Continuing: Defence and Application to Dismiss Matter
to my RESPONSE and COUNTER CLAIM and
I rely upon 1-3 and
therein, and its Affidavit in Support, which
I repeat here. I further reiterate:
I remain legally unrepresented:
failed to find a competent solicitor or barrister who is prepared to defend me
in this court. I remain unrepresented, and so I am at the mercy of this court.
legal persons that I approached in
, fear getting involved in
such a case.
's media personalities,
and Phillip Adams,
stress the viciousness with which
's Jewish Zionists hound
individuals who dare criticise or oppose their behaviour.
legal fraternity stands in
fear of Jewish legal power, as evidenced by the Law Council's reaction to its
journal favourably reviewing John Bennett's Your
of John Bennett’s Your Rights 1999,
Australian Civil Liberties Union, paperback $4,95,
by JJ Catanzariti, in: Law
Institute Journal, August 1999.
is not often you can say that you have in your possession an extraordinary
publication. In some 105 pages of very small print, the author does a sterling
job of informing his readers as to their various rights and, more importantly,
not only how to understand their rights but what to do in relation to enforcing
them. The author leads readers to the appropriate contact points as references
so they can ensure they are fully informed.
is not a booklet to read from cover to cover unless you are really enamoured of
every nuance of the legal system. It is a booklet to refer to when you have a
particular issue to deal with. For example, you may want to know something about
phone tapping. The booklet then leads you to an understanding of the issue, its
legal basis and what you can do if you suspect your phone is being tapped. The
index is comprehensive and allows you sufficient ease in tracking down the
matter presently before you. I view the publication as being an essential aid
when caught in a panic situation and trying to understand quickly what it is
that you need.
author has also included several chapters which bare of general interest but not
necessarily ones you would consider in any particular fact situation. These
chapters include discussions on Pauline Hanson, the ABC, the monarchy debate and
the role of “big brother”. I found these chapters an interesting read and
was surprised how again, in very succinct form, the author was able to deliver a
very accurate description and understanding of these relatively complex issues.
Many readers will utilise the commentary on those issues to enhance their
understanding of otherwise complex topics. You should certainly enhance your
dinner conversations by reading these chapters.
in the 1999 edition are sections on censorship of the Internet, the
controversies over Lolita, Rabelais and the Judas
Kiss, new police surveillance powers and arguments for and against a
author does not purport to provide a comprehensive analysis of our very complex
legal system. Indeed, he specifically notes that you may need advice. A reader
should not fall into the trap of thinking that, having had the issue explained
in short form, this provides the entire answer. The fabric of our legal system
and our case law has contributed significantly to making the law complex, not
simple. I see the book as a baseline from which to take issues further.
edition, the 25th, proves beyond doubt that it is a much-needed publication and
a must have for just about everyone.
review, by Mark Brisidin, The Australian
Friday, January 21, 2000
Law Institute of Victoria said it regrets publishing a review of a booklet which
supports far right ideologies including Holocaust revisionism.
Catanzariti’s review of the booklet written by the president of the Australian
Civil Liberties Union, John Bennett, appeared in the August 1999 edition
of Law Institute Journal. The review did not mention the booklet’s right
wing aspects, but its publication was a mistake, managing editor Mick Paskos
with the review were raised by the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission,
as well as by several Jewish lawyers. “I think the issue here and the concerns
that were raised by the two female members of the Jewish community were why did
such a review and such an endorsing and supportive view appear,” Mr Paskos
Paskos said that the oversight was due to the book review editor not taking
adequate time to familiarise herself with the content of the material.
fully acknowledge that an error was made and the appropriate steps have been
taken,” he said.
of the Law Council advised me that
they apologised because the pressure from the Jewish lobby is intense, and he
has wife and family to think about. I can provide the name of this legal person
to the court.
example of how such intimidation is carried out in writing is the example of the
following from 1984. Then QC and now Federal Court judge,
Justice Alan Goldberg, as Chairman,
Anti-Defamation Committee, Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), penned
the following letter to Mrs Joyce Steele, O.B.E., former Minister of Education,
Parliament of South Australia. The president of the ECAJ at that time was Mr Isi
Dear Mrs Steele
I am writing to you in my capacity as
Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Committee of the Executive Council of Australian
Jewry, the official roof body of
Jewish community, about a serious
and disturbing matter which concerns yourself.
The back cover of the recently published
-- edition of John Bennett's Your
Rights contains an endorsement of this book by yourself, together with a number
of similar endorsements. I attach a photocopy of this back cover in case you are
unaware of this fact.
Given your distinguished record of
achievement on the South Australian and Australian political scene, you are
probably unaware that by your endorsement of Bennett's booklet, you appear to
lend the weight of your reputation, as well as that of the South Australian
Liberal Party, to the approval of what the entire Australian Jewish community
regards as one of the most vile and offensive pieces of anti-Semitic racism to
be published in Australia in recent years.
Although Bennett's book may indeed
contain...information of value, you may be aware that for some years Bennett has
continuously been publicising the outrageous and wholly untrue lie that the Nazi
Holocaust involving six million Jews during the Second World War - the mass
murder of six million Jewish me, women and children by Hitler and the Nazis -
did not occur but was a lie invented after the war by lying Jews for financial
and political ends. Since you have read (John Bennett's book) you will be aware
of the odious lie which he repeats on pages
... of his book, photocopies of
which are attached. In an effort to whitewash the Nazis, Bennett also states (
page..., also attached) that "Hate sessions in the media directed against
Hitler and the Nazis are so pervasive that a visitor from Mars might think WW II
is still in progress". Numerous other statements attacking the Jewish
people are nnnnn also
to be found in this book.
Internationally, such pro-Nazi and
anti-Semitic statements have almost entirely been confined to obviously crank
and extremist neo-Naz and America while in Australia their main source of
propagation, apart from John Bennett, is The League of Rights, the extremist
right wing body known for its anti-Asian, anti-Aboriginal and anti-Semitic
We find it both surprising and regrettable
that a former public official ofyour distinction is seen to lend the weight of
her reputation to a view which is an obvious and total distortion of history and
an insult to the many millions ofvictims of Nazi suppression. Your endorsement
of a book containing Bennett's extremist and racist views will, we believe, come
as a considerable shock to your many admirers, both in
and will tarnish your high reputation for fairminded public service. It also
gives considerable distress to
Jewish community, especially to the 10,000 or more Australian Jews who survived
Hitler's concentration camps, while your endorsement may help to legitimise the
use of Bennett's work in schools and universities. We are also sure that your
endorsement would be greeted with
both amazement and consternation by the South Australian Liberal Party and by
the South Australian media, should it become known.
In all the circumstances it would seem
desirable and appropriate that you should disassociate yourself from Bennett's
anti-Semitic views and I would be most grateful if you could take some
appropriate steps to this end.
Alan H. Goldberg Q.C.
Another case of Jewish pressure involves
the Herald Sun newspaper's poll on
From Geoff Muirden
20 January 2000
Thought Police Control
was disgusted to see a report in The
Australian Jewish News
20 January 2000
, headed ‘Herald Sun
poll’ in which the Herald Sun has
allegedly apologized abjectly for having the temerity to ask readers if they
supported David Irving’s views on the Holocaust. The results of the survey
were never published. In addition, the wretch who had the effrontery to even
suggest such a horrid thing, allowing the possibility that
might be right, was
reprimanded for his/her efforts.
is a deliberate suppression of free speech and an imposition of Jewish views on
‘goyim’ readers in which historical revisionist viewpoints are to be
eliminated. It should be the function of a great newspaper, as the Herald
Sun is, or was, to present different viewpoints and allow readers, even the
‘goyim’, to make up their own minds, not have them made up for them.
issue should be determined on the basis of hard evidence, not disgusting blatant
suppression of this kind.
I am not competent enough to represent myself in this precedent-setting case
involving Internet website censorship.
appearance before Justice Branson in the Sydney Federal Court on
18 October 2001
indicated how inadequate I
am in legal procedures. Twice I was asked to enter the witness stand. Once
because Justice Branson had encouraged Counsel Rothman to cross-examine me about
my travel schedules. The second time when Her Honour made a reference to my RESPONSE
and COUNTER CLAIM, to clarify the matter of my havingdeleted the alleged
offending website. The Registry never advised whether this document is on
record. When I rang to enquire about it, I was advised that it could not be
checked up because "it was unusual" that my file was not in the
Registry. On 18 October Her Honour referred to some matters raised therein.
History interpreted by courts becomes ideology, and evaluating historical
within a 'racist' is moral and
subject matter in dispute is of a political-historical nature that should not be
aired in a court of law - at least not in a democracy. Thus this matter should
not be before the Federal Court because we are disputing interpretations of
historical events. If the court gets
involved in this matter, then we are on the way to having government-sanctioned
historical interpretations forced upon Australians. This is what used to happen
in Communist-socialist countries where an ideological interpretation of
historical events enslaved the minds of citizens. Anyone dissenting was labelled
a 'revisionist', and subjected to fines and/or
imprisonment. The Soviet Gulags were the outgrowth of such state-enforced
historical conformism where certain opinions were criminalized and show-trials
became the order of the day. It is not in the national interest to have a Gulag
mentality imposed upon Australians.
Professor Gordon Craig, writing in The New
York Review of Books, stated about British historian, David Irving: "It
is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing
absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only estimation,
based upon that the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be
tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however
implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into
shibboleth. Such people as David Irving have an indispensable part in the
historical enterprise and we dare not disregard their views."
Federal Court judgment would have a chilling effect on an open debate on the
historical period called the 'Holocaust', thereby distorting our world view of
this important historical event.
The constitutionality of the Act under which this matter has been brought
court needs to be tested.
case also involves constitutional matters and I do not have the expertise
effectively to argue this matter in a court of law where technicalities will
decide this case. It can be argued that the Racial Discrimination Act is
unconstitutional because it conflicts with the 1967 Referendum that made
an inclusive, non-racial,
society. The Act under which this matter is brought before the Court isdivisive
because it racially categorises Australian citizens - something that the 1967
Referendum decision contradicts. This has to be argued in the High Court - and I
lack the competence to do this.
Racial Discrimination Act was formulated by the powerful Australian
Jewish-Zionist lobby. This is well documented.
For example a report by Gerard Ryle in
10 December 1991
, headed 'Jews call for help
on racism', we read:
Jewish community called yesterday on the Federal Government to introduce
protective legislation for minority groups following an increase in anti-semitic
attacks. The president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Mr Leslie
Caplan, said the number of anti-semitic incidents had risen to 144 last year.
included the fire-bombing of synagogues,anti-Jewish graffiti and Jews being
pelted with eggs in the streets. Mr Caplan, who is in Adelaide for the annual
meeting of the executive council, said the biggest rise was in NSW.
"Clearly racism is growing and it needs to be addressed by responsible
government," he said. "You can tell the freedom of a country by the
way it protects its minorities." Mr Caplan said there were incidents of
rabbis in SA receiving abusive phone calls and of anti-Jewish graffiti being
found on walls.
A photographer from The
Australian, Mr Hugh Hartshorne, had his film confiscated yesterday by
security staff at the meeting. He was accused of photographing the security
system at the Nathan and Miriam Solomon Jewish
Community Centre on the pretext of photographing Mr Caplan.
years later the matter alluded to in the above article assumes
a concrete political form. In a Canberra
Times article of
12 November 1994
Paul Chamberlin and Norman
Abjorensen report the following:
to axe funding to Coalition
Jewish business and community leaders are to cease their substantial donations
to the Coalition and urge others to do the same, as the fallout from the
decision to oppose a racial-hatred Bill threatens to tear the Coalition apart.
30 and 40 powerful Jewish leaders have decided to push for the withholding of
donations after much discussion this week, culminating in a specially convened
meeting which also agreed to make it clear to Coalition MPs that support had
been withdrawn, sources said.
are left with the inescapable feeling that we have been lied to and
deceived," one prominent business leader said yesterday, adding that the
active Jewish lobby had firmly believed the commitments made to it by the
decision not to support Government legislation and take a compromise position by
introducing a private member's Bill instead was a source of dismay.
is treating us like idiots. Everyone knows how far a private member's Bill will
go," a Jewish businessman said yesterday. "They're throwing us a bone
to try to shut us up but it won't work."
the Coalition made its second major blunder on the racial-hatred Billin as many
days, with Liberal Party Deputy Leader Peter Costello claiming an ethnic leader
was "not particularly interested" in the Government's Bill and
believed it went too far.
leader in question, Mark Leibler, a spokesman for the Ethnic Coalition and
former president of the Zionist Federation, said Mr Costello had made "a
fairly serious misrepresentation" of their Thursday discussion.
exchange followed a claim on Thursday by the Opposition Leader, Alexander
Downer, that most Coalition MPs supported the development of an alternative
claim provoked uproar from the National PArty and some Liberal MPs, with a
number saying at least two-thirds of the room was vehemently opposed to the
Leader Tim Fischer placed more pressure on Mr Downer by declaring yesterday that
his party would not have a bar of any race Bill.
Downer's authority is expected to be further undermined during a revolt at the
next joint parties meeting, on Tuesday.
Downer was forced yesterday to bat away suggestions his job would be on the line
quashed rumours the Coalition's Bill would be placed permanently on the
backburner because of National Party pressure, saying the private member's Bill
would definitely be produced and "warmly embraced by the Coalition".
objective wasto lead the Coalition back towards the middle ground.
there are going to be some who disagree with that and there is going to be
fallout from that," he said. "But I think that's a challenge worth
attorney-general Amanda Vanstone, who is drawing up a Bill based on NSW laws
passed in 1989, said yesterday there was a massive gulf between the NSW laws and
the Government's Bill. The former aimed at violence, the latter at limiting
Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said there was little difference in
it attempted to limit the damage from the internal friction, the Liberal Party
yesterday distributed a press release from the NSW Ethnic Affairs Minister,
Michael Photios, who called on the Government to redraft its Bill to bring it
into line with the NSW laws.
came after Mr Photios lobbied a host of Coalition MPs to support a moderate
approach to racial-hatred legislation.
Commonwealth Bill was tough, right, balanced and fair in principle, but in some
state National Party backbencher Richard Bull labelled his federal colleagues
"an embarrassment" who could cost the state Coalition the March
a sign of good will towards the Federal Court, I have deleted the alleged
offensive website on which the alleged offensive material appeared.
I have made an offer of settlement but this was not accepted; I cannot make a
good conscience I cannot sign an apology as dictated to me by Jeremy Jones
because it is reminiscent of what the Roman Cardinals did to Galileo Galilei
when his heliocentric world-view threatened their geocentric world view. A few
years ago, 300 years later, the Pope
pardoned Galileo,claiming that everything rested on a judges :"error of
sign any written apology as presented to the court as this would be an act
reminiscent of what happened in the former
countries where dissenting,
politically incorrect voices were silenced in such fashion - confessions of
guilt extracted by force. I cannot apologise for having presented to the public
material that I believe to be factually true, or
an opinion held in good faith, and published in the national interest.
Telling the truth must never be punishable, even if it hurts those who are
affected by it. Where truth-telling is punishable, lies flourish, and an immoral
situation develops. It isphysically and mentally unhealthy for individuals and
communities to tolerate and legally sanction lying because our civilization
rests on the bedrock of truth-telling. However, if Jeremy Jones can show
me or draw me the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, then explain to me
how this murder weapon was used by the Germans to kill people, then I will
gladly not continue to be proud of being a 'Holocaust' denier - as opposed to a
an apology implies that I intentionally wish to hurt Jeremy Jones - and this is
a nonsense claim because Jeremy Jones is irrelevant to my considerations.I wish
to know the objective fact,. the physical facts about that chemical
slaughterhouse called a homicidal gas chamber. We have offered anyone instant
world fame by providing us with such evidence. To date all court cases on this
issue have deflected from this specific matter of providing proof of the
existence of the murder weapon.
The Applicant, Jeremy Jones, is one of
leading Zionists and hence he is an experienced political operator who works at
the coalface of world politics.
Zionist, he is also a racist who supports the
. Hence, all the name-calling
he does - labelling his opponents racists, etc. - is merely to deflect from his
own state of mind, his own behaviour - that
he, himself, is a Zionist racist.
asked to by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), to
conciliate, he refused; he talks about me at international conferences but he
refuses to dialogue with me. This is persecution. The fact that the Applicant is
on the world political stage was pointed out during the 18 October 2001 Sydney
pre-trial hearing in the Federal Court, but was considered irrelevant by counsel
for the Applicant, Mr Steven Rothman. Of course it is relevant because Mr Jones
claims to have been hurt and offended by material that offers another
point-of-view about the 'Holocaust'.
- a balanced view on our Internet website.
findings the HREOC Commissioner did not state that our website provided links to
sites that take the opposing point-of-view on whether homicidal gassings and
extermination programs operated during World War Two. This means that the
commissioner failed to give us credit for presenting a balanced view-point. Her
findings are thus biased and unreasonable, and she did not state in our favourt
hat we accorded the other side a right of reply, thereby fulfilling the common
law principle of natural justice.
Jones' latest attempt at doing me harm was at
, during the UN conference on
Racism on 31 August-
7 September 2001
. I mentioned the matter in my Affidavit of
3 October 2001
wherein I produce the
document from a preliminary committee that reviews the
Internet-Holocaust-legislation as dealt with by various countries.
following is Jones' reflection on the
Race conference as published in
preface the article by inserting my reflections:
Töben Reflects: Zionist Racist Jeremy
Jones Gets Away With It - Why?
leading Zionist racist veteran politician, Jeremy Jones, wishes to "stop
them from functioning", i.e., he finds our Adelaide Institute website
contains offensive anti-Jewish material. In 1996 he initiated legal proceedings
against us under
Racial Hatred Act, which
Zionists were instrumental in formulating and enacting into law.
was his international Jewish Zionist group that afflicted
with similar laws. We all know how this vicious and powerful Jewish Zionist
lobby dragged Ernst Zündel through the Canadian courts, and only death saved
Doug Collins from a similar fate. David Irving also attempted to fight this
enemy of free speech in a British court.
David Cole and New Zealand’s Joel Hayward apologised to their respective
Jewish communities for causing hurt and suffering, and recanted their worldview
on the Jewish Holocaust.
Zündel and Irving strongly disagree with a Zionist's worldview, as Jeremy Jones
is propagating so openly on the website of the Australia/Israel and Jewish
peak Zionist organisation
is Jeremy Jones' boldest statement of his worldview yet. It illustrates that at
he received his strongest rebuff to date - four days later we had the 11
there is a linkage between these two events will never be known, but the
UN meeting for once exposed the Zionists motives. Labelling a Semite an
antisemite and a racist just didn’t work anymore. The name-caller was exposed
for what he himself is - a Zionist racist.
Jones cannot be a happy man because his intellectually dishonest worldview is
exposed for what it is - a racist worldview! He takes it upon himself to
propagate racism for his Zionist Jewish group, and anyone who disagrees with his
worldview, he labels as a ‘hater’, a ‘Holocaust denier’, an’
antisemite’, a ‘racist’ and a ‘neo-Nazi’.
think the wheel has turned full circle - and am I going to yield to his demands
that we stop our Adelaide Institute website?
important to asks: Who is intellectually dishonest - Jeremy Jones or those who
equate Zionism with racism? Jeremy Jones has to ask himself why the
Zionist-racist-apartheid state of
should continue to exist as
the only fascist state in the world. He also has to worry about the public
behaviour of Jewish individuals who, when then criticised, claim such criticism
is 'anti-Jewish' or 'antisemitic'.
Jeremy Jones the Zionist racist speaking in a confused way. Hismixing of the
categories 'racist', 'antisemitism', et al, is indicative of the intellectual
bankruptcy afflicting his world view.
confusion and outright intellectual dishonesty also is evident in the current
action before Justice Branson in the Federal Court.
existence of the State of Israel is put in question by Jewish individuals is a
fact, and hence it needs to be discussed publicly without the
discussion-blocking labels of 'anti-Jewish' or antisemitic' being used.
another view on racism and related matters:
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed wonders how the issue of racism can be addressed with no
reference to Zionism
weekly on-line, 23-29 August 2001
World Conference Against Racism is scheduled to be held in
, from 31 August to 7
September. However, the Americans and the Israelis have threatened to boycott
the conference if statements linking Zionism to racism are not removed from the
draft documents. The United States and a number of former European colonial
powers are also opposing calls by many former colonies that the conference
address the question of reparations for the suffering they endured at the hands
of their colonial masters and their demand that its closing statement include an
apology from the concerned Western powers.
Robinson, secretary-general of the conference and UN high commissioner for human
rights, has justified these stands, arguing in respect of the
Zionism-equals-racism issue that regional conflicts should not be imposed on the
agenda of the conference, and in respect of the reparations question that the
conference should not get sidetracked into issues related to the past but should
focus on the burning problems that will face us in the years to come, especially
now that sufficient progress in the drafting of the agenda has been achieved to
avoid an American boycott.
believe that Israel's determination to oppose any reference to, let alone a
re-tabling of, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism,
which was adopted on 10 November 1975 and annulled on 17 December 1991, has been
instrumental in determining the US position. If it is true that the acts of
violent repression to which the Palestinians are being subjected by the Israeli
occupation forces has lent new urgency to the idea of reviving the resolution,
it is no less true that these acts have made Sharon still more adamantly opposed
to its revival.
are thus faced with a dilemma here: should the Arab and African states insist on
the inclusion of these items on the agenda, even at the risk of provoking an
American boycott or of having the conference called off altogether, or should
they back down to ensure its convocation and the participation of the Americans?
In respect of establishing a link between Zionism and racism, even if we are
willing to go along with Ms Robinson's assumption that Zionism is not a racist
ideology, history itself attests to the contrary.
number of incontrovertible facts belie the assumption, but before passing to
substance it is worth noting that, from the procedural point of view, the very
is lobbying so strenuously
to have any statement identifying Zionism with racism removed from the
conference documents is in itself a tacit acknowledgement of Zionism's racist
connotations. Let us now pass to the more important substantive arguments:
Zionism is by definition racist in the sense that it is an ideology based on the
singularity, not to say superiority, of one racial group. It is hard to see how
can reconcile its claim that
it is a non-racist society with its raison d'être as the state of all the Jews
in the world. Under Israeli law, any Jew coming from anywhere in the world
automatically acquires Israeli citizenship as soon as he sets foot on Israeli
soil. He immediately enjoys all the rights of citizenship enjoyed by his fellow
Israelis -- that is, by his coreligionists - but not by the Arab citizens of
, who are denied many of the
rights enjoyed by their Jewish compatriots. Is this not the essence of racial
might be the state of all
the Jews in the world, but has yet to define just who is a Jew. The Jews are
divided among themselves as to who is eligible, i.e., racially pure enough, to
join their exclusive club and who is not. Those who are denied access are
obviously victims of racial discrimination.
every Jew, wherever he lives, has the right to "return" to
. This right is not available
to Palestinians, who may not return to the homes they left behind in
, especially if their
property lies in the 80 per cent of the historical
now under Israeli
sovereignty. Surely this is discrimination with racist connotations, even if we
concede that both parties have rights in historical
discrimination against Palestinians extends to all fundamental issues. Security
problems concerning Palestinians are not treated on an equal footing with
security problems concerning Israelis. Thus
proceeds from the premise
that what has top priority in his relations with the Palestinians is
's security concerns. These
concerns and, more precisely,
's personal interpretation of
these concerns, have priority over the issues of peace. If genuine peace
requirements are perceived by
as detrimental to
's security, peace will have
to be sacrificed.
other words, Palestinian security has to be subordinated to the requirements of
's security; the former is to
be adapted to the latter. We are not proceeding from the idea of
"collective security," which aims at satisfying both parties' security
requirements simultaneously so that the consolidation of the security of one
party is a boost for the security of the other.
the same applies to the issue of land.
has yet to declare its final
borders while at the same time insisting on its right to live within secure
borders, an oxymoron if ever there was one. There can be no talk of
"secure" borders when the location of those borders is still an open
UN Security Council Resolution 242, accepted by all the parties as the key to a
solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, calls for the return of "land for
peace;" that is, it requires the Arabs to accept Israel's existence (peace)
in exchange for the evacuation by Israel of the Arab territories it occupied in
1967, defined as those lying beyond Israel's recognised borders. The fact that
these borders are still undefined leaves the Arabs holding the short end of the
's share of the trade-off has
been effectively realised while the same is not true of the Arab share.
Zionist state, unconstrained as it is led by any mutually recognized borders,
has overflowed into Arab territory, depriving the Palestinian people of their
inalienable right to self-determination within secure and recognised borders.
Once again, Zionism has had the final say, securing for the racial group it
represents a privileged right to assert its presence and impose its dominion
over the Biblical land of Israel, regardless of such minor considerations as
sovereignty, international law and the lapse by prescription (in this case, two
millennia) of any territorial claims. Here too we are looking at a flagrant case
of racial discrimination.
Sixth, if the function of the Israeli state is to embody and give expression to
Zionist aspirations, the function of the Palestinian state, if ever it comes
into being, will be to keep Palestinian aspirations in check and ensure that
they do not threaten
's stability and security.
response to hard-core Zionist aspirations,
has given itself the right
to establish settlements wherever it pleases, making no distinction between land
lying under its sovereignty and Palestinian land that it is currently -- and
illegally -- occupying.
of this confirms that Zionism is not, as its adherents would have the world
believe, merely the national expression of Jewish self-determination, but an
intrinsically racist ideology that justifies the most brutal acts of repression
against the Palestinians as necessary for the security of one specific racial
group. How can the United Nations, which has issued countless resolutions
condemning doctrines of racial differentiation and superiority as morally
reprehensible and socially unjust, refuse to even consider a resolution equating
Zionism with racism?
Robinson might be forgiven for thinking that any conference, even one that is
severely compromised, is better than no conference at all. But how can a
conference held for the specific purpose of combating racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance hold back from discussing a doctrine that
displays all these features? Racism can only be eradicated if right comes to
prevail over might. The course of history should be corrected in terms of
established principles, and not the opposite; that is, not by distorting those
principles to justify de facto developments.
the historical condition of imperialism, which transformed many peoples of the
world into slaves of the imperialist powers, stunting their economic and
political development and violating their most basic human rights. What should
our reaction to this aberration be today? Should the descendants of its victims
simply shrug off this dark chapter in their history and let bygones be bygones,
or should they ask their former overlords to apologise and make reparation for
the harm they inflicted -- that is, to recognise that the past impinges on the
present and that present generations are entitled to material compensation?
US President Bill Clinton apologised to the Japanese-Americans who were interned
and ill-treated during World War II for no reason other than their Japanese
ancestry, which, it was believed, could turn them into a fifth column acting for
the enemies of the United States. More important are the apologies addressed to
the Jews because of the Holocaust and the persecution they endured under Hitler.
There is a clear case of double standards here. For right to prevail over might,
correcting mistakes of the past must not be selective. The rules of the present
should prevail over those of the past.
when it comes to equating Zionism with racism, the criterion cannot be what
Israel, or the US for that matter, has to say on the issue, but what the parties
suffering from the racist practices of Israel have to say, notably the
Palestinians, particularly with the present escalation of violence in the
occupied territories, where Israel's systematic war of extermination and
expropriation against a native civilian population displays all the
characteristics of a policy of ethnic cleansing -- which the United Nations has
defined as a war crime.
'Holocaust' is one of
's founding myths, with the
dismantling of the State of Israel as a Zionist-racist-apartheid state, the need
to uphold the 'Nazi-Jewish Holocaust' story would become irrelevant. Jeremy
Jones would thus liberate himself from a terrible burden, i.e. of upholding one
of the founding myths of
, as stated by Israel Shahak
in his book
This matter before the Federal Court is neither a racist nor a religious matter,
will not solve disputes of fact.
an article that supports the view that being Jewish is a religious matter. Any
complaint that states material is offensive to Jewish sensitivity is thus a
religious matter and not a racial matter. It is wrong to categorise so-called
anti-Jewish matters under a Racial Hatred Act category.
axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday November 25, 2001 The Observer
A keynote research
paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost
identical has been pulled from a leading journal.
Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and
throw them away.
Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing
and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the
suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature
and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the
article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of
. 'I am stunned.'
British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the
paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it
has appeared before acting like this?'
The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of
, claims the article provoked
such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was
forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's
website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities
throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove
the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial
Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and
Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is
'offended and embarrassed'.
The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians
and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations',
involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that
Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In
doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen
people and that Judaism can only be inherited.
Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must
be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state.
Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but
not in genetic differences', they conclude.
But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the
article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature
last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did
not retract the article.
Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against
him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism.
one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the
strip, and another that
refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.
'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really,
what is the difference?' he said.
clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I
was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that
scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones
that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, and other text books.'
In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the
article, several scientists have now written to the society to support
Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.
One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were
genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have
objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001.
Jewish Australians are not a political unity, and are not all represented by Mr
Jones and his organisation.
Jones cannot speak on behalf of
's Jews because this body is
not as cohesive as he would like us to believe. Hence this matter is between
Jones and Toben only, and not some anonymous or unnamed members of a Jewish
organisation.Jeremy Jones belongs to theZionist racist Executive Council of
Australian Jewry - a body that does not represent all Jewish Australians. During
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) hearings, Jeremy Jones
attempted to speak on behalf of all Jewish Australians. Our Adelaide Institute's
then Jewish Associate for NSW, Mr Jack Selzer, objected to Jones speaking on his
behalf. The pleadings were then amended to Jeremy Jones representing the
Executive Council of Australian Jewry and its current members.
that Jones has again tried this trick of bringing in an unnamed group of Jewish
individuals into the Federal Court is indicative of his false sense of
consciousness, i.e. he merely speaks on behalf of himself and not on behalf of
some anonymous "members for the time being of the Committee of Management
of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry".
Group Calls For Dismantlement Of The
LONDON (IRNA) - Representatives of a Jewish religious group has called for the
as the root cause of tension
and violence in the
Neturei Karta representatives made the call at a one-day international
conference on terrorism attended by Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious
leaders and politicians here Tuesday.
A member of the group, J. Konig, elaborating on his statements at the conference
told IRNA: "I want to see the dismantlement of the state and the peaceful
coexistence of Jews with Arabs and the Arab rule."
added: "Like we live everywhere, like we live in
, like we live in any part of
the world, we just want to be citizens, we don't want to be rulers."
member of the group regretted the bad image' the Israeli government has created
of the Jews and caused world people to have a wrong impression of Judaism.
Grohman, a Netuei Karta leader, elaborated on the establishment of the Zionist
regime and said it was behind spread of corruption among a number of Jews.
any act of violence which leads to loss of life of innocent people, he
considered establishment of Zionist government in the occupied
as a factor for outbreak of
disputes between Muslims and Jews.
added that before the establishment of the Zionist regime, Muslims, Christians
and Jews lived in peace in the
region. Neturei Karta has a
considerable number of followers in
Meanwhile, Rabbai Hershal Gluck, chairman of the Muslim-Jewish forum of the
, in his speech titled
"looking at the past through the prism of the future", condemned
terrorism as a phenomenon about destroying innocent lives.
many mothers have cried for the loss of their children, and too many children
for their parents," he said, stressing: "It is high time to look at
what divides us. It is time to call an end to the cycle." Jewish, Christian
and Muslim religious leaders discussed the topic of terrorism in the wake of the
Sept. 11 attacks on American targets in
one-day international conference was sponsored by the
affiliated to the Islamic
Center of Britain.
including religious personalities, politicians, university professors and
expressed their viewpoints
regarding terrorism and the current conflicts in
It must be noted that
20 000 Jews protested in
a few days ago, and the local and world media did not report it. Why not?
Jeremy Jones is not in a position to imbue academic work with his stamp of
thereby labelling it 'legitimate'. Recently The
to the 'Harry Potter' phenomenon, has begun to offer courses in 'witchcraft'!
Revisionist work may not be politically correct work but it islegitimate work.
It is not for the Jewish lobby to advise what is and what is not legitimate
academic work. I rely here on my Ph
D Thesis, which deals with theory falsifications and the principle of
example of a related case is the following matter, as reported by Andrew
Stevenson in The Sydney Morning Herald
of 22-23 September 2001.
voice from the frontier
Windschuttle hadn't existed, John Howard would have been sorely tempted to
invent him. He's the historian the Prime Minister has been searching for all
these years, someone with the scissors to snip through the blavk armband which
Howard believes has cast a pall over Australia's past, present and future.
men share some common history - both left Canterbury Bous' High in the 1950s -
although their personal trajectories since then have sent them on different
orbits. One became an articled clerk, a solicitor and ultimately
the Prime Minister who stared down demands for an apology to the stolen
generations, resisted calls for a treaty and decried the black armband school of
history with its focus on a bloody and violent past in which Aborigines were
forcibly dispossessed of their land.
other spent his teenage years in the turf room of The
Daily Telegraph with Frank Moorhouse and Mike Gibson, graduated to a country
's first computer magazine
before embracing Marxism while at the
. He went on to edit its
newspaper, Honi Soi, rattled the
barricades while protesting against
Australian involvement in the Vietnam War, prospered as a left-wing academic
before taking a late U-turn.
aging radical permits himself a smile of satisfaction as he explains himself:
"In the '70s I was a Marxist, in the '80s I was a social democrat and in
the '90s I'm a conservative: it's called growing up."
growing up - and growing conservative - hasn't diverted Windschuttle from his
modus operandi: find elites who have grown smug and self-confident in their
ascendancy and thro bombs at them. First it was the establishment and its dirty
, then it was Malcolm Fraser
and his denigration of the dole bludger. The one-time media lecturer turned on
university media courses and, later, the postmodernists who had taken over
university arts faculties. Now, it's the view that settlement was a brutal
affair in which tens of thousands of Aborigines died in a frontier war.
the facts, repeats Windschuttle - to Henry Reynolds, the leading exponent of the
black armband view; to the former governor-general Sir William Deane, whom
Windschuttle accused of perpetuating the myth of a massacre that wasn't at
Mistake Creek in Western Australia; and to ATSIC's chairman, Geoff Clark.
in his call for facts alone to drive historical debate is the threat to anyone
writing in Aboriginal history to watch their tracks. Windschuttle will follow
their footnotes to the last library to skewer them if they are wrong and drip
too much blood on the wattle.
would anyone want to do that?
says it's about intellectual honesty - that he eschews politics and
willing and able to pursue
the historical truth - unlike the Reynolds generation which, he claims, has
sought to advance a political agenda by reworking the past.
Aboriginal cause has become the moral measure of whether you are on the Left or
not," he argues. "In a way, the ... Aborigines have been given the
role the working class used to have. Marxism prescribed the working class as the
vanguard of society and that all
came unstuck and the Left went looking for a new group on which to pin its hopes
history at the moment comes out of the New Left of the '60s. and Henry is the
typical '60s New Leftist. There's no secret about that and he says in The
Other Side of the Frontier [Reynold's landmark 1981 history]: 'This book is
written for political purposes'."
mantra is that empirical evidence has an integrity of its own. "My
political agenda is that I think history has been ruined by political agendas.
ou can call that a political agenda if you want to. But I'm not just out to
discredit Henry; I'm trying to find the truth of the matter and, as difficult as
that might be, it's worth pursuing.My self is really irrelevant in this."
hard to reconcile Windschuttle's zeal and certainty, however, with his professed
political disinterest. But he is insistent. "All I'm doing is wielding
evidence and people can take my evidence or not - it doesn't matter. I'm not
some bloody guru telling people how to think. It's a mystery to me if I have [a
broader political agenda]. Defending John Howard? Hardly. It doesn't matter a
damn, ultimately, what my political agenda is: the debate will be won or lost on
knows he's won no friends with his crusade. He denies he has been cut. "Not
apparently, although some of the people I thought are my friends might disagree
with that," he says. But he's heard the vitriol with which he's been
denounced in public debates and believes he has scared former colleagues with
his insider knowledge. "The reason a lot of them hate me is because I've
thought all their thoughts and am now questioning them. That's a threatening
position for a lot of people."
has been all the way round the academic block during his career. He has an
honours degree in history from the University of Sydney, a master's in politics
from Macquarie, has taught at the then NSW Institute of Technology, the
universities of Wollongong and NSW, as well as Macleay College, a private
institution run by his wife, Elizabeth Elliott.
supervisor, Don Aitken, the retiring vice-chancellor of the
, has no doubt - despite
finding Windschuttle's work uncomfortable - that the historical revision is
nimportant. Already, he says, it has shifted the debate.
don't ask for people's motives. That's too hard. I look at what they read, I try
[to] take it on board and when it's solidly done and well researched - as
Keith's work usually is - then I have to say, 'Well, what do I do with that?'
lot of what he said is not what I would have wanted to read, but you can't just
reject it. Even those who have criticised it haven't rejected it; they've
first targets are massacres. he is halfway through a book examining the frontier
Van Diemen's Land
and NSW. His view is that
relations between Aborigines and whites were overwhelmingly peaceful and the
violent episodes "were sporadic outbreaks which have been beat up beyond
all belief". No-one, he says, has checked the sources. "When you do
look at the skeleton of the story and find that it is pretty shoddy then that's
good evidence the rest of it is likely to be of the same kind of basis," he
massacres, real or imagined, stand as dramatic stains on the historical page,
Reynolds is sceptical of their relevance to the wider picture. "People
misinterpret me [and claim] I think that everyone was killed in massacres. I
don't. I think massacres were few and far between. Aborigines were mainly killed
in small-scale tit-for-tat killings where they'd spear a couple of cattle and
someone would go out and shoot two or three people."
says the evidence of killings is necessarily circumstantial and would never
sustain a murder charge. yet it remains overwhelming, he says. "There are
always going to be people who don't want to believe this and they will clutch on
to whoever comes along and says it has all been made up. If you can take a
couple of incidents and say there isn't really the evidence here - and I've
gotnotrouble that isn't hard todo - some people will feel it undermines the
credibility of the whole. But I don't think in the long run it will succeed
because the circumstancial evidence of conflict is so overwhelming."
who launched his campaign with a series of articles in Quadrant last year, has received significant support within the
historical community. Some disagree with his politics but are pleased to see
Reynolds taken down a peg or two. Others support his push for greater scholarly
rigour - first made in his 1994 work The
Killing of History, which has, Windschuttle says, sold 25,000 copies in the
Kingston, a retired associate professor of history at the
, says political correctness
has made teaching history very difficult. "It is one of the reasons why
history has become such a pathetic subject in universities.
numbers are declining and history courses are beginning to look like
smorgasbords with no content except for repetitive fine feelings or angst,"
Henry Reynolds has done to drive politics with history really bothers a lot of
historians: it's taking things right down the edge. People don't know the
difference between knowing about history and historical evidence and being
concerned about current political questions. They are being mixed up all the
Them Home [the Human Rights Commission report on the stolen generations] is an
incredibly powerful and moving document and it raises all number ofmoral and
ethical questions. But, for historians, it raises another series of questions:
how much of this stuff is true?"
the question of frontier history, what does disproving some of the parts say
about the whole? The
historian Professor Alan
Atkinson, a student contemporary of Windschuttle at the
, argues Windschuttle seems
to believe the job of a historian is easier than it is.
contribution is useful, and a lot of what he says is perfectly justified,"
says the debate is about the way history is being practised but I'm not sure
he's very consistent about that. He says we do not know how many Aborigines were
killed and that historians tend to assume there were rather more deaths than
there's evidence of.
then says there were fewer Aborigines killed than Henry Reynolds and others have
said. He hasn't proved that at all - just that we don't know.In spite of his
qualifications, Keith seems to be assuming that because he understands little
bits, he understands the lot."
historical records of a frontier, especially when one side was illiterate, are
necessarily imperfect. In the written records Aboriginal voices are generally
limited to, or mediated by, their contacts with the white police and legal
system. The appropriate weighting deserved by oral history is the bone ofmuch
contention in the debate.
is concerned oral history of
Aboriginal communities has been privileged over written records. But, counters
Atkinson, in Aboriginal communities, at least pre-contact, oral methods of
recording were extraordinarily precise. "In the pre-literate communities
the means of training memory was extremely painstaking.it's also survived in
European communities until fairly recently. It wasn't until the 1960s and '70s
that we stopped training memories in schools when we stopped learning things by
rote. Our memories are not trained at all now and therefore they're
part, Windschuttle doesn't expect to turn history on its head overnight, no
matter how successful his book (which is expected to be published early next
year). "Look, the current interpretation took 20 years to get into place
and I think it will take another 20 years to shift it. If by then."
12. Our work is
commentary - often marked by ironic, politically incorrect statements on world
example, the world's leading Revisionist states the following:
Holocaust May Lead to a Real Holocaust
8 October 2001
- with corrections of 6 November.
Without the lie of the alleged Holocaust and the alleged gas chambers, the State
of Israel would not exist and peace would be more prevalent. With that false
Holocaust, which has become the sword and the shield of
, peace is in danger. Thus it
is that an imaginary holocaust, created and maintained by both the Zionists of
Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora, may lead to a real, worldwide holocaust.
The Jews and the Americans
1947-1948, presenting themselves as the survivors of an alleged genocide, the
Jews obtained, by blackmail and terrorism, the right to create a state in the
. With aplomb, they persuaded
the international community that, as compensation for an unprecedented tragedy
(their supposed Holocaust), it was fitting that they be awarded an unprecedented
remedy: the devolution of lands belonging to other populations. Then, having
received this exorbitant endowment, they extended their territory considerably
in chronic wars, paying no heed to the restrictions set down by the United
Nations Organisation for the benefit of the Palestinians, provisions which the
Zionists had made a commitment to respect. Over a span of more than fifty years,
with the aid of the Jewish Diaspora, they have carried out a policy of colonial
conquest and apartheid to the detriment of the Palestinian people. They have
violated international agreements one after another, considering null and void
about sixty UN resolutions made against their practices. The American political
leaders have supported, armed and defended their state,
, as devotedly as if it were
the first and foremost state of the
United States of America
. It must be said that they
cannot afford to defy their Jewish lobby, which closely monitors and scrutinises
all of the country's political and media spheres. It may also be noted that most
Americans, intoxicated by Holocaust propaganda, are only too apt to find in the
products of Jewish neurosis their own basic view of a world made up of two
camps: one good (Jews and their associates), the other evil (Nazis and the
like). For them, all is gauged in reference to the Nazi, the supreme villain,
ever bent on killing the poor Jew, paragon of innocence and goodness. It is no
mere coincidence that the ghastly hulk called
stands in the immediate
proximity of the
, not far from Capitol Hill.
The Arabs and the Muslims
Jews have ended up exhausting the patience of the Arab and Muslim world. In
their long history they had, over the centuries, made themselves undesirable
amongst all the peoples of Europe who had admitted them in large numbers,
particularly the English, the French, the Spanish and, especially, the Germans
and the Poles. Until rather recently the example of the Arabs' long-standing
(relative) tolerance towards the Jews served as material for morality lessons
regularly dispensed to those peoples. Now such lessons are no longer possible.
There is no more Arab exception: even their fellow Semites are now rising
against the Jewish people, domineering and self-assured (Charles de Gaulle in
1967). Within the Jewish community itself there have indeed been efforts from
time to time on the part of a few clear-sighted persons like Noam Chomsky and
the late Israel Shahak, author of Jewish History, Jewish Religion, to make their
warnings heard by the zealots, but in vain. That said, Chomsky, like Shahak, has
always endorsed the great Jewish myth, thus effectively authorising Israel to go
on using, with the clearest conscience, its best argument and the number-one
weapon in its arsenal: the Holocaust, precisely. The Arabs, the Muslims and the
whole people of
are the main victims, today,
of that weapon and that argument fashioned from a lie.
The New Crusade
11 September 2001
, particularly in
, the weak struck the citadel
of the mighty. The heart of the Judeo-American power, the very district of Wall
Street, where the lot of the world's lowly billions is decided daily, was hit by
the full force of terrorists brave enough to sacrifice their lives in a suicide
, the first tower of the
(a name carrying quite an
agenda!) could have been called
and the second
. But their destruction seems
to have left, according to various estimates, no more than between three and
five thousand dead, which is a far cry from the great feats of annihilation of
the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force in the early 1940s.
has thereupon embarked on
yet another crusade. Already in the early 1940s, general Dwight Eisenhower (who,
in reward, would be made president after the enterprise) had launched a Crusade
in Europe, a military-industrial project that was to prove extremely fruitful
for the United States (The Best War Ever) but, for the peoples of Europe, quite
the reverse: for them it meant millions of dead, immense destruction and the
entrustment of a good part of their continent to the Russo-Soviet Moloch. This
liberation of Europe, moreover, was to bring in its wake an atrocious political
purge, the murderous deportation of from twelve to fifteen million Germans,
widespread sordid aggression against civilians, the dismemberment of a great
country, its complete military occupation under a reign of censorship, an
Allied-imposed famine and the establishment of tribunals at which the victors,
acting both as judges and prosecutors, put the vanquished on trial in patently
sham proceedings. Still today, in 2001, trials of that kind allow the children
to exact vengeance on
octogenarians or nonagenarians accused, on the strength of simple Jewish
testimonies, of crimes against humanity.
The previous crusades
reaction to the attacks which it has sustained, America, this time, is out to
get infinite justice in what will be its twentieth slaughter of civilians in
sixty years. From 1941 to 2001, no military corps will have killed or burnt more
civilians, more children, more infants than the air armada made up by the US Air
Force and the squadrons of the US Army and Navy, at times seconded by their
ally, the RAF. The flying champions of phosphorus, napalm, Agent Orange,
fragmentation bombs, of the nuclear blaze and of enriched or depleted uranium,
are presently set to inflict upon miserably poor lands their time-honoured
lessons in international law, justice, virtue and enduring freedom as they have
formerly done in Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, and in Europe at large (67,000 killed
for the liberation of France alone), and in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya,
Sudan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. In the
space of sixty years the Americans, who are, besides, the worlds biggest
industrial polluters, have stuffed the Earth's surface with billions of bombs,
shells, missiles and mines, particularly anti-personnel mines, which pose
terrible danger for civilians. Anxious -- and it is understandable -- to spare
the lives of their own soldiers, US Defence chiefs are inclined to opt more
often than not for a particularly cowardly style of combat. Dropping bombs at
high altitude, launching missiles from great distance, spreading terror amongst
unarmed civilian populations, they have for some years been searching for the
zero-death war, which, as French revisionist Vincent Reynouard puts it, amounts
to waging wars in which, on one side, the death count is nought or close to it
whilst, on the other, the dead count for naught. Ensconced on their aircraft
carriers or on bases well removed from the front, the boys, chewing their
bubble-gum and absorbing peanuts and soda-pop, comfortably wreak death and
destruction on distant peoples.
The real holocaust of the German cities
Compared with the martyrdom of the German cities during the last war the fate of
escapees just after the
destruction of the two towers was enviable. Those people left the scene of the
disaster without being strafed by machinegun fire. Unlike the Germans of
1942-1945, starved, exhausted by lack of sleep, each day stricken with grief by
the news of the death of their brothers and husbands, particularly on the
Russian front, they were not turned into living torches and shot at by
fighter-bombers. The victims of carpet bombing would flee with their clothing
and hair in flames. They would jump into a river. The fires died down but as
soon as the poor souls got out of the water they would flare up anew. Phosphorus
would have it so. The last survivors died with the roof of their mouth blistered
by the ambient heat. As for the firemen and first-aid workers, many of them were
killed by delayed detonation bombs.
The futile lessons of the past
this recent black September, the Americans were able to get an idea -- in truth,
a scant idea -- of what they have inflicted on so many countries over so many
they had experienced a
humiliating defeat that earned them 56,000 full bodybags. They seemed to have
found out what it might cost to despise those who were smaller, weaker and
poorer than themselves.
had, for their part, gone
through identical humiliations during the collapse of their colonial empires and
appeared, also, to have learnt some useful lessons. But here we have the
all seized by a warlike
frenzy, forgetting the lessons of their most recent history.
Terrorism magnified by those who complain
is a bit comical to see the mighty denouncing the terrorism of their
adversaries. Not only did these same mighty ones invent large-scale terrorism
but they even promoted, praised and sublimated it under the term Resistance.
Roosevelt, Churchill, de Gaulle, Tito and their friend Stalin all, in varying
degrees, drew up policies of murder, by snipers, of enemy soldiers and
civilians. They thus coldly provoked reprisals, carried out in line with the
provisions of international conventions, so that slaughter should breed
slaughter. In the 20th century they institutionalised covert warfare, the war of
cowards. Assuredly, the spirit of resistance is a noble one but not in that
form. And what is to be said of the terrorism practised by the founders of the
Zionist state, who murdered, for example, Lord Moyne, Count Bernadotte and so
many others? A model, it seems, of struggle in a just cause.
The luck of the Jews
(Jew York) office towers
were held under a long lease by one Larry Silverstein, who will doubtless get
large compensation. His coreligionist Madeleine Albright, daughter of a Jewish
thief called Korber, had, in 1996, stated that, if American policy towards
had brought death to 500,000
(?) Iraqi children, then the price was worth it. The Israeli Netanyahu, for his
part, could not hide his joy upon learning of the destruction of the towers and
the death of thousands of Americans: it was good news for the Jews, as
would now understand that
its own interests and those of
were identical. As for
, the butcher and bludgeon
man, he, along with Shimon Peres, saw in it an opportunity both for his policy
of planting Jewish settlements amidst the Arab masses and for his programme of
systematic assassinations. For the time being, the United States still allows
him to kill Palestinian adults and children where and when he likes with
bullets, shells, missiles, tanks, helicopters and planes supplied by the
Bad times ahead for the Jews
Americans and Israelis may carry on with this sport at their leisure. But it
could cost them dearly, for the State of Israel is henceforth doomed. It will
not even have lasted as long as the ephemeral Christian
. There need be no Ben Laden
or new Saladin. Neither weapons, nor money, nor the
, nor the Jews of the
which, in the grip of its
national-masochism, would be capable of sacrificing its soldiers for the
survival of the Jewish leech state, will halt the Descent. (The Hebrews give
that name to the movement of their kind in the direction opposite to that of the
Ascent to the Promised Land.)
The Israelis are already jumping ship. In Tel Aviv, in
and in their settlements,
Jewish fathers and mothers are in fear for their own lives and for their
childrens, for their professional future or their business. The weight of taxes
needed to cover the Israeli military budget and the length and dangers of
national service, for both men and women, are making for a decrease, via the
phenomenon of re-emigration, in the numbers of taxpayers and potential soldiers.
The Promised Land is becoming the most hazardous spot in the world for the Jews.
It used to be a perfect safe haven for fraudsters and thieves, particularly for
the mafia called Russian and which is in fact Judeo-Russian. Only extremely
rarely have requests for extradition ever been granted to countries trying to
prosecute Flatto Sharon and his ilk. But today, the Paris courts have begun
noticing that, in the case of the gigantic bank swindle known as the affaire du
Sentier, the crooks who had fled the country to find refuge in Israel prefer to
return, even if that means ending up in prison. The land of milk and honey is
awash in blood and tears. Who is to blame?
The suitcase or the coffin
the wandering Jew is about to take to the road once more. In nearly every place
where he has stayed, his behaviour has brought on a revolt of the natives, who
eventually have told him to choose between the suitcase and the coffin. In
, he will soon have to pack
his suitcase. He will make his way back to the rich lands polluted by his
holocaustic propaganda. It will be enough for him to bewail a second Holocaust
and a third Destruction of the
. He will demand new
reparations and privileges. The Shoah Business and Holocaust Industry will pick
up with renewed vigour but, this time, with a risk of reaching saturation point.
In a worst-case scenario,
may experience a civil war
waged by a breakaway army of desperados. In the end, Tel Aviv could suffer the
in 1962 and Jewish Jerusalem
in 1975. But a less dramatic
end like, for example, that of communist
or the Soviet empire, seems
possible as well. In any case, the epicentre of the present conflict is
Various war propaganda
The lot of Palestinians of all faiths will be tragic, and this will provoke more
and more despair and fanaticism. The masses of the Arab-Muslim countries already
wish to see the West punished for crimes which, in their view, the latter has
committed or allowed to be committed in Palestine (more so than in Saudi Arabia,
Iraq or Afghanistan). By way of reaction, a spirit of crusade or holy war is
also developing amongst them. Ayathoras and ayatollahs are inciting one another.
On either side, both amidst the rich and mighty of the West and the deprived
populations of the Arab-Muslim world, passions and fears are intensifying. There
is going to be much killing and much telling of lies. The prodigious lie of the
alleged Holocaust of the Jews, sword and shield of
and the Diaspora, may thus
lead to a very real holocaust of global dimensions. The revisionist authors had
for quite some time been warning that the religion of the false Holocaust with
its imaginary gas chambers and its alleged Six million bore within it a
frightful catalyst for hatred. Current events may rightly cause one to fear lest
this hatred end up setting the world ablaze and thus provoke a worldwide
The revisionists caution
revisionists will follow the example set by Paul Rassinier, founder of their
school. Not to be swayed by any war propaganda, they will aim for exactitude
whilst emotions, on either side, breed lies. They will avoid promoting the
inventions of anti-American, anti-Jewish or anti-Arab propaganda and, with
regard to September 11th, they must spare us the gossip, customary in such
circumstances, of the type Bush knew, The CIA couldn't have been unaware, The
FBI is in on it, The Mossad fomented it all, Four thousand Jews, who should have
been at work there that day, didn't show up, Explosive charges had been hidden
in the two buildings, etc. Arab propaganda, more than ever, will orchestrate the
myths of the Jew draining the blood from children or poisoning wells and will
invoke the obvious fake comprised by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A
batch of other rumours, deliria, psychoses and phenomena of collective belief
must be expected. The Americans will underestimate the numbers of victims of
their bombardments and the Afghans will exaggerate them. The services of God or
Jehovah, on one side, and of Allah on the other will, along with those of their
prophets, be called on to stir up hatred and fear. There will be a proliferation
of false witnesses, false reportages, false interviews, false documents. In this
field perhaps Bush the son will surpass Bush the father and his story of the
incubators unplugged by the Iraqis in
. Censorship, of course, will
grow heavier without the various governments even having to pass new laws in
The holy alliance of the mighty
In France, from the very outset, the daily Le Monde, which I am in the habit of
calling the oblique journal, made its genuflexion. Under the byline of its
director, the hunched-over, sweaty-palmed Jean-Marie Colombani, it led with We
are all Americans. In an instant,
found itself in a state of
war. It is a tradition dear to the left (which, as everyone knows, has a
monopoly of warm-heartedness and intelligence) to plunge the country into war
without prior consultation of Parliament, nor any decision on the latters part.
This amounts to a total disregard for the law, for the constitution, but who
cares? It allows the French citizen to go to sleep at peace and to wake up at
war. To be fair, let us remember that the president, Mr Jacques Chirac, a
one-time Communist turned Gaullist, feels still more warlike and American than
his prime minister, Mr Lionel Jospin, head of a Socialist-Communist-Green
coalition. A kind of holy alliance has been forged against the bald-headed,
unkempt enemy from whom all the harm came: Oussama Ben Laden (one must call him
by his name). Formerly, he was called Adolf Hitler. Had not this latter
committed an inexpiable crime by getting in the way of gold, of the Jews and of
Communism? He had had the effrontery to refuse the gold standard. He had got on
so well without it that his new economic system was allowing him to trade on a
large scale with other countries poor in gold, notably
and some central European
and Latin American states. Panic had struck
was encroaching on their
turf and taking away their markets. The rich (in gold) never appreciate the
revolt, the coalition and the success of the poor (in gold). In the late 1930s,
the three rich ones, who claimed to be linked by one democratic system, were
above all bound to one other by a chain of gold. After the war, in 1947, L.
Genet and Victor-L. Tapie were able to publish, in their Precis d'histoire
contemporaine, 1919-1939 (
, Hatier), a quotation which
in English would read: "It is thus not an ideological link but a chain of
gold that binds the great democracies to one another" (p. 206); they added:
"Six years of self-sufficiency made
the worlds greatest
industrial country" (p. 209). Still more than others, the Jewish financiers
had taken offence: how could anyone get on in the world without them and their
gold?! As for communist
, it saw Hitler achieve
concretely the general social programme of its own aspiration. The intrepid
dictator was to pay a high price for his daring, all the more as he tried to
push his luck in other spheres. There then came about the catastrophe, for
, of the Second World War.
Currently, the new holy alliance of the western democracies and
against the new
rabble-rouser bodes ill for the future. Beneath the customary veneer of
generosity and disinterest, the
is going to be ferocious
towards the Arab-Muslim masses who might imperil Uncle Sam's supplies of natural
resources, his World Trade and his economy. Invoking their cherished Holocaust
and the need to avoid a second Holocaust, the Jews will be no less ferocious
towards the Palestinians. The Russians will crush any vague desires of
independence amongst their Muslim minorities, after which task they will, more
than ever, hold out the begging bowl to the Americans.
The only chance for peace
chance for peace lies in the spirit of resistance to the falsehoods of the
various propaganda. But, at the moment, the most dangerous propaganda is not
that of the poor. It is that of the rich and mighty and their hirelings, all of
whom are capable, if they feel truly threatened, of setting the whole world
alight. It is that of the neurotics and their false Holocaust. It is that of the
Jews, the Americans and those beholden to them.
Had the revisionists been heeded, the religion of the false Holocaust of the
Jews would have no legitimacy today. It would not still be feeding the sympathy
of a great part of the Western world for the Zionist enterprise.
The Diaspora would display less arrogance. To begin with, the State of Israel
would not exist.
Historical lies breed hatred, a crusader spirit and war. A return to historical
exactitude would favour reflection and peace.
commentary from:Adelaide Institute Online ISSN 1440-9828 February
2000 No 103
Your Say, The
30 January 2000
David Cesarani, it seems has no argument to counter David Irving’s claim that
he is the victim of a scandalously defamatory campaign (The
Sunday Age, 23/1), internationally organised by financially powerful Jewish
interests, to destroy his career.
he resorts to the language of insult instead: the claim is “bizarre” and
“paranoid”, and there is “a world of difference” between it and the
growing public unease about the exaggerated cultural importance given to “the
Cesarani is quite wrong, moreover, to assert that it was not until the Holocaust
“emerged as an iconic event” that people thought it worth denying. French
survivor of the Nazi concentration camps Paul Rassinier was exposing the
relevant lies and exaggerations of other former prisoners long before then, in
the 1950s and early 1960s.
promotion of the myth of “the Holocaust” and concurrent persecution of
historical revisionists such as Irving is proof positive of the Jewish political
might that Professor Cesarani labors unsuccessfully to downplay.
Cesarani points to the unholy alliance developed between unscrupulous Nazi
apologists and radical intellectuals who have seized an opportunity to recast
their antipathy to things Jewish. This is a matter that deserves rather fuller
discussion than he gives it.
notes the complexities associated with memorialising a crime unparalleled in
history. Unparalleled not because there have been no other instances of genocide
- there have been several - but because this one aimed uniquely at physically
destroying each and every member of a discrete group.
being the case, its memorialisation is emblematic of the frailty of the human
condition and the depth of evil that can be perpetrated by human beings.
great concern, therefore, are those who argue that a deliberate attempt to
elevate the Holocaust as the cardinal crime of the 20th century has come about
for an entirely different reason: a deliberate international Jewish campaign to
. This line proves equally
appealing, as Cesarani notes, to some left-wing critics of
as it is to fascist
is a curiosity that those who accuse one group of deliberately foisting a
version of history on the public for political ends are engaged essentially in
the very practice they purport to have exposed: promote this and we can all get
back to energetically disliking the Jews or the Jewish state. The complexities
of Holocaust memorialisation must be rigorously distinguished from the
conspiracy theories made to order for assorted political hucksters.
Daniel Mandel, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs
Mandel’s basic premise is factually wrong - and hence that is why
like-minded thinkers seek the force of laws to establish their
professional opinion on the Holocaust. Were their premise to rest on a solid
foundation of truth-content, then they would welcome any open public debate on
the Holocaust issue. There is a noted obsessive tone in Dr Mandel’s letter. Is
it from the knowledge that the Jewish Holocaust was not at all unique - that it
is not true to say that it is “a crime unparalleled in history … this one
aimed uniquely at physically destroying each and every member of
a discrete group”?
Mandel ought to acquaint himself with Dr Joel Hayward’s MA thesis of 1993
concludes that there is no
evidence to support the claim that European Jewry was systematically
exterminated; and the gassing claim, likewise, cannot be substantiated by any
conclusion on Dr Mandel’s reasoning process is this: if he is unaware of the
revisionist arguments, then his view is based on ignorance. If he knows the
facts about the revisionist arguments
on the Holocaust, and still claims what he has stated above, then his view is
not based on truth-content but on lies.
Sauce for the Gutnick
have just read the article by Joseph Gutnick “A civil response: The compelling
case for kicking out Citizen Kalejs’ (16/1).
Gutnick attempts to put forward an argument as to why the Australian Government
should introduce legislation immediately to be able to revoke the citizenship of
Gutnick also puts forward the argument that “no criminal conviction should be
necessary, only proof on the balance of probabilities”.
do not wish to get involved in the ins-and-outs of the Kalejs case. In my
opinion, Mr Gutnick, even though a religious leader, has many of the traits that
he would condemn in others.
Gutnick thinks nothing of the sending of millions of dollars to
to pay for the building of
dwellings on Arab land, an act of extreme aggression.
Mr Gutnick believes that Kalejs is guilty, then he should put his money where
his mouth is and fund the necessary action to bring about enough proof to
standards are double standards. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and Mr Gutnick, I
believe., is guilty of both.
murderer, Solomon Morell, living peacefully in
, ought to receive Mr
Gutnick’s attention so that the allegation of being hypocritical does not
stand. Likewise, Dr Efraim Zurof of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre,
, ought to focus on Morell.
fact that both men will not hunt down Solomon Morell reveals the injustice of
we have in
, elderly Jewish men from the
who still proudly display
their World War II
military medals - and collect a good war pension from
would welcome any comments on this issue.
Kalejs: more than a Jewish issue, The Age,
14 January 2000
wish to congratulate Pamela Bone on her excellent piece (Opinion, 13/1). As an
ex-pat and historian, I have been deeply dismayed and not a little ashamed of
’s official response to the
Konrad Kalejs case and the blindness to history shown by public officials.
Bone was right to bring up Amanda Vanstone’s remarks about “show trials for
the benefit of one person in the community or a group of people in the
community”. Such talk from any elected office-holder is unacceptable.
Prime Minister should have done something about it. But with John Howard’s
track record of silence on issues of bigotry and racism, little is to be
expected from that quarter.
war criminals for slaughtering Jews is not an issue about Jews alone. It is in
the interest of
. Thousands of young
Australians met their deaths in World War II fighting the war criminals of this
world, whose world view was diametrically opposed to all that
let war criminals off scott-free is to not only besmirch the memory of the Jews
they butchered, but the Australians of all backgrounds who fought gallantly to
prevent the triumph of evil.
paraphrase the Justice Minister, Senator Vanstone: “That is the sort of
is,” and she and the
Government would do well to recall that, and the best way to do that is with a
vigorous investigation of Konrad Kalejs.
M Efron, professor of history,
letter reveals how Professor Efron’s moral and intellectual integrity is shot
to pieces. He cannot face the truth as encapsuled in Senator Vanstone’s words
which, by the way, made world headlines. Why? The attempts at blackmail,
hypocrisy, and basic racketeering under the guise of ‘war criminal pursuit’
is now common knowledge, and it has nothing to do with seeking justice. Hence
this immoral stance needs to be exposed for what it is.
Professor Efron imbued with an ounce of moral rectitude, then he would also call
for Solomon Morell to be extradited from
Dilemmas of Kalejs case,
editorial and articles on the Kalejs case correctly describe
’s discomfiture. But we are
not alone. Four years ago
faced a similar dilemma
after a retired general admitted to killing 49 Egyptian prisoners in 1956.
’s attorney-general had to
rule on the matter and his decision was that, despite the available evidence,
the case couldn’t be prosecuted because the crimes took place too long ago.
13 January 2000
had neighbours who were German. They were our friends and we ate, played bridge
and laughed with them. We admired their successful Australian daughter. I asked
him once about being a Nazi in the war. His reply was of course he was a Nazi
and he had to obey orders or he would be shot. Let us remember most Australians
have Irish, German, Jewish, Spanish, Latvian, etc. blood in our veins. I have
some of those. Let us accept these poor ‘Kalejs’ and let them enjoy the
years they have left.
the whole war crimes legislation were based on a justice concept that would
investigate the war crimes committed not only by the Axis powers but also by the
Allies, then it could not be stated that the Jewish special interest group is
the lone benefactor of any such trials.
Don’t forget communist atrocities,
13 January 2000
Duffy (Daily Telegraph, January 4) makes a valid point, when he writes of
the phenomenon of the lack of interest in the atrocities committed by the
world’s communists, yet we are reminded almost daily of the crimes committed
by the Nazis. Take, for example, the forced famine, in the grain-abundant
in 1932-33. The tragedy was
deliberately perpetrated by Joseph Stalin to bring the farmers into line. Ten
million died - seven million of them Ukrainians, including three million
Prize winning journalist Walter Duranty, described by Malcolm Muggeridge as the
biggest liar he has ever met, wrote many articles in The
New York Times, suggesting that news
of the famine was simply anti-communist hysteria. At the very same time Duranty
was writing this guff, he was said to be advising the British Foreign Office of
the famine and that in his opinion “there could be as many as 10 million
Ukrainians dead”. Don’t hold your breath waiting for
to make a movie about this
anyone for anything worries me because I see the charge looming large: why did
the Ukrainians let this happen to them? It is a
classic case of a failure of moral nerve - something that so afflicts our
own society. Adelaide Institute’s role is to cut through the ‘fear of
fear’ shroud that is currently inhibiting upright people to freely speak out
on important matters affecting our social and mental well-being.
21 January 2000
Anderson is surely right. It is only we modern antinomians who have dropped such
terms as character, integrity and faithfulness from our lexicons. We try to
convince ourselves that there are no binding values, yet continue to be
surprised when everyone, from politicians to sports figures, engage in
is all of one piece: something that affects the whole person, both private and
public. What a person does in private tells us a lot about what that person will
be like in public. To attempt to divorce private morality from public
performance is futile.
is worth recalling that character was the only consideration enumerated by the
American founding fathers as relevant to qualifications to serve in public
office. John Anderson has done us a service to remind us of such truths.
Email From The Edge, The
Peter Coleman In
Review, February 2000
When Barry Humphries - watching the Qantas planes land in New York
- made his exaggerated quip the other day about Australia sharing with Iran the
distinction of coercing its intellectuals to emigrate, he was thinking of the
clammy oppressiveness of Political Correctness in our culture. Almost every
columnist, editor, academic, media consultant, advertising guru, art critic,
lecturer in creative writing, talking head, minister of the cloth or all-purpose
cliché-grinder, conforms to the same
politically correct dogmas (multiculturalism, feminism, humanism, republicanism,
etc. etc). A deviationist risks a fatwa, or at least a boycott. Small wonder
But even Barry Humphries may have been surprised at the intensity
of recent attacks on the poet Les Murray for his Incorrectness. They have been
going on for months, but they became particularly pointed when the biographer
Peter Alexander was about to publish his Les
Murray. A Life in Progress, with a sympathetic account of
’s battles with
the political and cultural correctors. It is not only a splendid biography but
also a literary history of our times. Several literary (and some not-so
literary) figures quickly lunged “for the legal jugular”, with the result
that Oxford University Press withdrew the book for re-editing. Then
published a poem
called ‘The Oxford Book of Alacrity’ which began: “My life got written and
then pulped” and ended: “Folk are watching…tight-lipped as paint-tins. I
feel like next century”.
Forthwith one poetaster sent off a letter to the editor, headed
“Beware the Bunyah bugle”, which referred to
“whingeing” and “self-indulgent slop”. It described him as a
“full-time sook-celebrity and part-time poet”, among sundry other
OUP tells me that their plan is to release the amended edition in
April. Meanwhile, despite repeated attempts to recall the review copies of the
original edition, many of the reviewers are hanging on to them as souveniers of
our fin-de-siecle battle of the books.
Not that they need be too possessive. American publishers are unlikely to worry
’s critics or
make any changes. Their edition is due out soon.
Fredrick Töben comments: This
censorship of a book totally unrelated to matters Holocaust confirms what I have
stated in the past - the painful search for truth, and publication of dissenting
views, is all-pervasive and not at all a particularly ‘Jewish thing’.
Opinions seeking to explain such censorship by blanket-condemning and blaming
one sector of our pluralistic society, fail to grasp one essential fact: we are
letting such censorship happen. If we let it happen, then, in time, we shall
develop a society - such as existed in the former
individuals thought it morally quite right and proper for people to be thrown
into the Gulags if they expressed dissenting opinions. We have two prime
examples of individuals who wish to re-establish a Gulag in
: Jeremy Jones
and Dr Colin Rubenstein. If we let them, their mind-set will deprive us of our
intellectual freedoms. Their intolerance and bigotry is shrouded in the language
of human rights-speak which includes
the following concepts: ‘hater’, ‘racist’, ‘anti-semite’,
‘holocaust denier’, ‘neo-nazi’, ‘xenophobic’,
‘dangerous to democracy’, among others.
Notebook - An apology would perpetuate
Robert W Tracinski, writing in the Ayn Rand Institute’s website, Australian
28 January 2000
the following scenario. You are suddenly arrested by the police one morning and
charged with a crime. The crime, you are told, was committed by another man of
the same colour of skin - and so you would be punished for it in his place. A
judge sentences you to pay a fine, perform community service, and make a public
apology for the crime. Would you regard this as a gross injustice, as a form of
racist persecution? In fact, a similar approach is now being promoted in the
name of “race healing”.
President Clinton has indicated his support for a congressional
proposal to apologise, on behalf of the nation and the US Government, to
“African-Americans whose ancestors suffered as slaves”. This apology has
been promoted as an attempt to bring “closure” to the racial divisions
created by slavery. Rather than healing racism, however, this proposal would
help to perpetuate it. An apology for slavery on behalf of the nation presumes
that whites today, who predominantly oppose racism, and never owned slaves, and
who bear no personal responsibility - a guilt they bear simply by belonging to
the same race as the slave-holders of the Old South. Such an apology promotes
the very idea at the root of slavery: racial collectivism.
Our work is scientific.
Then there is the author of the Rudolf
Report, whose contents have not been refuted. This is offered as
evidence of our reliance upon scientific research to support our commentary.
Chemical Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt
industrial chemist Germar Rudolf, January 1999
[In the case of David John
Cawdell Irving, Plaintiff against (1) Penguin Books Limited, First Defendant (2)
Deborah E. Lipstadt, Second Defendant]
Institute Online ISSN 1440-9828 February 2000 No 103
name is Germar Rudolf. I studied Chemistry at the Universities of Bonn and
between 1983 and 1993. I received my Diploma in Chemistry in 1989 at
Between 1990 and 1993 I had a scholarship of the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid
State Research in
in order to prepare a PhD thesis in the field of solid state
1990 I am conducting research in my spare time to verify the so-called Leuchter
Report, which eventually led to the preparation of an expert report
about chemical and technical details of the so-called 'gas chambers' of
Auschwitz. The distribution of one version of this report eventually led to a
criminal court case in Germany against me for "inciting hatred" and
"stirring up the people". I was eventually sentenced to 14 months
imprisonment because of comments that were added to my report without my
knowledge. In fact, in the
such a case would have never reached a law court, as these countries grant
proper freedom of speech. Subsequently, the
refused to appoint a date for my final exam to receive my PhD, referring to art.
4 of the German Law For Carrying Academic Degrees (Gesetz zur Führung
akademischer Grade), which was introduced 1939 by Adolf Hitler and which allows
the authorities to withhold or withdraw academic titles in case the defendant
doesn't show sufficient "academic dignity". According to the
the fact that I was found guilty by a German court of a major crime damaging my
academic dignity, they had the right and duty to withhold the PhD-title from me.
1991 I was involved in the publication of two anthologies critically reviewing
the established version of the so-called 'Holocaust', which were published in
1994 and 1995, respectively, with me as the editor. They, too, led to
criminal investigations and in one case to a trial in Germany. Though two
well renowned German historians stated during this trial that the "accused’s"
book matches scientific standards and should be protected by freedom of speech
and freedom of research, the Tübingen District Court ordered all copies
available to the authorities to be burned, and the publisher, the editor, some
of the authors, many book retailers who sold the book and customers who bought
more than one copy of it to be punished with more or less heavy fines and prison
a result of the oppressive German legal system, my tenancy agreements were
cancelled twice between 1993 and 1996, and my employment ended early either
because of pressure put onto my employer or because I had to flee the country in
order to avoid being imprisoned for many years. As a consequence I had no choice
but to make the critical revision of contemporary history my profession, since
my career as an ordinary academic chemist was destroyed by the German
authorities. Since 1996 I am publishing a quarterly German language journal
mainly focussing on topics that are being suppressed by the mainstream media, be
they popular or scholarly.
revisionism' is one of the most important topics within it, as there is no topic
where legal and social repression is harder, and since it is my firm belief that
exactly there, where the powers that are want to suppress critical voices, they
have to be raised. I think that my education in solid state chemistry combined
with my now 10 years lasting research and thorough discussing especially of the
chemical parts of the Leuchter Report have made me one of the foremost experts in this
field worldwide. Contrary to that, I cannot see which qualifications Prof.
Robert Jan van Pelt has that could make him an expert in judging any of the
topics addressed by Leuchter, especially when it comes to chemistry.
The Leuchter Report
Leuchter Report is now 11 years old.
It was a pioneering work, because it was the first time that the 'gas chambers'
Birkenau and Majdanek were investigated forensically without the influence of
any totalitarian regime. It was prepared by the author in a very short period of
time, in which he didn't have enough time to collect all the information about
the matter that is available now. Therefore it is understandable that it has
many shortcomings, which I shall not address here.
Rudolf’s highly technical report, is on-line at http://www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/RudolfOnVanPelt.html
Censorship and Legal Oppression
Europe Moving Toward Ban on Internet
New York Times | November 10, 2001
By PAUL MELLER
BRUSSELS, Nov. 9 - The 43-nation Council of Europe is trying to ban racist and
hate speech from the Internet by adding a protocol, or side agreement, to its
cybercrime convention, which was stamped for ratification on Thursday.
The convention is scheduled to be formally ratified at a meeting in
The main text of the convention defines as cybercrimes activities like online
child pornography, online fraud and electronic vandalism or hacking, and it sets
rules for signatory nations on how the Internet should be policed.
The protocol would add racist Web page content and hate speech over computer
networks to the list of cybercrimes, the Council of Europe, a club of European
democracies that aims to protect human rights, said.
, which is a signatory to the
convention, resisted European moves to include the issue of racist Web sites in
the main agreement, because doing so would conflict with the free-speech
protections in the First Amendment.
To keep the disagreement from holding up ratification of the cybercrime
convention, the council decided to cover the issue in a side agreement, which
the United States and others could choose not to sign, said Angus Macdonald, a
spokesman for the council.
While the side agreement obliges only the nations that sign it to ban racist Web
content and online hate speech, Mr. Macdonald said, the council hopes that all
signatories of the main convention, including the United States, will respect
the protocol, and will agree to remove such material if it originates within
their borders and is aimed at an audience in another country.
Ivar Tallo, an Estonian member of the council, gave the example of a French
racist organization establishing a Web site aimed at influencing a French
audience, and situating it in the
solely to take refuge behind
the First Amendment.
His example is reminiscent of a real case decided in a federal court in
, on Thursday. Yahoo (news/quote), the Web portal,
asked the court to refuse to enforce a ruling by a French court in November 2000
ordering Yahoo to remove all Nazi memorabilia from its auction Web site.
The court in
agreed with Yahoo.
has the sovereign right to
regulate what speech is permissible in
, this court may not enforce
a foreign order that violates the protections of the United States Constitution
by chilling protected speech that occurs simultaneously within our
borders," Judge Jeremy Fogel wrote.
Mr. Macdonald said the side agreement would not have applied in the Nazi
memorabilia case because it refers only to messages aimed at a foreign audience.
is thought to be one of the
countries that pressed hardest for action by the council on racist content and
hate speech. But one executive of an Internet company said the protocol would
have little effect.
"It is very unlikely the
would cooperate in the way
the Council of Europe would want it to by removing Web content classified as
racist by another country's courts," the executive said. "The Justice
Department fought hard to have the racist bits pulled from the cybercrime
convention itself. I can't imagine they will let freedom of speech be curtailed
via the backdoor in this way."
Jewish War Criminals Escape to
ISRAELI PRESS GIVES ANGRY VIEW OF LITHUANIAN
REQUEST TO EXTRADITE GENOCIDE SUSPECT
Baltic News Service November 19, 2001
TEL AVIV --- The recent request by Lithuanian prosecutors to extradite former
high-ranking KGB officer Nachman Dushanski suspected of genocide against
Lithuanian citizens during the Soviet rule has triggered negative response in
Israeli media and some public organizations.
's larges dailies, Ha-Arec and Yedioth Ahronoth,
and a Russian-language weekly Novosti
Nedely accused Lithuanian law-enforcement institutions, which sent the
extradition request in the end of October, of bias.
Dushanski, now 81, was a top-ranking Soviet state security officer during and
after the World War Two. A criminal investigation had been launched in
into genocide charges
against Dushanski, currently residing in
Ha-Arec said in an article titled
Lithuania Demands that "a union of Holocaust victims is even trying to
's government regarding the
stance taken by
, demanding to cool off the
active cooperation with the country."
According to the daily, Lithuanians living abroad have made a "demand to
extradite Dushanski, which is seen as no more than an attempt by Lithuanian
authorities to deliver a retaliatory blow. It is intended to raise doubts in
's requirement to modify
's policy on
rehabilitation of war criminals."
Furthermore, in spite of the current disagreement,
should respond to the
Lithuanian request in line with the legal and diplomatic etiquette, said Ha-Arec.
"The head of the (Israeli) Justice Ministry's International Division, Irit
Koen, said that an official justified refusal (to interrogate Dushanski) was
handed last year, adding that Dushanski denied all charges and there was
historical evidence he was not in Lithuania during the period indicated in some
sources," Ha-Arec reported.
It quoted Koen as saying that "24 former high-ranking officers of Soviet
security now living in
could have been involved in
the actions incriminated to Dushanski, but no criminal charges are pressed
against them regardless of their higher official position and military rank than
Another daily, Yedioth Ahronoth,
seconded the opinion in an article,
: Extradite 81-Year-Old
Charged With Killings.
The Russian-language Novosti Nedeli
said that the stance taken by Lithuanian law enforcement was described as
"horrendous" by a former ghetto prisoner and guerrilla, currently a
known historian Dov Levin, and as "improper" by the head of the
Israeli office of the
, Efraim Zuroff.
Dushanski contacted a BNS correspondent in
by phone and said he was not
In his words, he participated in the "persecution of persons suspected of
Jewish genocide and Nazi collaboration."
In the course of investigation the Lithuanian prosecution has several times
asked the Israeli authorities for legal assistance but was always refused.
Following the declination of the request for legal assistance by
, Lithuanian prosecutors
pressed genocide charges against Dushanski in absentia. Dushanski is suspected
of heading joint forces of the KGB staff and Soviet militia during the killing
's last guerilla Antanas
Kraujelis in the central Utena district in March 1965.
According to evidence collected by Lithuanian prosecutors, Dushanski, as a
Soviet security agent in 1940-1971, has participated in a number of operations
against supporters of Lithuanian independence as an officer of the Soviet
security police during the World War Two and in the post-war period.
said that it could not
render legal assistance requested by
to question Dushanski
because this would be regarded as "discrimination against him."
The Riga-based Israeli Embassy to the three
then said that the
extradition request was immediately and thoroughly discussed at the highest
's Justice Ministry, adding
's charges and proceedings
against Dushanski raise "very serious and troubling concerns".
The report said that Israel held a list of over 20 high-ranking former
Lithuanian officers "who served in senior positions in the KGB and NKVD and
who presently reside in Lithuania, who were involved in the various KGB actions
described in Lithuania's request, to a greater extent and at a higher level of
command than Dushanski."
However, the report pointed out, "
understands that no criminal
proceedings have been commenced with respect to these Lithuanian nationals
despite the fact that these persons are within Lithuanian jurisdiction."
"The decision to proceed vigorously against Dushanski while not proceeding
at all against those Lithuanian nationals who served as his superiors in the KGB
and who live in
, seems to be singling him
out in a discriminatory manner," the embassy said.
It is thought that Dushanski left for
in 1989, a year before the
During the half-century Soviet rule over
, hundreds of thousands of
Lithuanian people were imprisoned in Soviet labor camps and prisons where many
were killed or died of unbearable working conditions.
lie you can speak or act but it will come, after longer or shorter circulation,
like a bill drawn on Nature's Reality, and be presented there for payment - with
the answer, No effects!
(Thomas Carlyle in The French Revolution, 1837)
[Please note that computer problems
prevented formatting of this document.]
This form was
prepared and filed by the Respondent:
G F Toben,