German thought-police

The leopard does not change its spots and the thought police is still alive and kicking in Germany – all that has changed is the colour of the flag. With the same vigour that the Simon Wiesenthal centre is pursuing octogenarian alleged Nazi war criminals and doesn’t mind if it sometimes gets its facts seriously mixed up, the German state is pursuing anyone who dare question any aspect of the official holocaust story line so that they can charge them under section 168 of the Federal Criminal Code for “defaming the memory of the dead”.

Numerous people who dared speaking out linger in German prisons for such thought crimes, and the most recent case is that of Gemar Rudolf whom Germany wants extradited from the United States because he had the audacity to conduct scientific experiments relating to gas chambers and publish his results. When fact becomes fiction and history becomes myth, then people will get burned at the stakes for challenging the official dogma. In Rudolf’s case only his book was ordered to be burned, an act probably justified by the holocaust industry (see Finkelstein) as protecting the highly esteemed democratic tradition of freedom of speech from being abused. [Salman Rushdie’s defamation of the prophet of Islam, on the other hand, is a laudable exercise, and burning his book an outrage].

Of course, the official holocaust version has changed many a times when an earlier Hollywood version became unsustainable. The truth will eventually out. I am not defending crimes against humanity whether conducted in peace-time or war-time, but victors’ justice is usually somewhat one-sided, and both history and humanity would be served better if the facts would speak for themselves instead of being dressed up as drama (e.g. Schindler’s list). Instead, historic and other scientific research becomes heresy and is being punished by an over-zealous thought-police.

What the holocaust lobby and the German prosecutors forget is that once a dogma needs the protection of the law more and more people are beginning to doubt its validity and whether it can really stand up to scrutiny without being legislated. Locking up so-called revisionists is therefore anything but counter-productive.