anne frank's diary is a fake
wally
Institute for Historical Review
An update
The Diary of Anne Frank: Is it Genuine?
Robert Faurisson
This article, written in June 2000 at the request of Italian scholar
Cesare Saletta, is adapted from the preface to the recently-published
Italian edition of Dr. Faurisson's essay, "Is the Diary of Anne Frank
Genuine?," which was originally written in 1978 for submission to a
Hamburg court, and published in French, two years later, in a work by
Serge Thion.[note 1] In the following essay, the author takes another
look at the famous diary (or diaries), taking into account
developments since then, including the publication in 1986 by a
Netherlands government agency of a comprehensive "critical edition" of
the Anne Frank diary.
-- The Editor
Pierre Vidal-Naquet in 1980: 'A Doctored Text'
In 1980, the prominent French Jewish scholar Pierre Vidal-Naquet, in
whose eyes I am nothing but an "assassin of memory" (Jewish memory, it
is understood), nonetheless wrote:[note 2]
It sometimes happens that Faurisson is right. I have said publicly,
and repeat here, that when he shows that the Anne Frank diary is a
doctored text, he may not be right in all details, [but] he is
certainly right overall and an expert examination made for the Hamburg
court has just shown that, in effect, this text was at the very least
revised after the war, since [it was written] using ballpoint pens
which appeared only in 1951. That is plain, clear and precise.
Those familiar with Vidal-Naquet, and his penchant for chopping and
changing, will not be surprised to learn that, a few years afterwards,
the professor repudiated this statement.
The 1986 'Critical Edition' of the Anne Frank Diary
In 1986 there appeared in Amsterdam, under the direction of the
Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation -- Rijksinstituut
voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (RIOD) -- a big volume with "scholarly"
pretensions.[note 3] (The dust jacket of the US edition calls this
"the most fascinating, comprehensive study of that diary in
existence," while the dust jacket blurb of the French edition
similarly calls this the "complete edition of the diary's three
versions.") Those words communicated, not that Anne Frank's "diary"
was genuine, but rather -- and what a surprise, this plural! -- that
her "diaries" were. With much circumspect wording, this book accused
the young girl's father, Otto Heinrich Frank, of having carried out
manipulations of the original texts, and of having lied. Of the
abusive "corrections" and "cuts" imputed to the latter, the
Netherlands Institute stated straightforwardly:[note 4]
All this may seem natural and understandable in one who aspired merely
to publish the essence ("das Wesentliche") of the literary bequest,
the document humain, of his daughter, in what appeared to him a fit
and proper manner. However, the sentence inserted on his authority at
the conclusion of the Dutch edition of the Diary: "With the exception
of a few sections of little interest to the reader, the original text
has been retained," must be seen as something more than an obvious
understatement.
Otto Frank stuck to this conviction to his death: "the essence" had
been published and that was the end of the matter. No amount of
argument could make him change his mind.
As a result, over the long years during which the diary went on to
play an increasingly important role in the view of millions of people
who came to look on it as a historical document rather that as a work
of literature, he did not make it easier to ward off attacks on the
book.
The Netherlands Institute thus conceded to me a point of capital
importance: I had been right in reproaching Otto Frank and in
attacking his stubbornness in hiding the truth about his
manipulations. But the "critical edition" held that there had
nevertheless existed a whole series of Anne Frank diaries, all
genuine, and that thus I had been wrong on the other, essential
question, of the diary's authenticity. I had, therefore, the right to
expect both a rebuttal of my arguments on that point, and a
demonstration of the authenticity of the diaries. Yet, in this
purportedly scholarly Netherlands Institute edition, I found nothing
of the kind.
A Diversionary Tactic
This 720-page work resembles the sort of deception whereby an attempt
is made, through a show of learning on a given subject, to draw
attention away from the matter at hand. In this case, the
demonstration is essentially nothing more than a handwriting analysis.
Accompanied with a generous array of photographs and tables, stress is
laid in this "scholarly" book on the similarities between handwriting
samples, while differences -- glaring even to a layman -- are handled
with great discretion.
A crucial point: We are not shown the two handwriting samples that I
had reproduced in my analysis (page 297 of Thion's 1980 book), and no
analysis of them is offered by the Netherlands Institute. I refer here
to two extraordinarily divergent samples: the "adult" cursive script
dated June 12, 1942, and the "childish" printed script dated four
months later, October 10, 1942; the two "Anne Frank" signatures alone
differ peculiarly. It was in this regard that I most wanted an answer,
for this goes to the heart of the matter.[note 5]
There is no sample of Isa Cauvern's handwriting, about whose
involvement I had voiced suspicions. She had been Otto Frank's
secretary. She married Albert Cauvern, a dramatist working for a Dutch
radio station. Isa and Albert Cauvern worked on the "diary" manuscript
and on the various typescripts. In 1947, the year that the first
edition of the "diary" was p ublished in the Netherlands under the
title Het Achterhuis, she committed suicide, a fact that the
Netherlands Institute's "critical edition" does not mention.[note 6]
Nor is there any analysis, or even a sample, of the manuscript of the
short stories attributed to Anne Frank, published as "Tales from the
Secret Annex." I had been struck by the appearance of this manuscript:
the "Tales" handwriting resembles that of a meticulous elderly
accountant. Why, of all the manuscripts attributed to the girl, had
this one not been made available to the experts?
Above all, however, the authors of this "scholarly" edition, by
insisting so much on the study of handwritings, have abdicated what
ought to have been their main task: the examination of the content.
They should have made it their first task to provide the reader with
evidence that, contrary to what I had written, the "diary" account
actually does mirror a physical or material reality. Moreover, they
should have shown that this account, in all the forms of it that we
know, is coherent and comprehensible -- which is far from the case.
But there is no such demonstration. At the beginning of this detailed
work, there is indeed an attempt to grapple with the physical or
material impossibilities I had pointed out, but this attempt comes to
a sudden end. A response is made to a single point: that of the
noises, at times quite loud, made by eight persons over a period of
more than two years in a small space, presumed to be uninhabited;
noises even at night, while "the enemies" are absent, the slightest
noise must be avoided and, if someone has a cough, he or she takes
codeine. Yet, in the attic, in the middle of the day, Peter cuts wood
in front of an open window! My argument on this point is derided: my
adversaries dare to respond, in the face of conclusive textual proof
to the contrary, that "the enemies" were not there, at this or that
precise moment, to hear anything.[note 7] All of my other arguments
are passed over in silence. For his part, Otto Frank, during my
meeting with him in 1977, after I had put him in an awkward position
with my utterly down-to-earth questions, found no better reply than:
Mr. Faurisson, you are theoretically and scientifically right. I agree
with you one hundred percent ... What you point out to me was, in
fact, impossible. But, in practice, it was nevertheless in that way
that things happened.
To which I answered that, if he would be so good as to agree with me
that a door could not be both open and shut at the same time, it
followed that he, in practice, could not have seen a door in such a
state. Yet, if I may put it thus, such physical or material
impossibilities as simultaneously open and shut doors were already
legion in the Anne Frank diary as we knew it at the time. What can one
say of the likely growth in number of those impossibilities in the
"diaries" (plural)?
A Financial Swindler?
Here is nonetheless a part of this "scholarly" edition that I cannot
recommend enough to readers. It is that in which the rather unsettling
prewar past of Otto Frank and his brother Herbert is revealed. In a
preventive step against a possible revisionist inquiry into the
matter, the authors inform us that in 1923 Otto Frank founded, in
Frankfurt, a bank called "M. Frank and Sons." The three men who headed
this firm were Herbert and Otto Frank and -- this detail is of some
importance for the story of the Anne Frank diary -- one Johannes
Kleiman, a man who appears in the diary under the name of Jo Koophuis
and who, after the war, was to act as an informer against
"collaborators" for the Dutch "Political Criminal Investigation
Department."[note 8] Even before Hitler came to power in January 1933,
the bank was implicated in various shady dealings. A trial was held,
but Herbert, the principal, chose not to appear. He fled the country,
finding refuge in France. As for Otto Frank, the Netherlands Institute
authors do not tell us anything clear about what happened to him. They
go only so far as to inform us that the relevant court records are
missing, and that this is "in any case regrettable,"[note 9] an
observation which lends a somewhat dubious aspect to the documents'
disappearance. In any event, Otto Frank may have fled to the
Netherlands in 1933 to evade German justice.
Before engaging in a kind of literary swindle, had Frank been involved
in financial swindling? During the war, thanks to various subterfuges
and to the support of his three main partners (all "Aryans"), he had
the satisfaction of seeing his two firms make money in their dealings
with, among other concerns, a Dutch mainstay of the Dresdner Bank, one
of Germany's largest banking firms. It can be stated that, even during
his time in hospital at Auschwitz, his Amsterdam business carried on
under the supervision of his associate Jan Gies. Back in Amsterdam
after the war, he had a brush with the Dutch legal authorities, who
were very attentive to matters of economic collaboration with Germany
during the occupation. But an arrangement, we are told, was
found.[note 10]
Worthless Evidence and Doubtful Witnesses?
The authors of this Netherlands Institute "critical edition" deal
severely with the evidence and witnesses advanced by Otto Frank.
To begin with, they consider that the three expert analyses on which
Frank based his claim of the diary's authenticity are devoid of any
value.[note 11] Let us recall that those analyses, the absurdity of
which I had pointed out, nevertheless received, in the 1960s, the
endorsement of German judges, who used them in convicting those who,
before me, had cast doubt on the diary's alleged authenticity.
Similarly severe is the appraisal of the Netherlands Institute of
Ernst Schnabel's book Spur eines Kindes (published in the United
States under the title Anne Frank: A Portrait in Courage), which Otto
Frank had enthusiastically advised me to read, and which also served
to defend his argument. According to the Institute's "critical
edition" authors: "Since it [Schnabel's book] contains various errors,
all quotations from it should be treated with reservation."[note 12]
As for Frank's star witness, the all-too-famous Miep Gies, it is an
understatement to say that, on certain vital points of her testimony,
she inspires no great confidence at the Netherlands Institute. The
same goes for Victor Kugler ("Victor Kraler").[note 13]
The Netherlands Institute 'Critical Edition' Fiasco
All things considered, the Netherlands Institute's "critical edition"
of the Anne Frank diary is a disaster for the late Otto Frank and for
his experts, friends, and those who have vouched for him. Clearly,
Frank's cause has been deemed indefensible. But, by cutting away the
deadwood in an attempt to preserve the tree, that is, by sacrificing
Frank's reputation in order to save that of his daughter's alleged
diary, the pruners at the Netherlands State Institute have found
themselves confronting a kind of nothingness. Only a questionable
"handwriting analysis" emerges from it all, which is all the more
laughable given that, a few years after the publication of their
"critical edition" in 1986, other samples of the girl's writing in
various personal letters and postcards appeared on the open market.
These samples, which seem genuine to me, have rendered worthless the
Netherlands Institute's laborious analyses. In any case, the experts'
work must now be reviewed from beginning to end.
Finally, I shall add that this big book contains no plan of the house
in which, for more than two years, the eight persons allegedly lived
in hiding.[note 14] Previous editions of the diary did carry such a
plan, on which I have commented and which I compared with the house as
I found it. This examination provided an argumentation with which to
prove the fictitious nature of the whole account. The authors of the
"scholarly" edition chose not to include a plan of the house. This is
both an admission and an evasion.
In short, behind its show of erudition, this "comprehensive"
Netherlands Institute edition is a fiasco.
The 1991 'Definitive' Edition
In the wake of the publication of the Netherlands Institute's study,
it was only fitting to issue, for the general readership, a new
"standard" edition of the diary to replace the one that Otto Frank had
brought out in 1947. There was a real need to repair the damage
wrought by the father, damage denounced by the Netherlands Institute.
A certain Mirjam Pressler was entrusted with the job and, in 1991,
there appeared a revised (herziene) and enlarged (vermeerderde)
Dutch-language edition, which was presented as conforming
fundamentally with what Anne Frank had written. This edition was
described as "definitive." In 1995 there appeared an English
translation -- similarly presented as "definitive."[note 15]
An anomalous note, if not deceptive advertising, appeared on the title
page, where the editor had the audacity to write: "The definitive
edition... established by Otto H. Frank and Mirjam Pressler." Dead
since 1980, Frank could hardly have collaborated with Pressler on this
1991 work -- one that, moreover, is for him a posthumous snub. I
venture to say that never has a French paperback book been so laden
with confused explanations on its title page and introductory page, in
its foreword, in the pages of the "note on the present edition" and,
finally, in its afterword. One is barely able to make head or tail of
it all. The editor's unease is obvious. Clearly he did not know just
how to convey to the reader that this new Anne Frank diary is -- this
time for sure, and once and for all -- the genuine diary.
We are told that Mirjam Pressler is "a popular, prize-winning writer
of books for young readers and a well-known translator," and that she
lives in Germany. But we are not told what method she might have
employed to establish this text, based on the three texts of the
"critical edition." How did she make her choices? What was her reason
for keeping one fragment and discarding another? These questions
remain unanswered.
I am not alone in noticing these irregularities. Even among
aficionados of the legendary figure of Anne Frank, this odd Pressler
edition is sometimes criticized, and in forceful terms. Writing in the
British monthly Prospect, Nicolas Walter devotes three columns to the
English edition. His article bears a title with a double meaning: "Not
completely Frank."[note 16] He observes that the amalgamation of the
three versions (the old translation and the two new ones) leaves us
"with the result that all sorts of distortions and discrepancies
remain." He adds: "The English version is said to be 'basically... as
she wrote it,' which is not true, and it is described as the
'definitive edition,' which is nonsense." Walter goes on to write that
this "standard" version is indeed "about one third longer" than the
old "standard" version, but notes:
...it is still an eclectic conflation of A and B [that is, the first
two versions of the "critical edition"], and it is marred by errors
and omissions; many passages are in the wrong places and several
passages are missing.
Walter concludes by asking whether Anne Frank's memory "should not ...
be properly served by a satisfactory reading edition of her diary
after half a century."
The Afterword by Rosselin-Bobulesco
The 1992 French edition of this new "standard" version includes an
afterword by Isabelle Rosselin-Bobulesco that, unhappily, is absent
from the English-language edition. The author defends, of course, the
argument according to which the "scholarly" edition settled the
controversy about the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary -- a claim
that, as can be seen, amounts to wishful thinking. Still, I recommend
reading the section devoted to "The authenticity of the Diary" and, in
particular, pages 348-349, where my own position is outlined almost
forthrightly, and where reasons for doubting that authenticity, which
were inspired by Otto Frank's behavior, are mentioned. I regret only
that, at least in the passage that I will quote here, these reasons
are presented as if it were a matter of obvious things on which
everyone agreed. In reality it was, for the most part, my 1978
analysis that brought to light all that follows in the passage, and
which evoked, at the time, all of the attacks on me -- attacks that,
as can be seen today, were in fact slanders.
Here I yield the floor to Rosselin-Bobulesco, highlighting some of her
words:
At his death, Otto Frank bequeathed all of Anne's writings to the
Netherlands State Institute of War Documentation, the RIOD. In the
face of the assaults calling the authenticity of the diary into
question, the RIOD considered that, in view of the Diary's
quasi-symbolic aspect and historical interest, it had become
indispensable to allay the doubts. We know that inaccuracies were not
lacking. The diary was written in several notebooks and on loose-leaf.
Anne Frank herself had drafted two versions. There had been several
typed versions that did not entirely follow the original text.
Modifications, additions, or removals had been effected by her father.
Besides, corrections had been introduced by persons whom Otto Frank
had asked to reread the diary, lest his own insufficient knowledge of
Dutch prevent a proper weeding out of his daughter's mistakes in
spelling and grammar. Furthermore, the Dutch editor himself had also
modified the text by removing certain passages of a sexual character,
deemed at the time to be too shocking, those in which Anne speaks of
her menstrual periods, for example. As for the different translations,
they evinced disparities. There were inaccuracies in the German
translation, certain passages had been suppressed so as not to offend
the German reader. The translation had been made from a typewritten
text that was not the definitive text that had served as the basis for
[the original book in Dutch]. In the American edition, certain
passages that had been removed from the Dutch version had, on the
contrary, been reinserted. Several expert analyses of the handwritten
text were carried out, several lawsuits had been filed, in response to
the attacks against the diary. Never had there emerged a clear picture
of the situation, even if the outcome of the court cases and of the
inquiries upheld Otto Frank.
Isabelle Rosselin-Bobulesco may minimize the actual facts as she
wishes, and she may present things in the colors of her choice: all
the same, this passage makes clear that I was perfectly well founded
in believing neither the text of the alleged Anne Frank diary nor the
replies to my questions by Otto Frank.
The December 1998 Amsterdam Judgment Against Me
Nevertheless, on December 9, 1998, a court in Amsterdam found a way to
rule against me for my analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. This
study, which I drafted 20 years earlier for a German court, had been
published since 1980 in France and in a number of other countries
without ever prompting legal action. In the Netherlands, however, it
will not do to lay an impious hand on the icon of Saint Anne Frank.
The intrepid Siegfried Verbeke had translated my 1978 study into
Dutch-Flemish, publishing it in a 1991 brochure entitled "The 'Diary'
of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach" (Het 'Dagboek' van Anne Frank: een
kritische benadering).[note 17] Verbeke introduced my text with a
foreword that was certainly revisionist in character but altogether
moderate in tone. Two associations then filed a lawsuit against us:
the Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam, and the Anne Frank Fund in
Basel. These organizations are known for the ruthless war they wage
against each other over the corpse of Anne Frank and the remains of
her late father, but in this case, faced with danger to their
identical financial interests, they decided to make common cause. It
must be said that an enormous business has grown up around Anne
Frank's name, a veritable "industry," as Nicolas Walter calls it.
The plaintiffs claimed, in particular, that my analysis gave "negative
publicity" to their associations, with unpleasant financial results.
For example, the Anne Frank Foundation, which runs the Anne Frank
House in Amsterdam as a popular tourist center, revealed that it had
to spend time and money combatting the booklet's harmful effect.
Indeed, my own information leads me to believe that the personnel of
the Anne Frank House receive special training enabling them to respond
effectively to queries or arguments from visitors who have been
influenced by reading Verbeke or Faurisson. The Foundation added:
Moreover, the statements in the booklet may in the long term cause the
number of visitors to Anne Frank House to diminish, with Anne Frank
House's management finding itself in difficulties as a result.
In its decision, the court did not fail to adopt, as its own, the
plaintiffs' views on "the symbolic function that Anne Frank has
acquired," and on the decidedly perverse nature of the revisionists
Verbeke and Faurisson. Relying solely on the handwriting analysis
requested by the Netherlands State Institute, the Amsterdam court
declared that it was impossible to call into question the authenticity
of the work attributed to Anne Frank. The court added:
Toward the victims of the Holocaust and their surviving relatives, the
remarks [of Verbeke and Faurisson] are hurtful and needlessly
offensive. It follows inescapably that they cause [the survivors]
psychological or emotional injury.
Copyright Infringement?!
The most staggering part of the ruling was the court's finding that I
had personally breached the law on copyright by quoting numerous
extracts from the Anne Frank diary. The court ruled, without citing
evidence, that "the quotations [on pages 36-39 of the booklet] are
removed from their context in an unwarranted manner." This referred to
the beginning of my analysis, that is, the parts I had numbered from
four to ten, in which, with a salvo of very brief quotations, I listed
the manifold physical or material impossibilities in the "diary."
Quite obviously, neither Otto Frank nor anyone else has ever found a
reply to this. But that court in Amsterdam found, if not an answer,
then at least a way out: in the court's view, my quotations are simply
not to be considered because, apparently, they infringe copyright.
In my long experience with law courts, in France and abroad, I have
had occasion to witness a good deal of baseness, of sophistry, of
warping and twisting the truth, as well as every sort of judicial
ploy. Nonetheless, I believe that this Amsterdam court, in its
decision of December 9, 1998, overstepped the bounds of decency in
rebuking me for having, in a textual analysis, repeatedly quoted from
the text. Not one of those quotations, incidentally, had been removed
from its context. On the contrary, with painstaking diligence, I had,
I believe, demonstrated great care in looking over, as closely as
possible, all the words of the text proper, then putting those same
words back into their most direct context. But it is likely that the
court understood the word "context" in a broad and flexible sense, as
too often happens, that is, of a context that is historical,
sociological, psychological, and so forth. In doing so, the court, of
course, gave its own subjective view of the history or psychology of
an Anne Frank whom it conceived in line with its own imagination,
without paying the slightest heed to the words that, one by one,
constitute a work called the diary of Anne Frank.
A Judgment With the Help of the French Police and Justice System
Verbeke and I were ordered to pay heavy court costs, and the sale of
our book was banned in the Netherlands on pain of a fine of 25,000
Dutch guilders per day per copy displayed in public.
Let us add, for the record, that the plaintiffs had the long arm of
the law on their side. From Amsterdam, they had gotten the French
police to call on me at home in Vichy, had me summoned to the station
for questioning, and had bailiffs drop by bearing court orders and
formal demands. The French justice ministry's Service civil de
l'entraide judiciaire internationale, with the French taxpayer footing
the bill, worked very well in tandem with the Dutch police.
A Field of Research for Computer Specialists
In 1978 I was not able to take advantage of the opportunities offered
by the computer. With pen in hand, I sedulously studied the Anne Frank
diary, searching for certain words that, at times, were far removed
from one another, "cutting and pasting" them with scissors and glue,
and counting them on my fingers. As a result, there occurred errors of
detail on my part that I have sometimes managed to correct. I am aware
of the imperfection of the final result as it stands today. It is my
hope that, in the future, researchers who are adept with computers
will take up my analysis and revise it on those points.
The four editions of the Netherlands Institute (RIOD) diary -- one
each in Dutch, German, French and English -- open up a superb field of
research for such people. Working from the old versions in Dutch,
German (two German versions!) and French, I was able to demonstrate
the existence, as it were, of different Anne Franks, irreconcilable
with one another, as well as the existence of contradictory accounts.
Today, with the more recent versions from the Netherlands Institute
and Mirjam Pressler, persons skilled in the use of computers should
find it possible to take apart, bit by bit -- and better than I had
done -- this literary forgery.
For the same can be said of the "diary" of Anne Frank as of any
imposture: the more someone strives to defend it, the more he
provides, in spite of himself, arguments that discredit it. In other
words, by shielding a lie, one becomes ensnared in one's own lies. To
take but one example dear to revisionists, the fallacious character of
Kurt Gerstein's so-called testimony is exposed just as well by
analyzing a single version of it as by comparing it with other,
contradictory versions.
But let us be practical: to begin at the beginning of this new job of
analyzing the Anne Frank "diary," I suggest that a team of researchers
with good computer skills, all possessing a good knowledge of Dutch
and German, undertake a comparative study of the following:
In Dutch, first the 1947 version (published by Otto Frank under the
title Het Achterhuis), then the 1986 Netherlands Institute (RIOD)
versions, and finally, Mirjam Pressler's 1991 edition.
The corresponding German versions, it being understood that, as I
discovered in 1978, there appeared, after the version published in
1950 by Lambert Schneider, a slightly different one in 1955, published
by Fischer Verlag.
At a later stage, it will still be permissible to carry out an
analysis of the different French and English versions and then, to
settle the matter for good, there can be a comparison of the ten or so
Anne Franks who emerge from all the Dutch versions and various
translations.
Only then, and regardless of what the profiteers who have exploited
her memory for so long may have to say about it, will justice finally
be done to the one, the genuine Anne Frank, who never wrote this
"cock-and-bull story," first published in Dutch in 1947 and then
published (in its US editions), in 1953 as The Diary of a Young Girl,
re-christened, in 1986-1989, after renovation and makeshift repairs,
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition, before ending up being
called, in 1995 (for English readers), after much patching and façade
work, The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition, by "Anne
Frank."
Post scriptum
On pages 94-96 of the US edition of the Netherlands Institute's
"Critical Edition," David Barnouw proclaims that he has summarized
what he is willing to call my analysis, but not without insinuating
that I am a trickster.
Of all my material or physical arguments, he responds to only one,
that of the loud noises made by those hiding in the "Annex." Then, of
all the instances of noises I cite, he deals with only three. He
claims that, in these three cases, I concealed the fact that Anne
Frank specified that, because the "enemies" were not nearby, there was
no risk of the noises being heard. My reply is that perhaps the nearby
"enemies" (for example, the two shop assistants) weren't there, but
that the other "enemies," indefinite in number, could have heard those
noises: that of the vacuum cleaner, every day at 12:30 p.m., as well
as the "endless peals of laughter" or "a doomsday racket." Barnouw is
much distressed at having to explain these noises and others,
sometimes dreadfully loud, in a dwelling where the stillness of the
grave should have prevailed. Additionally, he resorts to ruminations
as diffuse as they are murky, to spare himself effort as well as to
mislead. He writes:[note 18]
From the diary it appears that the inhabitants of the Annexe, too, had
to brave many dangers, not least the chance that they might make too
much noise and be overheard. Faurisson, however, did not examine the
overall picture of life in hiding in any depth, or concern himself
greatly in this context with the fact that the Frank family and their
fellow fugitives were in the end arrested.
Here Barnouw evinces a pathos that allows him to conclude shamelessly:
"Given the above extract [of Faurisson's analysis of the question of
noise], we have no need to subject all the examples mentioned by
Faurisson to review." In my opinion, this last remark is proof that
the Netherlands Institute authorities, by their own admission, have
not wished to "submit to review" an essential part of my analysis,
that which concerns the physical or material impossibilities of the
account.
On another point Barnouw insinuates that I am dishonest. On page 261
of Serge Thion's book, I had mentioned my discovery, during my
investigation into the circumstances of the arrest of the eight
fugitives in Amsterdam on August 4, 1944, of an especially interesting
witness. I wrote:
This witness [in 1978] made us promise, myself and the person
accompanying me, not to divulge her name. I gave her my word to keep
it secret. I shall only half keep my promise. The importance of her
testimony is such that it seems to me to be impossible to pass over it
in silence. This witness's name and address, together with the name
and address of the person accompanying me, are recorded [on a paper]
in a sealed envelope contained in my "Appendix no. 2: Confidential"
[for submission to the court in Hamburg].
Barnouw begins by quoting these lines, but not without excising the
sentence which revealed the reason for my discretion: the witness had
made us promise -- that was the word -- not to name her. Then Barnouw
adds deceitfully:
A photograph of this sealed envelope is printed as an appendix to
Faurisson's "investigation," albeit only in the French version of
1980; the publisher of the Dutch version had the sense to leave out
this piece of evidence.
In other words, Barnouw suggests, I had fooled my readers, leading
them to believe, by means of this alleged trick, that the envelope in
reality contained no names. Barnouw suggests that this envelope, if it
ever even existed, was empty. The truth is that I had indeed submitted
to the court in Hamburg an envelope containing the names and addresses
of the two persons in question. Today, 22 years later, I believe
myself justified in divulging these names, which have long been known
to the court: Mrs. Karl Silberbauer and Mr. Ernst Wilmersdorf, both of
whom lived in Vienna.
On this occasion I will also reveal the names of three French
academics of whom it is stated, on page 299 of the Thion book, Vérité
historique ou vérité politique?, that they concurred with my findings
on the alleged diary of Anne Frank. The first is Michel Le Guern, a
professor of literature who at the time was lecturing at the
University of Lyon-2 and who has recently published, in the
prestigious "Bibliothèque de la Pléiade" series, a scholarly edition
of Blaise Pascal's Pensées. It would be difficult to think of a more
proficient authority on literary analysis.
The closing sentence of Le Guern's written testimony of 1978 reads as
follows:
It is certain that the conventions of literary exchange authorize Mr.
Frank, or anyone else, to put together as many fictitious personae of
Anne Frank as he may wish, but on condition that he not identify any
of these fictional beings as the real Anne Frank.
Two other academics were about to come to a similar conclusion when
suddenly, in November 1978, the "affaire Faurisson" exploded in the
press. They are Frédéric Deloffre and Jacques Rougeot, both professors
at the University of Paris IV-Sorbonne.
Today these three men are all retired. That is why I have decided to
reveal their names. I had not, in any case, given them any pledge of
confidentiality.
Notes
Serge Thion, Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Paris: La Vieille
Taupe, 1980), pp. 213-300. This essay, "Is the Diary of Anne Frank
Genuine?," was published in English in the Summer 1982 Journal (vol.
3, no. 2), pp. 147-209. See also: R. Faurisson, "Anne Frank's
Handwriting," Spring 1989 Journal (vol. 9, no. 1), pp. 97-101; M.
Weber, "Anne Frank," May-June 1995 Journal (vol. 15, no. 3), p. 31. In
1989, 1993 and 1995, respectively, I wrote three items dealing with a
work that claimed to disprove my findings. These three items may be
found in my Ecrits révisionnistes 1974-1998, a four-volume collection
of my revisionist writings, privately published by me in 1999 for
restricted distribution: pp. 856-859, 1551-1552, 1655-1656.
Interview in Regards, weekly of the Centre communautaire juif of
Brussels, November 7, 1980, p. 11. Among his many publications, Pierre
Vidal-Naquet is author of the anti-revisionist book Assassins of
Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust, which is reviewed by M.
Weber in the Nov.-Dec. 1993 Journal, pp. 36-39.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (New York: Doubleday,
1989). David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom, eds. "Prepared by the
Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation."
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (New York: 1989), cited
above, p. 166 ("Afterword"). The German and French editions were
published in 1988 and 1989 respectively. I have in my possession these
four bulky volumes, that is, the Dutch original and the three
translations. Comparisons between them reveal some odd differences.
These can be seen in The Journal of Historical Review, along with
articles by Faurisson: Summer 1982 Journal, p. 209, and Spring 1989
Journal, pp. 99-100.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, pp.
63-64.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, pp.
95-96.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, pp.
30-31. This agency is not to be confused with the "Supervisory Board
for Political Offenders," mentioned on p. 34.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, p.
4.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, pp.
15, 55-56.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, pp.
88-90.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, p.
19, n. 41.
The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989), cited above, pp.
36-45.
Of the various language editions of the "critical edition," there is a
partial plan of the "Annex" house only in the English-language
edition. See: The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989),
cited above, p. 213. This plan is only for three floors, whereas the
house actually had five (as I have shown in the photographs I
published, for example, in S. Thion's book, Vérité historique ou
vérité politique?).
Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition, (New
York: Doubleday, 1995.) "Edited by Otto H. Frank and Mirjam Pressler."
Translated by Susan Massotty.
Prospect, August-September 1997, p. 75. Prospect is aimed at an
intellectual and academic readership.
See "A Belgian Foundation Battles for Free Speech," Jan.-Feb. 1996
Journal, p. 46.
This and the following quotes or citations in this "Post scriptum"
section are from The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (1989),
cited above, pp. 94-96.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the author
Robert Faurisson is Europe's foremost Holocaust revisionist scholar.
Born in 1929, he was educated at the Paris Sorbonne, and served as a
professor at the University of Lyon in France from 1974 until 1990. He
was a specialist of text and document analysis. After years of private
research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical
views about the Holocaust extermination story in articles published in
1978 and 1979 in the French daily Le Monde. His writings on the
Holocaust issue have appeared in several books and numerous scholarly
articles, many of which have been published in this Journal. A
four-volume collection of many of his revisionist writings, Écrits
Révisionnistes (1974-1998), was published in 1999.
This essay is adapted from a piece written in June 2000 as the preface
to a recent Italian edition of "Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliographic information Author:
Robert Faurisson
Title:
The Diary of Anne Frank: Is it Genuine?
Source:
The Journal for Historical Review (http://www.ihr.org/index.html)
Date:
November/December 2000
Issue:
Volume 19 number 6
Location:
page 2
ISSN:
0195-6752
Attribution: "Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, PO Box
2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA. Domestic subscriptions $40 per
year; foreign subscriptions $60 per year."
Please send a copy of all reprints to the Editor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main | Leaflets | Journal | Books | Contact us | Search | Support IHR
| Subscribe
Henry
wally wrote:
> www.heretical.org has the details and www.ihr.org a good article
>
> Institute for Historical Review
>
The I H R is a neo-Nazi group of fraudulent writers and pretenders that the
Holocaust didn't exist.
That was ebough proof for wally!
>
>
> An update
> The Diary of Anne Frank: Is it Genuine?
> Robert Faurisson
> This article, written in June 2000 at the request of Italian scholar
> Cesare Saletta, is adapted from the preface to the recently-published
> Italian edition of Dr. Faurisson's essay, "Is the Diary of Anne Frank
> Genuine?," which was originally written in 1978 for submission to a
> Hamburg court, and published in French, two years later, in a work by
> Serge Thion.[note 1] In the following essay, the author takes another
> look at the famous diary (or diaries), taking into account
> developments since then, including the publication in 1986 by a
> Netherlands government agency of a comprehensive "critical edition" of
> the Anne Frank diary.
>
> -- The Editor
> Pierre Vidal-Naquet in 1980: 'A Doctored Text'
> In 1980, the prominent French Jewish scholar Pierre Vidal-Naquet, in
> whose eyes I am nothing but an "assassin of memory" (Jewish memory, it
> is understood), nonetheless wrote:[note 2]
>
And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free, and the land of the brave!
Francis Scott Key
Doug Weller
su...@yahoogroups.com says...
A tissue of lies, for instance:
>
> It sometimes happens that Faurisson is right. I have said publicly,
> and repeat here, that when he shows that the Anne Frank diary is a
> doctored text, he may not be right in all details, [but] he is
> certainly right overall and an expert examination made for the Hamburg
> court has just shown that, in effect, this text was at the very least
> revised after the war, since [it was written] using ballpoint pens
> which appeared only in 1951. That is plain, clear and precise.
>
A lie.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/f/frank-anne/press/anne-frank-001.html
"the "parts of the diary" confirmed by the Dutch as being written in ballpoint
ink were two slips of paper, each written in a different hand and neither in
Anne's, inserted as bookmarks into folders into which its Swiss custodians
placed the manuscript long after the war.
The Wiesbaden police report was four pages long, compared with more than 250
for the report made by the State Forensic Science Laboratory in Amsterdam,
which the editors of "The Critical Edition" briefed.
The Wiesbaden experts confirmed that the paper and glue in the manuscript
predated the period in which Anne Frank wrote the diary, but mentioned -
without stating their number or location - some ballpoint "corrections". They
may have been referring to page-numbering done by the handwriting experts in
the Lubeck case, although this was subsequently found by the Dutch not to be in
ballpoint. "
etc. etc.
The source of this post is Rae West's website, an example of which is:
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/re4_judaism.htm
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
wally
like i said we need jewish intimidation of historians to stop. until
then i will assume that everything that comes out of their mindbending
organisations is a lie.
the fact that otto frank's secretary was married to a playwright is
significant. perhaps she killed herself out of shame for the fraud she
was aware of ?
clearly there needs to be a proper open investiation done.
occams razor tells me the revisionists are right.
they risk their lives standing up to the jewish money golliath, people
dont do that very often unless they have a point.
the jews do not have a reputation for honesty either, so the onus is
on them.
otto was a criminal apparently also.
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.169ecad49...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Palmer Woodrow
--
Groveling is wrong for the soul, like grappling with whores in a
drugstore. - Hunter S. Thompson
Henry
wally wrote:
--
wally
> These Nazi loving freaks see conspiracy everywhere. I love your paranoia.
10,000 white women are raped by subhuman niggers in america every year
.
touch one hair on a niggers head and you never hear the end of it in
the jewish media though.
its called malign encouragement , a jewish strategy.
you are a fool to rubbish the few white men with enough iq to see what
is happening
www.heretical.org has the science
otto frank fled to holland in 1933 as he was a typical jewish
fraudster.
at the beginning of the xxth century 1% of the german population was
jewish and they controlled 20% of the economy.
they now control 40% of the american economy, and consist of 3% of tha
american population.
40% of students in ivy league colleges are jews .
they dispensed with theirworking class a thousand years ago and are a
race of parasites with no mercy, shame or remorse, and they hate you
whether you realise it or not.
Doug Weller
> wally is absolutely lying!
>
He's a complete nutter. Nasty with it. As for the Jews in the US having no
working class, what an ignorant asshole he is! I've met many working class
Jews in both Miami and New York City.
Doug
SK
news:914462ca.02010...@posting.google.com...
> well money talks and truth in history walks.
> like i said we need jewish intimidation of historians to stop. until
> then i will assume that everything that comes out of their mindbending
> organisations is a lie.
!
>
Henry
Have you joined the idiot "wally" who hates Jews,"niggers" and Irish but
admires Hitler?
SK wrote:
--
wally
www.ihr.org is where i get many of my facts , you should read their
articles before the jews burn them out again!
the media goes on about islamic fatwahs , but never about the jewish
assault on objective history.
your tribe takes a lawyer attitude to every fact!
well that isnt the aryan way, so fuck off to a different planet , we
dont want jewishness on earth.
Henry <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3C35AE9E...@mindspring.com>...
Henry
So you are just one hate filled SOB aren't you wally ?
wally wrote:
--
SK
"Jew hate" then telling about the crimes of hitler's german nazis is
Christian hate. Truth is hate only for those who hate the truth.
What wally says about the "jewish intimidation of historians" is true and it
should be stopped because half-truth is also half-lie. I don't share
wally's or the zionist's theories of racial supremacy.
I have no opinion if "anne frank's diary is a fake" or not (it may be a fake
or genuine) but find it curious that some of you zionist fanatics get so
pushed out of shape for raising questions about. It reminds one of nazi and
bolshevik attempts at thought control. Neither worked.
Henry <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C36F885...@mindspring.com...
Henry
So you believe that all the University libraries and history departments are controlled by Jews and are not accurate
in the following countries:
Ireland,England,France,Germany,Portugal,Holland,Belgium,Denmark,Norway,Sweden,Poland,United States & Canada?
Or could it be that wally is wacky?
wally wrote:
--
SK
> The IHR (Whit racist neo-Nazi group) is your source.
Funny thing about them nazis is that they are basically no different from
the bolsheviks. Both would like to convince us to embrace them , not by
showing how good they are but by showing us how bad their opponents are.
Thus;
1) the zionists will give you the most negative and partially accurate
description of german and other nazis, and
2) the nazis will give you the most negative and partially accurate
description of jewish and other bolsheviks.
There is some truth in the propaganda of each side. My experience has been
that when I say something negative about nazis, they will either try to
convince me or ignore me. Not one of them has ever attacked me personally
or called my family from pay phones with vile obscenities. I wish the
zionists would behave as civilized as the nazis:-)
> So you believe that all the University libraries and history departments
are controlled by Jews and are not accurate
> in the following countries:
>
Ireland,England,France,Germany,Portugal,Holland,Belgium,Denmark,Norway,Swede
n,Poland,United States & Canada?
To various degrees it is the way it is. Most western European countries
make it a hate crime to dispute any of the zionist propaganda no matter how
outlandish those zionist claims may be. The zionists put a tremendous
pressure on eastern European countries to suppress the memories of jewish
bolshevik rule imposed on them by stalin's red army. They would prefer if
over 100 million people would suffer selective amnesia, remembering and
magnifying all the stories of Jewish suffering at the hands of nazis (it is
not PC to remember Christian suffering at the hands of nazis because it
might detract from Jewish suffering:-) while forgetting all their friends,
relatives and neighbors who perished at the hands of bolsheviks. In such a
climate, it is not possible to determine if any of the nazi or zionist
claims have any basis so one has to rely on personal experience and the
experiences of those one trusts. Naturally, zionists trust zionists, nazis
trust nazis.
In America, zionist don't have laws designed to suppress free speech by
making questioning of zionist propaganda a hate crime but they will hound,
without mercy, out of existence anyone who dares to openly dispute their
propaganda.
>
> Or could it be that wally is wacky?
His racial theories may be wacky but he is right about the zionist influence
in revising history.
wally
consumption , knowing the power of the jews.
they have even got finkelstein sacked from his university in new york,
according to www.fpp.co.uk . yes our intellectuals are cowards and tow
the line for fear of their jobs. the journal of the world congress of
jews denied the fate of the romany, as if jews were the only ones who
suffered.
what about kulak studies? we know absolutely what happened there,
whereas the american jews concealed their own numbers from government
scrutiny in the 1950 census to hide the fact that there was no
holocaust.
ihr are in no way neo-nazi you brainwashed idiot.(jews even try to say
solgenitsyn is anti semitic for exposing them in the third volume of
gulag archipeligo and for questioning who controls the western media.)
they are a group of persecuted savonarolas and galileos.
by the way in croatia former president tudjmann, who fought with tito
against the germans , and who has worked as a history professor, made
it quite clear that the traditional story is a hysterical myth and you
can find what he said at www.ihr.org.
croatia is the only country where jewish anti-european male propaganda
films are not allowed to brainwash the admass.
Henry <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3C371674...@mindspring.com>...
Doug Weller
says...
The British High Court is not exactly a hotbed of Jews. David Irving showed
himself to be not historian but lying propagandist.
Doug
wally
'racial understanding' ie to promote the destruction of other races.
they are chauvenistic about their own blood purity , but use malign
encouragement to make us destroy our genetic heritage.
jews are the biggest racial supremacists , and the holohoax is aimed
at undermining the decision of darwinism , that white men were best
equipped to shepperd humanity, and not jewish pleutocrats.
parasitic minorities do better in multicultural environments which
breed taboos .in the american ruling class the jews are in the
majority and are more cohesive.
if the racial mongrelisation of europe isnt reversed we are doomed .
1 million of swedens 8 million population were not born there.
for fans of nordic beauty and anyone who thought it suspicious why no
greek sculptures were on the euro notes, for anyone who has an aryan
aesthetic taste ,
this is a terrible crime against humanity.
what genetic diversity is being lost ! forever.
and for what! so jews can give other jews jobs and keep us in debt
slavery.
parasites should not be the winners at the end of history.
"SK" <S...@freenet.net> wrote in message news:<UzDZ7.421$5t5.20...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
wally
> himself to be not historian but lying propagandist.
>
> Doug
the impartiality of the judicary in any country is open to question.
speaking for ireland , i know that many of the judges here are in opus
dei .
in britain they are all masons and will obey internationalist
directives .
the establishment in britain is very jewish, the bbc being so jewish
that richard dawkins has coined the term ' the bbc theorem ' to
describe their racialy nihilistic agenda.
the media being controlled by jews never questions how the sainted
chosen people use their power.
you opinions sound just like the line the bbc programmed you with.
we trust our media too much. read the trial stuff at irvings site
www.fpp.co.uk
and you will change your mind.
the guy is the best historian alive on ww2, and writes his own stuff ,
unlike the commitee produced propaganda from the jewish publishing
houses.
they often use his discoveries without credit in television
documentaries, but not the controvertial ones.
www.ihr.org is very good also.
the is the only medium where a man can tell you these things.
think about the predominance of the other point of view.
fallacies wither when exposed to scrutiny , if the holocaust happened
why wont the jews allow historians to study their records in israel
and america.
why can they only get professors of religion and the dregs of the
historical community to stand up for their myth?
why do concentration camp survivors and many jews say the conventional
story is a myth.
why was it not publicised when auschwitz put up a new plaque with only
1.5 million claimed victims instead of 4.5 million as previously
claimed?
www.heretical.org has before and after photos of the plaques.
Henry
Re:Insane wally says all British Judges are Masons and will obey internationalist
directives!
wally wrote:
> > The British High Court is not exactly a hotbed of Jews. David Irving showed
> > himself to be not historian but lying propagandist.
> >
> > Doug
>
> the impartiality of the judicary in any country is open to question.
> speaking for ireland , i know that many of the judges here are in opus
> dei .
> in britain they are all masons and will obey internationalist
> directives .
That is insane!
--
SilentOtto
wrote:
>well people say one thing in private and another for public
>consumption , knowing the power of the jews.
>they have even got finkelstein sacked from his university in new york,
>according to www.fpp.co.uk . yes our intellectuals are cowards and tow
>the line for fear of their jobs. the journal of the world congress of
>jews denied the fate of the romany, as if jews were the only ones who
>suffered.
Well Wally,
As you are obviously not an intellectual, and as it is improbable that
you are able to hold a job, I submit that you have nothing what so
ever to fear from the jews.
SilentOtto
wrote:
>In article <3C35AE9E...@mindspring.com>, her...@mindspring.com says...
>> wally is absolutely lying!
>>
>He's a complete nutter. Nasty with it. As for the Jews in the US having no
>working class, what an ignorant asshole he is! I've met many working class
>Jews in both Miami and New York City.
>
>Doug
Naaaa,
"Wally" isn't a nut.
"Wally" doesn't even exist.
"Wally" is a creation of the fiendishly clever JEWS designed misdirect
anyone who has an inkling of their sinister plot to gain control of
the world.
By exposing their plans by such a clumsy and preposterous means they
seek to defuse anyone who may seek to delve deeper into their
conspiracy.
After reading one of "Wally's" posts, no rational person could
possibly believe that his ideas are anything more than the ravings of
a mad man.
That is exactly what "THEY" want you to believe.
There are schemes within schemes, and "Wally" is only one of them.
But in even the most carefully laid conspiracies there is a flaw.
The giveaway in this on is that _nobody_ could possibly be as nuts
and illiterate "Wally" is and still be able to run a computer.
That a sure sign that "Wally" is really part of the conspiracy.
BEWARE!!!
The EVIL JEWS are everywhere!!!
Doug Weller
says...
> If telling the truth about the terrible crimes of stalin's jewish bolsheviks
>
Doug
wally
eastern european jewry for hundreds of years.
read the stuff at www.jewwatch.com
you wont see that on talmud vision
mikhael gorbachov was the only soviet leader who was neither jewish or
had a jewish wife, all the others did.
yeltsin,(whos wife was jewish), had an almost totally jewish cabinet
and putin is a jew, as were most of the nkvd/kgb .
only a few criminal elements were in the nkvd who were not jewish, ie
the dregs who follow jews that you find here too.www.ukar.org has some
conservative figures .
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.16a2ba5d7...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
wies...@algonet.se
>
> communism was a jewish movement,
Yes we know it, and Mao Tse Tung
was the most known of them all.
W.
Henry
wally wrote:
> communism was a jewish movement, the red flag being the symbol of
> eastern european jewry for hundreds of years.
> read the stuff at www.jewwatch.com
> you wont see that on talmud vision
> mikhael gorbachov was the only soviet leader who was neither jewish or
> had a jewish wife, all the others did.
That is a wally lie!
So you believe that all the University libraries and history departments are controlled by Jews and are not
accurate in the following countries:
Ireland,England,France,Germany,Portugal,Holland,Belgium,Denmark,Norway,Sweden,Poland,United States & Canada?
But you accept, without examination or question, the words of David Irving, KKK, National Alliance or Jewwatch!
Do you think that reflects intellect- or paranoia.
>
> yeltsin,(whos wife was jewish), had an almost totally jewish cabinet
> and putin is a jew, as were most of the nkvd/kgb .
> only a few criminal elements were in the nkvd who were not jewish, ie
> the dregs who follow jews that you find here too.www.ukar.org has some
> conservative figures .
>
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.16a2ba5d7...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > In article <UzDZ7.421$5t5.20...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, S...@freenet.net
> > says...
> > > If telling the truth about the terrible crimes of stalin's jewish bolsheviks
> > >
> > But not the Christian ones?
> >
> > Doug
--
Doug Weller
> > himself to be not historian but lying propagandist.
> >
> > Doug
>
> the impartiality of the judicary in any country is open to question.
> speaking for ireland , i know that many of the judges here are in opus
> dei .
> in britain they are all masons and will obey internationalist
> directives .
>
> the establishment in britain is very jewish, the bbc being so jewish
> that richard dawkins has coined the term ' the bbc theorem ' to
> describe their racialy nihilistic agenda.
Is this guy a liar or just stupid? Dawkins' 'BBC' theorem is "the view that
nature is naturally cooperative and harmonious, except where we've mucked it
up". It has nothing to do with jews in the BBC. What an asshole.
The British establishment is very much not Jewish, in fact it still probably has tinges of anti-Semitism.
THe rest of his lies [SNIPPED]
William Black
>well people say one thing in private and another for public
>consumption , knowing the power of the jews.
>they have even got finkelstein sacked from his university in new york,
>according to www.fpp.co.uk . yes our intellectuals are cowards and tow
>the line for fear of their jobs. the journal of the world congress of
>jews denied the fate of the romany, as if jews were the only ones who
>suffered.
Nazi rubbish and the URL of a Nazi revisionist web site, go away please.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
troll no. 69
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.169ecad49...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <914462ca.02010...@posting.google.com>, ireland-
> su...@yahoogroups.com says...
>
Fred
A NAZI, ANTI-SEMITE OR A SELF HATING JEW (WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT IS?,
THEY ARE ALL FUCKING LIARS WHO KILL CHILDREN AND THEN CRY ABOUT THE
HOLOCAUST WHICH SUPPOSEDLY KILLED 6 MILLION JEWS OVER 55 YEARS AGO,
THEY ARE LIARS WHO WONT LET ANYONE QUESTION JEWISH VERSIONS OF
HISTORY. (E.G WATCH THE POSTS ABOUT THE JEWS ATTACKING ANY HISTORIAN
QUESTIONING WHETHER 6MILLION REALLY DIED, WHY IS IT O.K TO QUESTION
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED IN OTHER WARS BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SO
CALLED HOLOCAUST IN THE 2ND WW IN WHICH 60 MILLION NON-JEWS DIED).
FUCKING YIDS USE THE HOLOCAUST TO GET SYMPATHY FOR THEMSELVES AND TO
LEACH MONEY FROM PEOPLE ASWELL AS MAKING IT INTO A FUCKING BUSINESS.
JEWS ARE ALL LEECHES WHO STEAL MONEY FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS SO THEY
CAN GO AND KILL LITTLE KIDS AND STEAL THEIR LAND, BOMB AND RAPE AND
THEN CALL THE PEOPLE WHO FIGHT BACK TERRORISTS.
SEPTEMBER 11TH HAPPENED BECAUSE OF JEWS
THE JEWS ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS, THEY KILLED BRITISH SOLDIERS FROM
THE SAME BRITISH ARMY THAT FREED THEM FROM CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN
TERRORIST ATTACKS IN BRITISH RUN PALESTINE.
THE JEWS HATE CHRISTIANS AND RUN AMERICA TO ATTACK THEIR ENEMIES AND
DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT AMERICAN SOLDIERS LIVES. LOOK AT THE JEW
BASTARDS LIKE RUMSFELD AND LIEBERMAN (THE SO CALLED HAWKS) ADVOCATING
ATTACKING ALL THE ARAB COUNTRIES (BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE THEIR
ENEMIES). FUCKING YIDS BELIEVE GENTILES (NON -JEWS) ARE ALL
SUB-HUMANS, THEY DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MAKING GENTILE FIGHT GENTILE.
AND THE JEWS FUCKING WONDER WHY SO MANY RACES HAVE SUCH HATE FOR THEM.
wally
jewish farmer. the prize went unclaimed.
you can find his books online. the jews have managed to get them
removed from your libraries.www.ourhero.com has them all.
jews arent allowed to charge each other interest , or to rape each
other, they are allowed to do both those things to goyim .
the answer to the jewish question is to find them another planet.
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.16a0e98e2...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Henry
You are the idiot that believes Jews remove books from all the University libraries in The United
States,Britain,France,Italy,Germany,Holland,Norway,Sweden,Denmark,Spain,Portugal,Japan,China,Poland and Russia.
How do you suppose the Jews manage to do those things wally? Magik?
wally wrote:
--
wally
he has recently been sacked . you would hardly call him a nazi?
dont believe the smears of the jewish controlled media!
paul rassinier wrote a book 'the lies of ulysses'
he was in several camps in ww2. he was a socialist, historian and
french resistence fighter.
you could hardly say he is a nazi. but he said the holocaust as told
by the jewish establishment is a lie and a myth .
you can read his book at www.ihr.org
all the university historians are terrified of what will happen to
them and their sinecures if they speak out. that is why there are laws
to intimidate them .
jewish pseudo history to honour your tribe has joined jewish pseudo
science and the adversarial law you have given us.
jewish truth is the generalisation.
there were no gas chambers . marko polo magazine in japan said as much
as was boycotted by international jewish power and had to close.
what media the jews do not control the silence by these means.
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a1almf$1sd$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
Doug Weller
> jewish farmer. the prize went unclaimed.
>
A very quick web search shows:
http://www.jewishgen.org/wconnect/wc.isa?jg~jgsys~ajhs~r!!389
http://www.gpfn.sk.ca/religion/judaism/history/jewskbib.html
http://www.state.de.us/sos/dpa/markers-htm/kc/JEWI58.htm
That must be a small part of the record of Jewish farmers in North America.
What do you think a kibbutz is?
Doug
Henry
Doug Weller wrote:
--
wally
books.
the closed down marco polo magazine in japan.
ever hear of the adl in america .
irving has it all at www.fpp.co.uk
im telling you dont take the word of the jewish media , they lie to a
degree which is ever more shocking.
they smeared irving because he is a great investigator, who exposed
any frauds , the biggest one being the hitler diaries.
he has many achievements as a historian, and is impartial and fair
despite all the jewish attacks on him(often physical) , he has an
account on his website called 'global vendetta'
we need more men like him. history will remember him kindly if we can
save civilisation from mongrelisation and jewish will to power.
Henry <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3C39BAD7...@mindspring.com>...
Henry
Don't you think the Bobbies would have arrested them wally. Oh yes I forgot the British judges are all Masons and
control the law as you said!
wally wrote:
--
D.T.A.
I believe that Islam also forbide's the charging of interest. It's
actually a good thing, it would knock a third off my mortgage if it was made
in to a law
--
==================================================================
When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're
aiding propaganda efforts.
In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate
America,
the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies. When they put
bombs in cars and kill people,
they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people,
we're upholding civilized values.
When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against
terror."
==================================================================
blakam
> jewish farmer. the prize went unclaimed.
I wonder if that prize is still being offered as I come from along
line of Jewish farmers stretching back to the mid 1800s? I could sure
use the $1000 (of course since Ford was a Goy I will have to charge
him interest LOL).
> you can find his books online. the jews have managed to get them
> removed from your libraries.www.ourhero.com has them all.
I tried the website--it never came up any of the times I tried to get
to it. Is it a blind link?
> jews arent allowed to charge each other interest , or to rape each
> other, they are allowed to do both those things to goyim .
>
Early Christians weren't allowed to charge each other interest also,
but that prohibition was relaxed as time went on. Rape was always okay
for Christians as long as it occurred within a church-sanctioned
marriage.
> the answer to the jewish question is to find them another planet.
>
The answer to the Jewish question is to get rid of racists and
Anti-Semites and delusional assholes.
Polar
It would help to simply not respond to their newsgroup messages.
Ignoring them is the best medicine. They do not understand
reason, facts, history. They need the "nourishment" of feedback.
Please? New Year's Resolution.
IGNORE the hatemongers.
--
Polar
sutten
irelan...@yahoogroups.com (wally) wrote in message news:<914462ca.02010...@posting.google.com>...
Palmer Woodrow
happening"
I don't trust anyone who brags about their IQ and says "with enough iq to
see " in a sentence. Sorry.
--
Groveling is wrong for the soul, like grappling with whores in a
drugstore. - Hunter S. Thompson
Palmer Woodrow
that some one like him is able to vote.
brian wallace
everyone who asks it, and controlling world media just incase.
Polar <sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<urim3ucbubp554hk2...@4ax.com>...