The world stirs.

The financial crisis has shattered our blind faith in the prevailing economic and
political system. But the good thing about every crisis is: it makes you think. Many suspect
that the alleged solutions proposed by government are no remedies at all, but merely
measures intended to keep the system alive. With justification the idea is spreading that the
whole thing actually is a gigantic redistribution of money and power into the hands of a small
number of people.

Our system – like all systems – is supported by fundamental principles, that cannot be shaken
without putting the whole in danger. Such principles are for that reason always taboo zones.
He who wishes to make progress, or even merely be tolerated in our society does well to
acknowledge, or at least not to openly dispute, certain core beliefs: To these belong devotion to
the free market, as well as the interest based economy and the independence of the banking
system, to so-called parliamentary democracy, including the attendant two-party left/right
system, devotion to philosemitism, antiracism, homosexuality, and abortion together with the
highest praises for the human rights to which one considers oneself part of. It is certainly
permitted to belong to whatever religion or philosophy one wishes to – but subject to the tacit
assumption that one doesn't really take it seriously. Otherwise, very quickly it begins to smell a
bit like fundamentalism. In today's political and media environment, a fundamentalist is
anyone who holds his Catholic, or Evangelical, or Islamic, or national perceptions – or whatever
feelings of any kind – above those highest of values enumerated above. That is why
fundamentalists cannot be tolerated under the ‘globalized’ New World Order that is the central
theme of American politics. Incidentally, it is only a very small step that separates the
fundamentalist from being maligned as a terrorist. And it is not necessary here to point out to
you what sort of treatment awaits terrorists. That has been dealt with by 9/11.

The thoughtful European notes with puzzlement that the taboo zones, identified by Political
Correctness and guarded by the judiciary and media, grow more numerous every day. The
citizen is condemned to silence by all manner of gag laws and intimidated further by the threat
of the grotesque EU arrest warrant. He no longer knows what is punishable by law, nor where,
nor why. In 2007, it is said, nearly 14,000 "right-wing crimes"– whatever those might be –
were committed in Germany, of which a few hundred were violent. After subtracting the latter
group there remain some 13,000 politically motivated non-violent "crimes". That is remarkable,
especially in light of the incessant reminders by self-righteous German politicians in China and
elsewhere to "uphold human rights." Obviously, the much heralded rights of freedom of
expression, academic freedom, freedom of religious or philosophical belief, etc., are valid only if
they do not contradict any of the enshrined Stone Tablets of Western Values.

The greatest oddity of all these taboo zones is one of historical nature. And that is as soon as
National Socialism or the so-called Third Reich is mentioned then contemporary thinking is
abandoned completely. The brain is deprived of its function and quasi religious-like reflexes
appear. All powers of reasoning cease, any doubting of the standard practise of ‘Judgement and
Conviction’ is regarded as inappropriate, even malign. Here there is only one opinion allowed:
the National Socialists – read the Germans - are perpetrators, and exclusively so, and the Jews
are victims, and that forever. The uproar about Martin Hohmann and General Reinhard
Guenzel, about Erika Steinbach and Eva Herrmann, or recently, Thilo Sarrazin illustrates
this point well. For respectable people anyone who doubts this supreme doctrine is no longer a
discussion partner, but instead a leper and a heretic rolled into one, subjected instantly to
inquisitorial judgment, ostracism, and economic destruction. And everyone who has anything
to do with such a person must immediately distance himself.

That is especially true for the Holocaust, the killing zone of this minefield. The never-ending
media hype surrounding Bishop Richard Williamson brought this taboo to the forefront once
again. Frau Merkel sees it as her duty to instruct the Pope, the Pope sees it necessary to ask
the bishop to make a retraction and the German Justice Department was considering issuing an
international arrest warrant against the churchman. Eventually, he was fined 12,000 Euro -
why? Because he judges a historical fact differently from the way that is usual and permitted.
This is heresy. This means nothing other than that part of the field of contemporary history has
been removed from scholarly discussion, and is elevated into the sphere of religion, and indeed
a kind of world religion that in Germany has unmistakably acquired the status of a semi-official
state religion.

While the media campaign against Williamson was in full swing, the revisionist and lawyer
Horst Mahler was sentenced in Munich as well as in Potsdam to a total of over twelve years'
imprisonment for having denied the Holocaust and for having examined the Yahweh religion.
Mahler's assistant, the lawyer Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced in 2007 to 3 ½ years in jail and
there and then immediately conducted out of the courtroom. The reason: she defended the
German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zündel in court in Mannheim and attempted to prove that
the defendant was right. Zündel himself received five years, whereby the two years' detention
while awaiting trial in most shameful conditions [in Canada] were not counted. Thus Zündel got
seven years because he distributed material over his Internet site that appeared to show there
was evidence against the argument of the mass gassing of Jews.

Shortly after Zündel was imprisoned the chemist and author of several books Germar Rudolf,
originally a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, received a jail sentence of 2 ½
years because, on the basis of his personal research in Auschwitz, he believed he had come the
same conclusions as other researchers before him, for example, the Frenchman Robert
Faurisson, a university professor for documentary research and textual criticism in Lyon and
at the Sorbonne in Paris. Faurisson has several times been fined astronomical sums in France,
and had suffered bodily injury by unidentified thugs. One of the best-known revisionist
researchers and writers, is the Swiss teacher of languages and literature and Scandinavian
studies Jürgen Graf, sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment in Switzerland for denying the
Holocaust. By absconding to Russia and exile he avoided captivity. Also on the run is the
French chemical engineer Vincent Reynouard who is the father of seven children. In Austria,
the legal expert Dipl Ing Wolfgang Frohlich is in jail for the second time because he does not
accept the official version of the Holocaust. Where is Amnesty International? Where the
European Court of Human Rights? Where the outcry from the media? Where the student
protests? Where the church?

All these men and women and many others, for example, Ursula Haverbeck, Dipl. Pol. Udo
Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Dr. Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz have
committed no offence other than to have arrived at conclusions from their research and
analysis that diverge from the official line – and that they admittedly then addressed detailed
questions to those who disseminated the alleged false information around the world.

It is the pride of Western science – ever since the Renaissance, and in particular since the
Enlightenment – to allow nothing to be sacrosanct, to have no taboos, and to accept nothing
short of absolute objectivity. Revision – that is examination, verification and questioning, is a
basic principle of science. All else is dogmatism. Science cannot accept religious, political or
other social premises. In the sense of the natural sciences, there is no Christian reality nor
Unchristian reality, no moral nor immoral truth. The researcher therefore has a right to err,
since no one is in possession of absolute truth. Science has replaced the era of confession with
an age of knowledge. Applied to research into the Holocaust this means: Research may not be
distorted by philo-Semitic nor by anti-Semitic reactions, any more than it may by philo-
Germanic or anti-Germanic ones. Whether one likes the Jews or the Germans, or dislikes them
is, as far as research is concerned, not a deciding factor and may not be allowed to influence it
in any way.

Frau Merkel said in her message to Pope Benedict XVI: There can be no denial of the
Holocaust. What does this mean: There “can” not be? Does this mean after all – contrary to all
scientific method – that there are global political forces influencing the decision making of both
the Germany head of state as well as the highest Churchman of Christendom? At least
comments have been made that suggest this. As early as 21 May 1979 Professor William
Rubinstein of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in the "Nation Review”: If it was
ever proven that the Holocaust was a Zionist myth, Israel would lose its number one
propaganda weapon. And after the German lecturer and revisionist Günther Deckert was
sentenced to several years in prison, the Feuilleton editor of the Frankfurter newspaper FAZ
Bahlers said on 15 August 1994: If Deckert’s view of the Holocaust was correct, then the
Federal Republic of Germany was founded on a lie. Each presidential speech, every minute of
silence, every history book would be a lie. In denying the murder of the Jews, he disputes the
legitimacy of the Federal Republic of Germany. If that’s not enough there would seem to be
larger issues at stake: The memory of the Holocaust is central to the New World Order. So
wrote Ian J. Kagedan, Director of the Canadian B'nai B'rith in the "Toronto Star" on
26.11.1991.
These nondescript newspaper reports enable us to understand why Frau Merkel has not
convened her own International Holocaust Conference in Berlin and subjected the assertions of
the revisionists to public discussion and appraisal. If she did the ‘sorry affair’ would once and
for all be laid bare and the "pseudo-scientific shambles" of the Holocaust deniers would be
exposed for all to see – and indeed by scientists, not merely by journalists. But this would
require argument and counterargument to be discussed. Is it to be feared that such a
discussion might produce results other than those that are politically desired? Is this why
revisionists are doing time in jail? Is this why their books are banned? Is this why the public is
being denied the means of evaluating the state of revisionist arguments? Courtroom practice
has apparently suffered a similar fate that “government approved science” has. Thus nowadays
in court – something that the public regretfully never learns – is that there is never an inquiry
into whether the accused may be right. The judge does not accept the admission of evidence
and if the accused should try to explain his position, he is liable to additional charges, as is his
lawyer! A judicial monstrosity. The fact of the genocide of millions in gas chambers is simply
assumed to be "manifestly obvious" and the court has then only to decide whether the
defendant has denied this manifest obviousness – and then to determine his sentence. A
historical event is simply raised to the status of common knowledge, i.e. a verifiable natural
law, while at the same time, factual verification of it is forbidden!
Is somebody here afraid of the truth?

The voices are becoming more numerous that advocate ending this appalling situation. After
Martin Walser criticized the "Auschwitz club" more than ten years ago, now according to the
Frankfurter newspaper FAZ on 10.07.2008, the former federal judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-
Riem has declared: As a lawmaker I would not make denying the Holocaust a punishable
offence. And 10 June 2008, the Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted a statement by Winfred
Hassemer, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Constitutional Court: I am not a supporter of
the criminalization of Holocaust denial. This means in plain text: The notorious § 13 paragraph
3 of the German Criminal Code “Volksverhetzung“ (Incitement of the Masses), as well as the
Swiss "Antirassismusgesetz” (Law against Racial Discrimination) and the Austrian
"Wiederbetätigungsgesetz" (Law against the Return to National Socialism) should be deleted
entirely as anti-democratic special laws.

In 2007 Prof. Karl Albert Schachtschneider, (University of Erlangen), gave a brilliantly clear
answer in a lecture in Salzburg. To the question: Do we have freedom of speech here? He
answered: A country in which free speech is suppressed by severe punishments is not
a free country. The great Immanuel Kant said about freedom of speech that one must
be free to say anything, whether it is true or untrue. Regarding the Holocaust, this or
that may be true or not true; I wasn't there. But the reason I don't discuss it, is
because it is forbidden. One is not allowed to discuss it, not even scientifically. The
offence as defined by „Volksverhetzung“ (Incitement of the Masses) prevents that.
This is not a free country.
(YouTube link to Prof. Dr. Schachtschneider http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_8Lrl6Lx4)

If we are not free, then we must free ourselves. We should not greet Gessler’s hat [part of
Swiss “William Tell” tradition]. Free speech - free country! The first step is to examine the
central historical and judicial taboos of the "New World Order", according to the principle
"Where everyone condemns, one must verify; where everyone praises, too.” One can only free
oneself from an enemy who is identified.
How true the sentence: Thought Sets You Free!

Bernhard Schaub is Swiss. He was a teacher of German and history at Waldorf schools in
Switzerland before was dismissed in 1993 due to the publication of a book in which he had
called for a neutral investigation of the Holocaust. He also lost a later position as academic
dean of an adult education school for similar reasons. In December 2006 he participated as a
speaker at the Holocaust Conference convened by President Ahmadinejad in Tehran. In the
autumn of 2007 he was convicted by a Swiss court for a renewed call for research into this
subject to three months imprisonment on probation. Bernhard Schaub is active as a speaker
and writer in the whole German-speaking world.