The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter

nizkoprophagists (a.k.a. Nizkor) DEBATE PORTER ON HIMMLER SECRET SPEECH

The following is my side of a debate with Jamie McCarthy of the Nizkoprophagic lie and spy site on the so-called Himmler "secret speech" conducted on alt.revisionism in 1998. The increasing sarcasm of my answers is due to the inability of the nizkoprophagists (a.k.a. Nizkor) to understand the simplest things.

For example, when I pointed out that the authenticity and origin of the speech were unproven, the answer was "Come on, Mr. Porter, why did you translate it if you don’t think it exists?"

A more perfect example of the Nizkoprophagic level of intelligence could hardly be imagined.

The debate started with a short item about the use of the German verb "ausrotten", used both figuratively as well as more or less literally in the Himmler speech.

USE OF AUSROTTUNG IN GERMAN DOCUMENTS

[posted on alt.revisionism on January 17, 1998 by Carlos Porter]

I have made a bit of a study of the use of the verb "ausrotten" in the German original of The Decline of the West, by Oswald Spengler (Deutsche
Taschenbuch Verlag, Münich). As you know, the book was finished in 1922, and published in 1923.

"Ausrotten" appears to be a fairly unusual verb in German.

Spengler uses the verb "vernichten" (to exterminate or destroy) many times, but the verb "ausrotten" (to exterminate or destroy) occurs only 5 times, on pages 932, 1050, and 1066.

On pp. 1050 and 1066 it is used to mean physical extermination or killing.

On p. 932 it is used purely figuratively. The sentence is: "In der Zerstörung von Sybaris durch Kroton, der sicherlich nur als Höhepunkt eines wilden Religionskrieges in der geschichtlichen Erinnerung haften blieb, entlud sich derselbe Haß, der auch in Karl I von England und seinen fröhlichen Kavalieren nicht nur eine Irrlehre, sondern auch die weltliche Gesinnung ausrotten wollte."

Translation:

"The destruction of Sybaris by Croton, which certainly remained in historical memory as simply the climax of a savage war of religion, was an
explosion of the same hatred which also wished to extirpate, in Charles I of England, not only a false doctrine, but a worldly way of thinking."

If "ausrotten" means to "exterminate", one can exterminate a king and his cavaliers, but not a "false doctrine" and a "worldly way of thinking". Did
Oliver Cromwell erect gas chambers to exterminate the king and his cavaliers? Or was he merely content with a social and religious revolution?

Yours faithfully,

Carlos W. Porter
17 January 1998

-------

[JAMIE MCCARTHY of the Nizkoprophagic spy and lie site -- who, by all accounts, can hardly read German -- immediately challenged Porter to debate the meaning of the word "Ausrottung", insisting that the dictionary definition is "extermination", repeatedly stating "I have 2 dictionaries on the table, Mr. Porter, and they both back me up 100%!"

McCarthy's real strength as a debater is that he never gets tired of repeating himself, whereas the average person does -- sooner or later.]

--------

REPLY OF 31 JANUARY

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

[deletions]

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the use of the verb "ausrotten" or noun "Ausrottung" in German documents.

My first reaction is to refuse to discuss anything with you until the Nizkor ADL lie-site cleans up its files about me (for example, huge headline:
CARLOS PORTER'S DELIBERATE MISTRANSLATION OF HIMMLER POSEN SPEECH, then, in small print five pages down, an admission that my
translation is acceptable! In that case, why not simply delete the file?
But no, it stays there forever, as if it were engraved in stone. I have several other complaints against Nizkor).

On second thought, however, I am grateful to the Nizkor website for posting several of my articles uncut, so I have decided to discuss the matter with
you. I will number my paragraphs and make a number of general points.

a) It is not correct to assume in the premises that which is to be proven in the conclusion, i.e., to define the discussion so that you win in
advance. This is called a circular argument.

b) It is not correct to say, "Since 'Ausrottung' clearly refers to the physical killing of human beings, I now propose to have a discussion on the
meaning of the verb 'ausrotten'".

c) The question, properly phrased for purposes of discussion, is: "Does 'Ausrottung' refer to the physical killing of human beings?"

d) It is not correct to infer complex historical events from the dictionary definition (!) of individual words taken from dubious documents of unknown
origin.

e) The question is not: what is the definition of "ausrotten". The question is: what happened to the Jews during the war? In the absence of a plan,
budget, order, blueprints, autopsies, forensic studies, etc., attempting to"prove the Holocaust" with something like the Himmler "secret speech", in which the use "Ausrottung" appears perhaps 2 or 3 times, is nothing short of pathetic.

f) "Killing Six million Jews in gas chambers" is not part of the dictionary definition of "Ausrottung".

g) No one disputes that Jews were killed by the thousands; they were shot or hanged for partisan activity and sabotage. Many Germans were shot or
hanged too, for example, for looting during air raids, desertion, falling asleep on guard duty, listening to foreign radio broadcasts, etc.

h) Therefore, the question of whether "Ausrottung" refers to "the killing of human beings" brings you no closer to any "proof of a Holocaust" than
ever. The question is: "were Jews exterminated in gas chambers"?

i) This cannot be inferred from the use of a single word in documents of unknown authenticity.

j) There are perhaps 4 different definitions of the word "Ausrottung": rooting out, eradication, extirpation, extermination.

k) How do we know which definition to use? I see no reason why one cannot "root out" people just as easily as plants. One can "root people out" by
deporting or expelling them. One can "eradicate them" by destroying their financial and political power and influence, confiscating their property,
and expelling them. Finally, one can "exterminate" them. How do we know which definition is correct?

l) My own view is that "Ausrottung" does imply some degree of killing, but not necessarily very much. It is impossible to say how much, or to infer
the circumstances. Many of these killings must be considered legal wartime measures.

m) How many people do you have to "kill" before "killing" becomes "extermination"? Is it a percentage, or an absolute number?

n) My own experience is that "Ausrottung" is much more abstract than the word "killing".
Modern-day Germans, for example, constantly accuse Americans of "exterminating the American Indians", using the verb
"ausrotten". They never accuse us of killing them all, because they know perfectly well it isn't true: there are many Indians still alive, and
always have been. What they mean is, that we destroyed their way of life; we killed many of them, usually when we were at war with them, we disarmed them, we confined them to reservations and made them stay there. We expelled them from certain geographical areas and
confined them to others. That is certainly "uprooting". But is it "extermination"? It all depends on what you mean.

o) I cannot resist pointing out at this point that the American Indians received large amounts for money in cash for their land in many cases. The Sauk Fox tribe received over 600,000 dollars (1,000 dollars per year from 1804 to 1832, then 20,000 dollars a year for 30 years, plus payment of tribal debts to traders) for their land in the 1830s and 40s, after they violated 4 treaties with the United States and went to war with us twice.

We defeated them; we could have imposed any kind of treaty on them we wanted; instead, we agreed to pay them 600,000 dollars (in addition to payment of tribal debts to white traders).
This was in the days when you could buy an able-bodied slave for 500 dollars in gold and the wage of a free white labourer was less than 25 cents a day. Not surprisingly, many Indian tribes bought large numbers of slaves, interbred with Negroes, and more or less disappeared as a race. Then when their numbers diminished, we were accused of "exterminating" them (See 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Black Hawk", "Indians", "Cherokees", "Sioux", etc.). The Five Nations in New York state received 10,000 pounds sterling for their land in 1755; the Treaty of Greenville, Ohio in 1795 provided for the payment to 11 small tribes of 20,000 dollars immediately and 9,500 dollars in perpetuity. Thousands of these treaties are on file in Washington.
In addition to the payment of annuities, they also contained promises of military protection against other tribes. Far from “exterminating” them, in many cases we prevented them from exterminating each other.

p) It appears obvious to me that there was never any attempt to"exterminate" the American Indians, and that we did not exterminate them.
But the term is very subjective, and the accusation continues to be made.

q) I am a professional translator, not a professional mind-reader. If a word is vague in the original, I leave it vague in the translation. If there is any doubt, and if I need to know, I call the client on the telephone and ask him what he means. I am serious. If you want to know what the author of the Himmler"secret speech" means by the word "Ausrottung", for example, you will have to ask him. I can't tell you.

r) If you accuse the Faber pencil company of making lead pencils, you can prove it, because there are millions of documents and tens of millions of
pencils. But you feel free to accuse the Germans of killing six million Jews in huge "gas chambers" in six huge killing centres, and all you can
come up with to prove it, or very nearly all, is a debatable translation of a single word, or at most a few short phrases, in perhaps a half-dozen
really important documents! Of these, one of the most important is the so-called Himmler "secret speech". The document is not an original. Its
origin and authenticity cannot be verified. According to the Holocaust yarn, Himmler made a "secret speech" constituting "proof of a Holocaust", then had it written down and recorded for posterity, to provide "proof of a Holocaust"! You may believe that if you wish.

s) For 90 years, the Jews have insisted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery, and must not be taken seriously, because there is no
original document; their origin cannot be verified. Yet we are expected to believe the Himmler "secret speech". In fact, the Himmler speech is no better than the Protocols.

t) The Himmler "secret speech" does not "prove a Holocaust", and cannot be used to prove any Holocaust. It is the other way around. IF you could prove a Holocaust of the Jews, AND if you could prove the authenticity of the Himmler "secret speech", THEN the Himmler "secret speech" would be consistent with a Holocaust; but it does not prove it.

u) Before splitting hairs in German, let me show you what I mean in plain English. If I say, "I'm going to murder my mother", my meaning is quite
unmistakable. Yet, you cannot convict me of murdering her unless you can prove that she is dead and has been murdered. To do this, you need some
forensic evidence, for example, an autopsy. If she's still alive or died of natural causes, you can't convict me of anything. So how many of the Jewish
victims are still alive or died of natural causes? According to the Israeli Prime Minister's office on 22 November 1997, 4 million "Holocaust
survivors" are still alive.

v) The problem becomes even more complex when the statement is necessarily ambiguous. For example, if I say, "I'm going to get rid of my mother", the
statement is susceptible to several different interpretations. It might mean "I'm putting her on the next plane home", or it might mean "I'm
planning to push her off a cliff". You can't convict me of murdering her on the basis of a statement like that in the absence of any other evidence,
particularly, forensic evidence.

w) This is why I think that "to get rid of" is a perfect translation of"ausrotten": it is sinister-sounding, but ambiguous.

x) There is a limit to just how much one can justifiably read into the definition of a single word or phrase. Let's apply the same statement to a
racial group. In American history, there have been many race riots in which people have said things like "Let's get rid of the niggers". Does that mean
that there was ever any plan to "gas Negroes in gas chambers"? The chances are that a statement like that doesn't mean anything at all, except that
the speaker doesn't like blacks. It's not a serious programme or plan to do anything. It is a meaningless expression of dislike, or at most, a
meaningless incitement to violence.

y) When blacks say, "Get Whitey", does it mean that the blacks are building "gas chambers" for whites?

z) You could translate all these phrases into German and make them sound as sinister as you wished, with just as much logic. When American cowboys and
gold miners said, "The only good Indian is a dead one", does that prove that we built "gas chambers" in which to render them extinct? There is no
question that the statement was made. Why should equivalent German phrases be any more vicious or sinister than their American counterparts?

In short, to summarize, if you want to "prove the Holocaust", you should permit people like Leuchter and Rudolf to do their forensic work unimpeded.
If you disagree with their findings, fine, duplicate their experiments and prove them mistaken. Then, prove the authenticity of the documents. Then we
can discuss the use of single words in German documents.

If you could prove the existence of German "gas chambers for the extermination of human beings" on forensic grounds, you wouldn't need concoctions like the Himmler "secret speech" or any of the other more or less spurious documents and confessions.

My belief is that the word "Ausrottung" in German documents, insofar as the documents are authentic, refers to a plan to destroy Jewish political and financial power, confiscate their wealth, execute certain Jewish criminals (the German equivalents of Ivan Boesky or Jonathon Pollard), and expel them from Germany -- a plan which would in any case have been represented to the world by the Jews as a plan of "extermination".

When we confiscated the property of Japanese Americans and confined them to concentration camps, this was a form of "uprooting" as well; according to the same logic, a few executions would have turned the whole thing into an"extermination programme" -- particularly if we had lost the war and had been unable to supply the camps for months, leading to mass deaths. I think everyone knows this.

I am sorry I can offer no further help in this matter. Perhaps you can intercede with your friends in the ADL to enable German Rudolf, in particular, to work without the danger of a prison sentence every five minutes.

CARLOS W. PORTER
JANUARY 31, 1998
--------

[Reply by MCCARTHY: gas chambers are a "straw man".]
--------

REPLY OF 3 FEBRUARY 1998

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

a) If use of the word "Ausrottung" doesn't prove the existence of the gas chambers, then what have we proven by proving that somebody used the word
"Ausrottung"? Nobody denies that people were shot.

b) When American statesmen said they were going to put a man on the moon in ten years, does the promise in itself prove that they did it?

c) Perhaps we disagree as to the meaning of the word "plan". To me, a"plan" is something worked out in detail. No "plan" to exterminate the
Jews, or anyone else, has ever been found.

d) I have never heard of a murder case in which a defendant got convicted because the jury looked something up in a dictionary.

e) When MGM -- a Jewish-controlled movie studio -- made cartoons of Bugs Bunny handing out bombs in ice cream cones to Japanese children, is that
evidence of a "plan" to "exterminate" the Japanese?

f) If you don't believe in the existence of the White Race, why don't you take a walk through downtown Detroit or East St. Louis late at night? Other
people do believe in the existence of the White Race and will kill you to prove it.

g) I do not believe in the authenticity of the documents which you use to prove cremation times or anything else. I have discussed these documents in my article
"THE UNRELIABILITY OF DOCUMENTS IN JEAN-CLAUDE PRESSAC'S "TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS",
and elsewhere.

h) If I found a "copy" of an "official German document" stating that the Empire State Building has no ground floor and floats in the air by
levitation, people would wonder if such a thing was in fact scientifically possible. The invention of absurd and preposterous "thought crimes" such as
"Empire State Building Levitation Denial" or "denying the levitation of the Empire State Building" would be considered proof of nothing. Yet "official
German documents" are produced "proving" that human bodies can be cremated in 30 - 45 minutes, 3 at a time, using coke for fuel, and this is taken
seriously. Personally, I consider approximately 3/4 of the documents reproduced by Pressac to be forgeries or altered copies.

i) I consider the Himmler speech to be an altered copy of a speech on the military situation; nothing more. To prove differently, you would have to
do forensic tests on the paper.

It would be cruel to leave you in suspense any longer.

My sources (translating the German abbreviations into English) are:

Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Englisch
By Heinz Messinger and Werner Rüdenberg
1981 ISBN 3-468-5122-0

Ausrott/en v/t. (Plants) (also figurative): root out; (figurative), extirpate, eradicate, stamp out; (People) exterminate, wipe out;
Ausrottung, f.: uprooting, extirpation, eradication; extermination; (Politics) (Entire peoples): also: genocide.

Cassel's German and English Dictionary
By Karl Breuil completely revised by Harold T. Betteridge, Funk &
Wagnallis, NY 1958 and 1962.
[No ISBN number]

Ausrotten: v.a. extirpate, exterminate, root out, purge, stamp out, destroy. Ausrottung, f.: destruction, extermination, extirpation.

I must point out a circular argument in the reasoning of your German-speaking friends who insist that the term must be translated as
"extermination". They believe in the so-called Holocaust, so it is"extermination"; I don't believe in it, so, to me, it is "extirpation", most likely physical expulsion accompanied by some degree of killing for criminal offences or in reprisal for guerrilla warfare. I see no way around this problem, except that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

As for my professional qualifications, it's really none of your business, but I've translated contracts involving tens of millions of dollars, and
let me tell you something, I always get paid. If it's vague in the original, I leave it vague in the translation. Do you want to see my tax
returns? 5 or 6 years ago, I made [deletion] dollars in one year, doing all the work myself. I usually make about half as much, but it's not worth earning
more. Do you want to pay my Valued Added Tax (a kind of sales tax) for translations I did in the last 6 months alone? It comes to over [deletion]
dollars. Shall I send you the tax form? Perhaps your friends at Nizkor will pay it for me.

I've translated thousands of legal and technical documents, including medical reports, lab reports, accident reports, patent applications, laws,
decrees, regulations, contracts, judgements, summonses, legal arguments, technical reports, property transfers, deeds, foreign exchange control
regulations, court documents, financial reports and accounts, bond issues, loan contracts, insurance contracts, commercial correspondence, reports on
mechanical heart valves, roofing systems, electrical systems, veterinary surgery, brain surgery, art, painting, computers, menus, advertising, etc.
etc..

I am a qualified conference interpreter (although I have never worked as an interpreter) and a member of the Institute of Linguists, London, a
recognized professional association.

Why did I demand my German court documents in English so that "I wouldn't have to have everything translated"? For the same reason I told them I
couldn't appear due to "pedal-driven brain-bashing machine induced injuries and severe radiation burns caused by a German WWII atomic bomb". Because
they have no right to try me for anything, and because I have a right to cause them as much trouble as I possibly can. It's in the law. They are
required to supply me with all documents in my native language, and they persisted in refusing to do so.

I have spoken very little German in the past eight years and do not translate into German. I believe I have a right to say that I do not feel
sufficiently comfortable in spoken German to defend a court case, orally, before a German court. That is my right. I am a translator into English,
not an interpreter into German. Perhaps you have no idea how difficult it is to speak correct German. I would speak much better German than I do if I
did not speak Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian as well. Perhaps you wouldn't understand that.

But since the Germans have been kind enough to offer me a "total immersion" refresher course in spoken German, there is some chance that my spoken
German might improve somewhat in the near future, possible with some large admixture of slang.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in your problems with German documents.
-------
[Reply by McCARTHY, apparently obsessed with dictionaries]

--------

REPLY OF 5 FEBRUARY 1998

To Mr. McCarthy,

Since we are all such hot-shots in the German language, and since dictionaries are infallible guides to the translation of certain words --
particularly in view of the manner in which WWII has altered the meaning of certain words -- I have the following question for you.

I once translated an extremely lengthy commercial representation contract, from German into English, between a world-famous automobile manufacture and
all their car dealers in Germany. Among other things, it stated that if the representative sold enough cars, he would be "sonderbehandelt"; he would
receive "Sonderbehandlung".

Does this mean that the manufacturer is going to murder all the car dealers? And, if so, does my professional duty require me to reveal this
information to the world?

Since the dealers are to be killed for selling too many vehicles instead of too few, is this an example of the "extermination through work" which we
are always hearing about?

Perhaps this is what the smokestacks on the factories are for: the cremation of car dealers who sell too many cars. It's obvious! Why does the
world stand by and do nothing?

Also, when I translate a tourist brochure stating that a "Sonderzug" is being run to some ski resort during the winter months, should I warn the
world that the skiers (presumably those unable to ski productively or pay for enough lessons) are to be murdered upon arrival?

My conscience is gnawing me; I cannot live with this knowledge any longer. Shall I seek an interview with the Pope to warn him of this fiendish plot
to exterminate the world's car dealers and skiers? (After all, the Pope's a Pole, he'll believe anything.)

I feel that revelation of this knowledge may well ruin my translation business as well as directly endangering my life -- since the persons
responsible for this plot will no doubt stop at nothing to conceal their diabolical designs -- but my duty to the world's car dealers and skiers by
far outweighs any consideration I may have for my personal safety.

'Tis a far, far, better thing I do, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.

I cannot live with this inner torment. Shall I commit self-suspension with a typewriter ribbon (if I can find one in these days of computers)?

Your advice in this matter is much appreciated.

CARLOS W. PORTER
5 FEBRUARY 1998

P.S. Please don't forget to write a Broadway play about me after my untimely demise. I assume that Nizkor can be relied upon to produce the
literary works required to ensure my immortality as a martyr to the truth about this horrible Holocaust?

P.P.S. When can we meet to discuss the royalty arrangements? I am urgent need of cash to pay all the back taxes on my translation work. Can we work
out a payment in advance? I promise to furnish further details of this fiendish plot if the cash advance is sufficiently large. Please advise.

---

[Reply by MCCARTHY: Sonderbehandlung means killing.]

----------

REPLY OF 7 FEBRUARY 1997

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

a) Many thanks for the confirmation that "Sonderbehandlung" means execution.

b) Sonderbehandlung = execution.

c) Car dealers who sell too many cars will be "sonderbehandelt" = killed.

d) This proves the existence of a plot to kill car dealers.

e) I've got your documents on the table, Mr. McCarthy. They back me up 100%.

f) The plot cannot have been 100% successful, however, since 4 million car dealers are still alive.

g) Car dealers who are still alive are called "survivors".

h) Use of the word "survivor", of course, proves that millions of other car dealers were in fact killed.

i) It was a Japanese car manufacturer; perhaps the car dealers are being eaten as well. (See my articles on Japanese war crimes trials.)

j) Is executing people and calling it "Sonderbehandlung" any worse than smashing children's hands for throwing stones, or dynamiting houses and
torturing prisoners, again, for throwing stones, and calling it something else?

k) If someone "denied" the reality of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, would you care?

l) Would you dedicate your life to proving the reality of Israeli crimes against Palestinians just because someone "denied" them?

m) No one "denies" the atrocities of the British, Americans, Soviets, Czechs, Poles, and Communists, but no one cares about them either. Their
victims have no rights. What makes the Jews so special?

n) If someone "denied" the reality of American crimes in Viet Nam, would you care?

o) If someone "denied" the reality of Communist crimes in Viet Nam, would you care?

p) It is hard to imagine anything more contemptible than using self-pity as a weapon against the world, then using that same self-pity to justify
atrocities against others -- in particular, the Palestinians, and, most recently, the Irakis. Israel is a torture state, unique in the world.

q) In effect, Jews demand a near-monopoly on the world's pity, expressed and payable in cold cash and enforced by criminal prosecution. Is this why
Jews have been universally disliked for 3000 years?

r) Is this why they have been expelled from nearly every country in Europe?

s) The Old Testament contains 137 descriptions of 100% extermination committed by Jews, or Hebrews, if you prefer, on God's orders. You can
count them. The only problem in counting them is deciding when one mass murder description stops and the next one begins, since they are virtually
continuous. No original extermination order signed by God has ever been found, but we have the confessions of the criminals (Moses, Joshua, David,
etc. etc). That this mentality is still very influential has been shown by Dr. Israel Shahak [JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH RELIGION, Pluto Press], among others.

t) My question about Bugs Bunny is a serious one [see 3 February, (e) above].

u) Would you agree that Jews are far too free and easy about advocating and practising the extermination of others, in view of their sensitivity with
regards to themselves?

v) Since the word "Ausrottung" is used to describe our treatment of the American Indians by every German who feels himself placed even the
slightest bit on the defensive by any American, why do the American Indians waste their time rain-dancing for tourists and opening gambling casinos?

w) All the so-called Native Americans need to do is turn some wigwam into a "gas chamber" ["GAS CHAMBER; NEVER USED] or, possibly,
[DESIGNED AS KIVA, CONVERTED INTO GAS CHAMBER], fake a few "photocopies" of "official government documents", write up a few impossible"eyewitness statements", rake in 50 billion dollars, invent the crime of "Native American Holocaust Denial", and retire to Miami beach.

x) The only problem with the scheme described above is that the American Indians possess an innate sense of human dignity which the Jews have never
exhibited and will never understand.

y) My article THE UNRELIABILITY OF DOCUMENTS IN JEAN-CLAUDE PRESSAC'S"TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS" is posted on the Nizkor libel-site. Pressac has done the world a great service in reproducing these documents so that we can see just how worthless most of them really are. (The blueprints are authentic.)

z) Don't let the French or Germans hear you refer to the gas chambers as a "straw man", since you will probably be fined or imprisoned.

Faithfully,

CARLOS W. PORTER
7 FEBRUARY 1997

P.S. I'll let the Detroit blacks define the White Race for you, they have a better grasp of these anthropological matters.

-------

[Reply by MCCARTHY: complaints of Porter's sarcasm.]

--------

REPLY OF 10 FEBRUARY 1997

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

a) Perhaps you recall the episode in Alice Through the Looking Glass where the Knave of Hearts is convicted of writing a poem in which he confesses to stealing tarts. The poem isn't in his handwriting and doesn't mention tarts and isn't signed, but that proves he's guilty; otherwise, he would have
signed his name to it like an honest man! The real problem with the Himmler speech isn't linguistic, it's logical and legal. You wouldn't understand
that.

b) The purpose of sarcasm is to illustrate certain logical fallacies.

c) You say EXTIRPATE isn't a correct translation of Ausrotten. But if we look up EXTIRPATE in Langenscheidt's English-German, we get: ausrotten (!),
vernichten; (medical) herausschneiden, entfernen; EXTIRPATION = noun, Ausrottung; (medical) extirpation.

d) You say UPROOT isn't a correct translation either. But if we look up UPROOT in Langenscheidt's, we get ausreissen, (tree, etc.) entwurzeln (also
figurative); (figurative) herausreissen (from = aus); (figurative) ausmerzen, AUSROTTEN (!!!).

e) Of course, if you look up EXTERMINATION, again, you get "Ausrottung" again, too. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

f) Spengler's book in German is called Der Untergang des Abendlandes, translated as The Decline of the West. Yet if we look up UNTERGANG in the
dictionary, we get (astronomy) setting; (fig.) downfall, ruin; destruction, death, end of the world, sinking, shipwreck, doom, etc. "Decline" isn't
even listed. If we look up EXTINCTION, we get Erlöschen, Aussterben, Untergang. There is a certain freedom in these things. Why don't you tell
me the title of the book is mistranslated, it ought to be something else? Sue the publisher. That ought to be an easy trick for somebody like you.

Faithfully,

CARLOS W. PORTER

P.S. Regarding the Sonderbehandlung documents, I have no opinion on the first source for the moment, except that I would not trust the author of
the book a mile away.

905 PS and 1944 PS are not in the IMT volumes, which makes me rather suspicious; 2233 PS was type-set by the Soviets; really we ought to look at
the original; 3012 PS is a facsimile but is, I believe, authentic; while 3040 PS is also type-set.

I am very suspicious of all except 3012 PS which seems logical in the context of guerrilla warfare. I'll translate it some time. Taken as a
whole, it gives rather a different impression
...
"TMWC IV p. 1166" is a mistaken reference.

How anyone can quote post-war German kangaroo courts or the interrogations of Adolf Eichmann, obviously the victim of sleep deprivation and/or drugs
or torture, is a mystery to me.

It is sometimes forgotten than Eichmann pled innocent, stating: "I was neither a murderer, nor a mass murderer".

Give my regards to Bugs Bunny.
--------
[Documents 3012-PS and 3040-PS were then translated and posted by Porter]

--------
[Private e-mail from German asking if Porter would explain to him the matters he refused to explain to McCarthy?]

[REPLY BY PORTER]
----

Dear Mr. [deleted],

Of course, I am making a joke, I would have thought that was obvious. I am satirizing McCarthy's reasoning with regards to the word "Ausrottung".

The point is that, in the context of the automobile representation contract, I do not know what the term "Sonderbehandlung" means, and I cannot pretend to know.
I can't look it up in the dictionary and say, aha, Sonderbehandlung means murder, the manufacturer mentions Sonderbehandlung, therefore the manufacturer is going to murder the car dealers.

I am amazed at the effrontery of any human being attempting to accuse an entire nation of killing millions of people on the basis of a dictionary
definition of a word. There is no question that people were hanged or shot. "Ausrottung" obviously implies some killing, but can also be used
figuratively to a great extent, with all sorts of different shades of meaning, or modern-day Germans would not use the word in relation to the
American Indians.

I see no need to repeat myself, except that you sound like a reasonable person. If you could prove a Holocaust, and if you could prove the
authenticity of the Himmler speech, the speech would be consistent with a Holocaust, but cannot prove it. It doesn't work the other way around. I am
very suspicious of many of these documents, I assume you have seen my article on J.C. Pressac; he's done the world a service in reproducing these
documents, so that we can see just how many forgeries there really are. You can't take anything for granted in this business, nothing. I'll send you
the article if you want.

McCarthy says the question of the gas chambers is a "straw man", but to me it is essential; what is more, it is essential to everyone else as well.
When he says, "I have two dictionaries, and they both back me up 100%", I am simply astonished at the impudence of it all. If there was a programme
to exterminate the Jews, fine, prove it, but not with something like that.

If a Mexican threatened another Mexican, rather ambiguously, and then killed him, you'd translate the threat to prove malice aforethought. But
the threat, and the translation of it, cannot substitute for an inquest, an autopsy, a murder weapon. You've got to prove the victim was dead, and died
as a result of murder. I don't see why people can't understand this. Four million so-called Holocaust survivors still alive, 50 years later [see 31 JANUARY (u) above], but no, it's always somebody else who died in a gas chamber. You don't know who the victims were, or if even they are really dead. The families are always being reunited, etc.

Thousands of tons of captured German documents, and this is all they can come up with 50 years later, is J.C. Pressac and the like. Perhaps 50
important documents, a dozen "eye-witnesses", no forensic evidence at all; anybody who examines the matter scientifically, like Germar Rudolf, is sent
to prison. Nizkor uses "official German documents" which are obvious forgeries [such as Document bw/30/42, from p. 237, Pressac, posted on this website]
to prove crematory processes which are obviously impossible. The material quoted by Nizkor is farcical. Now they've got the impudence to
quote the interrogations of Adolf Eichmann in Israel. Israel is a torture state, look how they treat the Palestinians. The Jews use self-pity as a
weapon against the world, but they spend half their time torturing children, breaking the hands of children. My question about Bugs Bunny was
serious [3 Febuary, (e)]. What about the children in Irak?

Again, thanks for writing, you've treated me with respect.

C. Porter

------

[POSTING BY SAME GERMAN: COMPLICATED DISCUSSION OF TRANSLATION PROBLEMS]

20 FEBRUARY 1998

[REPLY BY PORTER] [with some show of annoyance]

a) If we really want a rarified atmosphere, why not break "Ausrottung" down into its component parts? Aus = out, "Rotte", in modern German, as you well know, = troop, band, gang, horde, lot, mob, file of troops, squad, two-ship formation, pack, company, etc.; Rottenführer, in the WWII German army, was, I believe, a squad leader, today, it is a foreman.
Zusammenrottung (zusammen = together) = "rioting or unlawful assembly". I know it's not part of the dictionary definition, but "Ausrottung", to me,
rather suggests the dispersal or expulsion of a mob of people; i.e., it is, by its very nature, very much of an abstract sort of word, not at all like
Töten, to kill, from Tod, from death. Why don't we argue about that for a month?

b) Charles Dodgson, the author of Alice Through the Looking Glass, was a professor of mathematics at Christ Church, Oxford, and wrote many books on
mathematics and logic. At your request, I will explain the matter again. Please pay very careful attention.

c) The Knave of Hearts (that's Heinrich Himmler), writes a "poem" (the"Secret Speech", 1919-PS), in which he confesses to "stealing tarts"
(exterminating the Jews).

d) The "poem" is not in his handwriting (it is entirely typewritten on plain paper, without any letterhead, stamps, or handwritten markings of any
kind; the handwritten notes are mostly illegible, at least to me, but they are legible where the incriminating statements ought to appear, and they
are not there; the origin and authenticity of the notes and voice recording are unestablished).

e) The "poem" "does not mention tarts" (it mentions Jews in 3 paragraphs out of a total of 116 pages; it speaks of the "Ausrottung der Juden", then
states that the "Ausrottung der Juden" is "in the programme" -- presumably the Party programme, a public document for electoral purposes -- and then speaks of the "Ausrottung" of laziness)[!!!] It also accuses the Russians of cannibalism, saying that the average Russian is happy to put his
neighbour's liver in his lunch box [!].

f) The "poem" is "not signed" (does not bear a signature).

g) But the "poem" "proves he is guilty" ("proves the Holocaust"), because"otherwise he would have signed his name to it like an honest man" (i.e. we"know there was a Holocaust", so we translate "Ausrottung" as"extermination", then we turn around and use our own translation as "proof
of the Holocaust"!). This is called arguing in a circle -- assuming in the premises that which is to be proven in the conclusion.

h) In law, this kind of thing is called "shifting the burden of proof". For example:

i) If I get arrested for burglarizing a house at 10 Oak St., they've got to prove I burglarized a house at 10 Oak St. If I break a window in a
dwelling house during the nighttime and stick my hand through, OK, it's burglary, but they've got to prove it. They've even to prove it was
nighttime (or getting dark). If I say, "I don't know nuthin' about, I wasn't there, and you got the wrong guy", they can't say "Aha! He didn't
deny there was a burglary; that proves there was a burglary; that proves he's guilty." That's crazy.

j) If I get arrested for stealing a car, nobody expects me to say, "There wasn't any stolen car"; that's crazy. And they can't say "Aha! He didn't
deny there was a car theft, that proves there was a car theft, that proves he's guilty."

k) If I get arrested for robbing a market with a .38 calibre revolver, nobody expects me to say, "There wasn't any robbery", that's crazy. All I
can say, and all they will permit me to say, is "I don't know nuthin' about it, I wasn't there, and you got the wrong guy." They can't say, "Aha! He
didn't deny there was a robbery, that proves there was a robbery, that proves he's guilty."

l) No court system in the world would permit that. That didn't even happen during the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages. It doesn't even
happen in African dictatorships. But it happened at Nuremberg.

m) Same thing if I get arrested for "gassing Six Million Jews". What am I supposed to say? "I don't know anything about it, and you got the wrong
guy". Then the Nuremberg Tribunal, and all war crimes tribunals ever since, say, "The defendants at Nuremberg didn't deny there was a Holocaust, that
proves there was a Holocaust, that proves they were guilty." That's crazy.

n) In a real trial, they've got to prove the weapon is capable of doing what they claim it did.

o) Let's say I get arrested for threatening some guy with a flick knife.I'm supposed to have opened it with a flick of the wrist and robbed him of
five dollars. I say, "OK, it's my knife, but you can't open it that way, it's rusty." The police confiscate the knife and put in a plastic bag.
Every policeman who handles that knife has to sign for it, it's called the "chain of custody of the evidence". The prosecutor has to bring that knife
to court and open it with a flick of the wrist right there in the courtroom and prove that it can open that way. So the prosecutor brings it to court,
and of course, it works perfectly! So we subpoena every policeman who handled the knife. We've got a right to cross-examine them. If I can get
them to admit that they've altered the evidence by oiling the knife, maybe I can get acquitted. They've got to bring the evidence to court. They can't
just come to court with a "photograph" of the knife and an "affidavit" from the witnesses.

p) Let's say I rob a market with a .38 calibre revolver. It's a real gun, and it's loaded, but it can't shoot, see, because the firing pin's busted.
Some jurisdictions make a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree robbery. First degree robbery has to involve a weapon capable of causing "death or
serious injury". If the gun can't shoot, it's not first degree robbery. Everybody who handles that gun has to sign for it. To prove first degree
robbery, they've got to take the gun to a police firing range and attempt to fire it. The ballistics expert has to write a report, and come to court
and be cross-examined. If I can get the police to admit that they've altered the evidence by repairing the firing pin, I'm not guilty of first
degree robbery. Of course, I'm still guilty of second degree robbery, but the point is, they can't just come to court with a "photograph" of the gun,
and an "affidavit" from the witness; what's more, the prosecutor can't just "read" the report to the jury (particularly if the prosecutor is an armed
robber himself, like the Soviets). The Americans at Nuremberg came to court with a "photograph" of a can of Zyklon, "photographs" of dead bodies,
"photocopies" of documents, and a stack of "affidavits". They only called 33 witnesses in the first Nuremberg Trial.

q) I've only translated one police murder report, but if a guy says, "I'm going to knock you down", and then he knocks the guy down and kills him,
I'm going to translate it as "I'm going to knock you down", even if death results. I'm not going to translate it as "I'm going to kill you", because
it's not there; I can only translate what is there.

r) I have always said that if you could prove that there was a Holocaust of the Jews, and that the Himmler speech is authentic, then the speech
would be consistent with a Holocaust of the Jews, but it doesn't work the other way around.

s) If a Mexican threatens another Mexican and then kills him, you would translate the threat to prove malice aforethought; but the threat, and your
translation of it, do not prove murder; it is no substitute for an inquest.

t) Let's say I shoot some guy in my kitchen. My little boy hollers "Daddy shot Charlie!" We know who Daddy is, we know what "shot" means, and we know
who "Charlie" is, he's the victim. OK, "Daddy shot Charlie" is an excited utterance, that's an exception to the Hearsay Rule, my neighbour can come
to court and say he heard my kid holler "Daddy shot Charlie". But they've still got to do an inquest. They've got to bring the witness to court. They
can't just introduce a "photograph" of the body, an "affidavit" from the neighbour, and a "photograph" of the gun. Let's say I've threatened Charlie
in the past. I told him,"Ah'm a gonna kick yore ass". It's not a threat to kill him, but it proves malice, I can't say I was just cleaning the gun and
it went off. They've still got to do an autopsy, ballistics tests, fingerprint tests, etc. If I shot him in the chest from 10 feet away, I
might get off on manslaughter: "We were arguing, and I shot him in the heat of anger". If the angle of entry shows he was lying on the floor when I
shot him, or if I shot him in the temple at point-blank range, I'll certainly be convicted of first degree murder; but they need the autopsy
and ballistics tests.

u) They never did any tests of any kind in any war crimes trial that I know of. The only forensic report they ever introduced at Nuremberg was
USSR 54, which "proved" German guilt for the Katyn massacre. The Nuremberg defendants didn't deny the existence of the gas chambers, but they didn't
deny the existence of the steam chambers either. They had a whole courtroom full of lawyers. Not one defendant, not one lawyer, ever said, "Hey, 6
weeks ago, it was 10 steam chambers at Treblinka, now it's 10 gas chambers, what's going on here?" This fact alone proves that the defendants and
defence were intimidated.

v) I believe that the Americans performed tests on the gas chamber at Dachau, but that they were negative; i.e., that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers knew, by November 5, 1945, that there was no gas chamber at Dachau, and, by inference, that no other gas chamber elsewhere could
function in the manner alleged, but that the order was given, certainly by President Truman, to proceed with the accusation on political grounds, even
though they knew perfectly well that it wasn't true.

w) I believe that this order can be found at pages 000390 and 000391 of the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, file designation 12-226-bk2, dated
5.29.1955 from GSA Postal Censorship, consisting of 1 document 5 pages, 1 document 2 pages, still secret by order of 27 June 1974 from GSA Postal
Censorship; the pre-trial gas chamber exhibits follow immediately (never introduced into evidence).

x) I've written about this in my articles on Dachau. I won't repeat myself. I believe the US Army Corps of Engineers went to President Truman
and said, "Sir, we've found evidence that these stories of gas chambers are not true, what should we do about it?" and I believe that Truman said, in
writing, "The accusation is to be made regardless", and that letter still exists in that file. They then re-wrote their Dachau "gas chamber report"
and took it right over to Nuremberg and introduced it into evidence, even though they knew perfectly well it wasn't true. What kind of trial is that?

y) You correctly state that I must translate "according to the meaning and the context". Do you mean the context of the 3 paragraphs in the 116
page speech, or the meaning and context of the 3 paragraphs in the Holocaust myth as a whole?

z) Personally, I was presented with a purely technical translation problem, the use of the same word, always very vaguely, 3 times in the same
text. In commercial translation work, if something appears likely to cause a dispute, you translate it very neutrally and very literally. If a
contract says, "Shipping prices will continue to evolve", does that mean they're going up or down? I can't know; all I can say is: "Shipping prices
will continue to evolve."

aa) If a term appears likely to cause confusion, you use the same word every time; it doesn't matter so much what you call it, as long as you are
consistent. You don't call something a "substrate" in one sentence and a"load-bearing support" two lines down, because they won't know whether
you're talking about the same thing or not.

bb) I translated "Ausrottung" as "extirpation" because it is vague enough to fit all three usages in the text. If this were a complaint over a
commercial translation, I'd say, OK, fine, gimmie two thousand bucks and 21% VAT, and you can re-write it all you like.

cc) Please provide me with a complete list of all the persons Göring is alleged to have murdered. Perhaps he beat his first wife to death with a
sledge hammer?

dd) I've had 6 German judges myself, and I'm glad to hear how fair and impartial they are.

ee) Remember that joke about the plot to kill all the car dealers [5 February], "I cannot live with this inner torment, 'tis
a far, far better thing I do, etc. etc. blah, blah blah"? You took it seriously; I got a big long e-mail from you asking me all how could I be a
translator and not know what a "Sonderzug" is; I had to explain to you that it was a joke. I wrote to somebody else, and said, hey, you know that joke
about the plot to kill all the car dealers, somebody took it seriously, people are stupid; the immediate answer was, “oh, that must be [deleted],
he's a nice kid, but dense as only a German can be”; I must deduce that your powers of perception are somewhat limited.

ff) On second thought, I think I'll give up this translatin' racket, cause I just ain't cut out for it; I really thought I could put one over on
you and yer pal Jamie, translatin' "Ausrottung" as "extirpitatin', 'stead'a"'stermination", but I know when I'm done, see, I'm gonna give up this
translatin' racket and lead a life of crime. Crime pays, workin' don't. Tell ya what I'll do, since yer pal Jimmie [I can hardly bring myself to
call him Jamie, as that gives me the feeling that I am referring to a child], see, he can be the brains, see, on account of how he's so much
smarter than me, workin's a waste a time, there's no percentage in it, so we stick up 50 gas stations, Jamie and me, but we don't kill nobody, see,
then, 'cause the MO's the same, we get arrested and charged for a gas station robbery in which 2 people are killed. Well, you know me, I like a
good robbery as much as the next guy, but I don't wanna get smogged for no murder, I'm a weakling, see, I can't take it, so I scrag myself in jail,
see, and I leave a suicide note that says "If it wasn't for that dirty son of a bitch Jamie McCarthy, this wouldn't have happened." What I mean is, if
Jamie hadn't talked me into goin' along on 50 robberies, I wouldn't be facing no double murder charge. The note is authentic, it's in my
handwriting. But you know -- you KNOW -- that if the prosecutor can introduce that note into evidence (probably as a "dying declaration
exception to the Hearsay Rule"), every court, and every judge, and every jury in the country, is going to take it as meaning "McCarthy is guilty" --
guilty, not just of 50 robberies, but of 2 murders as well. And he can protest all he wants. He can say, "I'm a respectable stick-up artist, I
don't kill nobody, see, all I do is threaten them with guns and take their money." Ha! Ha! They'll laugh him right out of the court house and right
into the smogger *. They "know" he's guilty, see, 'cause they got the note to"prove" it. Hand-wrote.

* Prison slang for "gas chamber". Abbreviations Dictionary, 9th edition, Ralph de Sola, Dean Stahl and Karen Kerchelich, CRC Press, p. 1093 (since we are so fond of dictionaries).

gg) Don't worry, Jamie; take a deep breath and it'll all be over quickly. Plop. Fzzzzzzzzz…..
.
hh) The question remains: why should we cry buckets over a load of smogged Jews fifty-three years ago on evidence that wouldn't convict you for robbing somebody of a five-dollar bill on the street with a rusty flick knife?

Faithfully,
CARLOS W. PORTER
20 FEBRUARY 1998
-----------

[REPLY FROM GERMAN: COMPLICATED DISCUSSION OF MEDIEVAL GERMAN; "AUSROTTUNG" MEANS "UPROOTING"]

----------

REPLY BY PORTER [given in full]:

Call it uprooting then; suit yourself.
-------------

The debate then terminated.
-------------

Sources of legal information:

CRIMINAL DEFENSE TECHNIQUES: Sidney Bernstein, Robert M. Cipes, Matthew Bender, 6 vol.
CRIMINAL LAW ADVOCACY: McKlosky, Schoenberg, Matthew Bender, 6 vol.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF NON-MEDICAL EXPERTS: Robert L. Habush, Matthew Bender, 1 vol.

P.S. Isn’t is strange how the minute anything happens to one, Jew it immediately happens to six million of them? The following is only one example:

“Though anti-Semitism has been unmasked and discredited, it is to be feared that its history is not yet at an end. While there remains in Russia and Rumania over six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded, and who periodically overflow the western frontier, there must continue to be a Jewish question in Europe; and while there are weak governments, and ignorant and superstitious elements in the enfranchized classes of the countries affected, that question will seek to play a part in politics.”

Source: 1911 Encylopaedia Britannica, "Anti-Semitism", vol. II, p. 145, article written by Lucien Wolfe, Vice-President of the Jewish Historical Society of England. Formerly President of the Society. Joint Editor of the Bibliotheca Anglo-Judaica.

MADE IN RUSSIA - THE HOLOCO$T

Return to ARTICLES PAGE

Return to CONTENTS PAGE