I guess the moral of the story is Holocaust Deniers can't have defense attorneys, becauase that in effect makes the defense attorney a Holocaust Denier also. It makes perfect sense if you are a filthy Kike.

The Jews are scared shitless that their Hoax will be generally known. Then, the People will ask, "If the Jews are capable of a lie that big, what other lies have they been telling"? Then, the big die-off of Jews will begin until they join the dinosaurs as just another extinct monster.

People 50 and over probably wouldn't have that much trouble believing the Jews could pull off a lie that big - they grew up on stories of the Soviet Union : "The communists believe they are the greatest country and we are the worst because the government won't let them hear anything but lies". Something like that.

I admire the courage, but fail to understand WHY she defends herself before the colonial court. If I'd be in hers place, I would refuse to participate in any way to the trial, as a sign of absolute contempt and disbelief in its legitimacy. Any participation makes the trial appear legitimate and the court permeable to reason.

But the trial is anything BUT legitimate. The nature of an historical event (Holocaust, in our cause) is a matter of historians only. Prosecuting people for disbelief is absolutely untenable on logical grounds, which is why it's done using totalitarian methods and rationalle ("If X says Y and Y is a tenet of the Enemy, then X must be an enemy of the people and it is imperative to confine him.") As in any totalitarian country, the purpose of law enforcement is no longer to serve the citizen, but to enforce total control and prosecute ideological crimes. The laws against "hatred" (which actually means ANYTHING JEWS HATE) actively switch the justice process from punishing actions into punishing thoughts (deemed to automatically result into a prosecutable action, unless the individual is stopped).

Had the court been permeable to reason, it would accept expertise on both sides and further decide which one holds more truth. Yet it apriori takes the "deniar" side as infrequentable and thus shields itself of meaningful debate. It thus becomes apparent that the actual purpose of the court is to expediently condemn the defendant.

problem is, if it's not on tv, for america and much of the rest of the world now, it didn't happen.

so, sylvia stolz's trial isn't happening, because it ain't on tv. the people don't know about it. so it isn't real. so it doesn't matter.

thus, why we must have alternative mass media power. somehow. or we are doomed.

the average american white is not a natural moron; he is an aritificial, jew-made moron.

During the initial stages of the trial, Sylvia Stolz stated that the Holocaust was not "obvious" - as claimed per judicial notice. "Obviousness" was merely faked utilizing evidence tampering, false witness statements, torture, brute force, opinion suppression, threats as to one's loss of livelihood and systematic eradication/annihilation of so-called revisionists, the banning of revisionists' books, and the criminal pursuit of everyone expressing publicly some doubts about the Holocaust. The punishment of Holocaust deniers would come to an end very soon, she said, because too many people worldwide were waking up to the suppressed facts.

Sylvia Stolz! What she said!

I'm in awe!

We must all use her words - incessantly.

.

What we really need is a Political Prisoner Forum. These important issues must stay on the radar.

Notice the sensible racial doctrine described, instead of the half-Jew = nonjew formula of today.

"Racial Doctrines. To this [Nazi party] political pageantry was added the myth of race. Jews were persecuted in ways which reached horrible excesses during World War II. They were denied the privileges of membership in the German Volk, (people, folk, or race). Many Jews lost their property by confiscation; and infinitesimal traces of Jewish blood, inherited from great-grandfathers or more remote relatives, disqualified professional men and civil servants from their occupations and their place in society. To the hardships of loss of livelihood were added the horrors of concentration camps. Still, the opportunity to leave Germany was denied to this oppressed minority.

Terror was employed with calculated brutality to intimidate the whole citizen body. The secret police, the Gestapo, after 1934 under the direction of Heinrich Himler, used methods of espionage, secret arrest, concentration camps, and punishments of extroardinary cruelty. Political activity was monopolized, education and communication completely controlled. By these methods, now notorious, the Nazi leaders galvanized their following, and worked their will upon the German nations."-
from "The Government of Foreign Powers" by Philip W. Buck (Stanford University) and John W. Masland (Dartmouth College), copyright 1947, July 1948, October 1948.

His bio below. Note Army connections and Judeo-Berkeley connections.

PHILIP W. BUCK (1900 – 1985) Philip W. Buck, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, died on December 6, 1985 after only a few days illness. He was a specialist in comparative government with a particular interest
in Great Britain, served as Executive Head of the Political Science Department, and for many
years was chairman of the Rhodes Scholar Selection Department Committee at Stanford. He
first came to Stanford in 1934 and, except for a brief period after his retirement in 1965, he lived
here for 51 years.

Professor Buck was born in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 1900 but grew up in Idaho. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Idaho in 1923 where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In the same year he was appointed Rhodes Scholar, and in 1926 was awarded a first class honors degree from Oxford in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Returning to the United States he was appointed Assistant Professor of History and Government at Mills College where, at times, he also served as chairman of the department. During much of his tenure at
Mills (1926-1934) he also pursued graduate work at the University of California - Berkeley where he was awarded his doctorate in political science in 1933.

In 1934 Phil accepted a reduction in rank and salary to come to Stanford as Instructor in Political Science. At Stanford his advancement was meteoric and in a brief seven years he was promoted through the ranks to Professor of Political Science in 1941. During the Second World War he was Assistant Director of the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) and Director
of Advanced European Area and Language Training at Stanford. From 1947 through 1951 he was Executive Head of the Political Science Department. Of greater importance to Phil was his chairmanship of the Committee on Rhodes Scholarships. After a long period in which Stanford
had been unsuccessful in the Rhodes competition, President Wilbur appointed Phil to the position with the express charge to return Stanford to the winning column. That he was able to do so in his first year as chairman was always a source of pride and gratification to Phil, and he
continued in this post well into the administration of President Sterling.

Phil's standing as a scholar was owed especially to his study, The Politics of Mercantilism (1942). In this study he revealed the surprising degree to which the mercantilist theorists of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries accepted uncritically the extension of state
power beyond the political to the economic realm and the vesting of this power entirely in the executive branch. Mercantilist writers, he found, fully appreciated the interdependence of political and economic phenomena, but their attention was focused almost entirely on
enhancement of the power of the state through economic aggrandizement at the expense of other states. Neglected in their writings was any notice of the controversy which raged in their times over issues such as the relations between the throne and Parliament or the dangers to human liberty derived from placing nearly all power in the hands of the government. In a final chapter
he was able to draw a parallel between the mercantilist state and the new communist and fascist regimes in Europe. The book evoked great interest and was widely and favorably reviewed.

I guess the moral of the story is Holocaust Deniers can't have defense attorneys, becauase that in effect makes the defense attorney a Holocaust Denier also. It makes perfect sense if you are a filthy Kike.

This is what you call "democracy" - the wonderful gift given to the evil, pathological German people by the kind, humane victorious Allies.

I do believe Germany is a model for the middle east - bomb the shit out of them to reduce resistance, install puppet government followed by show trial, create endless propagandizing through media which they hope will turn Iraq into a mindless consumer McCulture populated with herd animals too fat to fight even if the farfetched thought crossed their minds. Malleable citizens are good citizens.

Tens of thousands of books in post-war Germany were banned. The foreign occupiers were taking it upon themselves to benevolently teach the stupid evil Krauts what they can and cannot read, what their history is and so forth. The mistake of the German people is allowing foreign occupiers to tell them what right and wrong is and what their history is.

People like Stolz and Zundel who occasionally pop their heads out of the ground in realization of this are smacked immediately by the compliant puppet courts. Obviously laws against "holocaust denial" are of Jewish origin, nobody else would care to criminalize someone saying that they do not believe Jews were fried to death on electric floors in Poland.

And while we McAmericans are bombarded with propaganda about Saddam's courts and how he mistreated dissidents, we are told that Germany is a "free" country - even while it jails tens of thousands for thought crimes.