Submissions for an unsuccessful Permission to Appeal

In The Federal Court of Australia

New South Wales Registry   

 No. N327 of 2001



On Appeal from Orders of Justice Branson of the Federal Court of Australia made on 4 April 2002




 Fredrick Toben - Appellant


 Jeremy Jones    Respondent


Summary of Submission for Leave to Appeal:  Hearing on 21 May 2002


1.The Issue: The matter is an historical issue that should not be before this court [327, 863ff.].

This is also a global political issue [794-795, 913 - 920], with a strong sectional national interest by virtue of the media’s incessant airing of the so-called ‘Holocaust’ topic, something that is distorting our understanding of the complexities raised by a study of World War Two [327, 863ff.]. In fact, it is now understood that World War One and World War Two make up one period – the 30 year war; so, according to former British Prime Minister John Major.

For example, ABC Radio National’s Phillip Adams attempted to publicly embarrass me when the subject matter was about reconciliation and not the ‘Holocaust’ [322-323].

The Austar pay-TV history channel for May 2002 presents a daily dose of World War II ‘Holocaust’ history on Hitler, Eichmann, Schindler, Anne Frank, et al. SBS TV recently screened, at the national level, the series Hitler’s Holocaust [801-821].

At state level the Sydney Morning Herald article, originally planned to be published on 19 April, the ‘official’ ‘Holocaust’ Remembrance Day, but - owing to the NSW Police Commissioner’s sudden resignation – it was held over until the following week [897-899].

Then at local/regional level, the Horsham-based Wimmera Mail-Times, featured an extensive front page article wherein Asuschwitz survivors  informed 1200 school students of the horrors of war, and how the Nazis had ‘gassed’ individuals at Auschwitz [914-916].

Such wild unsubstantiated assertions need to be tested for truth-content, again for which the court is not designed [794]. It would be unjust if our legal system is used to block open enquiry into historical matters on account of some person’s perceived hurt.

Such censorship of intellectual enquiry would stifle our cultural endeavours – as it did in the former Soviet Union countries where states upheld a legally-sanctioned dogma. Dissenters had their thoughts criminalised, and were then sent to the Gulags. We don’t need this in Australia .

Legally, there are also flow-on effects where the alleged ‘Holocaust’ phenomenon has become generational, and in criminal matters is used as an excuse for such behaviour [823].

2. Definitions: To date there has been no attempt made to clearly define – certainly not legally – the so-called Holocaust. Any dissent is called hate-speech. The following terms make up the political aspect of this now legal conflict:

Hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, anti- Jewish, racist, neo-Nazi.

It is not possible to make sense of these terms if we have loose definitions. The terms are used to stifle open debate on important current and historical world problems.

The so-called main-stream media outlets are controlling the meaning of these terms.

It is only in the anarchistic – but totally democratic - Internet world that these terms contain more truth-content, and approximate closer with physical reality 

2.1 Which ‘Holocaust’ are we talking about because there have been many, the most forgotten one is the Dresden Holocaust? [357-362, 372, 389, 930].

Holocaust denier – I would rather be a Holocaust denier than a Holocaust liar.

2.2  Who are the Semites? An antisemite is someone the Jews hate; who is an antisemite? The Arabic-speaking Palestinians are Semites.

It is unjust if someone defines themselves in a negative by accusing someone else of being antisemitic, without first clarifying the term Semite? The term then becomes a mere argument-stopper, and the clarifying of pressing intellectual problems is regarded as an insult giving rise to a hurt feeling.

2.3 How do we define who is a Jew if the Israeli Supreme Court has not done so? Does it mean racial, cultural, or religious? Is being anti-Jewish, anyone who dares to be critical of the Jewish religion, or is political criticism of the State of Israel also anti-Jewish?

It is unjust if someone defines themselves in a negative by accusing someone else of being anti-Jewish, without first clarifying the term Jewish?

The term then becomes a mere argument-stopper, and the clarifying of pressing intellectual problems is regarded as an insult giving rise to a hurt feeling.

2.4 Is a racist someone the multicultural lobby hates? [291]. Are Zionists racists? Is the Zionist, apartheid State of Israel a racist state? These are questions that need to be addressed, if we wish to resolve the political problems currently faced by the peoples in this region.

2.5 How is hate defined? Are those who label others haters themselves filled with hate and anti-democratic sentiments? It is quite hurtful for Australians of German descent to be confronted on a daily basis with this Holocaust propaganda, without effectively being able to counter it and correcting the many lies that are repeated and presented as factually true.

Any questioning of details presented as facts is immediately labelled hate speech, and the person is labelled and defamed for being anti-Jewish, antisemitic, a Holocaust denier, even a racist, and a neo-Nazi.

An example of intemperate language use is the hate-speech literature at [278-284], and an Internet hate-site is at [302-303], [304-308].

That we ought to have an open debate about the issues is a prerequisite if we wish to honour our open-ended scientific tradition [295-299], the hallmark of our civilization’s achievements.

Censoring politically incorrect ideas will not make the problem go away. It merely creates political persecution [799 – the case of Dr Darius Ratajczak, Poland ].

3. The HREOC finding: Commissioner McEvoy’s findings have been quoted world-wide [272-277].

The Commissioner claimed there was no redeeming academic virtue in our work, yet failed to mention the scientific basis of it [367]

The fact that she ordered the whole website to be deleted speaks for itself.

It does not reflect well upon her moral and intellectual integrity because it reveals her bias towards the Holocaust myth.

Nowhere in her assessment of Adelaide Institute’s website material did she mention that we also had links to our supposed ‘enemy’, those who believe in the Holocaust myth – the exterminationists. Her findings are thus unbalanced.

The commissioner accepted mere oral evidence of ‘hurt feelings’ [709] from Jeremy Jones, a man who calls himself a public affairs professional.

In any litigation where damages for hurt feelings is sought, the evidence consists at least of a psychological or psychiatric report. Why is the complainant Jones not required to prove his hurt feelings?

An interesting matter arises where schizophrenia is evident in individuals who cannot reconcile having believed in something that was not true [825-829]. 

Many individuals who ‘believe’ in the ‘Holocaust’, are driven by the obsession that they have either just come out of a Holocaust, find themselves in a Holocaust, or are just expecting a Holocaust to happen.

Likewise, it must have a detrimental effect upon an individual’s moral balance to see in everything that they disagree with an overt antisemitic act, aimed specifically to hurt them because ‘they are Jewish’.

Such a world view is too self-centred – and rather selfish, and dictatorial.

A person suffering from such persecution complex needs professional counselling. It does not help to keep a list of all the apparent ‘antisemitic incidents’ that occur.

There are well documented cases where Jewish persons inflict damage to buildings and to self as a result of a persecution complex. 

4. Internet censorship - deletion of website: As an act of good faith towards the Federal Court, I deleted the material on our website. However, I have now found that there is an Internet archive where our deleted material can be accessed –

Our new website contains a warning page, thus eliminating the excuse that someone, by accident, stumbled upon our Internet website  [786, 788, 789], [900].

5. Apology: The complaint against me has been presented as if I intentionally wished to hurt the complainant’s feelings. Such claim is a nonsense assertion because I have more important things to think about than how to hurt someone’s feelings. The search for truth in history operates at a higher level than that, and it is not centred on some specific group of individuals.

I am sorry if my questioning material offends anyone. Thus, as an act of good faith, I offered to make an apology on the condition that the complainant, Jeremy Jones, present me with evidence that would settle one of the issues that we are addressing in our discussion about the ‘Holocaust’. The offer was rejected [908-910].

6. Legal proceedings: It is unfair and unjust for Branson. J, to assert that I can handle this matter without legal representation. I may succeed in presenting the historical matter to the court, but I cannot place this argument within a legal context [780, 938, 941].

Worse still, there are no precedent cases on which anyone can draw upon, except from overseas, where similar groups of litigants have attempted to stifle historical debates, notably in Canada .

Thus in this case, as also in the Launceston Scully case before Justice Peter Hely, any advice that a judge hearing this matter would come from one counsel only instead of from two. It is thus one-sided and certainly biased as concerns the application of the Racial Discrimination Act.

It is thus unfair and unjust for a judge to have to deal with such a situation. It is also difficult for counsel to vigorously present his case where the Respondent is unrepresented. This became glaringly clear on the Launceston Scully case before His Honour, Justice Peter Hely [778, 863-878].

No good legal practice can emerge from such unrepresented cases, especially if it is a test-case, a precedent-setting case as is this one before the Federal Court. It involves net censorship, something that ought not be treated lightly.

I detail my attempt at securing legal representation. Since 1996 the message from my extensive legal network is that the fear of the Jews is real, and that anyone taking on this case puts his career and by implication his life on the line [879-891].

Interestingly, there are other examples where institutions, such as the Victorian Law Institute [344] cowers to Jewish pressure.

But there are individuals who stand up to this pressure, as became evident when Alan Goldberg, QC – now Justice Goldberg of the Federal Court -  attempted to pressure Mrs Joyce Steele, OBE, to dis-endorse John Bennett’s book Your Rights [226-227].

History is simply not for the law courts [324], as I indicate in my Defence-Cross Claim [326-327].

7. Constitutional Matters: The Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) may offend against the Constitution. This has to be tested by competent legal argument, something that I cannot do – and it is unfair and unjust for one counsel to be given the task to do this on his own.

If the RDA does not offend against our constitution, then our constitution may actually be a racist constitution.

This matter has to be addressed so that clarity exists on this important matter [269-270], [893-894].


8. Common Law: We do not need to enshrine in law the Holocaust story/dogma/legend/myth/religion [828] – as has been done in Germany , France , Austria , Switzerland , et al.

The most prominent European country resisting NATO pressure to enshrine in law the questioning of the so-called Holocaust is Great Britain .

The Europeans have made it a criminal offence to doubt any aspect of the Holocaust ( Germany ), or to dispute the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal’s findings, even if now proven false, e.g. the Katyn Massacre (France), or to re-activate the Nazi ideology ( Austria ), or to criticise aspects of the Holocaust as that is a racist matter ( Switzerland ).

In Australia , our Common Law tradition, together with various statute law provisions, makes a special Holocaust Law – as this action before the Federal Court is designed to bring about -  unnecessary.

It would have a further chilling effect upon our much-cherished democratic right to what limited free speech we still enjoy.



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA                    No.  327 of 2001




JEREMY JONES   Applicant                                                                                                                                                      


FREDRICK TOBEN   Respondent  

Continuing: Defence and Application to Dismiss Matter  


I refer to my RESPONSE and COUNTER CLAIM and I rely upon 1-3 and  5- 6 therein, and its Affidavit in Support,  which I repeat here.  I further reiterate:

1. I remain legally unrepresented:

I have 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.

The legal persons that I approached in Sydney , Melbourne , Adelaide , Perth and Wellington , New Zealand , fear getting involved in such a case.  Australia 's media personalities, Terry Lane and Phillip Adams,  stress the viciousness with which Australia 's Jewish Zionists hound individuals who dare criticise or oppose their behaviour.

The Melbourne 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 Rights.

Review of John Bennett’s Your Rights 1999, Australian Civil Liberties Union, paperback $4,95,  by JJ Catanzariti, in: Law Institute Journal, August 1999.

Your Rights 1999

It 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.

This 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.

The 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.

New 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 republic.

The 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.

This edition, the 25th, proves beyond doubt that it is a much-needed publication and a must have for just about everyone.



Law Institute regrets review, by Mark Brisidin, The Australian Jewish News, Friday, January 21, 2000

The Law Institute of Victoria said it regrets publishing a review of a booklet which supports far right ideologies including Holocaust revisionism.

JJ 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 said.

Concerns 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 said.

Mr 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.

“I fully acknowledge that an error was made and the appropriate steps have been taken,” he said.



A Member 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.

Another 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 Leibler, C.B.E.


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 Australia 's 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 racist attitudes.

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 South Australia and elsewhere and will tarnish your high reputation for fairminded public service. It also gives considerable distress to Australia 's 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.

Yours faithfully

Alan H. Goldberg Q.C.

Chairman, Anti-Defamation

Committee, E.C.A.J.


Another case of Jewish pressure involves the Herald Sun newspaper's poll on David Irving.

. From Geoff Muirden


Herald Sun

Fax: 03-92922944

20 January 2000

Dear Sir                   Dictatorial Thought Police Control

I was disgusted to see a report in The Australian Jewish News

Melbourne edition, 20 January 2000 , headed ‘Herald Sun

regrets 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 Irving might be right, was reprimanded for his/her efforts.

This 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.

The issue should be determined on the basis of hard evidence, not disgusting blatant suppression of this kind.

Geoff Muirden



2. I am not competent enough to represent myself in this precedent-setting case involving Internet website censorship.  

My 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.


3. History interpreted by courts becomes ideology, and evaluating historical

interpretation within a  'racist' is moral and intellectual dishonesty.

The 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.


As 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."


Any 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.



4. The constitutionality of the Act under which this matter has been brought

 into court needs to be tested.


This 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 Australia 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.


The Racial Discrimination Act was formulated by the powerful Australian Jewish-Zionist lobby. This is well documented.  For example a report by Gerard Ryle in Adelaide 's The Advertiser, 10 December 1991 , headed 'Jews call for help on racism', we read:


Australia 's 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.

They 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.


Three 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:


Jews to axe funding to Coalition

Influential 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.

Between 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.

"We 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 Coalition leadership.

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.

"This 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."

Yesterday, 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.

The 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.

The exchange followed a claim on Thursday by the Opposition Leader, Alexander Downer, that most Coalition MPs supported the development of an alternative Bill.

The 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 idea.

National Leader Tim Fischer placed more pressure on Mr Downer by declaring yesterday that his party would not have a bar of any race Bill.

Mr Downer's authority is expected to be further undermined during a revolt at the next joint parties meeting, on Tuesday.

Mr Downer was forced yesterday to bat away suggestions his job would be on the line within days.

He 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".

His objective wasto lead the Coalition back towards the middle ground.

"Inevitably 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 taking on."

Shadow 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 opinions.

The Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said there was little difference in principle.

As 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.

This came after Mr Photios lobbied a host of Coalition MPs to support a moderate approach to racial-hatred legislation.

The Commonwealth Bill was tough, right, balanced and fair in principle, but in some areas unreasonable.

NSW state National Party backbencher Richard Bull labelled his federal colleagues "an embarrassment" who could cost the state Coalition the March election.



5.As a sign of good will towards the Federal Court, I have deleted the alleged offensive website on which the alleged offensive material appeared.



6. I have made an offer of settlement but this was not accepted; I cannot make a written apology.

In all 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 judgment".

I cannot sign any written apology as presented to the court as this would be an act reminiscent of what happened in the former Soviet Union 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 'Holocaust' liar.

Further, 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.



7. The Applicant, Jeremy Jones, is one of Australia 's leading Zionists and hence he is an experienced political operator who works at the coalface of world politics.

As a Zionist, he is also a racist who supports the Zionist-racist-partheid State of Israel . 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.

When 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'.


8. Natural Justice - a balanced view on our Internet website.

In her 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.

Jeremy Jones' latest attempt at doing me harm was at Durban , South Africa , 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.

The following is Jones' reflection on the Durban Race conference as published in

The Review, October 2001:

I preface the article by inserting my reflections:

Fredrick Töben Reflects: Zionist Racist Jeremy Jones Gets Away With It - Why?

Australia's 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 Australia 's Racial Hatred Act, which Australia 's Zionists were instrumental in formulating and enacting into law.


It was his international Jewish Zionist group that afflicted Canada 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.

America’s 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.

Both 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 Affairs Council , Australia 's peak Zionist organisation

Below is Jeremy Jones' boldest statement of his worldview yet. It illustrates that at Durban , South Africa , he received his strongest rebuff to date - four days later we had the 11 September tragedy.

Whether there is a linkage between these two events will never be known, but the Durban 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.

Jeremy 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’.

I think the wheel has turned full circle - and am I going to yield to his demands that we stop our Adelaide Institute website?

It is 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 Israel 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'.

This is 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.

Such confusion and outright intellectual dishonesty also is evident in the current action before Justice Branson in the Federal Court. 

That the 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.

Here is another view on racism and related matters:

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed wonders how the issue of racism can be addressed with no reference to Zionism

Al-Ahram ( Cairo ) weekly on-line, 23-29 August 2001

The World Conference Against Racism is scheduled to be held in Durban , South Africa , 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.

Mary 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.

Observers 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.

We 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.

A 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 fact that Israel 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:

First, 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 Israel 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 Israel , who are denied many of the rights enjoyed by their Jewish compatriots. Is this not the essence of racial discrimination?

Second, Israel 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.

Third, every Jew, wherever he lives, has the right to "return" to Israel . This right is not available to Palestinians, who may not return to the homes they left behind in Palestine , especially if their property lies in the 80 per cent of the historical land of Palestine now under Israeli sovereignty. Surely this is discrimination with racist connotations, even if we concede that both parties have rights in historical Palestine .

Fourth, 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 Sharon proceeds from the premise that what has top priority in his relations with the Palestinians is Israel 's security concerns. These concerns and, more precisely, Sharon 's personal interpretation of these concerns, have priority over the issues of peace. If genuine peace requirements are perceived by Sharon as detrimental to Israel 's security, peace will have to be sacrificed.

In other words, Palestinian security has to be subordinated to the requirements of Israel '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.

Fifth, the same applies to the issue of land. Israel 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 question.

PMoreover, 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 stick. Israel 's share of the trade-off has been effectively realised while the same is not true of the Arab share.

The 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
Israel 's stability and security.

In response to hard-core Zionist aspirations, Israel 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.

All 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?

Mary 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.

Take 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?

Former 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.

And 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.

As the 'Holocaust' is one of Israel '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 Israel , as stated by Israel Shahak in his book

9. This matter before the Federal Court is neither a racist nor a religious matter, and

censorship will not solve disputes of fact.

Here is 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.

Journal 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
Complutense University in Madrid . '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
Columbia University , New York , 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 board.
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 Middle East.
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 journal.
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism.

There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza 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.

'And 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.

10. Jewish Australians are not a political unity, and are not all represented by Mr

Jeremy Jones and his organisation.

Jeremey Jones cannot speak on behalf of Australia '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.

The fact 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".


British Jewish Group Calls For Dismantlement Of The Zionist State

LONDON (IRNA) - Representatives of a Jewish religious group has called for the dismantlement of
Israel as the root cause of tension and violence in the Middle East .

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."

He added: "Like we live everywhere, like we live in London , like we live in any part of the world, we just want to be citizens, we don't want to be rulers."

Another 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.

Rabbi 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.

Condemning any act of violence which leads to loss of life of innocent people, he considered establishment of Zionist government in the occupied Palestine as a factor for outbreak of disputes between Muslims and Jews.

He added that before the establishment of the Zionist regime, Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in peace in the Palestine region. Neturei Karta has a considerable number of followers in Britain .
Meanwhile, Rabbai Hershal Gluck, chairman of the Muslim-Jewish forum of the
UK , in his speech titled "looking at the past through the prism of the future", condemned terrorism as a phenomenon about destroying innocent lives.

"Too 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 New York and Washington .

The one-day international conference was sponsored by the Institute of Islamic Studies affiliated to the Islamic Center of Britain.

Speakers including religious personalities, politicians, university professors and intellectuals from Britain , the United States and Iran expressed their viewpoints regarding terrorism and the current conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East .


It must be noted that 20 000 Jews protested in New York a few days ago, and the local and world media did not report it. Why not?


11. Jeremy Jones is not in a position to imbue academic work with his stamp of

approval, thereby labelling it 'legitimate'. Recently The University of Adelaide ,

responding to the 'Harry Potter' phenomenon, has begun to offer courses in 'witchcraft'! 

Holocaust 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 fallibilism.


An example of a related case is the following matter, as reported by Andrew Stevenson in The Sydney Morning Herald of 22-23 September 2001.

A voice from the frontier

If Keith 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.

The two 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.

The other spent his teenage years in the turf room of The Daily Telegraph with Frank Moorhouse and Mike Gibson, graduated to a country newspaper, edited Australia 's first computer magazine before embracing Marxism while at the University of Sydney . 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.

The 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."

But 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 war in Asia , 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.

Show me 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.

Implicit 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.

Why would anyone want to do that?

Windschuttle says it's about intellectual honesty - that he eschews politics and nis 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.

"The 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 for salvation."

"Aboriginal 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'."  

Windschuttle's 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."

It's 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 the evidence."

Windschuttle 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."

Windschuttle 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.

A former supervisor, Don Aitken, the retiring vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra , has no doubt - despite finding Windschuttle's work uncomfortable - that the historical revision is nimportant. Already, he says, it has shifted the debate.

"I 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?'

"A 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 countered it."

Windschuttle's first targets are massacres. he is halfway through a book examining the frontier records in 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 says.

While 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."

Reynolds 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."

Windschuttle, 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 US .

Beverley Kingston, a retired associate professor of history at the University of NSW , 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.

Student numbers are declining and history courses are beginning to look like smorgasbords with no content except for repetitive fine feelings or angst," she says.

What 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 time.

"Bringing 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?"

But on the question of frontier history, what does disproving some of the parts say about the whole? The University of New England historian Professor Alan Atkinson, a student contemporary of Windschuttle at the University of Sydney , argues Windschuttle seems to believe the job of a historian is easier than it is.

"His contribution is useful, and a lot of what he says is perfectly justified," Atkinson says.

"He 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.

"He 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."

The 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.

Kingston 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'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 unreliable."

For his 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 events.

For example, the world's leading Revisionist states the following:


An Imaginary 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
Israel , 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

In 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 land of Palestine . 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, Israel , 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 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum stands in the immediate proximity of the Washington Monument , not far from Capitol Hill.
The Arabs and the Muslims

The 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 Palestine are the main victims, today, of that weapon and that argument fashioned from a lie.
The New Crusade

On 11 September 2001 , particularly in New York , 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 mission.
New York , the first tower of the World Trade Center (a name carrying quite an agenda!) could have been called Hamburg or Hiroshima and the second Dresden or Nagasaki . 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.
America 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 of Israel to exact vengeance on octogenarians or nonagenarians accused, on the strength of simple Jewish testimonies, of crimes against humanity.
The previous crusades

In 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 the
Manhattan 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

In 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 years. In Vietnam 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. France and Britain 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 United States , Britain and France all seized by a warlike frenzy, forgetting the lessons of their most recent history.
Terrorism magnified by those who complain of it

It 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
The two
New York (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 Iraq 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 America would now understand that its own interests and those of Israel were identical. As for Sharon , 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 American taxpayer.
Bad times ahead for the Jews

The 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 kingdom of Jerusalem . There need be no Ben Laden or new Saladin. Neither weapons, nor money, nor the United States , nor the Jews of the Diaspora, nor Germany 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
Jerusalem 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

Thus 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 Palestine , 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 Temple . 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,
Israel may experience a civil war waged by a breakaway army of desperados. In the end, Tel Aviv could suffer the fate of Algiers in 1962 and Jewish Jerusalem that of Saigon in 1975. But a less dramatic end like, for example, that of communist East Germany or the Soviet empire, seems possible as well. In any case, the epicentre of the present conflict is Israel , and Israel is finished.
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
Israel 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 holocaust.
The revisionists caution

The 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 Kuwait . Censorship, of course, will grow heavier without the various governments even having to pass new laws in that area.
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,
France 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 Italy , Japan and some central European and Latin American states. Panic had struck Britain , France and the United States : Germany 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 ( Paris , 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 Germany 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 Russia , 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 Europe and Asia , of the Second World War.
Currently, the new holy alliance of the western democracies and
Russia against the new rabble-rouser bodes ill for the future. Beneath the customary veneer of generosity and disinterest, the United States 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

The only 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.

Further commentary from:Adelaide Institute Online ISSN 1440-9828 February 2000 No 103


10. Your Say, The Sunday Age, 30 January 2000

i. Jewish plot

Professor 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.

So 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 Holocaust”.

Professor 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.

Worldwide 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.

Nigel Jackson, Belgrave


ii. Unholy alliance

David 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.

He 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.

This 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.

Of 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 bolster Israel . This line proves equally appealing, as Cesarani notes, to some left-wing critics of Israel as it is to fascist apologists.

It 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.

Dr Daniel Mandel, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs


Fredrick Toben Comments

Dr 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”?

Dr Mandel ought to acquaint himself with Dr Joel Hayward’s MA thesis of 1993 wherein Hayward 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 evidence.

My 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.


iii. Sauce for the Gutnick

I have just read the article by Joseph Gutnick “A civil response: The compelling case for kicking out Citizen Kalejs’ (16/1).

Mr 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 Konrad Kal3ejs.

Mr Gutnick also puts forward the argument that “no criminal conviction should be necessary, only proof on the balance of probabilities”.

I 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.

Mr Gutnick thinks nothing of the sending of millions of dollars to Israel to pay for the building of dwellings on Arab land, an act of extreme aggression.

If 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 convict him.

Double standards are double standards. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and Mr Gutnick, I believe., is guilty of both.

Alan Salter, Moorabbin


Fredrick Toben comments:

Mass murderer, Solomon Morell, living peacefully in Israel , 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, Jerusalem , ought to focus on Morell.

The fact that both men will not hunt down Solomon Morell reveals the injustice of this man-hunt.

Further, we have in Australia , elderly Jewish men from the former Soviet Union who still proudly display their  World War II  military medals - and collect a good war pension from Australia !

I would welcome any comments on this issue.


11. Kalejs: more than a Jewish issue, The Age, 14 January 2000

I 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 Australia ’s official response to the Konrad Kalejs case and the blindness to history shown by public officials.

Ms 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.

The 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.

Prosecuting war criminals for slaughtering Jews is not an issue about Jews alone. It is in the interest of Australia . 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 Australia stands for.

To 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.

To paraphrase the Justice Minister, Senator Vanstone: “That is the sort of country Australia 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.

John M Efron, professor of history, Indiana University , Bloomington , US


Fredrick Toben comments:

The 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.

Were Professor Efron imbued with an ounce of moral rectitude, then he would also call for Solomon Morell to be extradited from Israel to Poland .


12. Dilemmas of Kalejs case, The Australian

Your editorial and articles on the Kalejs case correctly describe Australia ’s discomfiture. But we are not alone. Four years ago Israel faced a similar dilemma after a retired general admitted to killing 49 Egyptian prisoners in 1956. Israel ’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.

Peter Lavskis, Adelaide


13. Obeying orders, The Advertiser, 13 January 2000

We 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.

Rachel Biven, Beaumont


Fredrick Toben comments:

If 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.


14. Don’t forget communist atrocities, Daily Telegraph, 13 January 2000

 Michael 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 Ukraine and North Caucasus 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 children.

Pulitzer 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 Hollywood to make a movie about this holocaust.

Frank Bellet, Petrie , Queensland


Fredrick Toben comments:

Blaming 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.


15. Private lives, The Age, 21 January 2000

John 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 questionable behaviour.

Character 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.

It 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.

Bill Muehlenberg,



Email From The Edge, The Battle of the books

From Peter Coleman In Sydney , The Adelaide 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 some emigrate.

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 Murray ’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 Murray 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 Murray ’s “whingeing” and “self-indulgent slop”. It described him as a “full-time sook-celebrity and part-time poet”, among sundry other observations.

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 unduly about Murray ’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 Soviet Union - where 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 Australia : 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 racism

Robert W Tracinski, writing in the Ayn Rand Institute’s website, Australian Financial Review, 28 January 2000

Consider 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.



13. 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.


Critique of Chemical Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt

By 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]

Adelaide Institute Online ISSN 1440-9828 February 2000 No 103


Personal Background

My name is Germar Rudolf.[1] I studied Chemistry at the Universities of Bonn and Stuttgart between 1983 and 1993. I received my Diploma in Chemistry in 1989 at Bonn University . Between 1990 and 1993 I had a scholarship of the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart in order to prepare a PhD thesis in the field of solid state Chemistry/Crystallography.

Since 1990 I am conducting research in my spare time to verify the so-called Leuchter Report,[2] which eventually led to the preparation of an expert report[3] about chemical and technical details of the so-called 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz.[4] 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.[5] In fact, in the U.S.A. and in Great Britain , such a case would have never reached a law court, as these countries grant proper freedom of speech. Subsequently, the University of Stuttgart 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 University of Stuttgart , 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.

Since 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.[6] They, too, led to criminal investigations and in one case[7] to a trial in Germany. Though two well renowned German historians[8] 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 terms.[9]

As 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.[10]

'Holocaust 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

The Leuchter Report is now 11 years old. It was a pioneering work, because it was the first time that the 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz , 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.

Germar Rudolf’s highly technical report, is on-line at


14. Censorship and Legal Oppression

Europe Moving Toward Ban on Internet Hate Speech
New York Times | November 10, 2001

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
Budapest Nov. 23.
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.
United States , 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
United States solely to take refuge behind the First Amendment.
His example is reminiscent of a real case decided in a federal court in
San Jose , Calif. , 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
California agreed with Yahoo. "Although France has the sovereign right to regulate what speech is permissible in France , 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.
France 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
United States 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."


15. Jewish War Criminals Escape to Israel

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.
Israel '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
Lithuania into genocide charges against Dushanski, currently residing in Israel .
Ha-Arec said in an article titled Lithuania Demands that "a union of Holocaust victims is even trying to influence
Israel 's government regarding the stance taken by Lithuania , 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
Israel 's requirement to modify Lithuania 's policy on

The rehabilitation of war criminals."
Furthermore, in spite of the current disagreement,
Israel 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
Lithuania 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 Dushanski."
Another daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, seconded the opinion in an article,
Lithuania to Israel : 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
Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center , Efraim Zuroff.
Dushanski contacted a BNS correspondent in
Israel by phone and said he was not guilty.
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
Israel , 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 of Lithuania '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.
In 2000,
Israel said that it could not render legal assistance requested by Lithuania to question Dushanski because this would be regarded as "discrimination against him."
The Riga-based Israeli Embassy to the three
Baltic states then said that the extradition request was immediately and thoroughly discussed at the highest levels of Israel 's Justice Ministry, adding Lithuania '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, "
Israel 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
Lithuania , seems to be singling him out in a discriminatory manner," the embassy said.
It is thought that Dushanski left for
Israel in 1989, a year before the restoration of Lithuania 's independence.
During the half-century Soviet rule over
Lithuania , hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian people were imprisoned in Soviet labor camps and prisons where many were killed or died of unbearable working conditions.


 "No 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)






Paul’s Ketzerei






[Please note that computer problems prevented formatting of this document.]






This form was prepared and filed by the Respondent:

G F Toben,

PO Box 3300 ,

Norwood 5067.

Tel.: 08-83310808/ Mobile : 0417088217



Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute