+Williamson meeting defense team at Heathrow?
#1
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/02/bishop-williamson-and-david-irving-party-together.htmlFebruary 24, 2009Bishop Williamson and David Irving party together
This picture shows Bishop Richard Williamson at a party last October hosted by revisionist British historian David Irving. More details here. David Irving and Richard Williamson have been in regular email contact since the controversy blew up after the Pope lifted the excommunications. Another picture from the party and some details of the correspondence between these two men below. As we report, Williamson will be met at Heathrow at 7.15 tomorrow morning, when his flight from Buenos Aires gets in, by Michele Renouf and a team of lawyers. Read her interesting Wiki entry. Renouf was a speaker at the notorious Holocaust denial conference in Iran in 2006. It was Renouf who found the lawyers to get Frederick Toben out of prison after he was arrested at Heathrow at the request of the German authorities. I've been asked to make clear that this picture and the one below are copyright Focal Point Publications and cannot be reproduced without permission.

' The correspondence between Irving and Williamson includes the following note to Irving from Williamson:






'Dear Mr. Irving, Do you mind if come back to you, sooner than I expected, to ask you to read the attached letter from my German lawyer, defending me in Germany against State charges, but himself convinced, as you see in his letter, that the H was more or less for real.
'At the heart of this whole uproar is the objective truth about what happened in Auschwitz and other concentration camps. I must conform my mind to the truth. Please take no more time nor trouble than you care to take. I will be grateful for all and any help.
Most sincerely yours  +Richard Williamson.

Irving replied through an intermediary:
'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.
'As for numbers, he might add that the Polish (Krakow) trial of the main Auschwitz officials, which concluded in December 1947, found in these words: "The defendants were German camp guards or members of the German camp administration staff. Unheard-of atrocities against the camp inmates, particularly against female prisoners, were proved against them. Altogether nearly 300,000 people from the most different nations died in the Auschwitz concentration camp. The court sentenced 23 of the accused to death...."
'You can see the newsreel in German reporting this on my website at "http://www.focal.org/wochenschau1948.avi". The text is at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/cont...u1948.html
'In the so-called "Todesblock" (Block Smierci) of the Auschwitz-Stammlager, there is the following multilingual inscription: http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Inschrift.jpg
"In der Zeit des Lagerbestehens ... kamen in Auschwitz und in anderen Lagern etwa 340 000 Personen ums Leben."
'His Excellency might add that the numbers involved are irrelevant:  the killing of any innocent is a crime, in wartime or in peace. The real crime in WW2 and other wars is Innocenticide, killing innocents. The killing of Jews was a crime not because they were Jews, but because they were largely innocent Jews.
'The Jews do not like this argument, as it might divert and dilutes the cornucopia of global sympathy (and treasure) to the wrong victims, or to other victims than themselves. Though shalt have no other Holocaust than ours, that is their religion.
'He might remark on the weak tendency of modern historians to write history in vacuo, with no regard for the passage of time or the context of these tragedies: e.g., the rising climate of brutality which makes all manner of counter-brutality that much easier; and the fact that the propaganda machines of all the warring governments were equally guilty of stirring up hatred of entire enemy populations. Modern historians write as though none of these factors operated, and they are not unique to World War II.
'There is one real problem facing what Norman Finkelstein calls the Holocaust Industry. There is literally nothing to be seen at the three Bug river sites; they are on the far side of Poland, and there is nothing to build a tourist industry around (I have visited them all). That is why they have constantly hyped Auschwitz, which was in my view a glorified slave labour camp with a high mortality rate from all causes (including, it must be said, a comparatively lower number of systematic killings of Jews in small buildings outside the perimeter, known as the White House and the Red House. The official guides are very reluctant to show these two buildings' remains to tourists.
'These killings are documented to my satisfaction.  The forensic tables exhibited to the much-maligned Leuchter Report were the product of a reputable New England laboratory, and they satisifed me that in the buildings analysed by Fred Leuchter in 1988 there was no systematic cyanide-killing of Jews: the New England laboratory found no significant trace of the poison in the buildings. That is still my view.
'The report was so devastating for the reputation of the money-spinning Auschwitz site that the crucifiction of Leuchter began the moment that his report was published in 1989. You see, unlike the Bug river sites, the so-called "Operation Reinhardt camps", at Auschwitz, there are buildings and relics and remains to show to tourists, who bring much treasure and business to the Krakow region.
'Auschwitz is not even mentioned in the well-known January 1943 Korherr statistical report to Himmler on the first ten years of the Final Solution; the Bug river camps are. The conformist Historians dare not say these things now, for reasons I have need to spell out to his Excellency.
'I have incidentally  a copy of the very rare original Jean-Claude Pressac book here. It is very heavy and I can sell it to his Excellency's lawyers if it is needed.'
etc Irving
rg concludes: Pressac was a revisionist who saw the light after studying historical evidence. What a glorious irony it would be were Bishop Richard Williamson also to change his mind as a result of reading material recommended by David Irving!


Follow this blog and/or its author on Twitter.
[-]
  •
Reply
#2
How exactly is this publication getting the personal communication and phots of BP Williamson?


Reply
#3
Quote:I've been asked to make clear that this picture and the one below are copyright Focal Point Publications and cannot be reproduced

Do you mind editing the photos out?  If you have trouble, let me know, and I can take care of it.  Thanks!
Reply
#4
devotedknuckles Wrote:How exactly is this publication getting the personal communication and phots of BP Williamson?

I would guess someone from the Irving camp passed them along since he was the other party privvy to all of that.
Reply
#5
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:I've been asked to make clear that this picture and the one below are copyright Focal Point Publications and cannot be reproduced

Do you mind editing the photos out?  If you have trouble, let me know, and I can take care of it.  Thanks!

Thanks, I missed that.  Taken care of.
Reply
#6
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
devotedknuckles Wrote:How exactly is this publication getting the personal communication and phots of BP Williamson?

I would guess someone from the Irving camp passed them along since he was the other party privvy to all of that.

Or they came from the intermediary that Irving used between himself and Bishop Williamson.  Three people can keep a secret if two are dead, you know.




Reply
#7
Quote:'These killings are documented to my satisfaction.  The forensic tables exhibited to the much-maligned Leuchter Report were the product of a reputable New England laboratory, and they satisifed me that in the buildings analysed by Fred Leuchter in 1988 there was no systematic cyanide-killing of Jews: the New England laboratory found no significant trace of the poison in the buildings. That is still my view.

Irving is a sly one.  Surely he knows that the buildings analyzed by Fred Leuchter and documented on video were not the actual buildings which people were gassed in because they were destroyed and rebuilt with different bricks.  But by not pointing that out, he can still honestly say there was "no significant trace of poison in the buildings.  That is still my view."  On top of that, the New England Laboratory did not do the right type of test for cyanide because they were not informed about what they were suppose to look for. 
Reply
#8
Why bother. That ghastly woman Ruth Gledhill is just another typical media hack. She cannot lift herself above the gutter of her own mentality. She cannot think in terms other than gossip. And is incapable of presenting Williamson in any light other than as some bad-ass celebrity.
Reply
#9
Ruth Gledhill is a lying journalist who poses as a Catholic. (And like the extremist Damian Thompson who favours Gay Marriage and Gay Sex among Pastors, is hailed by pseudo-traditional "extraordinary form" lovers in England and online).

She also claims in her articles that "2,000 years of Christian antisemitism" that "paved the way" for the Holocaust. She is accusing 2,000 years, that is entire Christianity, of paving the way for the Holocaust.

This is a dangerous lady, an evil liar.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...798286.ece
Reply
#10
HMiS Wrote:Ruth Gledhill is a lying journalist who poses as a Catholic.


I believe she's Anglican.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)