The Politics of Revisionism
During the recent Olympic Games there were a number of so-called incidents that upset individuals because of the disputation that was needed to clarify matters. Such inevitable disagreements are regarded by some as an irritation, as something to be avoided at all costs. That is quite understandable because emotions are running wild in such situations. For example in one equestrian event a husband-wife team - he for England and she for Germany - the latter won the gold medal, but then lost it on appeal.
Still, anyone who is accused of upsetting another person is often seen to be not just a naughty boy or girl, bur rather a spoil-sport. Never mind that someone needs to let himself be upset in the first place. Some individuals are so touchy that a mere glance is interpreted to be an insult, and few would interpret eye contact as not a normal course of events when humans interact. Yet, it is especially those individuals afflicted with the victim mentality that find anything that does not go their way, to be an offence. So much for the immature battle of the wills.
In world politics we have this phenomenon expressed in strange ways, for example in China anyone who offends against party discipline is disciplined by demotion, and far more drastic measures. A famous case occurred decades ago when a high-ranking bureaucrat was demoted to cleaning toilets for two years. After that, of course, he was invited back into the fold
And the current election fever that is sweeping both Australia and the USA shows how normal the personal attacks are - the issues are swept under the carpet while the individuals come under scrutiny. That's life, and John Bryant summed it up well when he stated to me:
You're absolutely right -- it's silly. But that just won't keep people from reading the tabloids. :-)
In court cases the accused must show remorse/contrition in order to receive a lighter sentence. All too often the claim to truth-telling becomes irrelevant. Revisionists cannot be remorseful in their work because they believe that what they are doing is seeking the truth, a quest that is difficult but necessary.
However, Revisionists are only human, and there comes a time, especially after decades of pursuing 'Holocaust' Revisionism, that critical divides occur because things are not moving along. This is essential perhaps if we are not to fall into 'busy work', as Faurisson would call it.
For example Robert Faurisson asked of Mark Weber whether he believed in the homicidal gassing story. Faurisson wished to elicit from Weber the critical commitment that states: "There were no homicidal gas chambers. It is a lie. The 'Holocaust' is a lie". Faurisson is not impressed by those who water down this claim by stating that some limited gassings occurred.
Weber refused, and so Faurisson broke with him and the IHR.
Faurisson used the same mental framework on David Irving, and a quotation of Irving's made during an Australian Radio interview that was not complimentary to Germans, and published by Adelaide Institute Online, therefore authentic. John Bennett interpreted this Irving statement rather differently than Faurisson, claiming that is should perhaps not be taken literally. Interestingly, both Robert Faurisson and Arthur Butz are literal persons - a hallmark for academic integrity.
Now Faurisson used this item on Michael Hoffman, and he asked Hoffman to clarify his thoughts on the matter, something Hoffman refused.
Things rested for a while, but then Faurisson sent an item through Walter Mueller's email list, and Hoffman felt aggrieved at not having been mentioned in that list of Revisionists currently doing something for Revisionism, and this led to correspondence that John Birdman Bryant carries on his website http://www.thebirdman.org
So, because Michael Hoffman's name did not appear in that Faurisson List, Hoffman complained to Faurisson, who in turn took the opportunity to ask Hoffman for an outstanding response on the Irving matter. Hoffman refused, and bade Faurisson goodbye.
Then Hoffman turned on me - what a terrible fellow I have been ... but this is all busy work, and it surprises me that a man who claims to be a devout Christian has such fear within.
When David Irving labelled our website 'antisemitic' I did not get into a huff and puff. Likewise with Irving when I aired those stupid Baron allegations against Irving. Then Baron abused hell out of me for not taking his allegations against Irving seriously. And that was it - why worry about verbal abuse when you know within your heart that such cannot touch you because it is unwarranted?
Mark Weber has stopped talking with me, but that rests on the Carto-Weber money matter, and perhaps it is none of my business wishing to know how Mark Weber has spent that considerable amount of money that has come his way. But I am just expressing what Arthur Butz said when he shamed Weber and his unproductivity as compared to what Germar Rudolf is producing on a shoe string.
I don't mind hearing personal criticism, and after the Hoffman matter below there appears a letter from Harry Beahrends, a fellow whom I have known for about seven years. It is sad if such criticism rests on ignorance or on delusions as to what Revisionists can actually achieve. I have no illusion about what I personally can achieve. As a teacher who has always had to fight against materialism, that illusion has become tinged with some stark realism.
Then there is Ingrid Rimland who is someone who does not wish to speak with me anymore, only because I fended off her comments about my sexual life that she thinks she knows something about! She claimed that I "screw women from eight to 80", and I was glad to receive emails from ageing gentlemen who wished me to pass on some of my trophies! Interestingly, as a monogamist I can hardly cope with just one woman! Afterwards I learned that Rimland had done the same to Carol Valentine - so there is a pattern of behaviour emerging that sheds light, just a little, on what could possibly be motivating Rimland into doing such things to her Revisionist colleagues.
Now with Michael Hoffman it's a slightly different matter , and so all I can do is merely reproduce the items below. He claims victimhood and were we wealthy, I am certain a lawsuit would have followed, as Weber did with Willis Carto when the prize was a few million dollars - not bad if you can earn money without doing any work for it!
Hoffman is a good worker and he has produced the goods, thus all the more puzzling for me that he is taking things literally - and getting upset - from an individual who has no real standing within the Revisionist community.
Wolfram Graetz is a voluminous email writer who does not mince words, who curses and shouts about. But who has met him personally to check him out? Why is Hoffman taking him seriously? Why? Because Hoffman wants to have a pretext for some action - he is letting himself be hurt by Graetz's words so that he can scapegoat officially.
Graetz lives in New York and I think it would be good if Michael Santomauro would check him out. After all, in the Revisionist world there are lots of talkers - and talk is cheap.
Santomauro is the ideal person because I recall how Rimland felt uneasy when he attended the 2000 or 2002 IHR conference, and where she tried to brush him off as being Jewish.
I would have thought that Hoffman and Graetz would get along just fine because Graetz believes he is in direct communications with God.
As far as I am concerned anyone is free to believe in whatever they so wish - but once that belief is turned into a concrete assertion, then we can demand a logical and physical explanation of same.
Here is Michael Hoffmann expressing his point of view. Sadly, it reminds me a little of what Jeremy Jones demanded of me before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and before the Federal Court - a dictated apology. Is this evidence that Hoffman has gone Jewish? I think not.
----- Original Message -----
From: Adelaide Institute
To: Michael Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: Setting the Record Straight - what record? Hoaxing the Hoaxers with some Hoaxes
Hoaxing the Hoaxers with some Hoaxes
Michael, you are doing well - first its Professor Robert Faurisson with whom you have a public run-in because you refuse to answer a question, then with Walter Mueller, and now I am again honoured by your rush to Judgment.
It all reflects that something is bothering you - and that you are looking for scapegoats - a mentality problem that is not conducive to being a loving person.
A little while ago I sent your other matter of which you complained through our list. You had sent it through your list without checking your facts first with me, then blamed your server for having email problems.
The height of your personal problem must surely be when you blame me for future earning losses - if your business should drop off - an absurd assertion. You give me a blast for that - when you are quite well aware of the fact that within the Revisionist movement there is donor-fatigue. Perhaps you should cosy up to Mark Weber again - he's flush now.
This current gush from you is difficult for me to understand. I don't know whether you see this as a pre-emptive strike because I have received information about your behaviour when Willis Carto hired you, and the way you left and set up shop "30 miles up the road".
But I don't really want to know all this stuff because I like to think that I do not share your exclusive attitude of mind but through my teacher training have developed an inclusive attitude of mind.
Sometimes I pride myself in still being on speaking terms with all Revisionists - now you are going to give me the treatment that you handed out to Faurisson - and that is sad, very sad. It's really amazing how Willis Carto kept the group together until the coup in 1993. Now I have been at it for a decade and the usual suspects are emerging - who cannot take the heat and whose mindsets now need scapegoats before they fracture before their own impotence deserts them.
What a pity you didn't ask me about this matter that you raise in your current email, below, before you sent it off. I can't even recall Graetz mentioning you - could you send me a copy of that email please?
In any case, you did not accord me Natural Justice, no offer of a right of reply before you dogmatically waxed lyrically about my being an unscrupulous party to libel.
What kind of standard is this, Michael? At least when I personally make remarks about individuals, I send the comment to them and I ask for a response. Some individuals do not wish to correspond with me, e.g. Jeremy Jones, and so such individuals read about themselves in the gossip shop.
I have a comment from a person who claims:
"I worked with Hoffman and let me tell you he's no beauty when it comes to be truthful."
I am not following this up because I am not interested in it - but if I were interested, then I would certainly ask your view on the matter.
Still, what is happening with you, Michael?
I informed you some time ago that I have one email list only - and hence the list is as diverse as the world itself, and when I send items through that list it is inevitable that there will always be someone who may not be pleased with what kind of material is passing through it - sometimes trivial, sometimes too serious, sometimes irrelevant and crude. It is a vigorous free speech email service, but the delete button is always there for anyone who wishes to clarify things in a radical way.
Material is passed on - and anyone is given the opportunity to say anything at all - within the bounds of legality-defamation.
Sometimes individuals have been harsh in their commentary about other individuals - but there is always a right of reply.
Now it seems to me that you, at my expense, are looking for a cause, for a pretext to do whatever you want to do - and I am sad to see that you did likewise to Robert. If I were to say to you: "Stop bitching, Michael, and get back to work", that would be a crude way of responding to you.
May I ask: Why didn't you respond to Faurisson in a courageous way, rather than sneak out of the situation in the way you did - by getting all huffy and puffy, and breaking off the relationship. That's childish, surely? The required response does not go away, Michael. You still owe Faurisson a response, you know that, don't you? Again crudely put, "Faurisson has you by the balls, Michael, but he's a gentleman and he will not squeeze them".
Or were you so hurt that your name did not appear in the Faurisson list ? And again, Faurisson made it clear to you that this list is rather tentative, from memory as of May 2004. In any case, who cares about a list? Now we have the famous Faurisson List!
It would amaze me if you still cared about such things because at your age you should have that inner feeling of satisfaction that is independent of what others think of you. You have produced the goods, are still producing the goods. Your publishing record speaks for itself.
But then how many people know the real Michael Hoffman who may still be ashamed of what he did while with Willis Carto, and as someone said - "Oh, what ugly webs we weave!" It seems to me there is a bit of underachieving going on somewhere.
Michael, I note on your website the following -
Telephone Morey at 1-800-418-7884 ask him why he's ducking the debate with Hoffman!
I now ask: Why are you ducking the response you owe Faurisson?
PS: When Ingrid Rimland started to write emails to other individuals wherein she made statements about my person, I responded and sent a detailed item to her and copied it to a small group of individuals. A couple of individuals within this group persuaded me not to send the matter through the list. Please advise if you wish me to send this matter through our list.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Setting the Record Straight - what record? Hoaxing the Hoaxers with some Hoaxes
On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Adelaide
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:52 AM
Subject: From Hoffman: I have reconsidered your offer
The following is a letter from a one-time Adelaide Institute supporter who throughout his supporting years wished to remain anonymous, using the acronym BLAHD. Justification for his anonymity was a fear of persecution from government agencies, German and Australian alike. Interestingly, in the following letter he uses his real name.
In the past Harry's general paranoia extended to writing, without authorisation, many anonymous letters - on behalf of Adelaide Institute - the result of which led to embarrassing situations when various authorities complained to Adelaide Institute for having received unwanted material. It was not possible to prove that Harry Beahrends was the perpetrator of such mail-outs, but the assumption rested on a comment he made to Fredrick Töben about having found old TAFE envelopes in a rubbish bin, that he then, among others, used for mailing out the material to his extensive mailing list.
The letter is reproduced without changes.
Harry F Beahrends
PO Box 7046
East Brisbane 4169
to the Supporters & Friends
of Adelaide Institute
I herewith announce that the colleagues of the German Speakers Brisbane have decided to withdraw their financial support for Fred Toeben of the Adelaide Institute, because Toeben wastes the money on unproductive conferences, which do not convince more people about historical findings and his contribution to revise - and investigate history is nothing new nor does it bear any significance.
Those conferences are only self-satisfying, self-representations of egocentric grand-dads, who like tom listen to themselves, competing there for the centre of attention among themselves and trying to give themselves a big boost. On this basis nobody gets more convinced about the new findings of investigations into history. All the money still available must be spent on young forensic science- and history students, who can convince themselves about those findings at the historical places (like it was done with David Cole, for example).
To the conferences, Toben likes to travel first business class and wants to be at every Revisionist conference just to be there in the spotlight and sending supporters and readers of his web-pages his holiday-reports. He is just a First Business-Class travel freak and Conference-Junky, who likes some sort of show-business in whcih he is some sort of head-rooster. For the donated money he spent on the Adelaide Institute Conference in 1998, he could have sent ca. 10 University Students in the fields of Forensic Science and History to Auschwitz to check up there, the findings of Van Pelt, Leuchter, Rudolf and Luftl. These students could have been foundation stock for an Academy.
I made several proposals to Fred with this regard and they were all ignored in the past, because he likes to serve his personal go by travelling to worthless conferences.
We have enough of this Mel Colston-style-travel-rorting which borders at some sort of racket. In the last 4 years we noticed the remarkable initiatives of the Canberra-Associate of the Adelaide Institute, Mr. Richard Krege, M.E.Eng., who with his own money did forensic sonar-examinations of former alleged execution-grave sites in Eastern European concentration-camps. This letter is written without knowledge of Mr Krege, but I made it clear to him, that from now on, we will support him financially, instead of that boring First business-class travel-freak and conference-junky from Adelaide, who asks always for more money for his conference-wastes.
Mr. Krege has show to us, that he has the ability for new innovative ideas to reveal facts of history and to convince people of which Fred lacks off. Though Mr. Krege does not get the means as Toeben gets, Mr. Krege yet paid out of his own pocket for those investigations and the presentation of those findings at two conferences.
He is a dynamic impulsive young bright man under whose direction the aim of an Scientific-Historical Academy can be achieved and of which Australians and ethnic Germans of Australia can be very proud of.
You may contact Mr. Krege, ask him about his work and what his future-plans are:
[Address and telephone details deleted]
We need more young people like Mr Krege, in place of Toeben, who is aging and according to his own admission is degenerating. We ask you to stop your financial contributions and support for the First business-travel freak, and conference-junky from Adelaide and instead of this ask you to support Mr. Richard Krege, M.E.Eng., in any way.
Hollywood may still discover Fred Toeben as Film star. Please make sure to mention Mr. Richard Krege in your will. He deserves it and so I believe, will let you not down or disappoint you. if you have any questions to this letter, please direct them to my above-named postal address. If you wish, that I contact you by phone, then please mention your phone-number or e-mail. Until then, I remain
With best Regards,
(H. F. Beahrends)
Fredrick Töben's Reply
Mr Harry Beahrends
PO Box 7046
E Brisbane 4169
1 August 2004
With interest I read your letter of 26 July 2004, and it does not surprise me that you have offended against the principle of natural justice by not even according me a right of reply to your nonsense claims contained therein. It is typical of your mental framework to flip out occasionally, is it not? You must have expected my receiving copies of this letter.
Interestingly, I note that for the first time since you became known to me you have used your correct name, instead of that other nonsensical BLAHD, or such like secretive acronym that you have bandied about for almost a decade – on the pretext that you need anonymity and cannot identify yourself as an Adelaide Institute supporter because you are involved in some covert operation against the Queensland government.
Your assumptions, as expressed in this letter, indicate to me that you are disappointed with the way I do things. Had it not been for that 1998 Adelaide Revisionist Conference, then you and I would never have met!
Well, Harry, I have listened to you for many years, and I do listen – but I cannot accept any calls to violence and actions that are illegal. You have made many proposals to me, and each time I merely asked you not to advise me but to do things better; I even invited you to take over the running of Adelaide Institute, because then you would see that there is no budget as such that finances the institute. When I was imprisoned in 1999, we had David Brockschmidt and Geoff Muirden take over – and the big question was: where is the bank account with the money for postage, for envelopes, for paper, for paying for the website?
Harry, now that you have your project in the Queensland outback, where you wish to establish a youth hostel, I suggest you get on with that, and then follow your own advice: go and see the old German ladies that you have introduced me to and impose yourself upon them in the hope of inheriting something, as you so often suggested I should do. The names of certain individuals with whom you have made contact in the Brisbane area for that very purpose are known to both of us. Yet, I am reluctant to do this – and so you are free to move about in the hope that you will collect the goods. I have other priorities.
As to the mentioning of Richard Krege, again you are a fool - and an unwise fool at that, Shakespeare’s fools had the ability to tell the truth and to see things clearly! - in doing this because it is not for you to ingratiate yourself with Richard Krege. He has a career to follow, not like you and I who are out of that professional loop. Your asking individuals to remember Krege in their will is tactless and unwarranted, especially because you are doing this behind Richard Krege’s back. That’s not how things are done at Adelaide Institute because we pride ourselves in being open and non-secretive in whatever we do.
I repeat, you are foolish to the extreme in your consideration as expressed in your letter. If you only knew how much supporters’ money comes in, then you would realize that conferences, and trips thereto, would never cover such expenses, and thus for conferences we rely on sponsors, usually one or two individuals, who fund the lot. The situation is likewise with the various books that we have published, and also with the newsletters.
You write things from an ignorant point of view that betrays your ideological background – envy and hatred that rest on a firm ideological basis of victimology, and that is a pathological condition that does not permit any considerations of balance and rationality to be made when approaching the many pressing problems that confront us personally and society generally.
Interestingly you have again used Rudi’s telephone number in Brisbane, again without his permission, but no doubt when you bunk down there again you will tell him another story why you again have to impose yourself upon him, without telling him that you are spreading nasty things about his life to those known to both of you.
My endeavours of giving you a mobile phone so that we can contact you – and not that you always initiate the phone calls, has consistently been rejected by you. I do not accept the story that you need to operate in a covert way and thus cannot have a telephone number at which you can be reached.
Likewise with that PO Box number of yours – I suppose now you will also blame Glenn Ivory for all your troubles and lash out at the homosexual lobby for all your personal woes.
Sad, Harry, sad that you have exposed yourself in this letter as someone who has snapped under the pressure to perform. You have become a legend in your own mind when you state you are speaking on behalf of the ‘German Speakers Brisbane’, when the last time you brought your group together we had fewer than half a dozen attending. You have become a legend in your own mind, Harry, and that’s very sad indeed.
Still, I wish you well in your endeavour of establishing that youth hostel in outback Queensland where, I hope, you will settle down and take it easy. I don’t think your other idea of leaving for overseas and roaming about makes any sense, certainly not for old age pensioners such as you and me.
Dr Fredrick Töben
An example of travel costs
If Harry Beahrends can beat the following costs of attending a conference, then I shall take his criticism seriously.
Adelaide - Melbourne - Sydney - Canberra - Adelaide = $77.-
How was it done?
1. On 26 August I had to travel to Melbourne for a visa interview at the US consulate. A friend took me to Adelaide Airport where I boarded a $77.- Virgin Blue flight to Melbourne.
2. Mr Geoff Muirden collected me at the airport and enabled me to attend that visa interview on time. We then drove from the city to beyond Dandenong where we spent time with a supporter who then drove me to Melbourne Airport at 2am on Saturday, 28 August where I boarded the first Qantas flight to Sydney, paid for with Frequent Flyers points. It was an overseas Qantas flight returning from Europe. I had a row of seats to myself and for that one hour flight stretched out and tried to catch up on a little sleep. I could have taken a photo of this, suggesting that I am travelling in style!
3. At Sydney Mr D Astin collected me from the Airport, and we arrived on time to attend The Sydney Forum weekend conference where I introduced about 60 individuals to Eric Hufschmid's DVD Painful Deception. The DVD was well received - enthusiastically received!
4. I spent the night at a friend's place, and the next morning a supporter collected me from Bondi and brought me back to the conference.
5. After the conference I travelled with Richard Krege and Peter Myers to Canberra where I remained for two days, then to return to Adelaide on a Qantas flight, paid for by Frequent Flyers, i.e. free.
Harry is a talker - and in our business talk is cheap. I wish him well in establishing his youth hostel in outback Queensland.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute