|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eminent Australian author and broadcaster Phillip Adams and his unbalanced search for truth in history Fredrick Töben’s Right of Reply – thanks to the Internet! At one of South Australia’s Press Club luncheons Phillip Adams was guest speaker, and as it was just after the Federal Court of Australia had imposed a gag-order on me, I asked Adams what I should do. His advice was that I should switch-off Adelaide Institute’s website, then commit voluntary euthanasia.
Why would my work be such a threat to this well-known libertarian that he feels threatened by it? In the following article Adams’ mindset reveals itself.
On the one hand he champions the search for truth as an imperative, for example his engagement with the Armenian community that seeks to have its Turkish-perpetrated genocide acknowledged. Likewise with the Australian Aboriginal claims that the British committed genocide as they arrived on Australia’s shores.
He then takes issue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s exaggerated claim that mass graves were found wherein the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had allegedly dispatched his opponents. He couples this to the WMDs that were never found, and to the failed 9/11–Saddam Hussein connection. One of his columns last year that dealt with the US invasion of Iraq attracted the wrath of a reader who took Adams’ column to the Press Council of Australia for adjudication. It cleared Adams of any wrongdoing.
[Little that was in America's favour was stated. The article piled condemnation upon condemnation. Some examples: "The US fails to see that it has always been among the most violent nations on earth" ... "the so-called war against drugs which encourages white police to brutalise black citizens" ... "The US aided and abetted the political terrorism that killed Salvadore Allende and turned Chile into a charnel house" ... "3 million Vietnamese killed in a war that was none of the US's business". And ... "If Australia is to be a true friend of the American people, we must try to rein them in, not urge them on. The US has to learn that its worst enemy is the US." Mr Littrell set out what he considered to be breaches of Press Council principles, including
The Press Council is aware that, in this heated and internationally important clash of opinions, many American commentators have made strong criticisms of their own country's conduct, rather like the comments of Mr Adams. The Press Council does not accept that it has a role to deny Australian newspapers the right to put such comments to Australian readers. The Council champions open comment in publications. The fact that such commentary may offend some readers, even a majority of readers, will not of itself bring a Press Council censure. It finds publication of the Adams article did not breach Press Council principles and that there was an over-riding public interest in the issues and comment upon them. See: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1150.html]
Interestingly, we go even further than Adams on this 9/11 matter and declare that WMDs and 9/11 are an outright scam. Does this make us ultra-left-wing conspiracy nutters? Remember that anyone who uses the conspiracy label to silence an opponent is actually being intellectually dishonest. This is because we have law enforcers who almost on a daily basis charge individuals with “conspiring to…”.
Hence, why should political entities, driven by ideas and volition of individuals, not include the conspiratorial factor? That is what the battle of the wills is all about! It is naïve to suggest that political actions cannot be conspiratorial. The 9/11 tragedy teaches us otherwise.
Adams wants to “get the facts right” but he cannot come to terms with the Revisionist Historians who specifically challenge the ‘Holocaust’. He simplifies and claims Revisionists sheet home the blame for the lies and exaggerations alone to the Jews. I have gone to great lengths to indicate that Jews alone could never uphold the ‘Holocaust’ mythology, but rather that it is perpetuated and legally held together by individuals who hate Germans and anything good that the 12-year period of National Socialism generated. This fear and hatred of Germans operates at all levels of world society. It is only those who seek the truth in a balanced way that cannot participate in this German-bashing exercise.
I always come back to the Faurisson challenge: “Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chamber, the murder weapon of Auschwitz!”. I have passed this challenge on to Adams but to date he has failed to respond to it. And as I am legally not permitted to doubt the matter and write about it, I can only cry out: “Why must I believe in the things that I believe did not happen!”
Why does Adams not point out that the first thing the Jewish-Bolsheviks did in the Soviet Union when they grabbed power there was to enact laws that made it a capital offence to be labeled an ‘antisemite’, and a ‘revisionist’. Such labeled individuals were either shot or taken to the Gulags where they wasted away.
We are well on the way to this kind of legal nightmare, where slowly, ever so slowly our intellectual freedoms are switched-off. Under the guise of combating racism, there are now laws in most European countries that protect the ‘Holocaust’ from open debate. In Australia, it appears to me, Adams is in the forefront of this movement. And then, in order to clarify the matter some more, we need to ask that vital question: In whose interest is all this censoring an open debate on the ‘Holocaust’?
Phillip Adams The Weekend Australian Magazine / September 4-5 2004 At times of unprecedented disaster, human societies have had to coin new words, or apply old words to the experiences. When the citizens of Pompeii were being suffocated by the gases from Vesuvius, the Romans had no word for volcano. When the French stormed the Bastille, there was no appropriate term for the scale of the upheaval and so for the first time the word “revolution” was appropriated for the purpose. [Adams forgets to mention that only a handful of prisoners were then in the Bastille thereby making the Revolution claim rather suspect, much the same as that Bolshevik Revolution claim is suspect, but it can be called a Jewish-Bolshevik Revolution for obvious reasons. But again Adams will shrink from such formulations because it illuminates a Jewish factor, something that in itself is a taboo topic! – FT]. In the 20th century when, by some estimates, 140 million people died in wars and genocides, the latter term was in few lexicons. We’d had wars forever, but genocide? Yes, there’d been attempts to wipe out this or that group, but not a specific word to describe the carnage. Nor had “holocaust” become The Holocaust. A few months ago, I gave the annual Oration on the Armenian Genocide. Though still denied by the Turks, that terrible event set the stage for so many more attempts to wipe out groups, races and communities in the 20th century, from Europe’s Jews and gypsies to Rwanda’s Tutsis. And what happened in the Balkans introduced another unprecedented term, a particularly loathsome one: ethnic cleansing. [Again Adams does not mention the fact of ethnic cleansing of Germans at the end of World War Two, something ethnic Germans have been writing about for 60 years. Why not? – FT.] That, at the very least, is what’s been happening in Sudan and Darfor. So I asked Foreign Minister Alexander Downer why he hadn’t agreed with the US Senate to label that ongoing massacre of Africans by Arabs as genocide. Downer pooh-poohed the question, saying that “words don’t matter”. But, of course, they do. “Genocide” has powerful legal ramifications – it kicks in an escalation clause in international law. Correctly used, genocide doesn’t have to involve slaughter. An orchestrated attack on people’s culture and religion can be defined as genocidal under United Nations law. Which is why it has sometimes been used in regard to Australia’s treatment of Aborigines. It’s not just the massacres and the arsenic in the flour, but also the destruction of Aboriginal languages and beliefs. The driving of indigenous populations from their ancestral lands or the kidnapping of Aboriginal children from their parents can be deemed genocidal. When that word is applied in the Australian context, the conservatives are enraged. Which is why, recently, Geoffrey Blainey lost his crown as the Right’s favourite historian. That’s now worn by Keith Windschuttle, impeccably connected to Paddy McGuinnes and Quadrant – where the stolen generation is regarded as a misnomer. If anything, Aboriginal parents should be grateful – with McGuinness calling their children the ‘saved generation”. [The so-called Right in Australia considers me with trepidation. At one conference I was asked not to identify myself to the present media for fear it would leak out that I was in attendance. McGuinness became irritable with my questioning him on so-called ‘right-wing’ matters. The right-wing/left-wing divide has become useless as an intellectual construct. – FT]. Windschuttle has gone further, insisting that what has been described for generations as genocide in Tasmania was a fabrication of history and of left-wing historians. He insists that the only dead Aborigine is one with an official toe tag, listed on a documented body count. We must ignore anecdotal evidence, particularly that provided by Aborigines. (Apart from not inventing the wheel, they failed to invent handwriting and filing cabinets, and their oral histories mean nothing.) When one protests to Windschuttle that official body counts had to be understated, not everyone went around demanding that their acts of murder be notated. Even then there was a remote possibility of punishment. [At the 19 May Federal Court of Australia Appeal, my counsel compared my ‘Holocaust’ with that of Keith Windschuttle’s work, something the judges did not accept. Why not? See: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Legal/transcript19may0.htm] But Windschuttle’s efforts at revising history are nothing compared with the serious work of the revisionist historians. Now, there’s another 20th century coinage. These ultra right-wing ranters with Nazi sympathies or neo-Nazi connections say that either the Holocaust didn’t happen or, if it did, the death toll has been immensely exaggerated. By whom? By Jews, of course. Britain’s David Irving and Fredrick Töben, of the Adelaide Institute, insist that the Holocaust is a guilt industry run by Jews manipulating sympathy and greedy for reparations. [Certainly that is the case, but not only by Jews – FT]. This issue has renewed urgency for me as a consequence of a recent column wherein I disputed a claim of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s, twice repeated, that 400,000 corpses had been found in mass graves since the invasion of Iraq. As The Observer and The Guardian both pointed out, at last count 395,000 fewer bodies had been unearthed and Number Ten was forced to issue a retraction. But the story has a life of its own – and was bounding and rebounding around the world on official US Web sites. [Just like the ‘Holocaust’ six millions, but I am not allowed to discuss and dispute this in public because it is legally protected, thereby giving those that perpetrate this story time to mobilize resources with which to saturate the gullible, so that ultimately it becomes common knowledge, i.e beyond dispute. Professor Robert Faurisson made a pertinent comment about the Iraq WMDs story not even lasting a year, while “the ‘Holocaust’ lie” has lasted for decades, and is now legally protected from factual scrutiny, thereby making it a religious dogma.] It’s odd that the same conservatives who want the names and addresses and fingerprints of every Australian killed since the First Fleet have written letters to the editor, or to me, protesting that I am quibbling. We were misled about Iraq. About Saddam Hussein’s personal responsibility for 9/11. About his connections with Osama bin Laden. About the mountains of WMDs. So if the world is to believe that Saddam’s trial is ethical, a publicity stunt, let’s get the facts right. Let it be as forensic as Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Israel. [Oh, Adams you fool! You call that show-trial forensic and just? – FT]. Simply declaring the former dictator of Iraq as guilty as hell, and hanging him ten times, won’t convince many in the Arab world, and will leave the door open for all sorts of revisionist historians in the months and years ahead. [Indeed, Adams, but your foolish belief system cannot even get around the show-trial nature of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, so how could you now seek justice out of a situation where an invading force writes the codes of justice! Poor Phillip, I think you need to do some hard praying for your soul before you begin to clarify for yourself historical matters. By the way, Phillip, when are you going to return to their rightful owners your personal multi-million dollar Egyptian art collection? Just asking, no offence, please. And then it is time for you, Phillip, so view the Horst Mahler matter, so that you may gain an insight what the battle in Germany is all about. Please view: The significance of Horst Mahler's legal battle HORST MAHLER MARKED FOR ASSASSINATION HAS BEEN WARNED and about Ernst Zündel at Paul Fromm update
– FT]
|
©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute
