Q: Hello, Mr. Porter, may we commence with the most typical question possible: could you please introduce yourself swiftly to our readership?
A: As far as I know I am the only person who ever read the Nuremberg Trial transcript all the way through, not once, but several times. I have three different versions of it. I also have the complete Tokyo Trial transcript, 52,000 pages.
I have an Internet site, www.cwporter.com, with 900 files on war crimes and Nuremberg, including 600 graphics: scans of actual pages from the Nuremberg Trial transcript, scans of the so-called “original” Nuremberg Trial documents, and translations. People quote these things, but they never look at them. Some of these documents have never even translated before. These are documents which most historians have never seen. I have thousands of dollars worth of law books, criminal law, international law, and I have written a number of articles on international law (for example, http://www.cwporter.com/wctrial.htm, http://www.cwporter.com/cc1.htm, http://www.cwporter.com/warcrim45.htm.
Nuremberg is not valid law. Nothing in international law gives the victor power to legislate in international law. Most of the post-war trials had no basis in law; I don’t know of any offhand that did. Maybe some of the minor Japanese trials. But I doubt it.
In 1900, Britain invaded the Boer Republics, stole the gold mines, turned the Western Transvaal into a “smoking desert” (in their own words), imprisoned 110,000 women and children in concentration camps where 28,000 of them died, then, after the war, they tried and shot 2 Boer officers for “misusing a flag of truce”! You’re wasting your time looking for justice in any post-war trial. They are simply a continuation of the war.
Q: If I am not mistaken your first publication ‘Made in Russia: The Holocaust’ deals with the grotesque exaggerations of the Allies concerning the so-called “judeocide”. Could you name a few?
Q: Did this ironical approach work?
A: In a sense it worked perfectly, because there is no possible answer. The only way to deal with that kind of thing -- if you want to consider Nuremberg valid law at all -- is simply to ignore the whole book. So it has been ignored. Apart from one or two ridiculous and mendacious attempts to “explain” the use of “atomic bombs to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz” (for example, http://www.h-ref.de/literatur/r/remer/zeit-luegt.php), the book has been almost entirely ignored. They can’t answer it, so they pretend it doesn’t exist. In that way it failed.
"Ken McVay OBC" , according to his own website, a self-proclaimed homosexual paedophile activist and anti-"hater", has been aware of all this documentation for 12 - 15 years. They don't care. Our enemies are not interested in the truth. They believe they have a "right" to lie.
Q: Furthermore it seems that tons of the original Holocaust accounts (soap, lamp shades, electric plates,...) on which we were examined in school now go unaccounted for.
A: You mean the original documents have all disappeared, and in most cases there is no proof that the original documents ever even existed? That is correct. There are lovely “texts” to quote, but no original document. Look at the “Bullet Order” (http://www.cwporter.com/ps1650.html). The document is illegible, so where did the “official translation” come from? Answer: they translated it first, then forged the document afterwards. Even then it is a botch. All the main documents are like this: worthless. Of course, if it’s an accusation nobody cares about, like “manipulating the currency in Iran”, then you get a very nice document, with signatures and all sorts of goodies. But even then, in most cases, the original has disappeared. I also reproduced dozens of documents from Jean-Claude Pressac (for example, http://www.cwporter.com/undocs.htm and http://www.cwporter.com/verg.htm.
Q: Your second book ‘Not Guilty at Nuremberg’ furthermore dug up some of the official court documents. What was your final conclusion: necessary justice or mere Siegerjustiz in which the conqueror enslaves his conquered lands?
A: N.G., or NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG, http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm, available in
six eight languages including Portuguese and Spanish [and now Russian and Roumanian!!!], was an attempt to outline the defense arguments and point out any legal irregularities not covered by M.I.R.T.H. (MADE IN RUSSIA – THE HOLOCAUST), with approximately 1,000 references. There was no conclusion; it was just an outline. N.G. in Spanish is available in good Spanish in book form.
Q: What were the driving forces and goals behind these projects?
A: You mean the trials? To continue the war by other means. They even said so. Robert Jackson said so. Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court said these trials were a matter of “naked political power” (source: 1966 Collier’s Encyclopedia, “War Crimes Trials”). Incidentally, the whole concept of postwar reparations and war crimes trials was invented by two Jews from the World Jewish Congress BEFORE THE ALLEGED HOLOCAUST EVEN STARTED (source: THE JEWISH PARADOX by Nahum Goldman, Grosset and Dunlap, pp. 122-124; you have to read between the lines a little bit). The original idea was to milk the Germans because the crybaby heebies “lost their property” and so on. They had a financial incentive to invent atrocities -- while millions of others died, in a war THEY declared, on March 24, 1933, for the first time, and repeatedly thereafter. Wars are Jews’ harvests.
Q: You also made a comparison with the other alleged war crimes of the 20th century. Is there a consistent line? Can a comparison between Japanese, Serb, German, Israeli,... war crimes be made?
A: As far as I know, there are no exceptions. Nuremberg is not valid law, and none of these trials have any value whatsoever. Look at Serbia. Clinton bombs the hell out of Afghanistan, Serbia and Irak to distract attention from Monica Lewinski, so Milosovic is a “war criminal”! I admire Milosovic: he treated the Hague court with the contempt which it deserves and is defending himself very well, acting as his own lawyer. Lawyers are useless in these things: they are not aggressive enough. I had one, and he quit before I could fire him.
Q: In 1998 you were convicted before a German court to a certain amount. Could you fill us in on the details?
A: On April 25, 1995, a former member of the Wehrmacht (not the SS), Reinhold Elstner, burnt himself to death at the Feldhernhalle in Munich to protest what he called the “Niagara of lies” flooding over Germany.
"Reinhold Elstner, 25 April 1995: Your Death is Our Beacon of Hope"
Rare pic of Reinhold Elstner as a young man
- "Not for an age, but for all time"
The Munich police actually had the shamelessness to arrest people for placing wreathes on the spot and to remove all the burn marks with a blow torch. In protest, I sent over 200 copies of NICHT SCHULDIG IN NÜRNBERG (www.cwporter.com/nggerm.htm) to Germany, with a protest letter, one to every important newspaper, magazine and politician in the country, to Helmut Kohl, Richard Weizäcker and five others by registered mail, to make sure they got it. The Mayor of Munich, Christian Ude, got his knickers in a twist and the result was 17 months of so-called “legal proceedings”, during which I told them more or less to bugger off. Of course, I was polite about it: I said, “I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to do anything.” In the end, they dropped it.
Q: We were told you are a stateless person.
A: I have been a stateless person since November 8, 1984, that is correct.
For scan of stateless passport, click here
Q: Is the newly installed European extradition arrest a threat to you, as it is to Siegfried Verbeke?
A: The whole concept of unilaterally declared universal jurisdiction is illegal and unworkable. What I want to know is, whose laws take precedence? If Mexico claimed that Mexican law applied in Guatemala, and Guatemala claimed that Guatemalan law applied in Mexico, the result would be a war, after which the victor would impose its own laws on the vanquished. Are Israel and Germany going to go to war against the whole world? Or is a worldwide dictatorship (for example, the so-called “EEC”) going to rewrite all the world’s laws so they are all the same? That’s what they want, actually; in the crazy-house of the EEC, it is considered a huge problem if the rims on plastic cups in Denmark are different from the rims on plastic cups in, say, Italy; same with taps, faucets, and everything else in existence. I’ve translated all their junk, I know what they’re up to. The whole SYSTEM is a threat to me. It’s a threat to everybody in the world.
Q: Who or rather what inspired you to become a holocaust revisionist “holocaust denier” in the judeo-Orwellian sense?
A: No comment, except that the concept of “denial” is very revealing psychologically. It’s also a semantic trick.
Q: What makes you withstand the repression, whereas thousands of others would already have given up?
A: I am astonished at the assumption that I have done anything extraordinary at all. What are we afraid of? What can they do to us? Are they going to burn us at the stake? Are they going to burn a hole in our tongues with a red-hot iron? Are they going to put us to work felling timber at 60 degrees below zero in the Arctic Circle 14 hours a day for 20 years and then shoot us in the back of the head? The witchcraft mania of the Middle Ages lasted 500 years; Communism lasted 70 years, and reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.
Q: How do you see the future of historical revisionism evolving?
A: Assuming that revisionism represents the truth, which I believe is the case, it will continue, regardless of what happens to any individual revisionist. It’s like the Copernican system of astronomy. We have only scratched the surface, and it only just beginning. Did the science of astronomy come to an end with Copernicus, just because the astronomers of the 16th century ran out of ideas or didn’t have a Hubble Telescope?
Q: I think Faurisson once stated: “the future belongs to revisionism, alas not to the revisionists”, implying that the war on the publication level would be won, but that the state and its judeo-liberal class would do anything to prevent dissident shaping.
A: Even that’s not true. There are limits to what they can do, or are willing to do – so far. In Elizabethan England, dissidents actually had their hands, ears and/or noses cut off. Titus Oates [actually, I was thinking of William Prynne] had his ears cut off, in several bits, right down to the nub; one of the Protestant martyrs was burnt at the stake at Smithfield in front of his wife and 10 children. European jails are relatively comfortable. So far. As things stand now, if they want to torture you, they have to say you’re a Moslem.
Q: One of the more recent evolutions we sense in the revisionist movement is that of a certain fatigue: almost everything has already been written to a certain extent, so we see renowned revisionists applying their wit and technique on other more recent events: Zundel on 9/11, Irving on current affairs, etc.
A: Living on the same planet with the Jews is like living with a brat that throws tantrums. They never engage in logical analysis or factual argument; they just turn up the volume on their temper tantrums: 100 decibels, 200 decibels, 400, a thousand, a million… In the end, either you puke up and kill them or you get out of the house. It is unrealistic to expect the same people to go on having original ideas year after year. Most people are lucky to have one original idea, just one. The Leuchter Report was an original idea; the Rudolf Report was an original idea, somewhat less so; the Ball Report was entirely original. So was the Richard Krege Report (ground radar at Treblinka). Just because we’ve run out of ideas personally doesn’t mean the whole process will come to a halt. It’s like the famous, perhaps apocryphal, story of a proposition to abolish the US Patent Office in the mid-1880s on the grounds that “everything had already been invented”. I actually remember people talking about “post-revisionism”, on the grounds that “everything had been said”, as early as 15 years ago, in Brussels, in 1989! That’s ridiculous.
Q: Do you follow these steps also?
A: Yes. The universe is a unified whole. I have written many articles on subjects other than gas chambers: interest rates, exchange rates, the money supply, central banking, slavery, the Confederacy, Communism, Catholicism, abortion, the Gulf War, Rhodesia and South Africa, La Guerra de las Malvinas, the I.R.A., Cuba, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, etc. But the fact remains that the ONLY thing people care about is the existence or non-existence of the gas chambers. Other things are actually more important, but they don’t care.
Q: Is it wise that revisionists take certain political points of view, given the already repeated portrayal in the media as “Neo-nazi nuts”?
A: The evidence for the genocide of the Jews is probably 75% Communist propaganda. Just look at the footnotes in almost any book on the subject. Does that mean our enemies are Communists?
Q: What are your future projects?
A: Maybe I’ll be shot in the head getting on a train. Unfortunate accident. Of course, the police have to make split-second decisions, you know.
Q: Any closing remarks from your side?
A: See http://web.archive.org/web/20060105045426/http://irelandsown.net/. Why should we be afraid if nobody else is?
Disclaimer: I am anti-Communist. What interests me here is not all their Marxist-Leninist rubbish, but the dedication, and some, but not all, of the methods, of Irish nationalists historically.
South Armagh, memorial to hunger striker Raymond Mc Creesh
An Irishman Objects to Irish Republican Link
The Dilemma of Revisionism
Q: Thanks for your answering of these questions!.
If you would have any further comments or suggestions, please be so kind to contact us at:
http://www.bbet.org (site in Dutch, but good "links" page in English)
(Update: Site closed by Belgian pigniks in summer or fall of 2006)
Thought crime squad, Antwerp
6 OCTOBER 2005