5.3　検閲

5.3　検閲

L：ファシストと出会ったときには殴り倒せというようなフリツォフ・マイヤーの話の結果がこれですね。

R：マイヤーのような人物は、人々を煽動する、肘掛け椅子に座った犯罪者と呼ばれています。衝撃的なことは、このリストにあげた修正主義者に対する暴力行為のうち、どれ一つとして法律的に訴追されていないことです。例えば、誰かが裁判所で修正主義者に襲いかかったならば、当然、逮捕・告発されるはずです。しかし、そのようなためしになったことがありません。たまたま逮捕されることがあっても、上からの命令で釈放されています。言い換えれば、修正主義者に対する暴力は政府から大目に見られており、それゆえ、奨励されているともいえるのです。

　このことは、西側世界の政府が修正主義者に対してどのように振舞っているのかを観察すれば、驚くべきことではありません。このような暴力行為を抑制する、ひいては停止することを妨げる、ありとあらゆる措置がとられています。この講義の中で、さまざまな検閲措置について触れてきましたが、西側世界がこのような状況であるからこそ、この検閲措置についても、もっと詳しく見ておかなくてはなりません。

　ヨーロッパでは、修正主義に対する検閲は多種多様です。例えば、多くの国々、例えば、イタリア、ポルトガル、イギリス、アイルランド、スカンディナヴィア諸国は検閲措置をとっていません。東ヨーロッパ、南東ヨーロッパ諸国でも検閲法は存在しませんが、そのような状況を変えるべきであるとの意見が広まっています。例えば、NATOへの加盟を望んでいる国であれば、「ホロコースト否定」を犯罪とする法律を定めなくてはならないのです。1999年1月、ポーランドはそのような法律を公布し、その後、1999年4月にNATOに加盟しました。

　スペインとオランダにもそのような法律がありますが、厳格に運用されているわけではありません、オランダには取り締まりの対象となるような修正主義的運動が存在しませんので、取り締りが強化されることはないでしょう。ポーランド、フランス、ベルギー、ドイツ語圏諸国では取締法がひどく強化されています。オーストリアは修正主義的な演説に最高10年の刑を科していますし、ドイツは最高5年（イスラエルも同様）、ポーランドとスイスは3年、フランスとベルギーは1年を科しています。

L：ポーランドとイスラエルも修正主義者を処罰しているのですか？

R：もちろんです。ここにはパターンがあります。みずからの生存のためにアウシュヴィッツの嘘を必要としている国々は、その嘘を守るための法律を持っています。しかし、それが以外の国々でも、このタブーを守るための、少なからず効果的な手段が作り出されてきました。例えば、カナダとオーストラリアは、刑事犯罪裁判所とは独立して機能する人権裁判所を設立し、それを介して、罰金と裁判所命令によって異論派を沈黙させています。そして、こうした裁判所命令違反が犯罪とされ、刑事訴追の対象となっているのです[1]。

　合衆国では、憲法修正第一条のおかげで、当局による検閲は事実上存在しません。しかし、残念なことに、マスメディアが少数の人々の集中しているために、多様な意見が存在しません。マスメディアの多くが9つの大企業に手にあり[2]、それが、残りのメディアの依存する広告業界も牛耳っているのです。合衆国のメディアの情報源は、基本的に一つのルートすなわちAssociated Pressからでてきています。合衆国の出版業界は、基本的に一つの会社Ingramsの手にあります。第二次世界大戦の戦勝国側の所説に挑戦するような歴史文献を出版する出版社を合衆国で見つけることが今日のドイツでよりも困難であるのはまさにそのためなのです。

　今日まで合衆国には修正主義者を取り締まる法律は存在していませんが、合衆国は国外での修正主義的な研究をあらゆる手段を使って抑圧しています。1992年、FBIの「ナチ・ハンター」部局OSIはフランクフルト・アム・マインのアメリカ領事館からドイツにおける修正主義についての報告書を送っていますが、そのコピーが匿名で、歴史評論研究所にも送られてきました[3]。興味深いことに、この報告書は、ボンのイスラエル大使館、ニューヨークのイスラエル領事館、ロンドンのB’nai B’rith Lodgeにも直接配布されています。ですから、OSIはイスラエル国家、ユダヤ・ロビーと密接に協力しているのです。報告書の第3項では、ドイツ連邦犯罪捜査局が、修正主義的文献を所持している分子に対する取締りを強化すると約束したことが述べられています。世界各地で合衆国政府が、修正主義者の会合や出版物を取り締まる活動に関与していることは驚くべきことではありません。例えば、合衆国政府はレバノンを脅迫して、ベイルートで開かれる予定であった修正主義者の大会を中止させています[4]。また、合衆国は、外交的な圧力を加えて、エジプトの大手の新聞の編集者を辞めさせています。この編集者が修正主義的な記事の掲載を認めたためでした[5]。私は祖国ドイツで迫害を受けるようになったために、合衆国に政治的な避難の場を求めてきましたが、合衆国政府ありとあらゆる法的な手段・法律外の手段を使って私を国外追放処分にしようとしています[6]。

L：どこに移送しようとしているのですか？

R：ドイツにです。私が1993年以降出版してきた学術文献に関して、30ほどの「ホロコースト否定」の罪の嫌疑がかけられているからです。この「思想犯罪」が一つでも有罪とされれば、最高5年の刑に処せられます[7]。

L：ルドルフさんは、私たちやその他の聴衆にこのように語りかけていますが、このような件で、一体、何年間刑期をつとめなくてはならないのでしょうか？

R：いくつかの嫌疑がまとめられて裁かれると思いますが、最高の刑期だけですんで、5年たったら釈放されるとは思っていません。5年以上の刑が科せられと思っています。おそらく10年でしょう。

L：まるで、全体主義社会のようですね。

R：まったくそのとおりです。裏で、合衆国政府は迫害を助長しているのです。

L：合衆国は世界に自由と民主主義を広めているとしていますが、この宣伝はきわめて偽善的です。

R：慈善活動には限界があるものです。いずれにしても、第二次世界大戦の勝者筆頭は合衆国ですし、合衆国はその地位にとどまりたいのです。合衆国における強力なユダヤ人ロビーの存在を忘れてはなりません。彼らがもっと成功を収めれば、修正第一条を削除してしまうでしょう。今日でも、合衆国では人権に対する攻撃が行なわれています。2001年9月11日後のブッシュによる「愛国条例」がこのような攻撃のドアを開きました。西側民主主義国での検閲に関して、驚くべきことは、多くの人々がこのような検閲を受け入れるか、せいぜい無関心であるという点です。望ましからざる意見を抑圧すべきである強硬に主張している人々はごく少数であるにもかかわらず、そうなのです。検閲を要求・支持している人々には、彼らなりの利害があります。そのことを考えると、歴史解釈を大きく修正することに対する、結束した強力な抵抗戦線が存在していることも理解できます[8]。でも、ここでは政治的な議論に立ち入りたくはありません。

　検閲がもっとも華々しく実行されているのはドイツです。ドイツ国民の多くは、実際にはそうではないにもかかわらず、ドイツ国歌の一番を歌うことは禁止されていると思い込んでいるという事実からも、ドイツで広まっている心性を見てとることができます[9]。

L：でも、この歌詞は第二次世界大戦中に間違った目的のために乱用されてので、歌うべきではないではないでしょうか。

R：この歌詞を歌うべきか歌わざるべきかという問題には関心がありません。関心があるのは、国民の大半が、古くからの伝統となっている国歌の一部を歌うことが禁止されていると思い込んでいる国家とはどのような国家なのかということです。国歌を歌い、国旗を振ることがごく正常なことであるとみなされている国々と比較すれば、もっと問題の本質が見えてくるでしょう。イギリスの新聞『インディペンデント』（2001年）は、ドイツでは国歌斉唱と国旗掲揚を行なっているのは「間抜けとネオナチ」だけだと指摘していますが、この指摘は正しいのです[10]。言い換えれば、普通の自然なナショナリズムが、ドイツではネオナチ的とみなされているのです。国民の大半が罪に問われることを避けるために、禁止されていると思い込んでいる歌を歌うことをためらっている国家、歌詞を口ずさむのをためられっている国家とはどのような国家なのでしょうか？そのような歌や歌詞を禁止することを認めている、ひいてはきわめて当然であると考えている国民の心理状態とはどのようなものであるのでしょうか？

　このような国家、このような国民の心理状態が仮説の話ではないことは、フランク・レニッケのケースからもわかります。彼は、民族主義的な作曲家で、繰り返し告訴され、ついには、懲役の判決を受けました。そのような処分を受けたのは、彼の作った歌が、内容は平和的なものであるにもかかわらず、非常に政治的であり、彼がドイツの社会的・政治的破局の原因であるとみなしている事態に抗議していたためです[11]。彼のケースは氷山の一角にすぎません。

　例えば、歴史の教師ハンス‐ユルゲン・ヴィッチュのケースを紹介しておきましょう。彼は、学問的には根拠のある修正主義的見解を持っているという咎で訴追され、投獄されました[12]。歴史家をその学術的見解ゆえに投獄してしまうような政府とは一体どのような政府なのでしょうか？

　また、ヴィルヘルム・シュテークリヒ判事のケースもあります。彼は、修正主義的な研究書を執筆した咎で学位を剥奪され、研究書も焚書処分となりました（2.7参照）。

　さらに、ドイツのメインストリームの歴史学教授ヘルムート・ディヴァルト教授への追悼論文集（1994年）は、一体どのような運命をたどったことでしょうか[13]。この本には、多くのドイツ人研究者が寄稿しており、そこには、すでに引用しました「ディヴァルト・スキャンダル」についてのロベルト・ヘップの論文も入っています。ヘップは、ラテン語で書かれた脚注を記しています。ラテン語をよくことができる人は数少ないと思いますので、それをかなり短縮しておきます[14]。

“Sunt apud nos cogitationes liberae in foro interno, constrictae tamen in foro publico. […] Ego quidem illud iudaeorum gentis excidium, ratione institutum et in ‘castris extinctionis’ gaso pernicioso methodice peractum, veram fabulam esse nego. Sed documentorum et argumentorum scholae revisionisticae ratione habita haud scio, an hoc verum sit. […]”

　ここで、ヘップ教授は次のように述べています。ドイツでは、特定のテーマについての言論の自由は制限されており、異端的見解を公的に表明すると処罰される。このテーマで、本当の見解を発表したければ、何らかの方法を使わなくてはならない。このために、この脚注はラテン語で書かれている。絶滅収容所なるものでのユダヤ人虐殺に使われたガス室の物語は真実ではない。修正主義者の議論の方が説得力がある、と。

　ヘップ教授は、このラテン語の脚注の件のために、「憎悪を煽った」、「大衆を煽動した」との咎で訴追されました。時効となっていたので、彼個人は起訴されなかったが、記念論文集は没収され [15]、ドイツ警察の監督の下で、ゴミ焼却炉で燃やされました。

L：ラテン語の脚注のために訴追されたのですか？ラテン語の脚注が大衆を煽動することができるのでしょうか？大衆はその中身がわかりもしないのに。

R：

L: All because of a footnote in Latin? How can a footnote in Latin incite the

masses to anything? They cannot understand it, to begin with!

R: In Germany language is irrelevant but content is everything. So, what kind of a

political system is it that burns a scholarly anthology dedicated to one of Germany’s

great post-war historians?

L: Hepp and Diwald were but only right-wing historians.

R: So what does that mean? That they do not have a right to express their scholarly

opinion? Is that the meaning of Article 5, Section 3, of the German Basic

Law: Research and teaching are free, as long as researchers and teachers do not

air any right-wing views? And who defines what right-wing views are, other

than views that are unacceptable to those in power?

Two examples illustrate, where this kind of thinking leads to. The first occurred

on October 27, 2000, and concerns the rejection by a Chemnitz public prosecutor

to open investigations about a complaint made by a German conservative

political activist who felt defamed because the media had labeled him a “Nazi.”

The public prosecutor justified his decision not to open an investigation as follows:

1340

“In determining the question whether the labeling as neo-Nazi is defamatory,

it is important to consider how an impartial observer, an average

reader understands this expression. Particularly when considering the background

of frequent recent public discussions of ‘right-wing violence,’ the

term neo-Nazi is used as a collective term for all persons who are associated

to the political right-wing spectrum in any which way, without differentiating

between memberships to any group within the right-wing spectrum. The

term used here does therefore not constitute defamation, but merely assigns

the complainant to a group. As the chairman of the Junge Landsmannschaft

of Saxony and Lower Silesia [youth organization of Saxon patriots] he is

without a doubt to be categorized as a person with a right-wing orientation.”

L: In other words: right = neo-Nazi = devilish = outlawed.

R: Exactly, especially because neo-Nazis are generally considered to be the

dredges of humanity.

The second example shows what can happen when the hysterical hunt for anything

actual or only alleged right-wing begins. The Austrian Professor Dr.

Werner Pfeifenberger once taught politics at a respected German university.

Then he committed the crime of taking a quotation from German communist

1339 AG Tubingen, ref. 4 Gs 1085/97.

1340 Facsimile reproduction in TR 1(2) (2003), p. 216; www.vho.org/Intro/StA-Nazi1.png&~/Sta-

Nazi2.png.

GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST 505

Kurt Tucholsky out of context, who had once

written that the German bourgeoisie should be

gassed. As dramatic as this may sound, Tucholsky’s

text was opposing any war, the consequences

of which – for example poison gas attacks

– he wished the bourgeoisie to experience

themselves in order to finally become pacifist.

Professor Pfeifenberger used this and other truncated

quotations in an article, in which he compared

nationalism and internationalism. That was

the reason why he was finally labeled and

shunned as a “right winger” and persecuted. He

was exposed to a media hate campaign, lost his

teaching position, and at the end was even indicted

in Austria for re-engaging in National Socialist

activities, which can be punished with up

to twenty years in prison. With the complete

breakdown of his private life and his career and

confronted with a possible prison term, he committed

suicide on May 13, 2000.1341

L: Oh, my God! First books get burned, and now

even people die!

R: Yes, and they also burn. To that a final example, even if it doesn’t concern an

academic. Reinhold Elstner, a German war veteran, had suffered for many

years under what he termed “the Niagara flood of lies” and distorted history

with which he and his generation have been doused. In 1995 he wrote a passionate

appeal to the German people to stop these lies and distortions. On April

25, 1995, he went to the Munich Feldherrenhalle, poured gasoline over himself

and lit a match. He died shortly thereafter.1342

L: That is an act of a stupid fanatic.

R: You can view it like that. But the reaction from the German authorities was just

as stupid and fanatical. They confiscated Elstner’s last appeal and prohibited its

publication. They also prohibited any commemorative meetings for him at the

Feldherrenhalle, and to this day they remove and destroy any wreath or flowers

that were and are placed there in Reinhold Elstner’s memory.

L: That reminds me somehow of the reaction by the communist administration in

Czechoslovakia, when in 1969 the Prague student Jan Palach emulated himself

in protest against the Soviet Union’s repression of the “Prague Spring.”

R: The parallel is quite striking.

The tangled web of censorship and persecution of dissenters in Germany cannot

be presented here in detail, so I can only make a reference to further publi-

1341 See Otto Scrinzi, “Menschenjagd bis in den Tod,” Aula, 6/2000; and Rudi Zornig, “Zum Gedenken an

Werner Pfeifenberger,” VffG 4(2) (2000), pp. 131f.

1342 See: Reinhold Elstner, “Zum Gedenken an Reinhold Elstner,” VffG, 4(2) (2000), pp. 127-130.

Ill. 156: Feldherrenhalle,

Munich: stains of the fire

left behind by Reinhold

Elstner.

506 GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST

cations.1343 But what I may present here are data published by the German Office

for the Protection of the Constitution about what the German authorities

call “propaganda offences.” Besides historical expressions there are also all

sorts of political expressions as well as the displaying of prohibited flags, symbols,

emblems, pictures, the distribution, playing or singing of prohibited

songs, and more. Some of these listed offences may indeed be associated with

the spreading of National Socialist thoughts, as are the painting of swastikas or

the spreading of some National Socialist quotations and symbols. All these activities

are legal, for example, in the U.S. or in the UK.

L: Considering German history they should indeed be prohibited.

R: I think we need to discuss that because if these things are prohibited, why not

also all material that comes from the communists? If we ban all things from the

“right,” why not also ban everything on the “left”? Everyone showing a red

five-pointed star, waving a flag with hammer and sickle, singing the Internationale,

selling copies of the Communist Manifesto or the Captial, and so on,

ought to be punished. Considering the duty to treat all citizens equally, who

could object? But if we treat everyone as the “right-wingers” are treated in

Germany, who would not be ostracized and persecuted? After all, even if we

accept the official versions of history, then the “left” communism of the world

was still far more brutal than National Socialism. If you persecute “left-wing”

propaganda offences and anything that is “left-wing,” as the “right-wingers”

are persecuted, then we would soon have everything off-limit, persecuted, and

possibly be all imprisoned. It would be easier again to build a wall around

Germany and convert the whole country into a huge prison camp, as did the

leaders of former communist East Germany, Ulbricht and Honecker.

L: But you cannot compare these things. In any case in Germany the Nazis raged

more than the communists.

R: Even that is debatable. After all, the National Socialists are not responsible for

the victims of the ethnic cleansing of eastern Germany and eastern Europe from

all Germans, which rests mainly on Stalin’s shoulders. I may also point out that

you are trying to impose an illegal and immoral system of collective responsibility:

You justify the restricting of civil rights of all Germans living today with

what some of their grandfathers or great-grandfathers are claimed to have done.

A moral person cannot accept that.

In my opinion there should be no such thing as “propaganda offences” in a

constitutional, democratic state. Only clear incitements to, or approval of, actual

crimes should be open to criminal investigation, like for example statements

similar to “No civil rights for Greenlanders!” or “It is a good thing to

murder those who fanatically believe they were chosen by God.” It is not the

expression of peaceful opinions that ought to be prosecuted, but any attempt by

authorities to suppress such opinions ought to be prosecuted.

1343 See: Anton Magerle (=G Rudolf), “Eine Zensur findet nicht statt, es sei denn…”VffG 2(4) 1998, pp.

300-307, on the Internet at www.vho.org/censor/D.html (also in English); cf. also G. Rudolf, “Discovering

Absurdistan?” TR 1(2) (2003), p. 203-219; G. Rudolf, op. cit. (75).

GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST 507

L: Then in Germany a number of judges and

public prosecutors would be off to jail.

R: Not necessarily, since according to fundamental

legal principles laws cannot be enforced

retroactively (ex post facto). But if today’s

violations of fundamental civil rights

by German authorities will in future be found

to have been in violation of then already existing

laws – which I think is the case – then,

yes, the prisons will fill up swiftly.

Now just a few words on the mechanism of

German censorship, so that you understand

what we are dealing with here. There are

German police units that are responsible for

the protection of the constitution, and its

members investigate and prosecute those individuals

deemed to be committing propaganda

offences.

I hear irritating murmurings? Yes, ladies and

gentlemen, because modern Germany considers

itself to be a “democracy willing to defend

itself,” its police forces have quite large

“state protection departments.” There investigations are directed by specially

trained public prosecutors who do nothing but prosecute “political” offences. In

German courts of law such offences are heard before so-called “state protection

chambers,” which have specialized themselves in political trials.

L: I thought Germany did not have a political penal system, since officially at

least there is no political persecution.

R: This illusion I must take from you.

L: So, anyone accused before these courts of propaganda offences and sentenced

to a prison term can be regarded as political prisoners?

R: Right. In a yearly tally of some 10,000 initiated criminal investigations involving

thought crimes there would be about a few hundred that end with a prison

term. The majority of investigations is either shelved because of unknown perpetrators

or a defendant is given a fine. There are also acquittals, of course.

Only a minority of these cases reaches a trial judge, and again a minority of

these end with a prison sentences.

Censorship in Germany is enforced in two steps. On the one hand any court can

determine the prohibition of a medium, and on the other hand the Bundesprufstelle

fur jugendgefahrdende Medien (BPjM, Federal Office for Media Endangering

the Youth) can “index” a medium, that is to say, it can prohibit that it be

offered or sold publicly. In the past the lists of indexed media were openly

1344 Bundesministerium des Inneren (ed.), Bundesverfassungsschutzbericht (Report of the German Office

for the Protection of the Constitution), Bundesdruckerei, Bonn 1995-2005, quoting data as provided by

the German Federal Bureau of Investigation (Bundeskriminalamt). (see www.verfassungsschutz.de).

Tab. 27: Germany tYear Right Left Foreign Total

1994 5,562 185 235 5,982

1995 6,555 256 276 7,087

1996 7,585 557 818 8,960

1997 10,257 1,063 1,249 12,569

1998 9,549 1,141 2,098 12,788

1999 8,651 1,025 1,525 11,201

2000 13,863 979 525 15,367

2001 8,874 429 353 9,656

2002 9,807 331 467 10,605

2003 9,692 431 1,340 11,463

2004 10,915 410 341 11,666

Total: 101,310 6,807 9227 117,344

– Right: “Offenses with right wing extremis

508 GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST

available at larger libraries, but because such lists indirectly advertise prohibited

material, they are now housed under lock and key.

L: That is quite appropriate if it concerns pornography and horror movies.

R: The Bundesprufstelle was originally established in order to prevent the distribution

of such material to children and adolescents, and that is still its primary

function to this day.

L: No objections arise out of this.

R: Correct. As early as 1990, Dr. Eckhart Jesse, sociology professor in Chemnitz,

criticized the Bundesprufstelle in a publication of the German Office for the

Protection of the Constitution for conducting a one-sided battle against what it

considers to be right-wing media.1345 According to Jesse the censorship measures

of the BPjM:1346

“are difficult to reconcile with the principles of a free society […] because

the written and spoken word must not be subjected to guardianship. […] A

free society must not suffocate or suppress the free exchange of ideas and

viewpoints.”

R: In 2004 the German law to protect the youth was tightened regarding material

that violates criminal law – meaning: the really “dangerous” political and historical

material such as this very book. According to this new law, the Bundesprufstelle

now has to keep such really dangerous media in secret lists that must

not be made accessible to the public.1347

L: This means German citizens cannot even inform themselves what material is

prohibited?

R: Exactly. The next step of German censorship – the prohibition, confiscation,

and total destruction of material through German court orders – also remains a

secret to most citizens, because these judgments are published in secret lists

that the German Federal Bureau of Investigation collects.1348 Anyone who

thinks about getting prohibited material for distribution, production, importing,

exporting, storing, offering, reviewing, selling, or bringing it into circulation in

any other way, will receive a visit from the police.

L: But how can you prevent committing a crime when the authorities keep secret

what is prohibited?

R: Ignorance is no protection from prosecution.

L: But you cannot do anything about becoming knowledgeable about what is prohibited,

since it is secret…

R: Bad luck. That is part of being a citizen of a “democracy willing to defend

itself,” the German type. Add to this that the German authorities have installed

a denunciation telephone line where you can report suspicious “right-wing” activities:

01805-234566. Such a number is also available in France.

L: What do you have against a democracy willing to defend itself?

1345 Eckhard Jesse, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 304, cf. p. 289.

1346 Ibid., pp. 287, 303.

1347 JuSchuG, Art. 18, Sec. 2, 3-4; Bundesgesetzblatt 2002, I, p. 2730, 2003, I, pp. 476, 3007, 3076,

(www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Abteilung5/Pdf-Anlagen?juschg-stand-01-04-04, property=pdf.pdf)

1348 See: Richtlinien fur das Strafverfahren und das Bussgeldverfahren no. 208, II + IV; according to: Gerd

Pfeiffer (ed.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 3rd ed., Beck, Munich 1993, p. 2147.

GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST 509

R: As long as this defensiveness does not unnecessarily restrict basic civil rights,

nothing really. But how would you justify this present book’s confiscation on

grounds that it “incites to hatred”? Then the German authorities secretly incinerate

the confiscated books, and anyone caught buying copies as gifts for

friends or relatives ends up in front of a criminal court. Distributing the book

you are holding in your very hands right now is an offence punishable with up

to five years in prison in Germany. And you call that a democracy under the

rule of law?

Let me support this with a quotation from an expert. On January 19, 1993, Eike

Musmann, professor of criminology at the Academy of Public Administration

in Ludwigsburg (Germany), held a lecture at Stuttgart before the Catholic student

fraternity Nordgau Prag, to which I then belonged. The topic was “The

Police in times of change.” In his presentation he was critical of the constant

undermining of civil rights in Germany and the extension of police powers.

Professor Musmann noted that should this trend not be reversed he would not

like to live in Germany in forty years because Germany would have become a

police state along the lines of the Orwellian model.

L: It appears as if Professor Musmann overestimated the time needed for German

politicians to achieve this change.

R: That is how I see things, too. Revisionists repeatedly pointed out this dangerous

development. For example, I may remind you that in 2000 a free issue of the

journal The Revisionist was distributed as an insert in the university newspaper

at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. This issue of The Revisionist carried

an article on the escalating persecution and book burning with focus on

Germany by drawing parallels to Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451.1349

Some students of that university were so enraged – not about these violations

of the most basic civil rights in Germany, but about finding revisionist material

in their newspaper – that they publicly burned this free journal (see p. 112)!

Hence, I doubt that most members of our species deserve the adjective

“sapiens.”

Of special concern for the German and French authorities is the Internet, as you

can well imagine, because this medium has democratized the mass media.

Without incurring great expenditure, anyone can now express their views to

anyone else. Of course, it wasn’t long before the French and German authorities

took up this challenge. At first the large search engines of the Internet were

threatened with legal action if they did not stop showing prohibited Internet

material as search results. Step by step the search engines programmed their

websites so that visitors from Germany and France would be directed to sites

where certain “prohibited” Internet contents are not shown. For example, the

largest search engine in the world www.google.com shows all pages of the

largest revisionist website www.vho.org. Not so the French or German versions

of the Google search engine www.google.fr and www.google.de, which do not

1349 Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Hart-Davis, London 1967; republished by Long Beach Public Library

Foundation, Long Beach, CA, 2005.

510 GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST

display a single page of www.vho.org.1350 The German censors took it one step

further by threatening with legal action all Internet service providers who pass

on prohibited content to their users.1351 Hence I receive information from Germany,

even from Switzerland, that my website www.vho.org has become inaccessible.

L: The dream of democratizing the media seems to be a nightmare for the democrats.

R: As you can see, the censors are hitting back. Parallel with the ever increasing

Holocaust propaganda since the 1950s, there is an ever increasing censorship

rage among central and western European politicians, and the hardest hit victims

are the dissenting historians, the revisionists.

Imagine what would happen if the persecution experienced by revisionists had

happened to other groups, for example Jews, homosexuals, women, left-wing

individuals. A world-wide media campaign would begin. But because the victims

are merely perceived as being “right-wingers,” the matter is ignored and

silently dismissed. Viewed objectively, however, there is no difference between

Jehovah Witnesses and communists on the one hand, who were imprisoned

during the Third Reich,1352 and right-wingers and revisionists on the other

hand, who challenge the official historiography about the Third Reich and are

imprisoned in today’s Germany because of their publications.

L: It appears hardly anyone in Germany cares about this increase in censorship.

R: Fear is all pervasive. Courage, which should first of all be directed against

those misusing their political power, is in Germany a rare virtue. Even during

1914 and 1939 the German underling hated to question the authority of the bureaucrats

and judicial system, something that is still a transgression for him today.

Hardly anyone warns about the continued undermining of civil rights, and

most merely bitch in their splendid isolated cellars.

It appears that the German tradition of freedom of speech and thought is rather

underdeveloped. In view of German history, it would be the proper reaction to

apply universal human rights strictly and impartially to anyone – and not to

deny them to the “right” side of the political spectrum for a change, as is the

case today. Regarding civil rights, Germany finds itself in a vicious circle,

where the pendulum is madly swinging from one extreme to another. It is time

for it to come to rest, to balance in the middle.

1350 G. Rudolf, “Censorship of the Internet,” TR 1(2) (2003), pp. 220-222.

1351 Online-Demonstration, “BRD plant totale Internetzensur in Deutschland,” VffG 8(2) (2004), pp. 228-

231; cf. Reuter, Bonn, August 20, 1997 (www.vho.org/News/D/News4_97.html#minister); Der

Spiegel, 35/2000, p. 17 (~/News3_00.html#n68); Suddeutsche Zeitung, September 14, 2003

(~/News1_04.html#m24); similarly also in Australia (~/News1_00.html#30).

1352 Although it can be argued that initially communists were not imprisoned because of their views but

rather because one feared physical acts of violence.