Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Anti-Trump movement is failing

The Anti-Trump movement is failing

Editor’s Note: we are not as giddy about Donald Trump as Prof. Victor Davis Hanson (see his essay below), mainly due to our anxiety over the president’s grave blunders in foreign affairs, beginning with his Jared Kushner-engineered partnership with the terrorist-enabling kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose only lightly-veiled alliance with the Israelis has markedly improved the Saudis’ status in Jerusalem, New York and Washington D.C. One can’t fight ISIS effectively while empowering the Saudi dictatorship. Trump’s bombing of Syria is another grotesque result of the Jared/Ivanka Talmudism in the White House. 

On the domestic front, Hanson’s endorsement of unalloyed money-making, with no acknowledgement of Christian and Biblical law constraining avarice, is exceedingly unhelpful and myopic. 

With those qualifications in mind, what’s to recommend about Prof. Hanson or President Trump? Hanson is the scion of a pioneering northern California farming family. He cares deeply for the survival of the United States as he knew it growing up. We second his concern and like him, here in the Pacific Northwest we have seen indicators of new life in not only a previously moribund economy, where now construction companies are begging for work crews and paying living wages to obtain them, but also psychologically, in terms of a new-found optimism and self-esteem among our people. 

The war against us is primarily psychological and spiritual and it is on the level of fending off that psy-war that many of Trump’s domestic policies are welcome. 

Among these are opposition to open borders and globalization, fighting for American workers against Red Chinese suzerainty, a less liberal Supreme Court (and federal judgeships in general), justice for veterans who had been preyed upon by Obama’s criminally negligent VA hospitals, education free of tyrannical teachers’ unions, and on many other fronts related to the welfare of our land and people. 

We can’t dismiss these initiatives in our homeland because Trump is pursuing calamitous overseas policies, similar to all previous presidents extending back to Lyndon Johnson. If you wish to denounce our pragmatism in this regard, do so. As for us, our psyche was, as never before, grieved and wrenched these past years by the soul-rotting decline of the American people which we observed under Mr. Obama, and while it is true that nothing can ultimately save us if we don’t free our land of usury, abortion and infertility, for the present we will not gainsay the rebirth of hopes and dreams we have seen in northern Idaho and eastern Washington state since Mr. Trump was elected. 

Thus far, President Trump has represented an emergency-room resuscitation of our people’s vital signs. If this rebirth is sustained, it might prove to be a first step toward our national renaissance, long after Mr. Trump has left the American scene. — Michael Hoffman

The Anti-Trump Bourbons: 
Learning and Forgetting Nothing in Time for 2020

By  Victor Davis Hanson | August 14, 2017

“...Trump’s enraged critics still do not grasp that he is a reflection of, not a catalyst for, widespread anger and unhappiness with globalization, interventionist foreign policy, Orwellian political correctness, identity politics, tribalism, open borders, and a Deep State that lectures and condemns but never lives the consequences of its own sermonizing.”

Just seven months into Donald Trump’s administration we are already bombarded with political angling and speculations about the 2020 presidential race. No one knows in the next three years what can happen to a volatile Trump presidency or his psychotic enemies, but for now such pronouncements of doom seem amnesiac if not absurd.

Things are supposedly not going well politically with Donald Trump lately, after a series of administration firings, internecine White House warring, and controversial tweets. A Gallup Poll has him at only a 34 percent positive rating, and losing some support even among Republicans (down to 79 percent)—although contrarily a recent Rasmussen survey shows him improving to the mid-forties in popularity. Nonetheless, we are warned that even if Trump is lucky enough not to be impeached, if he is not removed under the 25th Amendment or the Emoluments Clause, if he does not resign in shame, even if he has the stamina to continue under such chaos, even if he seeks reelection and thus even more punishment, he simply cannot win in 2020.

In answer to such assumed expertise, one could answer with Talleyrand’s purported quip about our modern-day Bourbons that “They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

Namely, Trump’s enraged critics still do not grasp that he is a reflection of, not a catalyst for, widespread anger and unhappiness with globalization, interventionist foreign policy, Orwellian political correctness, identity politics, tribalism, open borders, and a Deep State that lectures and condemns but never lives the consequences of its own sermonizing.

In particular, the current conundrum and prognostications ignore several constants.

Do Americans Really Believe that Pollsters and the Media Have Reformed?

One, despite the recent Gallup poll, most polls still show Trump’s at about a 40 percent approval rating—nearly the same level of support as shortly before the November 2016 election. That purported dismal level of support is pronounced to be near fatal, when in fact it is not.

Since a) pollsters likely have not much changed their methodology since 2016, and since b) it is fair so assume that the media and those who poll for them continue to despise Trump, and since c) Trump’s exasperating eccentricities continue to make his supporters cautious about voicing their support (even to anonymous pollsters and political surveyors), we can conclude that his actual support could be about 45-47 percent—or close to the percentage of the popular vote he won in 2016.

Given that Trump’s base in the key swing states of the Midwest (the so-called Democratic “blue wall”) has not weakened, there is no real reason yet to think Trump could not win the Electoral College again in 2020 in the same fashion as 2016. In 2004 and 2012, we were told respectively that an unpopular George W. Bush and a sinking Barack Obama might lose reelection; instead they both were re-elected largely with the same election calculus and an even stronger base of support that carried them to victory four years earlier.

Do Americans Really Believe the Messenger Nullifies the Message?

As in 2016, many of those who voted for Trump would prefer that he curb his tweets, clean up his language, sleep eight instead of five hours, and follow all the conventional-wisdom admonitions offered about his misbehavior. But that said, nearly half of the country is probably still willing to overlook his eccentricities for several reasons.

Trump now has a presidential record of eight months. Despite the media’s neglect of it, one can sense changes by just getting out and traveling the country. Even in rural central California, one can feel that it really is true that there is a 76 percent drop in illegal immigration, and immigration law is being taken seriously as never before.

It was no accident that the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), without warning dropped its racialist nomenclature and is now UnidosUS (“Together, US”). Why is the Democratic Party now feigning a focus on class, not racial, issues with its new “Better Deal” FDR/Truman-like echo?

The same pragmatics about changed attitudes are reflected in dozens of local roadside canteens in my environs that have taken down their showy Mexican flags and are now waving even larger American ones. Cement trucks and construction cranes are ubiquitous on the roads in a way not true over the prior eight years. Talk to business people, and they are citing new projects and investments, not voicing anxieties about higher taxes and more regulatory hostility.

Much of Trump’s success so far comes despite congressional ossification and is clearly psychological: people with money to invest or to build things prefer to do so when the head of the regulatory state urges them to create jobs, make money, and help their country get richer, not when he warns them that it is not the time to profit, that they need to share and spread around their wealth, that they must calibrate when they have made enough profits, and that they should concede that  the state built their businesses as much as their own daring and talent.

Despite congressional failure so far on reforming Obamacare, conservatives are delighted not just with the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court appointment, but also with literally dozens of conservative lower federal court appointments, who are both youngish and judicially restrained. Would they have preferred to let Hillary Clinton decide the trajectory of the Supreme Court for the next two or three decades?

Does anyone think a President John McCain or Mitt Romney would have pulled out of the Paris climate change accord? Trump’s team is reinventing the Environmental Protection Agency, giving clean coal a second life, opening up natural gas and oil exploration on federal lands, building pipelines, and exporting energy. The crash in world oil prices is bankrupting exporters like Russia, Middle East autocracies, and the Gulf States, whose influences are now pruned back by a dearth of cash.

The major cabinet officials are competing to deregulate the deep state and free up individual initiative.

At home the economy grew at a 2.6 percent annualized rate last quarter, and corporate profits at are record levels. So is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Unemployment is lower than at any time in an over a decade.

The trade deficit is even shrinking and lots of companies have announced relocations to the United States, in reaction to record cheap energy costs and a perceived favorable business environment. And all this comes at a time when the United States is neither seeking optional military interventions nor backing away from thuggish aggression, but is trying to thread the needle in restoring deterrence along the lines of “principled realism.”

The point is not just that no one can know the ultimate fate of the Trump agenda, but rather that so far media hysteria and congressional calcification have not stopped perceived conservative progress. The bottom line is that Trump did prove to be far more conservative than Republican establishmentarians had forecast. To his supporters, Trump’s message is usually distinguished from Trump, the messenger. Politically that means pragmatist supporters can focus on his agenda not his tweets, while Trump’s die-hard voters like his Twitter combativeness, viewing it as a long overdue media comeuppance.

Trump himself is less rather than more likely to keep running a chaotic White House. Appointments like John Kelly as chief of staff, or H.R. McMaster as national security advisor and James Mattis as defense secretary are not symptoms of a sell-out to the Deep State, but evidence of Trump’s own acknowledgment that for his populism to be effective, he needs structure and focus.

In sum, lots of Americans support what Trump is doing rather than agreeing with what he sometimes is saying and tweeting—and even more of his base like both.

Do Americans Really Listen to the Conservative Elite Establishment?

Third, Trump does not run in a vacuum, but always in a landscape of alternatives. The Republican Party is split, but so far the NeverTrump establishment is smaller and less influential than the returning Tea-Party/Trump/Reagan Democrat conservative base that in part sat out in 2008 and 2012 or once voted Democratic.

What Trump loses to elite Republican and conservative disdain expressed in op-eds and news show round tables, or to Lindsey Graham and John McCain-like denunciations, he has more than made up with new populist Republican support in small towns and communities nationwide. For now, it is hard to imagine any other potential Republican nominee rallying a crowd like Trump or appealing to the losers of globalization in such dramatic fashion.

That we are, once again, being advised that Republican grandees are looking for a new version of Evan McMullin, or that a cranky John Kasich will reenter the primary race in 2020, or that Jeff Flake insists that he is the moral superior to those who stooped to vote for Trump, to be honest, means nada.

More than 90 percent of Republicans voted for Trump before he had a political record, and about the same will do it again based on his conservative agenda as expressed and enacted so far. If the economy hits 3 percent economic growth, with near 4 percent unemployment, the Dow does not crash, and if the Russian collusion charges end up only with symbolic scalps (and all that is possible if not likely), Trump will win over half the independents, solidify his base and likely take the Electoral College.

One of the strangest ironies of the present age is that Trump’s populism (e.g., “our farmers”, “our vets”, “our coal miners”, “our workers”), which saved the Senate and House for Republicans and delivered the greatest Republican majorities on the local and state level since the 1920s, is either ridiculed or ignored.

Yet the more the economy picks up, the more the administration prunes back the regulatory state, and the more the United States restores deterrence, the shriller will be the argument that Trump’s tweets and behavior nullify solid achievement. Just watch.

Will the New Democratic/Progressive Party Really Rebuild the Blue Wall?

Fourth and finally, the less publicized split in the Democratic Party is probably worse than that of its Republican counterpart. The latter did not stop Trump’s victory in the Electoral College, the former helped ensure Hillary’s “Blue Wall” collapsed.

The current head of the Democratic National Committee, Thomas Perez, is best known for his profanity-laced tirades; his more unstable subordinate Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) recently claimed that Kim Jong-un was a more responsible actor than the president of the United States, while Justice Neil Gorsuch was an illegitimate Supreme Court judge. The former DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is facing myriad bizarre scandals. Her replacement Donna Brazile became most famous as a CNN talking head who leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign. With disreputable icons like these, who needs opposition research?

Almost any of Bill Clinton’s 1990s talking points on government, immigration, race, taxes, or law enforcement could not be voiced today by any mainstream Democratic politician. In 2008, Hillary drank with boilermakers; in 2016 she smeared the lower middle class with taunts of “deplorables” and “irredeemables.”

Truth is, the party mortgaged its soul to the identity politics lobby, and thereby embraced a number of fatally wrong assumptions.

First, record minority registration and turnout for Barack Obama were not automatically transferable to other Democrat grandees. Obama pushed the party hard leftward with a new strategy of uniting previously feuding minority groups under an us/them binary of anti-“white privilege” while at the same time soothing liberals with his Ivy League pedigree, his exotic, hip, multicultural name, and his mellifluent banality. It is hard to see too many other candidates recreating such political gymnastics.

Second, if Obama did not bequeath an upside legacy, he certainly left a downside. Tribal obsessions with identity politics were implicitly an attack on the white working class. Those in Ohio and Pennsylvania were not just angry for being written off as bitter clingers, irredeemables, and deplorables, but also furious to be scapegoated for having “white privilege” by those who alone enjoyed it. 

A party run by Pajama Boys, half-educated media talking heads, Middlebury-prolonged adolescents, Bay Area billionaire techies in t-shirts and flip-flops, Hollywood gated grandees, Al Gore green elites, and Black Lives Matter activists is not going to win easily back Michigan and Wisconsin.

Finally, the Democrats failed to see that class-based populism is a far more inclusionary and thus dynamic phenomenon than is racial tribalism—for both whites and non-whites. 

Democrats are finally worrying that they have lost the white working class; they should be even more terrified that they might lose 40 percent of the traditional minority vote if the economy keeps growing and Trump keeps talking about protecting low wage-earners from the dual threats of globalization and illegal immigration.

In sum, the Democratic Party has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. It is doubling down on exactly what lost it the Blue Wall.

Ditto the Republican NeverTrump establishment that seeks to recapture relevance by reemphasizing exactly what lost it influence in 2016. The argument that Trump, the man, is so beyond moral redemption that Trump’s agenda is irrelevant will not fly with those who feel that they are already better off than in 2016. And the idea that conservative populism is a temporary deviation from a winning and properly orthodox Jeb Bush conservatism is delusional.

Trumpism is not an eponymous political movement per se. It was merely an adjective for the reification of far greater preexisting political realities.

Victor Davis Hanson is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and History at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University.


Monday, August 14, 2017

The Fiasco in Charlottesville

The Fiasco in Charlottesville
American conservatives of every color were the losers

By Michael Hoffman 

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville was  a gift to Hillary, Barack and the Democrat Party. Given the state of the media in the USA, and the nature of the government in Virginia, it was pure folly for “white civil rights” demonstrators to parade together with representatives of terrorism in the South — members and supporters of the masonic Ku Klux Klan, and expect to be greeted calmly

White rights activist Jared Taylor is indeed correct when he points out that the local government colluded with violent Left-wing demonstrators, who threw bricks and initiated fighting and looting (for which crimes only three arrests were made; reminiscent of Berkeley, California where masked Leftist terrorists torched the college campus with impunity while obstructing a conservative speaker). Mr. Taylor writes that according to the corrupt moral calculus of the media and the government of Virginia, “Racially conscious whites deserve violence simply because of what they think.”

In response to Charlottesville, when President Trump condemned “hatred and bigotry on many sides” he was met with the ancient cry of the totalitarian, “There is only one side!” All other views are forbidden and will be suppressed by street mobs and a politicized police command that deviously creates a situation where white protestors are violently attacked. Then the lightly-policed fighting becomes the excuse to stop the rally. The ultimate victim of this barely concealed set-up is the First Amendment. The more unpopular and obnoxious the group, the more vital it is to guarantee their right to peaceably assemble, but the civil liberties issue has been lost in the ensuing hysteria. 

The fault is not entirely with the Left, however. If the objective truly is white civil rights and not inflaming bitter feelings between blacks and whites leading toward a race war, then the template of a mass parade consisting in part of Klansmen, along with neo-Nazis sporting their regalia, is a non-starter. How could the “Unite the Right” rally organizers not know this?

Any rally of this type, to have a chance of success, would have to include at least a handful of sympathetic conservative black people at the head of the march. Moreover, it would have to consist of families carrying American flags and marchers wearing their Sunday best. All other symbolism would be excluded.

Conservatives cannot gain or maintain power in statehouses and legislatures, and Congress and the White House, without making common cause with black Americans who have been exploited by NAACP poverty pimps who, along with Democrat Party politicians such as Elizabeth Warren, obstruct the growth of charter schools for educating disadvantaged youth outside the confines of the public school monopoly. This issue is central to the advancement of black people in America. It is in the interests of conservative whites to assist black Americans in this cause and build good will in the process.

Black people have also suffered at the hands of the de facto open borders policy of their Democrat Party “saviors.” The populist Republican campaign to limit foreign immigration has direct benefits for American blacks and is another potential common cause between the races.

Furthermore, historically, black Americans have been victimized by a conspiracy of Klansmen and Judaic leaders who covertly backed the KKK in the South from Reconstruction to the eve of the Second World War, as documented in the book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, volume 2.

The Democrat Party was in disarray before Saturday’s march in Charlottesville  split asunder and bickering  while losing the moral high ground on issues such as abortion. Saturday’s tragedy in Virginia will reinvigorate the Left. They will seek to conflate all Republican Conservatives with bitter-enders in the South who imagine that it is 1920 again and the sight of klansmen in sheets and Confederate battle flags will cause American whites to rise up and assert themselves.

This chimera reflects a profound misreading of the mood of white Americans. Granted, many are angered by reverse discrimination in employment and education, and by the lawlessness of the thugs  white and black  churned out by the criminally negligent public school system. They are repelled by the Hate Whitey mentality, wherein taking personal responsibility for one’s own life takes a distant second to blaming the white man for one’s lack of ambition and work ethic.

American whites by and large however, are also desirous of comity between the races, based on equal opportunity and justice before the law. 

The prudent mainstream of conservative whites believe in advancing their own people through building strong families and family values, electing genuine conservatives to office and quietly relocating to sections of the country where folks of like mind gather in community.

This is not only the new model of white empowerment, it is the only model that has a chance of success under present circumstances. Unfortunately, a minority, the so-called “white nationalists,” who are seldom personally invested in raising large families, periodically gain headlines with nationally publicized stunts that almost always backfire, uniting the Left and giving the media the opportunity to once again portray whites seeking to preserve their heritage and rights, as moral lepers and cretins.

"Unite the Right” should have been billed as Unite and Empower the Left. This was the Charlottesville fiasco’s primary “achievement.” American Conservatives of every color were the losers.

Copyright ©2017 Independent History and Research

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Toronto newspaper: Zundel deserved to die in agony

"Ernst Zundel deserved agony, not a quiet exit

Toronto Sun columnist Mark Bonokoski

In our August 7 eulogy for the late Ernst Zündel, we alluded to the "Talmudic mentality" and the penchant of people afflicted with it for revenge and hatred, which they psychologically project on to Zündel in paroxysms of rage and libel. 

On the day we published our tribute, Mark Bonokoski stepped forth to seemingly confirm our observation. Mr. Bonokoski writes for one of Canada’s largest newspapers, The Toronto Sun. It’s difficult to account for the fact that the Sun, which wears its human rights’ heart on its self-righteous sleeve, would print Bonokoski’s disgusting column, with its sadistic craving to see a pound of flesh extracted from Zündel, but that’s what has occurred. 

In the August 7 issue of the Toronto Sun online, in an article titled — believe it or not — "Ernst Zündel deserved agony, Mr. Bonokoski was not content with the lifetime of persecution inflicted on Zündel for his ideas, speeches, printing and writing, including multiple costly thought crime trials, two years’ imprisonment in solitary confinement in Canada, five years imprisonment in Germany, the burning of his home and its contents by an arsonist, and his deportation and subsequent banishment from the United States and Canada. 

In Bonokoski’s fevered imagination:

 "Zündel deserved agony, but got none...The fact that he was able to die at home in Germany, of natural causes, and apparently in robust health up until the heart attack hit, is just another example of how life isn’t fair.

These are grotesquely inhuman words. What sort of mentality urges suffering and cruelty on a dead activist? It can be found here: 

“...Jesus shares his place in the Netherworld (hell) with Titus and Balaam, the notorious arch enemies of the Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes, reassembled, and burned over and over again, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitting in hot semen, Jesus’ fate consists of sitting forever in boiling excrement.” —Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, p. 13, (with reference to Babylonian Talmud tractate Gittin 57a).

What sort of mentality decries hatred of Jews but approves hating Germans? It can be found here: 

"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate  healthy, virile hate — for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.  Elie Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, chapter 12: “Appointment with Hate,” (Schocken Books, 1982).

"The anti-German bias of Elie Wiesel’s article (“An Appointment With Hate,”Commentary magazine, December, 1962), is easily justified and need not be repudiated.  Joseph Meier, Commentary magazine, April 1, 1963.

Because few people with social standing have the courage to point out the megalomania and searing hypocrisy evident in the preceding, these malignancies grow unchecked, conferring upon our supposedly egalitarian society a Talmudic supremacism consisting of special prerogatives for bullying and hating marginalized dissidents and non-conformists, who have little or no voice in the mainstream media and are dehumanized with impunity, to the glee of the guardians of “human rights.” 


Toronto Sun Publishes Hoffman’s Letter Protesting Hate Zündel column

I submitted a letter to the editor, which was published here (scroll to the bottom of the page to read it online).

I reproduce it below, as it was printed in the Sun:

Letters to the Editor, Aug. 11 

 In an article titled — believe it or not — “Ernst Zundel deserved agony” (Aug. 7), Mark Bonokoski was not content with the lifetime of persecution inflicted on Zundel for his ideas, speeches, printing and writing, including multiple costly criminal trials, two years imprisonment in solitary confinement in Canada, five years imprisonment in Germany, the burning of his home and its contents by an arsonist, and his deportation and subsequent banishment from the United States and Canada. In Mr. Bonokoski’s fevered imagination: “Zundel deserved agony, but got none ... The fact that he was able to die at home in Germany, of natural causes, and apparently in robust health up until the heart attack hit, is just another example of how life isn’t fair.” These are grotesquely inhuman words. What sort of mentality urges suffering and cruelty on a deceased dissident? It’s difficult to account for the fact that the Sun, which wears its human rights’ heart on its self-righteous sleeve, would print Bonokoski’s disgusting column, with its sadistic craving to see a pound of flesh extracted from Zundel, but that’s what has occurred. 

Michael Hoffman 
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

The Canadian newspaper printed a rejoinder under my letter, as follows:

"(We have the same sympathy for Zundel that Zundel had for Holocaust victims. Happy now?)”

Actually this is a lie. I knew Mr. Zundel for 32 years. Never did I hear him say anything approaching a statement in which he hoped “Holocaust victims” would die in agony. He did not stoop to the level of sadistic revenge exhibited by the Talmudic gutter mentality.


Monday, August 07, 2017

Ernst Zündel: A Lover, not a Hater

Ernst Zündel: A Lover, not a Hater

Je suis le bouc.”  L.-F. Céline

By Michael Hoffman

Ernst Zündel (above, right), with his attorney, Dr. Herbert Schaller, March 1, 2010, just moments after he emerged from Mannheim prison for the first time in five years.

Ernst Zündel died of heart failure on August 5 at his ancestral home in the Black Forest region of southwestern Germany, near Pforzheim, one day before the anniversary of the atomic holocaust in the city of Hiroshima, Japan. He was 78. He passed away seven years and five months after having served seven years in confinement in Canadian and German prisons for thought crimes committed as a publisher, broadcaster and protestor. To make the inquisition against this German human rights activist palatable to the public, his “crime” is monotonously described as “inciting hatred for years with anti-Semitic activities.”

In America the yahoos are stirred to outrage by the spectre of Islamic “Sharia law” coming to Mayberry, while they are oblivious to the Talmudic law and psychology which suffuses the U.S.A. Talmudic halacha is a two-tiered legal system: one law for the Holy People and another for everyone else. Thus it is written in Sanhedrin 57a, “Regarding bloodshed, the following distinction applies: if a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew he is exempt from punishment.” 

By the same logic, if a Judaic incites hatred of Germans it is not a crime, it is a well-deserved act of retribution. Zündel spent his life fighting this corrupt double-standard. He did so not for philosophical or ideological reasons. Rather, he believed that relentless anti-German hate propaganda was a kind of psychological warfare and mental genocide which internally colonized the souls of the German people, radically reducing their self-worth and causing them to engage in self-destructive and suicidal behavior. 

His lifelong campaign to counter anti-German hatred and Talmudic bigotry has been transformed through the alchemy of media falsification into itself an act of hate, and it is at this omega point that Ernst’s persona has been frozen by the Establishment. “He was a hater!” That’s all we’re supposed to know, or need to know, about his life and work.

Having emigrated to Canada as a young man of 19, he became a sought-after graphic artist, working for national magazines. That he was a public relations genius is indisputable. In the 1960s he began placing advertisements in comic books, urging freedom for imprisoned Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, and for a volume about “Nazi UFOs,” the latter a publicity stunt intended to build the revisionist history mailing list he was gradually compiling. By the late 1970s, when the Newspeak distortion of the word “holocaust” began to be appropriated by the Zionist lobby and applied exclusively to the sufferings (both real and imagined) of Judaic people in World War II, Ernst began his counter-offensive, making contact with the academics and historians in the  burgeoning revisionist history movement that was questioning the “Holocaust” liturgy. 

By 1983 his mass mailings had become so extensive that the powerful Zionist lobby in Canada persuaded the government to ban Zündel from using the mail. He was forced to publish from a Buffalo, New York-area post office, hundreds of miles from his base in Toronto. For publishing doubts about the existence of execution gassing facilities in concentration camps, he was indicted for distributing “false news.” He went to court in Toronto in January, 1985, in what would become known as “The Great Holocaust Trial,” having assembled a stellar legal and history research team led by Doug Christie, who was at that time an obscure, upstart attorney from British Columbia, and Dr. Robert Faurisson, a French academic with a vast command of World War II revisionist history.

Zündel’s own World War II-generation of Germans rallied around him. The large Victorian “Zündelhaus” in Toronto was filled with German people acting as defense witnesses in the trial and assistants in various capacities. There were also non-Germans across the spectrum, including Judaics such as the brilliant and eccentric Ditlieb Felderer, the inaugural forensic investigator and photographer of the Auschwitz-Birkenau slave labor camp. 

Ernst was not a provincial German. He was cosmopolitan and sophisticated, with broad tastes and sympathies. He forged alliances with everyone from Judaics disgruntled with the Israeli state and Judaism, to the former Attorney General of Massachusetts who would call Ernst in the middle of the night during the 1985 trial and offer him legal advice.

In the course of the 1985 trial the Crown prosecution called many “unimpeachable Holocaust survivor eyewitnesses” to the stand, in order to send Zündel to prison. Under cross-examination, each one was reduced to a quivering pile of fantastic or contradictory testimony that was essentially worthless. Rudolf Vrba, one of the first “major witnesses” to the alleged homicidal gas chambers, who was regarded as a pillar of “Holocaust” survivor testimony, was made to concede under oath that his book, I Cannot Forgive, could not stand up in court and was only an “artistic picture” of Auschwitz. Because of the embarrassing revelations elicited from these witnesses, no “Holocaust survivors” were called to testify in defense of Deborah Lipstadt in the course of David Irving’s libel suit against her (a fact noted by the actor playing the part of her barrister Anthony Julius, in the 2016 Hollywood movie, “Denial”). 

The most eminent “Holocaust” historian of the 1980s was Dr. Raul Hilberg. During the Great Holocaust Trial he was compelled to admit on the witness stand that there was no scientific evidence of homicidal gassings. “I’m at a loss” were the shocking words this “leading Holocaust scholar” uttered when asked by Christie to cite such evidence.

Ernst’s initial conviction on the ridiculous 1985 false news charge was overturned on appeal to the Ontario Court, citing presiding Judge Hugh Locke’s overwhelming bias toward the defendant.

Zündel was tried yet again in 1988; that trial is noteworthy for having produced engineer Fred Leuchter’s unprecedented Leutcher Report on the impossibility of mass chemical poison gassings in the facilities he personally studied and sampled in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Ernst published many tens of thousands of copies of Leutcher Report for circulation world-wide.

On more than one occasion we have referred to Ernst as the-man-who-was-perpetually-on-trial. He underwent court appearances over the ban on his using the Canadian mails, his two trials, the appeals, his immigration case in the U.S. and his trial in Germany, which led to his lengthiest imprisonment. The word “martyr” is derived from a Greek word for a defendant in court. The connotation is of a man or woman willing to defy authorities formally, and face to face. This was Ernst’s destiny.

On August 27, 1992, in a historic decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which was a landmark victory for every Canadian’s civil liberties, the “false news” portion of the Canadian criminal code was overturned thanks to the appeal argued by Ernst’s legal team. 

There was a price to be paid for these successes, however. The Talmud is a book which has made a religion out of revenge. William Shakespeare had Portia finger it when she told Shylock in The Merchant of Venice that contrary to Shylock’s call for “justice,” the Christian posits mercy, because none of us can withstand God’s justice. The problem in making that type of argument is that the religion of revenge entails self-worship, and part of its megalomania rests upon giving God orders (cf. Bava Metzia 59b). Therefore, revenge, not mercy, is the order of the day for the Talmudists. Consequently, in 1989 Prof. Faurisson was horribly beaten by thugs linked to Betar, a French Zionist terror group. No one was prosecuted. On May 7, 1995 Ernst Zündel’s Victorian home and headquarters in Toronto was destroyed by arsonists. The police barely bothered to investigate. No one was prosecuted.

In February, 2003 Ernst was living peacefully in Tennessee with his German-American wife, Ingrid Rimland, when he was arrested for “violations of U.S. immigration regulations.” He was jailed for two weeks and subsequently deported to Canada, where he had “landed immigrant” status. Labeled a terrorist in a secret Canadian star chamber court, the man who had never even had a speeding ticket and consistently preached non-violence, was incarcerated for two years on a “Security certificate,” under abominable conditions of solitary confinement, while fed wretched food, observed 24 hours a day with lights never turned off, denied proper writing and reading materials, and confined in a remote, high security facility.

He was deported to Germany in 2005 where, a few weeks short of his 66th birthday he began serving five years in Mannheim prison for publishing questions about gas chambers in books and other media, including online on his internationally-renowned “Zundelsite” web page.

Upon his release in 2010 he lived quietly in a home in Germany that had been in his family for hundreds of years. Without complaint he cheerfully set to work personally clearing brush and trees and making repairs to the ancient homestead. He never whined. He had not been raised in a culture where, “Oh, how I suffered!” was a standard of self-definition. He didn’t moan about his fate. He was a German of the old school, for whom the words inculcated from youth, Lerne leiden ohne zu klagen (“Learn to suffer without complaining”), were ringing in his ears until the day he died.

Prior to 2017, Ernst applied for an immigrant visa so that he could reside with his wife in Tennessee. Last spring, less than a week before his 78th birthday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ruled on his application, as follows:

“[I]n 2007 the Applicant was convicted in Germany of 14 counts of incitement to hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of five years in prison. And though a waiver of inadmissibility was possible — because of extreme hardship to Zundel’s elderly wife — the office concluded that there was good reason to deny the waiver: The negative factors in the Applicant’s case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. The record shows that the Applicant is a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record indicates further that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews. Furthermore, the Applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions.” 

...these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews.” This is a terrible lie, backed by no documentation. We should not be surprised. We were forewarned 2,000 years ago about “children of hell” (Matthew 23:15) whose patriarch was “the father of lies” (John 8:44). If Jesus were alive today, he too would be serving time in Canadian and German dungeons and banned from the United States by Homeland Security.

If you are a German of Ernst’s generation then you have heard of, or read, Karl May, the novelist who celebrated the American Indian. In Canada Ernst hosted a parade of German combat veterans of World War II, from privates to officers. Having read the novels of Karl May, often among the first requests these men would make was, “Will you to take me to meet the Indians?” There are photos of these old soldiers shaking hands and riding horses with the indigenous people of Canada, with Zundel accompanying them. 

The Indians of North America are reputed to ask a question before they make any momentous decision: how will this affect the next seven generations? The question the Indians would pose if they were Germans — how will the admission of millions of hostile alien immigrants affect our children for the next seven generations?— is left unasked by 21st Germans, a majority of whom continue to support Angela Merkel, their posterity’s executioner, because she is good at managing the nation’s money.

Zündel was as much a holocaust survivor as anyone. In February, 1945 when he was not quite six-years-of-age, he heard the roar of the 367 bombers of Britain’s Royal Air Force, as its thundering fire bombs incinerated the German civilians of the nearby city of Pforzheim. He, his mother and siblings shook with fear, sheltering under a table during this holocaust, which we are not allowed to call by that name.

Every day it seems there is something else we are not allowed to say or think, and this is what we should expect ever more of, in a world of illusion that calls Ernst Zündel, “a hater.” He has been made a scapegoat by people who are themselves guilty of undying hatred. 

We have known few men who have loved our people and our civilization more than he did. It is not an exaggeration to say that he gave his life for love of them.

Copyright©2017 Independent History and Research

Michael Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic [published in French in 2016 as Le Grand Procés de L’Holocauste: L’Extraordinaire Aventure d’Ernst Zündel].