Suppression of freedom of speech is a long-term goal of the Jewish supremacists, and one that has been achieved in many nations already.
by Dr. William L. Pierce (1984)
Sometime soon Americans will lose their freedom of speech. When it happens, most of them won’t even notice.
After an intense and carefully orchestrated lobbying effort by prominent Jewish and Christian leaders, punctuated with veiled threats of violence from spokesmen for major Black and Hispanic organizations if their demands for legislation are not met, a bipartisan group of congressmen will sponsor a bill prohibiting “group libel.” Leaders of both the conservative and the liberal factions in the Congress will speak eloquently in favor of the bill, and debate will be minimal. The bill will pass by an overwhelming majority, the President will sign it immediately, and media commentators will render unanimous verdicts of “well done” and “it’s about time!”
And the American people will not even look up from the sports page or the television schedule. What do they care that henceforth anyone who “publishes, or causes to be published, or conspires with others to publish or to cause to be published, any statement likely to cause mental harm or distress to any group or class of persons identifiable by race, color, religion, or national origin will be liable for a term of imprisonment in a Federal penitentiary not to exceed five years”?  That’s none of their business, and haven’t they been assured that the law will be used only against “extremists”? Why should any decent, law-abiding citizen want to cause mental distress to a racial, religious, or national group, anyway?
Such laws already have been enacted in Canada, Britain, France, West Germany, and a dozen other Western countries, with hardly a murmur of dissent—except from a handful of those troublesome “extremists.” Americans have a reputation for being somewhat more troublesome than their racial kinsmen elsewhere—a reputation which may or may not be deserved—but the people who are pushing for the enactment of group libel laws are taking no chances: they see the United States as still in the softening-up stage, with the actual legislation to silence those citizens who might write or say something unkind about minorities still a year or two away.
The big gun being used in the softening-up process is the “Holocaust”—the alleged extermination of six million Jews in “gas ovens” by the German government during the Second World War. The argument is that since words often lead to deeds—and in Germany criticism in the 1920s and 1930s of Jews and what they were doing to the morals, the institutions, and the economy of that country led to Jews being rounded up and exterminated in the 1940s—then criticism of Jews (or Blacks or Orientals or Hispanics) in America in the 1980s might very well lead to roundups and exterminations in the 1990s. Therefore, in order to avoid future nastiness, let’s outlaw all such criticism—group libel—now.
One might wonder why a more indigenous theme is not used—say, lynching, which is something to which most Americans can relate more easily than to “gas ovens.” Why don’t the silencers argue that uncensored talk about Blacks in the decades after the U.S. Civil War—talk identifying them as the rapists of White women, for example—led to scores of them being snatched from jails and strung up on conveniently located telephone poles; therefore, it ought to be against the law for anyone to identify criminals by race or for anything to be said about the criminal tendencies of an identifiable ethnic, racial, religious, or national group?
Well, there are many reasons for preferring the Holocaust over the lynching of Blacks or the massacre of Indians on the American frontier or any other indigenous hatefulness for convincing Americans to give up their freedom of speech. For one thing, the prime movers behind the censorship drive are themselves not indigenous; they feel more at home with the Holocaust than with anything purely goyisch. For another, the Holocaust is not merely a dead piece of history, like lynchings and Indian massacres. It is alive and growing. It grows a bit with each retelling, in fact.
An excellent example of this liveliness—and, more generally, an introduction to the effective use of the Holocaust in silencing a nation—are provided by a recent newspaper interview  with Rabbi Gunther Plaut on the occasion of his retirement, at age 71, from a six-year stint as Canada’s chief rabbi. Rabbi Plaut regaled Toronto Star reporter Kelly McFarland with tales of his own persecution during the Holocaust. As a young schoolboy—“a Jew in Nazi Germany,” according to the Toronto Star—“he was so used to being punched at morning recess by the same boy, that when the boy was absent one day Plaut stood up by reflex for the blow, and missed it when it wasn’t there.”
Nasty Nazi brute! Poor, sensitive Jewish child! Of course, one might think schoolboy Plaut would have been better able to defend himself, since a little mental arithmetic reveals that he had to have been at least 20 years old when that wicked Nazi bully was giving him his daily recess pounding. Could the Toronto Star have been in error about the good rabbi’s age?
No, because three paragraphs further along in the interview it says that he was “born in Muenster in 1912,” and his family then “moved to Berlin shortly before World War I.” That checks exactly with Rabbi Plaut’s biography in Who’s Who in World Jewry. The National Socialists didn’t gain power in Germany until 1933, as every good schoolboy knows. Before that, the German government and media were nearly as overrun by Jews as the U.S. government and media are today. In fact, at the beginning of 1933, just before the National Socialists took over, 48.3 per cent of the lawyers in Berlin were Jews,  and any one of them would have been happy to sue everyone in sight on behalf of the battered young Plaut.
But that’s not the only little arithmetical slip Rabbi Plaut makes. According to the Toronto Star: “. . . [A]t 20, fresh out of law school, Plaut [pictured, left] was banned from the legal profession by the new Nazi laws. ‘The Nazis had written an effective end to my career,’ he says.”
Is one to assume that it was in law school that the daily punching during “morning recess” occurred? No matter, what is certain is that young Plaut turned 20 on November 1, 1932, and not a day later. But Jews continued to dominate the legal profession in Berlin and other large German cities until 1938.
The National Socialists were determined eventually to free the German people from Jewish influences in every field, but they could not accomplish this overnight. In 1933 Jews were banned only from the news and entertainment media, the teaching profession, and the civil service. Even as avid a Nazi-hater as William L. Shirer points out that Jews in Germany were permitted to continue engaging in business and practicing law and medicine until 1938. 
Perhaps Rabbi Plaut’s memory failed him; perhaps he was really 25 years old when he graduated from law school, and the year was 1938 or 1939? No, because, according to the Toronto Star, “he left Berlin [for the United States] in 1935 and never returned.” Before that, however, those wicked Nazis permitted him to return to his Berlin law school for a doctorate, which he received in 1934, according toWho’s Who in World Jewry.
Well, well! So Rabbi Plaut has a vivid imagination and feels that it is permissible to stretch the truth a bit for a good cause. And so do the owners and editors of the Toronto Star. Earlier they carried an interview with Jewish novelist Mordecai Richler, in which the latter was allowed to claim, without contradiction or question, that in Germany Jewish “babies were boiled in the fat of their parents.”  Hundreds of Canadians of German origin wrote letters of protest to the newspaper, but two months passed before the editors saw fit to select one of these letters for publication.
The Toronto Sun, the Star’s principal rival, is no better. It regularly permits its pages to be used by Jewish “survivors” to tell lurid lies about their supposed Holocaust experiences. One of these, Lenke Klein-Friedler, authored an article for the Sun in which she claimed that the stew fed to Jewish inmates in the Auschwitz concentration camp was prepared from the corpses of slain Jews: “I forced myself to swallow, despite my knowledge that the meat came from the bodies of my fellow prisoners.” She went on to describe German guards stomping newborn Jewish babies to death. 
More recently the Sun carried an account by a former inmate of the concentration camp at Dachau whose imagination is nearly as lively as Ms. Klein-Friedler’s: “He witnessed a new arrival [at Dachau] collapse in the parading area and a German soldier ‘pour petrol on his body and set him on fire—just for his own amusement.’” 
Canadian newspapers certainly have no monopoly on outrageousness, but they have become somewhat more recklessly exaggerated in their use of the Holocaust weapon than the controlled media south of the border. The difference, of course, is due to the fact that in Canada it already is illegal for anyone to contradict the media line on the Holocaust and related matters;  when the controlled media in the United States no longer need fear contradiction, they also will be able to unleash their imaginations in the recitation of Holocaust horrors.
Probably not all at once, however. In Canada, Germany, and other places where group libel and other “anti-hate” laws already have been enacted, the censors now are arguing vehemently for another round of restrictive legislation to “plug the loopholes” in existing laws. In Canada, for example, Canadian Jewish Congress lawyer Ben Kayfetz called last month for scrapping Canada’s Charter of Rights (a guarantee of free speech and other basic freedoms, similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights), if necessary, in order to silence anti-Semites once and for all. “If . . . [the Canadian court system] interprets the Charter literally, it could give hatemongers full reign.” 
Canadian officialdom has been falling over itself in its eagerness to oblige Kayfetz and his ilk. Attorney General Roy McMurtry, responding to Jewish complaints that the government did not act as swiftly as it could have in bringing criminal charges early this year against James Keegstra, an Alberta schoolteacher who told his pupils that Jewish Holocaust claims are exaggerated, said, “For effective prosecutions to be launched . . . [the 1970 group libel law must be] substantially amended,” and he urged legislators to provide the necessary amendments forthwith. Otherwise, he warned, “the cancer of racism will surely spread.” 
Canadian Justice Minister Mark MacGuigan, also responding to Jewish complaints about Keegstra, said that Keegstra’s statements were “criminally libelous” and should be prosecuted, but that tougher laws are needed to ensure convictions of “utterers of racial statements.” (Lest the connection between questioning Holocaust claims and “racism” escape the reader, let the following syllogism be pondered: The Jews, as an identifiable racial/ethnic group, have put forward the Holocaust story with virtual unanimity. To assert that the story is false in any substantial particular is to imply that the Jews, as a group, are liars. Therefore, anyone who contradicts Jewish Holocaust claims is libeling an entire racial/ethnic group and is, ipso facto, a racist.)
In Germany, where censorship laws already are even more restrictive than in Canada—and where the moral justification for the very existence of the present government, which was installed by conquering armies in 1945 in the place of the one duly constituted by the German people, is the alleged moral depravity of the latter—the agitation for new legislation to prevent any questioning of the official version of the Holocaust myth is intense. A bill was introduced into the Federal Republic’s Bundestag last month to make the publication of any printed material “minimizing” the Holocaust punishable by a year in prison. Some German legislators are calling for the bill to include criminal penalties for oral statements questioning the Holocaust as well. New laws are needed, say the backers of the bill, because some material criticizing various aspects of the Holocaust myth has evaded the existing law by being cast as academic inquiry.
And in the United States President Ronald Reagan also has called for a ban on any questioning, academic or otherwise, of the Holocaust. Last year he told a convention of “survivors” in Washington, D.C.: “[We must] . . . see to it that the immeasurable pain of the Holocaust is not dehumanized, that it is not examined clinically and dispassionately. . . .”
That nearly 40 years of propaganda by the controlled media has not intimidated into silence all of those inclined to “clinically and dispassionately” question the claims of the Holocausters should, perhaps, be encouraging. But among ordinary American voters, who never have been noted for their ability to make clinical or dispassionate judgments on anything, the Holocaust myth already has a status somewhere near that enjoyed by the Virgin Birth in the 13th century. To question it is an unmistakable proof of impiety.
The German-born leader of a German-American organization, Hans Schmidt, has commented on the effect which the enormous Jewish brainwashing effort promoting the Holocaust has had on the average citizen: 
Nothing is more difficult for me than to talk to an American ex-GI who claims to have been one of the soldiers liberating [the German concentration camp at] Dachau.
“Don’t you dare tell me there was no Holocaust,” he may say to me. “I was at Dachau when it was liberated. I saw the dead bodies. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the starving prisoners.”
In many instances these ex-GIs don’t even tell the truth. I know that Dachau . . . [surrendered to] soldiers of the American 45th Infantry Division (who promptly executed the young SS soldiers who had been assigned to guard duty after the regular guards had taken off), but listening to the former soldiers now one could assume that at least ten U.S. divisions had been in and around Dachau in late April of ’45. Our memories sometimes play odd tricks. Things we saw years ago in the movies become real events; actual happenings disappear as surely as if we were victims of amnesia.
Mr. Schmidt then quotes an article in the January 1947 issue of National Geographic, which explained that Dachau, where “the Nazis cremated more than a quarter of a million civilian victims,” was outfitted as an anti-Nazi exhibit to which “all recruits fresh from the States” were transported, so that American GIs would understand “what Allied armies had fought” and would not want to fraternize with the conquered Germans. At that time the Jews were still hoping for the full implementation of the infamous Morgenthau Plan, which called for the liquidation of most of the German population. It was essential that the American soldiers who would be called upon to carry out the liquidation orders not become friendly with the German people.
Mr. Schmidt’s comments continue:
It is estimated that several hundred thousand GIs went through Dachau at that time. They saw a plaque dedicated to the “238,000 people murdered in this camp,” and they saw a sign pointing out the gas chamber, and undoubtedly there were some photo displays showing the numerous bodies that were found within the camp’s confines. Considering that most of the American soldiers were young boys in their late teens or early twenties, is it any wonder that they were impressed and believed it all?
. . . Right now, when you write to Dachau you will be told that in the 12 years of the camp’s existence just over 30,000 people perished there. . . . The sign at Dachau telling of “238,000 people murdered” was removed in 1948 after the man responsible for its erection, a Jewish . . . [occupation official] named Auerbach was incarcerated for swindling the German population out of millions of dollars of restitution money. The “gas chamber” (actually the small room where the clothes of newly arrived prisoners were disinfected) is still being shown, but with the notation that “it never became operational.”
It is understandable that a person like Mr. Schmidt, who knows firsthand what did and did not happen in Germany during the Second World War, should feel a sense of frustration in his attempt to set the Holocaust record straight. The harder he and other champions of the truth try to stem the flood of lies being directed at the American people by the controlled media, the bigger the lies get. For example, the Jewish propaganda machine has now raised the figure for the number of victims of Dachau to “over 300,000.”
It is clear that the flood will continue growing, until the Jews get what they want. Far too much is at stake for them to back down now and admit that they have been lying. Every time some scholar announces a new contradiction in the claims of the “survivors,” and every time someone who was there tells it the way it really was, they will simply raise the floodgate a little higher, and the voices of truth will be drowned out in a new spate of Holocaust films, television “documentaries,” paperback “survivor” memoirs, and public breast-beating by Jew-fawning priests and politicians. And then will come the laws which will make it illegal to contradict the liars.
That’s the way it already has happened in Canada and other countries, and that’s the way it will happen here, sometime in this decade.
Then the fight for truth will proceed by other means.
Source: National Vanguard website, National Vanguard Magazine, Issue No. 100, May 1984, pp. 17–20.
1 – The wording is from proposed U.S. legislation to accompany the so-called “Genocide Convention,” adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1951 and since signed by many of the member nations.
2 – Toronto Star, April 15, 1984.
3 – Die Juden in Deutschland (Verlag Franz Eher Nachf., 1935), p. 33.
4 – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer (Simon and Schuster, 1959), p. 233.
5 – Toronto Star, October 23, 1981.
6 – Toronto Sun, May 7, 1978.
7 – Toronto Sun, April 30, 1984.
8 – See “The Death of Free Speech,” National Vanguard, March 1984, p. 21. Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, whose tribulations are described therein, faces trial next month in the Ontario Provincial Court on a charge of “spreading false information about the Holocaust.”
9 – Toronto Sun, April 2, 1984.
10 – Toronto Sun, January 30, 1984.
11 – Ganpac Brief, April 1984 (published by German-American National Political Action Committee, Box 11124, Pensacola, Florida 32524-1124 USA.