Der Spiegel: The Real Story

When he was still with us, a famous American journalist named Paul Harvey hosted a short afternoon program called “The Rest of the Story.” The program would feature little known facts about a generally well-known event. It would seem that Der Spiegel’s current hit piece against the SSPX needs its own “rest of the story” given that it is an incomplete version of what happened. The incompleteness is ironic given that the left always pretends to be tolerant and open to hearing other points of view. I will now give the account of the story as it was told to me in person, one week after the Spiegel “incident,” by Fr. Lindstrom and Bp. Williamson themselves, when I was visiting St. George’s House in London.

What actually happened:

Summer 2009

The SSPX’s German lawyer, who advises the SSPX on all legal problems in Germany, visits London to explain a possible plea bargain which would head off the Regensburg trial. In September, the German State prosecutor, for whatever reason, refuses the plea bargain, but the Bishop was grateful to the lawyer, Maximilan Krah, for his pains.

December 2009

The lawyer proposes another Spiegel interview, like the one he arranged in the spring.  Now, you should know that Krah was the person who helped “proctor” the last Spiegel interview. For that interview the Bishop was given written questions, he answered, Krah reviewed the answers for propriety, and then Spiegel changed their questions so that they could look more ferocious and the Bishop could look more meek. Given that this was the ill use that the Bishop was given last time, I’m surprised that Krah was able to convince him to do another round with these people. However, Krah is aware of being “in front” of a story and so he wants to limit potential damage in the German Press on the upcoming first anniversary of the Swedish TV interview. The Bishop agrees in principle, though he does not confirm any details.

A couple of weeks later, at the end of the month, Krah proposes an in-person “pre-game” visit which would help prep him for the interview. This will help with the proper spin for the story. The Bishop is uneasy with “spin” and for him, what had been a “green light” earlier in the month now turns "yellow."

5 January 2010

Krah insists on coming for the pre-interview “coaching session.” The Bishop expresses the discomfort he has with Krah’s proposal and expresses the desire to change the interview format to the same as last time: written questions. Such a situation would make any London visit of Krah and the journalists unnecessary. The Bishop says to Krah, “Do NOT come, because I will not speak”. The yellow light turned red.

12 January 2010

Bishop Fellay’s personal secretary telephones St. George’s House at 1500 GMT to notify the Bishop that Krah and “two friends” will visit on Wednesday. It is said that they may indeed "already be in London."

That same Tuesday evening at 2030 Krah and two Spiegel journalists knock on the door at St. George’s House in Wimbledon. It is an odd hour for visiting clergy, and certainly for conducting an interview of this nature. While there was an announcement that “two friends plus Krah” would be coming, no further notice had been given by Krah all Tuesday.

The Bishop says his private Mass at 0545 every morning (a punishing time for a normally late-rising American) so he heads to bed before 2200. He is working on the second-floor common computer when Krah et al. arrive. Fr. Lindstrom, the “gaunt Swede” as he is labeled in the Spiegel hit-piece, shows them in to the first-floor library. The reader may assume at this point that had Krah not come with the permission of Bishop Fellay, he and the journalists would hardly have been admitted to an SSPX priory at 2030.

The journalists have their laptops with them, and Krah sends an email to the Bishop, who is upstairs, as they know, letting him know that they are ready to do an interview with him. The Bishop refuses to see them. They leave after waiting for some 50 minutes, taking a few pictures, as they are not allowed to venture upstairs.

At 2130 the Bishop, feeling bad for Krah, once again reiterates his offer to do a written-question interview.

13 January 2010

In the morning a colleague shows the Bishop a dossier of Spiegel articles written mainly by the senior journalist who had come the night before. The entire tenor of their writing is anti-clerical. The Bishop remembers how he was used last time, concludes that liberals rarely change their spots, and decides in principle to not even do the written questions. It is roughly at 0800 that he is perusing these documents, and at 0815 comes the knock at the door.

Krah is noticeably absent, as he thinks he is the problem (He is not). The journalists try to persuade the Bishop to be interviewed, but he refuses. They plead: “But please, let us at least take a picture of you, so we can tell our bosses that you were here.” He refuses.

At 1000, they return, and Krah with them. Final refusal from the Bishop. Rejected when they are usually welcomed and drooled over, the spurned journalists write a hit-piece which manages to tar every cleric mentioned in it. Der Spiegel has its revenge for having no story to tell, holds the “mirror” up to itself, and shows us a “spaniel.”

Some minor corrections

The above account should serve to correct a mass of disinformation that the article projected. There are some items here or there that unconsciously point to some other important omissions:

1. They frequently cite from the Bishop’s weekly column. They must be subscribers, and they have the luxury of reading the column in German.

2. There are citations of emails he has written to “fellow members of the SSPX.” If this is true, this means that clergy are leaking these emails to the paper. If they are just being incorrect in their terminology and are calling laypeople “members” then laypeople are leaking these emails. In either case, such leaking is unwarranted and wrong, and given where the leaking has led, perhaps sinful.

3. To give the appearance that they actually had access, they describe Bishop Williamson’s “private room” which sounds a lot like the vestibule or sacristy of the Chapel. Nice try, gentlemen. Bishop Williamson’s room is on the third floor; how could you describe that which you’ve never seen?

4. The Facebook page cited is not run by me or the Bishop, and the owner has never contacted either of us. He may indeed be a supporter, but until we hear from him, it can’t really be called “the Bishop’s facebook page.” Nice research job, gentlemen.

5. “Hundreds” do not read his column weekly. The number is “thousands.”

6. If Fr. Pfluger did indeed say: “He gets an idea into his head, becomes fixated on it and exaggerates. But he doesn't study the documents”, he is not only wrong, but unjust in his declaration. I’ll leave it at that.

Finally, I am dismayed that clerics from the SSPX felt obligated to speak unpleasantly about the Bishop. Whatever might have been excusable one year ago, to renew attacks on him now, solicited by a left-wing newspaper, on the one-year anniversary is, at best, disappointing. Shall we look to Menzingen for this to be an annual event?

In the meantime, while the world turns and the liberals rage, let us turn to prayer, not only for the bishop, who has served us so well over many years, but also for ourselves, that we seek truth and charity which is as binding on ourselves as it is on the writers of the Spiegel.

Stephen Heiner

Stephen lives in Paris, France. He founded True Restoration in 2006.

You may also like...

33 Responses

  1. steven says:

    Well done Stephen! You are a brave soul!!! God bless you.
    Fr. Webber

  2. R. Neuville says:

    This is an excellent article.
    "In the eyes of millions of people around the world, Bishop Williamson is an inspiring and distinguished figure, rather than an "embarrassment." – so says Michael Hoffman.
    It is very encouraging for our Faith to read the on the spot report of another warrior-for-the-Truth.
    Well done Mr. Heiner

  3. Mary says:

    Thank you for "the real story". I will step-up my prayers for Bishop Williamson.


  4. James says:

    Thank you very much Stephen. You have proven yourself superb in this matter. We owe you a real debt of gratitude.

    The following is the exact comment I placed at, a blog site by traditional Roman Catholic Michael Hoffman who has very courageously and perseveringly supported Bp. Williamson:

    James said…
    According to this article, as of today (February 3, 2010), Bp. Williamson has just 72 days before the start of his holocaust heretic trial in Germany.

    Let all men of good faith take heed at this scurrilous and smear filled lying article. No doubt, as bad as it is, it is just a slight preview of the tsunami of vile excrement and stench soon to pour forth out of the bowels of the prince of this world's mouthpiece (aka, the Judaic anti-Christ controlled media). Let all those lovers of truth and supporters of the embattled, and to a large degree very shamefully abandoned, Bp. Williamson pray and sacrifice for him — now more than ever before.

    Also, do not be afraid to speak up for him whenever you get a chance. He has given us a voice, a truth which speaks to power. Let us give him our full support in his hour of special need.

    James B. Phillips

    12:12 AM

  5. Thank you very much, Stephen, for this very worthwhile "inside view" of His Excellency's life, and for refuting the lies of the German media. Good for the bishop for sticking to his guns!

  6. dolorosa says:

    Thanks for the rest of the story. We really need to keep the Bishop in our prayers as I don't believe for a minute that there will be a fair trial for him as well as honest media coverage such as you already noted here. I defend him whenever I get a chance because I know he seeks the truth and has the courage to expose evil.

  7. Liam Lynch says:

    Many thanks for this article.

  8. antonio says:

    Thanks for telling us how it really was.

  9. antonio says:

    And well done Father Webber! That famous Swiss penknife (limited edition, 12" 2-pronged blade) is coming your way!

  10. Sir Wolfram says:

    God save His Lordship Bishop Richard 'the Lionheart' Williamson! He is not fogotten by his flock, and his words are a light in the darkness for the Remnant Faithful! Sir Wolfram

  11. Iris says:

    Dear readers,

    I am German and I have read the article about Bp. Williamson. It was surprising to me that the SPIEGEL alters the questions after a written interview. That is really unfair. Like the discription of the room the journalists have never been to. Your article brought some light on the issue. But I would also be very thankfull if you could explain or better said clear the issue about the tv-interview. I cannot really believe that such an intelligent figure like Bp. Williamson denies the holocaust without good reasons. I am very interested in getting to know is point of view.
    Thank you very much, Iris Marx
    PS. Pleas excuse my bad english

  12. Grandma says:

    Stephen, it is comforting to know that Bishop Williamson has someone trustworthy looking after his interests. The garbage reports about His Lordship sicken me.

  13. Peter says:

    Well done, Stephen. The Bishop is in my prayers.

  14. Thanks a lot, Stephen!

    I wonder how people can keep believing such "journalists".

    Best wishes.


  15. hmazal says:

    I respectfully suggest that the readers of this article read my Technical and Historical Responses to the Statements made by Bishop Richard Williamson concerning the Holocaust:

    Bishop Williamson is certainly entitled to his opinions on the Holocaust but he does his listeners a great disservice when he makes statements that fly in the face of science and scientific method.

    Harry W. Mazal OBE

  16. The Viking says:

    Dear Stephen,

    I am very pleased that you have set the record straight and have made these very important details available in the public domain. The truth of certain historical 'events' will be known sooner than later. God Bless His Excellency for the example of a High Priest and for fidelity to his vocation. I can not count the number of men who I have introduced to the writings of His Excellency who have at first been shocked at his style of hyperbole, but not one has been able to tear themselves away from the evident truth which he passes on. Stephen, please continue your good works as they are the epitome of charity. And if you should see him before I speak to him again, give him the love of entire Kokenge family in St. Louis.

    John Kokenge

  17. James says:

    Per the post of "hmazal" (Mr. Harry W. Mazal) I would in the words of this individual: "respectfully suggest that the readers of this article" (any who may not be familiar with the Holocaust lie that is) go to the following sites which establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the "Sacred" Six Million (mostly gas chamber victims) Story is an absolute preposterous lie. It is a gigantic myth of monstrous proportion invented to club the rest of the world into submission via never ending victimology propaganda and endless payments ("Shoah Business") for so called "Holocaust survivors." Its ultimate goal is to replace the True Holocaust on Calvary and all that it entails with the false Shoah Theology with all that entails. The above site is excellent, but it is under seige and may not come up right away. Here you will see a lot of things that the Judaic powers running a large part of our world do not wish the public to see regarding the subject which goes under the heading "Holocaust."

    Other extremely informative sites are as follows:

    If you are not familiar with the lie called "THE Holocaust" a visit to one or more of the above sites can prove a very beneficial education.

    James B. Phillips

  18. Roger says:

    Pardon, but I wonder what, specifically, James finds in error in Mr Mazal's article? Let's discuss those errors, and then we can move on to your links…

  19. friend says:

    I think the legitimate fear is that what is called "the Shoah" has been exploited. Norman Finklestein has said as much, along with many others.

    That Jews call it a Holocaust as if the murder of 6,000,000 by their own estimates could ever be a pleasing whole burnt offering to YHWH is beyond me.

    Catholic concerns go further and fifferently, however, legitimately concerned that this exploitation is attempting to replace the Holocaust by which God Himself came into the world and offered Himself freely for the sins of Israel and the whole world as the Lamb of God, the fulfillment of all OT sacrifices which were types of the Suffering Servant to come (Isa 53)—who is not the people, but who dies vicariously for the people, all sinners, the chastisements for our sins He freely accepted in love. Ours is a specifically theological concern, not a political one.

    Having said that, at the end of the day I do not think anyone can decisively disprove the official estimates of how many Jews or Gypsies or whomever died under the regime of that occult anti-Catholic devil, Adolph Hitler, whom the Church condemned, along with his racialism, before the war in the enycyclical MIT BRENNENDER SORGE.

    We are free to and must insist Jesus Christ is the Suffering Servant of Israel and Isaiah 53, but we do not help Bishop Williamson by pretending we are privy to information which disproves numbers. The bishop himself is restudying this matter.—Stephen Hand

  20. James says:

    Roger at February 11, 2010 10:05 PM refers to my post at February 11, 2010 10:37 AM by stating, "…I wonder what, specifically, James finds in error in Mr Mazal's article?" Wonderful question Roger. Only one problem in answering it here. Mr. Mazal's article appears to have over 60,000 characters in it. (cf: on-line character counters such as the following which both showed an exact count of 60,074:
    Please note that a single entry on this blog is limited to no more than 4,096 characters.

    For the reader to get an idea of just how big Mr. Mazal's 60 thousand plus character article is, the entire first four chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible only clock in at about 20 thousand characters. That's why it appears rather disingenuous for Roger to ask me or anyone else on this blog to answer his question in the allotted space on this forum.

    I have absolutely no problem with anyone going to Mr. Mazal's article and reading away to their heart's content. The quest for truth about the subject commonly referred to as "Holocaust," however, goes way beyond anything Bp. Williamson managed to say in a few short minutes on the subject or the much longer written attempt by Mr. Mazal in trying to refute it. That is precisely why I provided the list of websites that I did.

    It is unfortunate that Roger in a certain sense actually discourages people from going to the sites I provided without first having to plow through Mr. Mazal's lengthy article. Let all people of good will examine the question of the "Holocaust" from various sources. Don't get them hung up Roger on having to look at only one source before they can look at others!

    As per "friend" (Stephen Hand) at February 11, 2010 11:35 AM, I would submit that quite contrary to what you claim, a Catholic's concern is not merely a theological concern as it relates to the "Holocaust." Bp. Williamson could actually end up behind bars, not as a theological prisoner, but as a political one! In Europe there are already many individuals rotting behind bars as a result of their merely questioning the "Sacred Six Million." Aside from the many "Holocaust Heretics" rotting behind bars, the "Holocaust" with all that it entails has real political ramifications starting with the supposed legitimacy it gives to the criminal, Zionist, terrorist apartheid regime in the modern state known as Israel. (If you read Theodore's Herzl's autobiography you will find it reported by that "Founding Father" of modern day Zionism that in his meeting with Pope St. Pius X, the Holy Father was not even willing to countenance any support for a homeland for the "Jews" in Palestine — and for extremely good reasons which he explains to Mr. Herzl.)

    Also, if the desired for Social Reign of Jesus Christ in this world be a legitimate concern for a Catholic, as indeed it should be, then like it or not a Catholic man cannot act as if the political realm is of no importance and hence of no concern.

    Finally, Mr. Hand you say "…we do not help Bishop Williamson by pretending we are privy to information which disproves numbers." First of all, it is a gratuitous insult to say "we" are "pretending." How in the world can you say that — not even knowing what information "we" may or may not have?! Second of all, how in the world can you say "we" do not help Bishop Williamson? Have you ever asked him?! Please be careful as to how you answer that (if you do) since I AM in communication with him.

    James B. Phillips

  21. Roger says:

    So, James, you have not even read the article in question, and yet you dismiss it out of hand because it is "too long." And yet you would have people click through how many links to get to the meat of your references — with how many characters in total?

    You *do* realize, since you were there to copy and paste it into your counters, that the article is in sections, each of which stand alone and deal with a single error by Bishop Williamson?

    BTW, your character count from the Bible is *just* a little off, since the Book of Genesis alone tops out at close to 200k+, according to, available at

    Could some other folks check these figures, which I total out as ~650 million for the Pentateuch?

    It would seem that you are simply looking for a reason *not* to "examine the question of the Holocaust from various sources" but merely to scare readers with nonsense numbers.

    But okay, you want to start with your sources, fine: point to a specific page which you contend supports your comments about the historical record, and we will discuss that first. Tell you what: give it your three best shots. Don't forget to include support for your assertion that "many people" are currently behind bars "merely for questioning" the death toll for the Holocaust.

    It is a matter of concern to me that those who complain loudest about the Holocaust appear to be the ones most willing to create labels such as "Sacred Six Million" — almost as if they cannot deal with the actual facts of the matter, and so themselves must elevate the disagreement to the level of religion to justify their "us vs. them" mentality.

    For the record: it is possible, for rational people, to deplore both the historical facts of the Holocaust and the situation in the West Bank.

    So, James: the ball is in your court. If you intend to convince persons such as myself and "friend," let's get the ball rolling. What is your best evidence that a death toll between 8 and 14 million dead with roughly half of them being thought by the Nazis to be Jewish is *not* accurate — and don't forget to double check your math this time, hmmmn?

  22. Roger says:

    My apologies for any confusion — the actual number of characters in the Pentateuch come to 809,248. I had added them manually before I found the Excel file.

    Pride goeth before the fall and all that.

    My overall point, however, remains

  23. Mark says:

    You can put a crucifix in urine and call it Piss Christ art:

    You can splash urine on a picture of Jesus Christ on an international television network:

    You can urinate almost daily on Christian holy sites:

    You can paint a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary with elephant dung:

    You can burn New Testaments:

    You can brag about killing Jesus.
    “You and your f@#king Jesus can kiss my a$%….We killed Jesus and we’re proud of it…”

    You can brag about killing Jesus AND threaten to kill Gentiles too:
    “We killed Jesus and we’ll kill you too!”

    You can deny the holocaust of 0ver 61 million Gentiles at the hands of Jewish Communism:
    See Part 1, especially “JEWISH TESTIMONY,” at (Also available in the original book form as The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay from the bookstore at )

    You can encourage the genocide of men, women, and children, even when they wave little white flags of surrender:


    “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, who turn themselves away from the truth.”
    Titus 1:13-14

  24. Mark says:

    The Jews were claiming that "6 million" Jews were killed in World War ONE! ("The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop," The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919, p. 582.) You can see a photocopy of the original bogus claim on page 755 of Michael Hoffman's new 1,102 page book Judaism Discovered, ISBN9780970378453, or on

    The book also examines the fundamentally racial supremacist and misanthropic tenets of Judaism. It is available at

    The "6 million" number is a number that has magical numerology ("gematria") significance to occultic Judaism's Kabbalists.

    The Torah has a long inculturated the tradition of lying about victimhood. For example, note the typically ridiculous self-reports of victimhood in tractate Gittin of the Torah, the 4 billion (yes, billion) Jews killed by the Romans [Gittin 57b claims Vespasian killed “four hundred thousand myriads” = 400,000 x 10,000 = 4 BILLION] and the 64 million Jewish children skewered and burned in scrolls by the Romans in one city alone [Gittin 58a claims “400 synagogues” each with “400 teachers” and “400 pupils” for each teacher” = 400 x 400 x 400 = 64 million].

    The Judaic Trotskyite Lennie Brenner documented ZIONIST COLLUSION WITH THE NAZIS in his book, "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis," ISBN 9781569802359.

  25. Mark says:

    Certainly Jews were among the 55 million who died in World War II, but important claims by Holocaust Fundamentalists are crumbling under deserved examination, even though such examination is—unlike any other historical issue—criminalized in over a dozen "democracies." Have you forgotten that on August 7, 1933 Samuel Untermeyer, as representative of the World Conference of Jews, declared war on Germany and then broadcasted the declaration on WABC radio and published it in the New York Times?

    Google "Samuel Untermeyer text speech," pick your source. Here's one:

    Read the content!

    Judea Declares War on Germany

    For Germany then Jews were a declared internal enemy. See Dr. E. Michael Jones' new 1,200 page book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, ISBN 9780929891071, available at

    The pose as always sinless perpetual victims is a fraud. There is "cause" and there is "effect." Bad "cause" often begets bad "effect."



    Have you forgotten the victims of Jewish-led-and-funded Communist revolutions of the early twentieth century in Bavaria, Hungary, Russia, and elsewhere? There was a holocaust of over 60 million at the hands of Judeo-Bolshevism.

    See the videotaped interview of the Auschwitz director admitting that the "gas chamber" was fabricated AFTER the war by the Communists with a wooden door, a "homicidal gas chamber" that has no cyanide residue. The interview was conducted by David Cole, himself a Jew.

    Numerous Holocaust Fundamentalist "scholars" have RECANTED THEIR CLAIMS:

    The Victories of Revisionismévisionnisme%20ENG.pdf

    See also Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies, available at:

    The quality of "eyewitness" testimony is shameful. Watch ABC News video of "Holocaust eyewitness," Herman Rosenblat rationalizing his shameful deception:

    Interviewer: How can you say it wasn't a lie? It wasn't true and you know it's not true.

    Rosenblat: Yes, it's not true, but in my imagination it was true.

    “The head Nazi-hunter’s trail of lies” by Guy Walters, Times, London, UK, July 18, 2009

    Professor David O'Connell also published a well-documented study of Elie Wiesel's "eyewitness" lies. For his effort, the Holocaust Fundamentalists attempted to have him fired.

  26. Mark says:

    @ Roger [February 11, 2010 10:05 PM]

    "I wonder what, specifically, James finds in error in Mr Mazal's article"

    ANSWER: Almost everything…. who STARTED the war first, International Red Cross records support 200,000-300,000, fraudulent eyewitness testimony, not enough cadavers and/or enough crematoria for "6 million," a gas chamber at Auschwitz that was built after the war with a wooden door and no safe [for the alleged executioners] means of inserting or removing cyanide and NO cyanide residue, etc.

    Consider the claims that were debunked long ago:

    "geysers of blood"
    "shrunken heads"
    "lampshades of skin"
    "soap from Jewish fat"
    "different colored smoke for different ethnics during cremation"

    Most of these were fabrications of Ilya Rosenberg, the Jewish propagandist for the Soviets, but the "geysers of blood" was Elie Wiesel's lie.

    The body count lie was so outrageous that they even changed the plaques at Auschwitz, BUT they never lowered the "6 million" number. Simply Google Images for "Auschwitz plaque changed".

    You don’t think that the goal of the Holocaust Fundamentalists is to replace Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary with “the Holocaust” as the pivot point of all history?

    “If Auschwitz is true, it represents human suffering that is incomparably greater than that of Christ… Auschwitz is the denial of Christ.” Claude Lanzmann, Les Temps Modernes, Paris, December 1993, page 133

    Holocaust fundamentalists even want to replace Jesus Christ the King at His Judgment Seat:
    “When each of us stands before the Six Million, we will be asked what we did with our lives.” Simon Wiesenthal’s magazine Response, Vol. 20, No. 1

    “The Holocaust is a divine mystery whose secrets are reserved for a priesthood of survivors.” Elie Wiesel quoted in Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 1999, pp. 211-212.

  27. James says:


    Please read what I actually said. I was referring to only the first four chapters of the Book of Genesis, not the entire Book of Genesis which has 50 chapters in it not 4. I stated that just the first 4 chapters alone not the entire 50 had about 20,000 characters. Do the math.

    Roger, your first sentence at your post at February 12, 2010 6:32 PM is as follows: "So, James, you have not even read the article in question, and yet you dismiss it out of hand because it is "too long." First of all, I never said or implied that I did not read the article in question. If you think I did that's your problem. Second of all, I did not "dismiss it out of hand" for any reason whatsoever. I even went so far as to actually state: "I have absolutely no problem with anyone going to Mr. Mazal's article and reading away to their heart's content."

    Lack of time prevents me from responding in a more detailed manner to the rest of your post. You may now, of course, respond in any which way you want. KNOW THAT I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING ANY FURTHER. I would simply ask that you not make any further misleading characterizations of what I have actually stated in my posts.

    James B. Phillips

  28. hmazal says:

    In a rather long posting that does not appear to address my critique of the statements made by Bishop Williamson during his interview, Mr. Phillips complains that my study was much too long – even going to the trouble of running it through a word counter – whereas, as Mr. Phillips points out, the statements made by the good Bishop were both short and succinct.

    Quite so.

    It only takes a few seconds and a very few words to tell a lie. It takes considerable research, time, knowledge, and patience to disprove that lie. What follows is an example of this.

    In 1984 – if memory serves me right – a renown French Holocaust denier, Prof. Faurisson, visited the camp at Auschwitz Birkenau. While standing by the ruins of the gas chamber of Krematorium II, he looked down at what remained of the roof after the SS has dynamited the building in January 1945. After glancing around and seeking to identify the holes in the roof through which the SS would have dropped the pellets of lethal hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) into the gas chamber, he determined that no such holes existed, and made the following statement to those who accompanied him: "No holes? No Holocaust!"

    That brief phrase became the battle cry that was parroted by every Holocaust denier in the world. This lie turned out to be a challenge for the scientists and historians that form the Holocaust History Project. In 1998 a group of members of that organization descended upon Birkenau and began what turned out to be nearly three years of forensic engineering intent on disproving Prof. Faurisson's lie.

    The cost of this research was in the tens of thousands of dollars, and it required that several of the principal specialists spend months in Birkenau accumulating evidence. The final draft of the paper was submitted to peer review by the world's most distinguished historians and to engineering companies specialized in the study of buildings destroyed by explosive charges.

    After incorporating suggestions made by the peers, and after explaining the methodology employed by the researchers, Oxford University Press accepted the paper for publication. The paper was incorporated into the Journal entitled "Holocaust and Genocide Studies" published by Oxford University in the Spring of 2004.

    The whole paper illustrated with photographs and explanatory drawings – can now
    be read on the Holocaust History Project's web site:

    We hope that this example of why it takes so many words to disprove a lie will now allow Mr. Phillips to read the complete article written about Bishop Williamson's unfortunate technical misconceptions, and to draw his conclusions from what he reads. There is no need for him to dissect the article word for word, but simply to read it with an open mind. It is written in fairly simple technical language as I did not think that complex physical-chemistry formulas would be understood by most readers.

    A printed copy of the paper was sent by DHL courier to the address where Bishop Williams is currently residing, and a courteous letter from one of the priests acknowledged receipt of the same. In our covering letter we also mentioned that the extremely rare and very expensive book written by Pressac was on our web site – by permission of the copyright owners – allowing the Bishop to read it freely and at his leisure. It is probably not the best history book on the Holocaust that is available, but as it is what Bishop Williams stated he would be reading, we have made the book available to him and to the rest of the world at no cost.

    I pray that this rather long explanation serves the purpose of establishing the truths behind the article that I wrote. It is not meant to be a criticism of the Bishop nor, much less, of the Catholic Church which I deeply respect.

    Harry W. Mazal OBE

  29. James says:

    God bless you Mark for your exceedingly fine posts! If it be His will may our Divine Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Holy Blessed Mother grant you the grace to continue to spread this truth. I will be copying what you say here for future reference.

    We know who controls the fiat money spiggots and thus the mass media (and a great part of the alternative media), and politics, etc. of the New World Order. We know what we are up against in the battle for the truth of the Divine Holocaust versus the "Jew" World Order Shoah Business Holocaust Fable. We are David against Goliath, but the stone within our sling is the truth and that truth like all truth shall eventually prevail. Deus vult!

    James B. Phillips

  30. R. Neuville says:

    Many congratulations to Mark!
    Well done!
    I hope that people will read what you have posted.

    As for Mr. Friend February 11, 2010 11:35 AM : Have you really read MIT BRENNENDER SORGE? It is not at all what people think it is: Not at all! Please do read the text!

    Besides that, have you engaged yourself with the scientific Rudolf Report?

  31. Roger says:

    James, I apologize for misreading your post, but the basic point remains: rather than discuss the *contents* of Mr Mazal's article, you prefer to complain about its size. You'll have to pardon us if your pose as an honest seeker after the truth seems somewhat tarnished by your refusal to actually engage in discussion about Bishop Williamson's demonstrated errors of fact, even when I have agreed to allow you to open the debate.

    It seems that you really don't want to talk about it, and are desperate to find a reason not to.

  32. hmazal says:

    The gentleman calling himself Mark has published a number of messages on this blog, some of which are of such a vile nature that they do not merit addressing. To equate placing a crucifix in a jar with urine with a civilized discussion attempting to discover the truth is simply outrageous. Such acts of desecration have no place in a civilized society.

    I submit that these gentlemen should treat other beliefs than their own in this discussion with the respect that I, for one, show to the Catholic church which,, as I have stated on several occasions is worthy of my respect and admiration. My paper has nothing to do with religion.

    Like Mr. Phillips, this gentleman refuses – or is unable – to counter the technical evidence that I present in my paper:

    A question addressed to Mr. Phillips by another writer on this blog:

    "I wonder what, specifically, James finds in error in Mr Mazal's article"

    Is answered by the gentleman calling himself Mark (as it appears that Mr. Phillips is no longer willing to enter into discussion). The gentleman answers:

    "ANSWER: Almost everything…. who STARTED the war first […]"

    Almost everything? I must counter like with what? Are any of the references incorrect? Are the quotations from textbooks, chemical journals, and other sources mistaken? If so, kindly point out these errors and I will make the appropriate corrections.

    However …

    I do not recall making any statement in my critique of the words spoken by Bishop Williamson that related to who "started the war first." I have simply responded to the statements made in public by Bishop Williamson.

    Every statement made by Bishop Williamson is addressed respectfully and documented with unimpeachable scientific and technical sources, none of which have been challenged by the writers of this blog.

    Take, for example, the Bishop's statement:

    "Bishop Williamson: I believe there were no gas chambers."

    My response was simply to quote the Bishop's friend, David Irving.

    "Analysis: The Bishop insists that there were no gas chambers. In an ironic twist, Holocaust denier David Irving – who had hosted Bishop Williamson at his home in Windsor ten days before this interview – responded to the Bishop's question concerning the use of gas chambers for killing the Jews":

    "I am keeping out of this. My advice, which you might like to pass to His Excellency, is to accept that there were organised mass killings from the spring of 1942 to October 1943 at Himmler's three sites on the Bug River – Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec; there is much dispute over numbers and methods of killing, but he should not dispute that there were such killings".

    Mr. Irving is one of the most active and prominent of the "revisionists" of the history of the Holocaust. I trust that the gentleman will accept Mr. Irving's statement as quoted above.

    If the gentleman would take the time to read the paper and present substantiated responses, instead of writing vast tracts that do not address the paper, this discussion can then serve as a platform for a civilized interchange of ideas. T

    I will be happy to address any and all questions related to my paper. I am not disposed to enter into discourse on anything that is unrelated. Life is too short for this and I'm an old man.

    I also ask that anyone else that addresses me treat me and the other readers with the level of respect that a civilized discussion demands.

    Harry W. Mazal OBE

  33. Roger says:

    To answer "Mark's" comments, I quote directly to avoid giving him the same excuse "James" used to avoid actually supporting his lies (did I refuse to engage with you when you lied about the Holocaust, James?):

    > who STARTED the war first

    For most rational people, this would be Nazi Germany, when they invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Of course, there was no official declaration of war at that time.

    > International Red Cross records
    > support 200,000-300,000

    Actually, in 1975 the Red Cross stated "The figures cited by are based upon statistics falsely attributed to us, evidently for the purpose of giving them credibility, ***despite the fact that we never publish information of this kind.***

    (emphasis mine)

    > fraudulent eyewitness testimony,

    Which specific testimony did you have in mind, and what proof do you offer that it was fraudulent.

    > not enough cadavers and/or enough > crematoria for "6 million"

    Once again: not all ~6 million were gassed or otherwise killed in the camps: nearly half were shot by the Einsatzgruppen, but taking just Auschwitz, it has been estimated that the capacity over the time span that Krema I-V were in use was ~1,018,350 — this, for a camp designed to hold ~10% of that number

    > a gas chamber at Auschwitz that
    > was built after the war with a
    > wooden door and no safe [for the
    > alleged executioners] means of
    > inserting or removing cyanide

    *re*built after having been converted to an air raid shelter once the other Krema came online.

    > NO cyanide residue, etc.

    Wrong — even with a fatally flawed methodology, almost half of Leuchter's samples came back positive: this, after having been exposed to the weather for decades and then twice being diluted by Leuchter.

    You mention a "declaration of war" by Untermeyer — just how many troops did the World Conference of Jews muster, and how were they train, supplied and deployed?

    What? They had no troops?

    And this "declaration of war" was nothing more than a proposed boycott which had little to no effect on the economy of Germany?

    Why would you try to suggest that it was a viable threat?

    The NYT has archives going back to the beginning of the 1900s — please do tell us in what issue this "declaration of war" was published?

    Ah, yes — the Glynn letter. Why do deniers always forget that it mentions 6 million adults ***and*** 800k children at risk from starvation, which was the whole point of the letter to begin with (and that this just happends to have been the Jewish population of Eastern Europe at the time?)

    The Torah has no tractates, it has chapters: it is simply the five books of the Pentateuch.

    And despite your desperate attempts to assert what I can do or think, I do nothing but speak the truth about these events. James does not want to try to support his lies, told here: do *you* have the courage and education to show where I have lied in this comment?