oppose the “antiracism” law on the grounds that it threatened free speech, the mass circulation newspaper Sonntagsblick published their photographs and addresses in its July 3rd edition under the headline: “These are the young lackeys of the old racists. Why don't their parties silence them?”

Rosmarie Dormann, chairwoman of the committee for the “anti-racism” law, publicly declared on August 28th, 1994, that rejecting the law would “jeopardize our democracy.” In other words, those who support a law permitting dissidents to be jailed for three years are defenders of democracy, whereas those who oppose the law are endangering it. Of course, hardly a journalist dared to disagree.

Holocaust Rubbish

Predictably, all this was accompanied with an intense, weeks-long media flood of Holocaust garbage. In the August 7 edition of the Sonntagszeitung, a Jewish woman named Erika Rothschild recalled the atrocities of Auschwitz: because the Germans only had enough Zyklon B in June 1944 to kill children, the adult Jews were dragged from the gas chambers still alive before being tossed into crematory ovens in batches of six. Jewish prisoners were forced to wash with soap made from the ashes of their murdered fellow prisoners.

During this period, numerous papers joined in praising a new book by an 87-year-old Jewish woman named Jenny Spritzer who decided to break her silence about Auschwitz 49 years after her liberation from the camp. Her job as a prisoner, she said, was to register the names of all Jews gassed. You might suppose that the Nazis would certainly get rid of such an embarrassing witness, but no, they inexplicably forgot to dispose of Ms. Spritzer, thus enabling her to recount the horrors of Auschwitz half a century later.

In addition to this incessant flood of Holocaust rubbish stories, the media reported all kind of freely invented racist atrocities: Jewish pupils being bullied by anti-Semitic classmates, Boy Scouts being beaten up by neo-Nazi thugs, wall graffiti reading “Italian swine to the gas chambers,” and so forth. Naturally, the opponents of the “anti-racism” law were utterly powerless to counter this propaganda steamroller. Many newspapers even refused their paid ads, and only occasionally were they granted access to the media. (On the eve of the voting, though, there was a nationally televised debate.)

An Ominous New Law

In the referendum, which took place on September 25, 1994, the “anti-racism” law was approved by 54.7 percent of those who voted (more than half of those eligible to vote did not). Exactly half of Switzerland's cantons rejected it.

In spite of their victory, I believe that the Jewish organizations and other groups committed a major blunder by so loudly demanding such an outrageously anti-Swiss and anti-democratic law. If the law, which became effective in January 1995, is rigorously enforced, there will be an endless series of political trials, a thing unheard of in Switzerland since the Second World War when a few Communists and National Socialists were put on trial for treason. Hard-core revisionists, including myself, have been testing the law by mailing revisionist material to prominent personalities. In view of the fact that the text of the law is utterly vague – it mentions neither the “Holocaust,” “gas chambers” nor “Nazi crimes” – it is still not clear precisely how the courts will apply it in practice.

Revisionism In Switzerland

Let me add some words about the actual situation of Holocaust revisionism in Switzerland. On May 9, 1994, four revisionists – Arthur Vogt, Andres Studer, Bernhard Schaub (a schoolteacher who like me lost his job because of revisionist heresy) and I – mailed about 3,500 copies of the abridged version of the Rudolf Report, along with a five-page cover letter, to university scholars, politicians and the media.

The media reaction was interesting. With two exceptions (the Weltwoche and the Marxist Wochenzeitung), which promptly denounced the action as yet another sinister fascist plot, the entire press kept silent for more than a month. Then, on June 16, the Bern daily Bund published no fewer than three lengthy anti-revisionist articles in the same issue. This set off a flood of similar articles in other newspapers, usually almost identical in their wording, which clearly suggests a coordinated effort. Even papers that are at loggerheads with each other on a range of issues joined in condemning the revisionists with the same idiotic phrases and barefaced lies: They “deny Auschwitz,” they “deny the existence of the Nazi concentration camps” or they “deny the fate of Anne Frank.”

Repression In Germany

Even worse is the situation that prevails in neighboring Germany, where the hysteria seems to have reached a climax. As you may know, Günter Deckert, chairman of the right-wing National Democratic Party, has been sentenced to two years imprisonment because he translated a speech by American execution expert Fred Leuchter at a November 1991 meeting in Germany. (See “Two Year Sentence for 'Holocaust Denial',” May-June 1995 Journal, pp. 40-42). Although a court-authorized interpreter who analyzed a video recording of the presentation confirmed that Deckert had accurately translated Leuchter's words, without adding any commentary of his own, the court ruled that Deckert had slandered the Jews and defamed the memory of the (Jewish) dead. An aggravating circumstance was that the accused had laughed several times while translating what Leuchter said, thus committing the Orwellian offense of “face crime.”

German press coverage of the affair was little more than a frenzied smear campaign, giving the impression that neo-Nazis were on the brink of taking over the republic. So grotesque is this propaganda campaign that it should suggest to everybody but two-legged sheep that the official version of the “Holocaust” is rotten to the core – if the six million and gas chamber stories had any basis in fact, “exterminationists” would be content to publicly refute the revisionists, and it wouldn't be necessary to legally punish them. Unfortunately, though, it is extremely difficult for the average citizen to learn the truth because the media censorship is total.

An editorial cartoon in a Mexican newspaper comments on California's 1994 “Proposition 187” voters' initiative to curtail illegal immigration. Americans who seek to curb immigration (even illegal), or defend the cultural, racial or religious character of the United States, are routinely smeared as “fascists” or “Nazis.”

Let us embark on an intellectual experiment. Let us suppose that the Holocaust legend was already debunked in the early 1960s thanks to the writings of revisionist pioneer Paul Rassinier. Such a repudiation would have been roughly comparable to the debunking of Allied atrocity stories spread during First World War about German soldiers cutting the hands off Belgian children or making grease from the bodies of dead Allied soldiers. Granted, there would have been a difference in degree – no German officers were hanged for mutilating Belgian children, for example – but essentially the two cases would have been similar.

Profound Political Implications

But now, four decades of propaganda and several hundred Holocaust books and films later, there is no possible way out of the quagmire for the holocausters. If the Holocaust story is ever publicly discredited, the consequences will be disastrous beyond repair, not only for international Zionism but for the political and intellectual elite of the West as a whole. Germany would probably become ungovernable, but also in the United States and various European countries politicians, journalists and historians would be utterly discredited. Nobody would believe them any more. Thus, the future of the ruling classes in several western nations, especially Germany, France and the United States, is linked to the future of the myth. Under these circumstances, the intellectual and political leaders of the West are the natural allies of Zionism, and it would be unfair to blame anti-revisionist repression and the media blackout on the Jews alone.

Our adversaries understand this, of course. Thus, the prominent German daily Die Welt declared (March 16, 1994) that “whoever denies Auschwitz not only attacks the human dignity of the Jews, but he shakes the basic foundations of this society's conception of itself.” In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (August 15, 1994), probably Germany's most influential daily, journalist Patrick Bahners wrote: “If Deckert's [revisionist] view of the Holocaust were correct, the [German] Federal Republic would be based on a lie: every presidential speech, every minute of silence and every history book would be mendacious. By denying the murder of the Jews, he disputes the legitimacy of the Federal Republic.”

While we know that the Holocaust legend is doomed, we don't know what particular circumstances will trigger its collapse or how many more years we will have to wait for truth to prevail. Austrian revisionist engineer Walter Lüftl, who called me a few days before my 1994 departure to the United States, is quite optimistic and predicted the end of the myth within two years. Although I am unable to share his optimism, I am convinced that we will witness the end of the hoax before the end of the century. However, there will be victims. In France and Germany, the ruling clique is now running amuck, and the revisionists had better brace for some unpleasant surprises. Dr. Robert Faurisson once said that the future was bright for revisionism, but gloomy for the revisionists. Faurisson is right about 95 percent of the time, and I fear he might be right about this as well.

Historically Unique

To historians of coming generations, the “Holocaust” will indeed appear unique, but in a very different sense than the Holocaust lobby claims. The historians of the 21st century will be at loss to explain how educated people in the second half of the 20th century, during an era of unprecedented technical progress, could believe a story so utterly silly from the technical point of view. How on earth could people who were able to send satellites to the planet Jupiter believe that the Nazis used diesel engines (of all weapons!) to kill 1.75 million Jews at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka? How could they believe that the Auschwitz crematories could burn human corpses six times faster than the fully computerized crematories of the 1990s? While those future historians will undoubtedly point out that the Holocaust hoax was successfully defended for so long with the help of media censorship and police-state style repression, they may conclude that there was another, even more crucial, psychological factor.

As far back as I can remember, even when I still believed it, the Holocaust story always reminded me of a ghoulish fairy tale. As a lad of 16, I was deeply impressed by a novel by the renowned Swiss writer Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Der Verdacht (“The Suspicion”). It is about a Swiss physician, Dr. Emmenberger, who carried out sadistic pseudo-scientific experiments on Jewish prisoners in the Stutthof concentration camp. (In Dürrenmatt's novel, which was first published in 1948, Stutthof rather than Auschwitz is depicted as the main German extermination center.) This beastly doctor was hounded by Barlach, a detective fatally ill with cancer. The other main figures were a Jewish giant who had survived countless medical experiments (and a mass shooting as well) and a dwarf employed by Emmenberger to kill his enemies. With such characters you have all the ingredients for a nightmarish fairy tale, which is essentially what the orthodox Holocaust story is. Of course, it is also more than that.

Dangerous Religious Myth

For the Jews, the story has become an indispensable part of their religious heritage, very much like the plight Israel's children had to endure in Egypt or the destruction of the second temple. For non-Jews as well, the Holocaust has gradually been transformed into a religious myth. Nearly everyone has an instinctive need to believe in something and to worship something. While systematically subverting true religion, the perpetrators of the hoax have cleverly exploited this basic human need, equating Auschwitz with Golgatha, the Nazis with the devil and the Jewish people with the Messiah. Even the slightest criticism of Jews such as Elie Wiesel or Simon Wiesenthal has become a taboo: If you criticize a Jew, you're an anti-Semite. Hitler was also an anti-Semite who, as everybody knows, gassed the Jews. So anybody criticizing Jews paves the way to new gas chambers!

As primitive as it is, this kind of argument is remarkably effective. That's what makes the revisionist struggle so exceptionally difficult: not only must we fight an uphill struggle against media censorship, repression and propaganda, but we must also overcome a kind of religious faith. As history shows, refuting religion with rational arguments is not exactly an easy task. But this struggle must be fought, and because the fate of future generations depends on its outcome, we had better win it. The Holocaust lie has poisoned Europeans and other white people of European descent with a guilt complex that threatens to destroy our self-respect and our will to survive.

For all those engaged in this struggle against an enemy with so much clout and virtually unlimited financial resources, the next few years will hardly be devoid ofinterest. For revisionists, at least, life is not tedious.