strategies to fight the Thought Police: Germar Rudolf

[wtfhappenedtohess]

http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/nym.shtml

Mr. Rudolf has, however, outdone all other deniers by the using a multiplicity of nyms in the footnotes, references, and attributions of all of his articles and books. One can see an article written , for example, by Germar Rudolf, in which he, quite dishonestly, cites an article by Ernst Gauss (one of his nyms) as a reference. In fact he often quite cavalierly cites four or five of his various nyms as references in many of his publications.

He also fraudulently assigns academic degrees to his nyms. For example:

Dr. Manfred Gerner
Dr. Ch. Konrad, Historiker
Dr. jur. Werner Kretschmer
Dr. Lennard Rose
Dr.Dr. R. Scholz, Chemiker und Pharmakologe
H.K. Westphal, Dipl.-Ingenieur

This is some pretty unfathomable deception here. I thought the cornerstone of revisionism was built on the pursuit of truth?

Creating hollow-identities to critique your own work seems very dishonest to me.

[PatrickSMcNally]

Creating hollow-identities to critique your own work seems very dishonest to me.

I'm not aware that Rudolf ever dropped to the level of what you're describing here. I am aware that he did publish several items under pennames and subsequently referenced them without (at the time initially) mentioning that these were his own writings. But I don't know of any case where he tried to present something written by himself as a "critique" of his own work. Generally Rudolf always maintained that orthodox historians simply avoided making any critiques of revisionist writings, although at times one could see that certain trends in the orthodox historiography had been influenced by arguments about revisionism. But such influence is generally not formaly acknowledged. It's perfectly plausible to suggest that Rudolf may have overused pennames unnecessarily, or at least it would be plausible if he hadn't been abducted in 2005. Pennames are usually used when someone fears repressive consequences which may arise from using their own real name openly. I can agree that it's generally better to write openly with one's real name, but police state tactics always seem to give a counter-argument to that. In any event, I know of no cases where Rudolf used a pseudonym to write what he pretended was a critique of his own work. That's an extreme charge and you should be prepared to support it. He wrote several items with varying pennames, but none of them ever posed as a critique of revisionism that I'm aware of. This is more the kind of technique which Abraham Foxman and David Irving like to play, with Foxman characterizing Irving as "the leading Holocaust denier" while Irving goes on telling us how Himmler did the whole thing behind Hitler's back. Now that's a real case of how the ADL promoted a puppet who acts as a "critic" for the dumbified masses. If you have any examples of Rudolf having done something like this then please let's see them.

[widmann]

Rudolf did utilize many different pseudonyms in his writing. However, this situation must be understood within the context of the German state and the legislative prohibition against Holocaust revisionism in force there. Germany would order Rudolf's arrest and even order that all copies of his landmark "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte" be burned!

An outstanding article on this subject is "Going Underground:'Catacomb Revisionists' and Revisionist Repression" by Frederic Freeman -- no doubt a pseudonym!

Freeman takes on the very article that you quote from. Here is a brief excerpt:

Perhaps the most read critique of revisionist use of pseudonyms is that of Harry Mazal of the Holocaust History Project, an anti-revisionist group that functions primarily on the Internet. Mazal mainly targeted Germar Rudolf, for what he calls his, "continuing attempt to obfuscate and confuse." Mazal writes,

"Mr. Rudolf, like many other Holocaust deniers, has created a variety of pseudonyms, referred to as nyms in common Internet parlance. Most deniers use such pseudonyms to conceal their identities in the various Usenet discussion groups."

Mazal may not go as far as Lipstadt in attributing sinister intentions to revisionists, but clearly he believes that the use of nyms as he calls them are all about creating confusion and covering up true identities. He also takes a shot at Samuel Crowell complaining, "Some, like "Samuel Crowell" use a nym to avoid embarrassment in their legitimate work place." Still, Mazal refuses to address why revisionists should be "embarrassed" in their work place and even further who might cause them "embarrassment." Beyond "embarrassment" many revisionists have lost careers due to their revisionist activities.

[Occam's Razor]

This is how Rudolf tried to defend himself:


http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/flaws.html
Germar Rudolf, Flaws of the State Under the Rule of Law
footnote #10:

This brochure was mainly written by me (under four pen names), but made fit for publication by Karl Philipp, who made some changes to it and chose Remer as editor and publisher to protect me legally (which worked). As far as I know, Remer was not involved in the actual production of the brochure, and I was never involved in its distribution. Therefore, no link ever existed between my writing the brochure-without any intention to do it for Remer-and the fact that Philipp put Remer’s name on it (probably even without Remer knowing it) after I had finished my writings. True, I never complained about it, but there was, realistically seen, no other way than Philipp’s way to have this brochure published swiftly-which was necessary since it was a reaction to a series of articles in a weekly newspaper-, and I did not intend to reveal my pen names to anybody anyway, so why bother?
It should be mentioned in this context that this brochure still causes me some trouble in that my use of four pen names for it (Dipl.-Ing. Hans Karl Westphal, engineer; Dr. Werner Kretschmer, barrister, Dr. Christian Konrad, historian, Dr.Dr. Rainer Scholz, chemist and pharmacologist), all of them pretending to have a different academic degree, led to the accusation of dishonesty and attempted confidence trickery (see, e.g., www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/che ... e-science/). The background of these pen names was not the attempt to impress people with phony doctorates, though I must admit that it can have this effect. I therefore wish to set the record straight by repeating what I stated already elsewhere (www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html):
The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title Die Zeit lügt!, published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This brochure is the fairest writing about the Holocaust controversy that ever appeared, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always has the means to check both points of view. Nobody else has ever done that before or since-on either side of this discussion.
Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of the authors given-simply because these names were added after the brochure was written-nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.
In spring and summer 1992, I was called by several defense lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on revisionists in Germany (Udo Walendy, District Court Bielefeld, February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Upper District Court Munich, March 1992; David Irving, County Court Munich, May 1992; Detscher, County Court Munich, July 1992; Max Wahl, District Court Munich, July 1992). In these trials-as in all trials against revisionists-the judges rejected any evidence presented by the defense, including all expert witnesses. In one case, I had to learn that a chemist (me) was rejected because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, and a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and perhaps even a barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court of law. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, I decided to mock it with a parody by inventing a person with all these features, but then Karl Philipp and I realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background. I think it is both tragic-for the victims of those German kangaroo trials-as well as funny-for the neutral observer to see the desperate attempts of German judges to keep any evidence out-, but the reader does, of course, not have to agree with me on that.

This is the (German) article the above text is refering to:
http://www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/Zeit.html
(read the English introduction)

This is also relevant:

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html
Germar Rudolf, Character assassins

Quoting Pen Names

McCarthy argues that every time I quote a work I have written using a pen name without expressively stating that this is me, I do so in order to use these authors' works "as authorities to bolster" my own arguments. That is untrue.

1. If I revealed a pen name every time I quoted it, what would be the use of pen names? If McCarthy agrees that using pen names is an acceptable measure to avoid social persecution and political prosecution, why then should it be dishonest not to reveal the pen name?
2. From time to time I indeed have indicated who is hiding behind certain pen names. Once you start doing so, you would have to do it always. But by doing so, I would have to expose others as well, who are hiding behind pen names and who would then immediately be exposed to heavy criminal prosecution in Europe. Does McCarthy want me to be responsible that people are being sent to prison because I have to be always honest and tell everybody the truth about every pen name? Would he have demanded this from dissident in the former USSR? Why is he demanding it from dissidents in the present People's Republic of Continental Europe?
3. Frequently I get chided for revealing my own pen names, simply because people think I should not give my readers the impression that I want to impress the public with the amount and importance of work that I am doing. So I stopped it. I don't want to appear arrogant.
4. In all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name, I never do it to say: "look, this expert has the same opinion as I have", but rather to say "this fact or argument was proven and published there."
5. Quoting works in science follows a certain formal procedure, as McCarthy and Dr. Green should know. The background of it is to enable the reader to find the quoted source. That means in our case that you refer to the author's name as it is to be found in the libraries' database. Giving a possible real name for a pen name that is not included in the library data is not additional data that enables anybody to find the work quoted better than without the real name given.

Trademark Pen Names

Yes, I used to use a pen name similar to one used by a German journalist as part of his smear campaigns against those he hates. Anton Maegerle, alias Gernot Moderi, is one of the most evil journalistic promoters of political prosecution and censorship in Germany. He is one of those journalists who incite the public to take all sorts of illegal measures against those who are deemed to be "right wingers." To be clear: I am not attacking him for his own political views. I am attacking him for promoting the deterioration of human rights in Germany.

I wrote an article in a name similar to his, in which I described the illegal censorship in Germany and its effects on the German society, i.e. I did argue from the opposite position as Maegerle alias Gernot Moderi is doing. I wanted to tease him, the fighter against human rights, by linking him to a work in favor of human rights. I read in McCarthy's work that I succeeded. Moderi had to explain and defend himself, he had to make clear to his friends and allies that he is still fighting against human rights. I love to see that my small revenge succeeded. But the moral buck is always passed to those who fight against human rights, i.e. for censorship and vilification. Because there is no trademark protection for pen names, I cannot see why anybody could be offended by this. Exposing Gernot Moderi morally is pure fun.

Phony Doctorates

The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title "Die Zeit lügt!," published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This is the fairest article about the Holocaust controversy that has appeared so far, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always had the means to check both point of views. Nobody else has ever done that before or since -- on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of the authors given (H. K. Westphal, Dipl.-Ingenieur, Dr. W. Kretschmer, Jurist, Dr. Ch. Konrad, Historiker, Dr. R. Scholz, Chemiker und Pharmakologe), nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.

If Wilhelm Schlesi(n)ger is one of Rudolf's pseudonyms (as is alleged by some), then this would be an example where Rudolf interviews himself:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trc/
Wilhelm Schlesiger
The Rudolf Case
Campaign to destroy an innocent scientist,
contrary to human rights

[PotPie]

I don't understand why people who persecute revisionists complain of the defensive measures they take to keep themselves out of jail for "speech crimes." Dishonesty, perhaps? Nastiness? Opportunism?

Most of Mazal's complaint list lacks specifics, and I'm not going to pore through entire essays looking for Mazal's point. One specific complaint he listed is this:

Ernst Gauss Dissecting the Holocaust footnote 32 which reads (my underlining),

Following Karl R. Popper, one of our most renowned contemporary philosophers, this is the central point of human dignity, cf. Objektive Erkenntnis, 4th ed., Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg 1984. For more detail cf. G. Rudolf, "Über richtige und falsche Erkenntnise", in H. Verbeke (ed.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Postbus 60, B-2600 Berchem 1996, pp. 19-47 (online: vho.org/D/Kardinal/ErkenntnisR.html: English: vho.org/GB/Books/cq/percept.html).

Since when was listing another writing "for more detail" wrong? These complaints have been totally ripped out of context, and I think the issue has been adequately addressed here. Attacking someone for saying to look at a book he authored under a pen-name for more details on a topic is pretty cheap.

[Hektor]

I'm always amazed when Holocaustians grasp to that kind of arguments. The real question should be rather: Why try to nail Germar Rudolf, a critique of the Holocaust position, on using alternative names, if there should be far better evidence from science and facts to back up once own position?

Actually why bother to attack Revisionists or their writings at all, when one can prove the key elements of the Holocaust narrative with real evidence and sound scientific method?

It should also be noted that those denouncing Rudolf for the use of pen names, frequently write under pen names themselves (i.e. on internet forums).

While Rudolf may have exposed himself to this kind of ad hominem attack by using several pen names, I also have to agree with the other posters that given the political climate in Germany and other Western countries, that is kind of understandable. Especially because the Holocaust enforcers will get to your family via your surname as well. I think there are quite some people that could testify on this.

[KostasL]

It should also be noted that those denouncing Rudolf for the use of pen names, frequently write under pen names themselves (i.e. on internet forums).

Rudolf is the one threatened, persecuted and prosecuted !!!

How dishonest and immoral, is it to accuse him, of writing under pen names !!!

But i guess such accusations are just indicant of the character of the accuser !

[Hektor]

To attack someone that is under a real threat of persecution to write under pen names (and not to bother to prove the point he's actually arguing against) is simply grasping for shit. And it's an admission that they actually don't have any real convincing evidence, they'd otherwise would put on the table.

[Hans]

To attack someone that is under a real threat of persecution to write under pen names (and not to bother to prove the point he's actually arguing against) is simply grasping for shit.

Actually you miss the point of the critique. Using a single nom de plum is not the problem. However, using several pseudonyms (and suggesting different real persons) and citing his own pseudonyms without indicating it is the same person is something entirely different and not justified by legal persecution. Even worse is what Rudolf has done to equip pseudonyms with fake academic degrees (Rudolf has no doctor title, and was not even close to get one in law or history, neither a double doctor title or a diploma in engineering).

Note that Rudolf admits the use of several pseudonyms with fake academic degrees was meant to be a "parody". It may be funny to him, but it is certainly not serious on scientific grounds.

[Hektor]

To attack someone that is under a real threat of persecution to write under pen names (and not to bother to prove the point he's actually arguing against) is simply grasping for shit.

Actually you miss the point of the critique.

Wrong, I outlined the exact point and reason for this kind of "critique" (Don't you think it's you who is missing that point of the "critique"). The exterminationist (like Mazal) can not present any real evidence that would refute Rudolfs critique of the Holocaust, so they opened fire on another field (the nyms).

Using a single nom de plum is not the problem. However, using several pseudonyms (and suggesting different real persons) and citing his own pseudonyms without indicating it is the same person is something entirely different and not justified by legal persecution.

You are right, the actual problem is that pressure groups instrumentalize judicial power to prosecute those expressing an opinion different from theirs.

Even worse is what Rudolf has done to equip pseudonyms with fake academic degrees (Rudolf has no doctor title, and was not even close to get one in law or history, neither a double doctor title or a diploma in engineering).

Neither did he ever claim to have something like that.

Note that Rudolf admits the use of several pseudonyms with fake academic degrees was meant to be a "parody". It may be funny to him, but it is certainly not serious on scientific grounds.

But it became quite useful for the Exterminationist, when they realized that they couldn't prove their case, now did it.

[Hans]

Wrong, I outlined the exact point and reason for this kind of "critique"

No, you didn't understand the critique. It is not THAT a pseudonym was used, but HOW, namely using phony academic degrees and circle citing.

Neither did he ever claim to have something like that.

Rudolf himself admits that he used pseudonyms with phony academic degrees.

[joachim neander]

Using pen names with an academic degree the author himself does not hold is considered, in academia, as a violation of decent manners. An individual who does so has gambled away every chance to be regarded as a serious scholar. That's hard, but such is life.

[Hektor]

Using pen names with an academic degree the author himself does not hold is considered, in academia, as a violation of decent manners. An individual who does so has gambled away every chance to be regarded as a serious scholar. That's hard, but such is life.

Excuse me?! I wonder what should one consider the silence of this academia on the persecution of researchers that question certain aspects of World War 2. To my knowledge almost all academics in Germany are silent on this. They even would come up with lame excuses for the prosecution of revisionist.

The hole argument of "pen names with phoney academic degrees" used by Exterminationists under the guidance of Green, McCarthy and Mazal is bogus. Resorting to this kind of debating tactic reveals far more about them, then it could ever about Rudolf.

[Lamprecht]

The only reason why using false degrees would seem to be bad manners is because people seem to think that ones arguments are more valid if he/she studied the field in school, although that is definitely not the case at all - a high-school dropout can have just as powerful arguments as someone with a PhD in the same subject.

[joachim neander]

Excuse me?! I wonder what should one consider the silence of this academia on the persecution of researchers that question certain aspects of World War 2. To my knowledge almost all academics in Germany are silent on this. They even would come up with lame excuses for the prosecution of revisionist.

Sorry, Sir, but this has nothing to do with the fraudulent use of academic degrees.