Walter F. Mueller's Hate Factory
Germar Rudolf
First Encounter
In 2002, many active revisionists became increasingly worried, if not upset, about the lack of productivity by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR). I wrote a paper about this entire affair, in which I documented both this lack of productivity as well as the criticism made by many leading revisionist scholars. In an attempt to improve relationships with the IHR, and thus hopefully its performance, I decided in January 2005 to temporarily remove my criticism from the Internet, hence the paper currently posted is only a drastically shortened version.
One of the chapters that I deleted back in January 2005 was my response to an attack levied against me for my scolding of the IHR. It had been written by a certain Walter F. Mueller, an individual who never met or spoke to me, but who thought that he can describe me as a person who "is hard to get along with, rude, and has exhausted his welcome [with] some people since his arrival from Europe," and who "treats us like shit." I leave it up to the reader to judge these unsupported statements of a person who, at the time he wrote this, never met me or had any other kind of exchange or dealing with me, be it by phone, email, or any other kind of communication. I am not going to regurgitate the affair here, because it would reopen the IHR affair again, which I will not do.
The Sacramento Disaster
In early 2004, Walter F. Mueller tried to organize a big revisionist conference at Sacramento. It did not take place, however, because the conference rooms Mueller had rented got cancelled a few days before the event. He had no back-up facility, because he had terminated a back-up rental agreement just a few days before that. Instead of trying to reorganize the meeting by quickly finding another conference room, Mueller simply quit and abandoned all visitors and speakers in transit. Mueller then attacked some of those who tried to reorganize this event. After being exposed to much scolding and criticism from many sides for his unprofessional handling of this situation, Mueller wrote in a subsequent email something to the effect that Germar Rudolf had been one of the few who behaved properly by not scathing him, but by trying to solve the problems that had evolved in a professional and calm manner. (This was about books that had been shipped to the conference by me and another German guest speaker for sale, and which Mueller was now trying to get rid of.)
Mueller's Downfall
Probably as a consequence of this conference disaster, Mueller lost support from various people and organizations, as I learned only recently. But since this is second hand information only, I am not sure if that is indeed the trigger for what happened next.
On July 31, 2005, Mueller sent an email to his mailing list, in which he quotes from an email he claims to have received from James Kelso. James Kelso used to be some kind of an office manager for David Duke, a post which he lost a while ago, as I was told by Mr. Duke recently. According to these quotes, I am supposed to have made derogatory remark about Mr. Mueller to Mr. Kelso. If I had made these remarks, than Mr. Mueller would have been justified to make the comments about it that he did make. The problem with this is, however, that Mr. Mueller did nothing to verify that I made such statements. When I learned about Mr. Mueller's email, I asked him in an email to confirm that he had indeed received such an email from Mr, Kelso and asked him to forward a copy of this email to me. In this email I also listed several reasons why I could not believe that the email attributed to Mr. Kelso was really written by him. There are too many obviously false claims, which Kelso could not and would not have made.
Instead of responding to my email, Mr. Mueller sent another email to his mailing list, claiming that he first of all doesn't care whether Kelso's email is genuine, because it would not be his duty -- as a messenger of the truth -- to check the veracity of claims made by others. Hence, Mueller's understanding of journalism is as follows: Spread whatever rumors go around, and don't care about checking if they are accurate. Secondly, Mr. Mueller accused me of defending Mr. Kelso, a person Mr. Mueller refers to as a "scumbag." In a follow-up email I, tried to explain that I did not defend anyone, but merely tried to verify the basis of Mr. Mueller's claims. In contrast to Mr. Mueller, I wanted to avoid jumping to conclusions, both regarding Mr. Kelso and Mr. Mueller.
After I managed to get Mr. Kelso's email address, I sent him Mr. Mueller's first email with the charges against Mr. Kelso and me, asking Mr. Kelso to confirm or deny that he wrote an email of such content to Mr. Mueller. Here is Mr. Kelso's response, in which he denies having sent such an email or a similar one. Reacting to this, I once more asked Mr. Mueller to forward a copy of the email he claimed to have received from Mr. Kelso.
After having received no response from Mr. Mueller over the next two days, I wrote Mr. Mueller another email indicating that I would go public about this affair within 36 hours if I did not receive a copy of the email Mr. Mueller claims to have received from Mr. Kelso within a day, or alternatively an apology for his improper behavior.
As a reaction to this, Mr. Mueller launched a massive attack of character assassination against me, sent to his email list, by taking quotes from my personal website out of context and misrepresenting and distorting various facts. My immediate response to this by email was very brief. In a follow up email, I urged him once more to stop his destructive campaign, asking him to talk to me. His only reaction to this was another vicious attack on me in an email to his list. This paper is the actual attempt to set the record straight. I also inserted comments in Mr. Mueller's emails in brackets wherever it was necessary.
Some Facts
Since I do not intend to waste my time with infighting, I leave it up to the reader to judge me by going to my website at www.germarrudolf.com. Some of the material Mueller quoted out of context is from a webpage, the link of which he misquoted. It is actually on http://germarrudolf.com/private/. I invite everybody to visit it and read it. It contains many personal details about me and my life, so do not be upset and say "too much information!", if you do not like reading from and about me.
First of all, let me state that it was Michael Hoffman II who characterized me as a boyish man after he first met me back in 1999. That is where that headline comes from. Many of the things posted on that page have to be seen with humor, a kind of humor which perhaps not everybody understands, certainly not Mr. Mueller. I have now also rephrased my reference to the "billions of flies [that] cannot be wrong," so that the context becomes clear. It refers to the trivial fact that majorities aren't always right, that democracy can fail miserably. "We must believe in the Holocaust, because billions of people cannot be wrong!" Then we also have to eat shit, because billions of flies cannot be wrong! Excuse my drastic language, but that is the quality of argument the enemies of revisionism come up with.
I am not even going to correct all of Mueller's hallucinations, since he doesn't even claim to have proof for his accusations. But some merit a brief response.
Based as they are on nothing, Mueller's chronological claims about the history and nature of my relationship with my current wife and the history of our baby are completely wrong. Mueller is not the first to claim that my marriage is a "marriage of convenience," hence a fake marriage, which would be in violation of U.S. law, hence a safe ticket to a German dungeon for me. Before him, some enemies of revisionism made such accusations in an attempt to get me into legal trouble. Mueller does the same now. The potential danger to my liberty is considerable.
When Mueller goes on the rant about the various "sugar daddies" I allegedly found who supported me, he misrepresents the facts. But even if I found supporters, why is he opposed to it? Is he jealous? Apart from this: I never received a single penny from David Duke or his organization(s), as Duke himself confirmed in an email. The claim that "the white supremacist community" or "David Duke became [my] latest male sponsor" by paying "$50,000 on lawyers bills" is simply a lie (not even the amount of my lawyer bills is correct). Mr. Kelso would never make such an outrageous, false statement. This is another proof that such an email did either not exist at all or was at least not written by Mr. Kelso.
Then Mueller claims that I wanted to "hijack" the revisionist community in the U.S. Which community? How does one hijack a non-organized, thinly dispersed crowd? Perhaps by outperforming this imaginary community that had stopped performing?
As to Mueller's accusation of a lack of productivity of my company, he may watch what will happen over the next two months. Just look as www.vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html and see how many books are sitting there, ready to be launched in a short while. (Website problems referred to by Mueller were the result of corrupt software installed on another site hosted on my server, occupying almost the server's entire RAM. This has been corrected in the meantime.)
Next Mueller suggests that I claimed to be "the only German Revisionist." I never said that. Others did, like Randulf Hansen, and I always intervened, correcting them that I am not the only German revisionist. If you do not believe it, ask Randulf. His email address is: randulf.johan.hansen@c2i.net
Toward the end, Mueller repeats the untrue quotes that someone put into my mouth, alleging that I had stated that "Mueller hasn't done anything for revisionism" or that I believe Mueller is nuts. To the day I read Mueller's massive attack of August 8, w005, I never said, wrote, or even thought such things. I still do not think Mueller has done nothing for revisionism, but I have changed my mind regarding his mental and emotional balance. He may be jealous, hateful, and revengeful for his downfall, looking for a scapegoat. Perhaps he thinks he has found it in me.
And Mueller is delusional when claiming:
"It is people like me [Mueller] who are the true revisionist."
Well, this statement is actually funny. It makes me wonder if Mueller wrote this email as a satire.
To cut a long story short, to this day, Mueller has not met me. Yet again he thinks that he can judge me. He attacks me in such a vicious way that is typical only of lethal enemies of revisionism. Perhaps he even wants my destruction, because he claims:
"The damage done to the cause [by people like G. Rudolf] is almost irreversible."
And as Mueller further asserts to his readers:
"In closing, I say that the U.S. government will deport Germar Rudolf. Never mind his marriage. He cannot escape the stench of hate and racism that is affiliated with these friends."
The "friends" Mueller refers to are David Duke and his associates, whom Mueller obviously hates. Well, I am sure that Mueller no longer considers me to be one of his friends, if he ever did; therefore there is one hater less on my list now, for which I am grateful.
The logical conclusion of how to assess Mueller's behavior, his character, and his quality as a revisionist should be drawn by the reader himself.
If you want to learn about me from people who lived with me for extended periods of time, know me intensely, or who worked with me on a regular basis, ask revisionists like Dr. Fredrick Toben (info@adelaideinstitute.com; Dr. Toben lived with me several times in my tiny apartments, once even for some five weeks -- the ultimate test for a friendship!), Dr. Robert Faurisson, Dr. Arthur R. Butz (who lives close to where I live and whom I meet on a regular basis), Dr. Claus Nordbruch (who lived with me and my wife this spring), Jürgen Graf (who with his wife lived with me for a month in summer 2002), and Carlo Mattogno (who I have a very cordial and close working relationship with), to name only a few. Their voices speak clearly. They might know Mueller as little as I do, but they surely know me.
At the end, I want to reach out to Mr. Mueller and ask him to bury the battle axe and come back to constructive work. His community outreach to the masses has its own value, as I stated in one of the emails. He should not waste his time attacking individuals who are on his side.
Germar Rudolf, Chicago, August 9, 2005.
P.S.: Instead of communicating with me, Mueller decided to keep spreading lies about me. For instance, in an email to Dr. Fredrick Toben he claimed that I was a "user" and that I would not show gratitude for favors done to me. To support his claim, he gave an example of his own alleged experience. In my reply to Mueller I quoted from numerous emails I had written to Mr. Mueller in 2004, in which I had repeatedly expressed my gratitude to Mr. Mueller, proving that his claim of my alleged lack of gratitude is not only wrong, but puts things upside down. This email I again closed by expressing my wish to come to a reconciliation. There was no answer from Mr. Mueller to me directly. However, answering a request by Dr. Toben to give me a right of reply, Mueller stated clearly that he would not give me such a right. Instead, he continued his smear, hate, and lie campaign of self-destruction. In the meantime this leads to Mr. Mueller losing support from all revisionists.
In a later email to his list, Mueller repeated some of his old lies and garnished them with some more lies, to which I responded approriately.
