By Eleison Comments in Eleison Comments on March 23, 2019
On January 31 last, the European Court of Human Rights announced its long-awaited decision to reject the appeal of the author of these “Comments” against his almost unanimous condemnation by seven different courts of law in Germany over several years for the “crime” by German law, of questioning on German soil in November of 2008 whether Six Million people really were gassed under the Third Reich. The two German defence lawyers made an honourable attempt to defend their politically most incorrect client, but they were fighting with one hand tied behind their back, because German law forbade them to take their stand on historical truth. Instead, in Germany as in many countries today, truth is no longer the measure of certain private interests, rather these private interests have become the measure of truth.
But how can truth thus have been dethroned? Like Almighty God Himself, Truth is either Number One, or it is nothing. God Himself can be Number One only, because He is the Creator infinitely superior to His entire Creation. Truth is Number One only, because if we define it as the matching of mind to reality, then any diminution or contradiction of truth, any preferring of a non-truth to that truth which the non-truth denies, means a corresponding loss of grip of my mind on reality, and therewith a lesser or greater slide of my whole self into fantasy and lies. So it is obvious that in the laws and law-courts of any nation, the truth is of paramount importance. Do not witnesses in a normal law-court swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”?
Here is why great law-givers count as founders of their nations, e.g. Moses of the Israelites, Solon of the Athenians, Lycurgus of the Spartans, because they establish the framework of justice among their people, appointing to each man his due, thus making social relations and societies possible. Even the society of 22 men in a humble game of soccer needs its own administrator of justice, the referee. And he cannot act as referee without the truth. Was that an honest tackle or was it a foul? Now whether in justice it deserved a penalty or not depends on the truth of what actually happened. Thus living in society is possible only with a measure of justice, and justice is only possible with a measure of truth. Blessed is the nation that has law-makers and judges who reward what is truly right and punish what is truly wrong.
Now let us look at laws and courts which punish any questioning of the notorious murder of Six Million victims in World War II. Was it a historical fact, or not? If it was true, then to question it can be bad if the damage done is bad enough, but if the murder never took place, then it is in accordance with truth to call it in question, and not only is it not bad, it is positively good, to call it in question. For if the Six Million are a monstrous myth weighing down on people’s minds as the foundational dogma of what acts as their false religion, am I not a liberator if I help to free their minds from the lie? “The Truth will set you free,” says Our Lord (Jn.VIII, 32). Is it not then as clear as day that if the Six Million never were murdered, then to question that murder deserves a great reward from society, and not a punishment?
Now politicians and their private interests can twist truth to a certain extent, but truth is of such universal force that it cannot be suppressed altogether. Therefore the common judgment of serious historians, based on objective evidence, can still rise up against the most powerful of private interests. Such is the case with the “gassing” of “six million” victims under the Third Reich. Private interests can claim what they like, but they cannot change the objective facts of 75 years ago. And what serious researchers into those facts more and more allege now is that the “gassing” never happened.
Therefore with laws forbidding its denial, any State is building on sand. Let all States beware of passing such laws that put the truth in second place, because at the very least, in this case, historical truth – as opposed to emotional “truth” – is not necessarily on their side.