Revisionist Politics


Walter Mueller's unbalanced and unwarranted criticism of Germar Rudolf generates email correspondence





 From: Walter Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2005 11:19 AM

Dear Fellow Patriot!

The appearance of support is a very important factor for most of anything. Whether it is the news business, the entertainment business, or any other business. Giving the appearance of large support is quite important.

The revisionist community is no exception, as well as the white nationalist movement. Of course, that's where a lot of cheating is going on. Already, as a neighborhood activist, I was introduced to the tactic of giving the appearance of support. It plays an important role when you advocate for your neighborhood. When elected officials believe you have a large following, they are much easier convinced of helping.

The revisionist community has to give the appearance of support, because the real support is in a very poor state.

Germar Rudolf writes:

"....he has lost all support within the revisionist community as a result."

The political refugee from Germany wants all of his supporters to write me that I have lost ...........

What revisionist community he is talking about is beyond me. Maybe it is the exclusive club of a few arrogant bastards who have looked down on street revisionists like me for years? The truth, Germar Rudolf does not have any support.

It's been two weeks since my Patriot Letter that examined the character of Germar Rudolf. I have received altogether 4 responses. Out of a mailing list of a little over 1,500. Two of them were unsubscribe, and the two other letters you saw in the past Patriot Letters. Funny thing though, these people were all supporters of Dr. Fredrick Toben.

Let me tell you who has the strongest support in the revisionist community. The Institute for Historical Review. How do I know? Because I have taken them to task as well. I lost more than 40 subscribers to Community News, and about 16 from the Patriot Letter.

I have taken to task the white nationalist movement, and there, the strongest support belongs to Alex Linder from VNN. David Duke, Stormfront and others don't even show up on the "Richter Scale."

From the active revisionist "community", yours truly has the strongest support. We have a run of 20,000 copies of Community News, with a little under 3,000 subscribers, and a large list that receives the Patriot Letter.

Let's talk about book sales. Again, the Community News Library has sold more books in one year than the two "largest" (Noontide Press and Castle Hill) bookstores in the revisionist community.

You see, Germar Rudolf is actually the weakest link when it comes to support. Yes, he is the strongest link when it comes to work, but what good does that do when you can't distribute it?

Even though Rudolf claims he has the largest revisionist website in the world, he forgets to tell that there are maybe 10 big revisionist sites in cyberspace.

So, be careful of the appearance of support. None of them will let you see the inside of their business.

It is also all about raising funds. The more supporters you claim, the more people jump on the bandwagon. In reality, the traditional revisionists have one or two deep pocketed sponsors, who give them the brunt of their budget. That's the reason why they are never bothered to go to the mainstream. Today, the U.S. revisionist community is so desperate that they have formed partnerships with the white nationalist movement, destroying their long researched work.


Jewish leaders in Ukraine are condemning the actions of a major university in Ukraine (MAUP) for awarding a full doctorate to the notorious American anti-Semite David Duke.


MAUP, an acronym for the largest university system in Ukraine, awarded the controversial former KKK leader and American politician, David Duke, a PhD in History after a successful completion of exams and all doctoral academic requirements, and a spirited Doctoral Defense in an art-adorned academic conference hall adjacent to the office of the MAUP President Prof. Georgy Tchokin.


Read more


David Duke earns Ph.D. at Ukrainian MAUP University - Jews furious




----- Original Message -----
From: IHR
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: A Busy Summer - A Message From The IHR


A Message from Mark Weber, Director, Institute for Historical Review

Dear Friend,
This summer has been one of our busiest ever.

On July 29 we rallied outside the offices of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles to focus attention on the Center’s record of lies in support of war, Zionist oppression and Jewish supremacism, and to protest the giveaway of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to this bastion of Jewish-Zionist power.

Our team displayed placards with slogans that included “No Tax Dollars To The Wiesenthal Center” and “Zionism Kills,” and we handed out flyers headed “No To War, Bigotry and Oppression! No To The Wiesenthal Center !” Throughout this stormy event we defied verbal and physical assaults by obscenity-shouting Zionist counter-demonstrators of the Jewish Defense League. A dozen or so reporters and photographers were on hand, including print media journalists and camera crews from two Los Angeles television stations. (A detailed report, with photos, is posted at: )

On July 16 I addressed a spirited IHR meeting in New York City, where I stressed the mounting cost, for America and the world, of the Jewish-Zionist grip on our nation’s political and cultural life. (Our report is posted at
While the United States and Israel increasingly regard the rest of the world as "out of step," I said, most of humanity views the US and Israel with “mounting distrust, hostility and fear.” “By supporting Israel and its policies, the United States betrays not only its own national interests, but the principles it claims to embody and defend.” (The full text of my address is posted at:

“Through the Jewish-Zionist grip on the media, and the organized Jewish-Zionist corruption of our political system,” I stressed, we Americans “are pressured, seduced, cajoled, and deceived into propping up the Jewish state, providing it with billions of dollars yearly and state-of-the-art weaponry, and even sacrificing American lives.” At the same time, “Americans have permitted people who regard them with profound distrust to play a major role in determin­ing how we live our lives, and in determining our future both as individuals and as a nation.” Regardless of the particular causes or principles that most move us,” I emphasized, no task is more urgent than breaking the stranglehold of the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political, social and cultural life.

In addition to our routine work, we’ve been keeping up a vigorous schedule of media work, including radio and television appearances that routinely reach many new viewers and listeners on stations in the US and over­seas, as well as through the internet.

We don’t just “preach to the choir.” We regularly reach hundreds of thousands of people who’ve never before heard our message.

On July 31, for example, I was a guest for most of a special hour-long show broadcast in prime-time on WKRC, a major radio talk radio station in Cincinnati. As the guest of Jim Condit, Jr., I explained some of the many falsehoods and exaggerations of the popular Holocaust story, and detailed the unjust treatment of Ernst Zundel, who is being held as a “prisoner of conscience” in Germany.

In early June a television journalist conducted a lengthy interview with me for an in-depth report on Jewish power in the United States and its role in determining US foreign policy that will be aired on a major Arab television network.

On July 7 I squared off with a spokesman for a prominent pro-Israel think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to debate the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and its “war against terrorism.” Patrick Clawson and I “appeared” by telephone on an Iranian English-language television show, “The US Today.”

Our influential website continues to be one of the world’s most popular, attracting more visitors than the sites of much more prominent and better funded organizations. It is regularly updated with news and comment from around the world, and with reports on the Institute’s work and impact. With its tremendous library and archives, the site also serves as a great learning center, globally informing and educating people.

As part of regular work of promoting, processing and shipping out educational materials, we routinely distrib­ute large quantities of books, CDs, DVDs, leaflets, and other items -- a record unmatched by any similar center or association.

To keep up the momentum and sustain the IHR’s effectiveness on the forefront of this great global struggle, we need your help!

To make a secure online donation, click on

and then click on the “DONATE” credit card icon.
Your contribution is completely tax deductible.
If you prefer to donate by check, write to:
Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739
Newport Beach, CA 92659
To donate by phone, call 949 – 631 1490

Thank you!
Mark Weber

Director, Institute for Historical Review


The Institute for Historical Review (, founded in 1978, is dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of twentieth century history. It is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational enterprise.




From: CHP
Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2005 12:02 PM
Cc: Revisionist News; Santomauro, Michael; Toben, Fredrick; Rimland, Ingrid
Subject: Re: A Busy Summer - A Message From The IHR

Dear Mark!

Congratulation for your high level of activities this summer!
Reading your message below, it results that you were busy on:
- a day in early June for an interview
- July 7 for a debate
- July 16 for a meeting
- July 29 for a rally
- July 31 for an interview of one hour

That leaves the question:
What did you do on (weekends omitted)
June 1, 2, 3, -, -, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, -, -, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, -, -, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, -, -, 27, 28, 29, 30
July 1, -, -, 4, 5, 6, 8, -, -, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, -, -, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, -, -, 25, 26, 27, 28, -, -, -,
August 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, -, -, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, -, -, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, -, - , 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, -, -, 29, 30, 31
September 1, 2, -, -, 5 ???

I can tell you quite accurately what I did during these days:

I prepared for publishing and published:

English language:

Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies. Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust

 (; release in two days!)
Carlo Mattogno: Auschwitz: Crematorium I and the Alleged Homicidal Gassings

 (; release in two days!)
Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The First Gassing. Rumor and Reality (
Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations (
Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts. A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac

F.A. Leuchter, R. Faurisson, G. Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports, Critical Edition

G. Rudolf. Lectures on the Holocaust. Controversial Issues Cross Examined

Carlo Mattogno, The Central Construction Office of Auschwitz (

German language:

G. Rudolf, Vorlesungen über den Holocaust. Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör

G. Rudolf, Diktatur Deutschland (
G. Rudolf, Eine Zensur findet statt! (
G. Rudolf: Auschwitz-Lügen. Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile von Medien, Politikern und Wissenschaftlern über den Holocaust. (
Germar Rudolf, Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker. Aufforderung zur Wiederherstellung der Menschenrechte in Deutschland. (
Germar Rudolf, Holocaust Revisionismus. Eine kritische geschichtswissenschaftliche Methode.

I also organized and supervise the preparation for publishing of:

The Revisionist, no 1, 2 & 3/2005 (to come soon)
Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The Case against Insanity (ca. 300 pp.)
Carlo Mattogno, Healthcare in Auschwitz (in translation, some 130 pages)
Carlo Mattogno, The Crematory Ovens of Auschwitz (in translation; some 1,500 to 2,000 pages)
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 1 & 2/2005 (to come soon)

A busy summer, indeed.

So you had five days this summer during which you were active?

Guess how many I had!

I hope you got at least a decent sun tan from the beautiful Newport Beach!

Cordially yours

Germar Rudolf








From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: Revisionist politics objectified - Walter Mueller's unbalanced criticism of Germar Rudolf

A follow up matter in view of Walter Mueller criticising David Duke's financial management, without asking Mark Weber to justify his management of IHR finances.


From: Germar Rudolf
Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2005 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: A Busy Summer - A Message From The IHR
If David Duke is and should be held accountable for what he did and does with his donor's money, so should Mark Weber.

- Duke gambled with some of the money he was given, but he used most of that money to move things politically, which is probably what most supporters wanted.

- Weber did not gamble away any money (at least that is what I strongly assume), but did and does he do with the money he receives what his supporters want him to? To answer this, it must first be described what the revisionist community ought to expect Weber to do with it, then it must be determined what exactly Weber did and does with the money and/or his time. The question I posed in my email might be very sarcastically put, but it is also very serious. Shouldn't Weber be held accountable and finally be seriously asked by his supporters: "What the heck are you doing with your time and our money, if anything?"

Weber (or the IHR, to be more accurate) has received well over a million dollars over the past years, most of it comming from Carto, but certainly also major amounts from supporters. Why does no one ask the obvious question? If the IHR's Board of Directors is failing to ask the question, why does the revisionist public also stay mute?

Perhaps Weber has indeed been working on a huge project over the past three years, like a million page book or a Hollywood style blockbuster DVD collection on revisionism. But if he did and does have such projects, he certainly managed to keep them a secret.

In the meantime, a growing number of co-revisionsists and also supporters of mine either ask me what is going on at the IHR or express their frustration, dismay, or anger about the perceived fact that basically nothing seems to be going on at the IHR. They ask ME! Why me? I am not part of the IHR. I do not know what is going on there. All I see is the end result of Weber's activities and the conclusion that seem to emanate from it. It is an outsider's conclusion, hence probably not very accurate.

So shouldn't the revisionist community demand from Weber to reveal what he is doing with his time and their money?

I have no problem doing exactly this. There is no need to ask me what I am doing with my time and my suporter's money. It is all out in the open, for everyone to see. And this is not "gloating," as some envious characters claim. Sure I am proud of what I manage to achieve, but it is more a matter of having the duty to report about what I am doing with my supporter's money than gloating about it. After all, I can do all this only because I have so many busy bees helping in the background to get things compiled, translated, edited, formatted, proofread, etc. It is not at all just about "me". What I produced was produced by the revisionist community. I may have the largest batch of work to do and I also take our enemies' heat for what is accomplished (or botched, if things go wrong), but this isn't about me. It is about our common goal to expose frauds and hoaxes in history, for which we are working all together.

If we ask Weber what he does with his time, the worst answer we could get would be that Weber did indeed not do much of anything over the past years, hence squandered million(s). Compare that with Duke, who is accused of having squandered (by gambling) only a tenth of that amount (which he denies is the actualy sum. He insists that it was "merely" a fraction of his income at that time, which was some $65,000.)

I think the revisionist community should start to ask questions, unless they are happy with the risk to keep pouring funds into a bottomless pit. And they also should not pass on that hot potato to me and afterwards, when I ask such a question, attack me for doing my duty.

This for the record. Never tell me I didn't tell you.





Martin Webster replies to Dave

Dear Dave,

I note your comments to Fredrick Töben (which he has circulated via an Adelaide Institute posting) in which you support his deprecation of Walter Mueller's criticisms of Germar Rudolf's association with Dave Duke. I know that your remarks were sincerely intended, but I do not agree with them.

Yes! Wouldn't it be lovely if everybody "on our side" were kind and nice to each other because we are all servants of the same great Cause, which must be put first ahead of petty personality clashes - and while we're at it, let's all live on the sunny side of the Sugar Candy Mountain!

When I embarked on the Via Dolorosa known as "Nationalist Politics" as a 17 year old in 1960 I held a similar point of view to that which you now advocate. However, personal experience since then has taught me that such an approach to controversy within the movement is hopelessly unrealistic because it fails to take into account of human nature. Politics is not separate - or separable - from human nature, but part of the same thing.

A few weeks ago you asked me for my experience of the recently-departed John Tyndall, a man with whom I was closely associated for 18 years. I gave you some samplers of information from my files.

They were not flattering to Tyndall. They revealed him to be a money-obsessed selfish man, willing to behave treacherously towards senior colleagues, exploitatively towards the movement's 'small-fry' and dishonourably towards the various organisations he claimed to serve - all in pursuit of personal financial security.

I will not rehearse those matters again here since you have some of the particulars. Fuller details of my recollections - and not just of Tyndall - will emerge in due course. But the point is that you did not upbraid me for saying disparaging things about Tyndall, a well-known Nationalist personality. Indeed, you have intimated that you share some of my opinions of that man.

So the high ground from which you lectured the rest of us is not called Consistency.

As to to Mueller/Töben/Rudolf controversy, the facts are not complicated and should be known by all because the historical record - and discussion of it - can only be of benefit to the Cause, as this will alert us to failings within ourselves as well as within others.These are the facts as I know them:


Three years ago Walter Mueller instigated (with his own cash) an international conference for Historical Revisionists. His efforts in this regard were sabotaged by various "nationalist" individuals and organisations in the USA who put out scurrilous disinformation about the conference and Mueller.

This sabotage "from our side", plus pressures from sundry Jewish and Left Wing organisations - caused the organisation which owned the facility where the conference was to be held to get 'cold feet'. Mueller abandoned the project and accepted a not insignificant personal financial loss.

Delighted at this "success", the various entities from "our side" were quick to assemble an alternative conference which was used as a vehicle for promoting the political career of Dave Duke. This conference has since become an annual Duke-fest.

This was not the first occasion that Duke has sought to sabotage and hijack other Nationalist organisations' events for his own benefit. He has done this not only to organisations in the USA (prior to the Mueller conference fiasco) but also to the National Front during a visit to Britain about 25 years ago. These events are on record.

In the case of his visit to the UK, he came as a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.. He allied himself with the enemy media and co-operated with a scam to link him with the NF. The media wanted to smear the NF by association with the KKK - and Duke hoped that any ensuing media coverage would raise his international publicity profile.


The campaign to boost Duke as the "Great White Hope" on the ashes of Mueller's conference had an obvious disadvantage: Duke had only recently been released from jail after having admitted to a charge of fraudulently diverting his supporters' donations to fund his gambling activities.

Duke attempted to overcome this problem by getting a political idealist with a clean personal reputation to speak up for him: that person was Germar Rudolf, the scientifically qualified German "Historical Revisionist" who had been forced to flee from Germany to Britain, and then from Britain to the USA, to escape persecution - losing a wife and two children in the process.

Germar issued to bulletin to his Internet list in which he stated that after discussions with Duke and after examining papers about the Duke case he had become convinced that Duke was innocent of the charge and had only pleased guilty to it in a plea-bargaining transaction to spare himself the likelihood of a long jail sentence if he fought the case and was found guilty.

I felt that Germar's statement was hopelessly naive since he relied solely on Duke - and case papers selected supplied by Duke - to come to an opinion about Duke. Germar is qualified in chemistry, not in law. I did not challenge Germar at the time but I felt he had made himself a hostage to fortune.

Recently, however, I saw an assertion by Mueller in a 'Patriot Report' that Duke's organisation had donated Germar $50,000 to help meet lawyers' fees in his battle to remain a resident in the USA, resisting German government and Jewish agitation to have him deported, Zündel style, to face prosecution and imprisonment in Germany.

It was at this point that I recollected the "Duke was Innocent" statement which Germar had issued and asked the question which all of us is entitled to ask: "If Mueller's allegation is true, then were Germar's statement about Duke and the alleged donations to Germar in any way connected?"

Mueller's assertion was disputed as "a lie" by Germar and various of his supporters who e-mailed Mueller (with copies to me) demanding evidence in support of the allegation. Mueller responded as follows:

> From: Walter Mueller

> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT)

> To: "Walter F. Mueller"


> . . . [snip] . . .As for the $50,000, let me say it again that this was told to me in an e-mail by Duke's right-hand man Jamie Kelso. His exact words: "Germar's brunt of the legal cost was paid for by Duke supporters........"> > . . . [snip] . . .

Germar and one of his supporters (a "v. Hannover") have sent several e-mails to me insisting that no such e-mail was ever sent to Mueller by Jamie Kelso, and/or that Mueller cannot produce a copy of the alleged e-mail (which are far from being the same thing).

Later Mueller published the following e-mail from Marian Van Court, a one-time Duke supporter and donor.

Her e-mail does not deal with the issue of Jamie Kelso's disputed e-mail to Mueller but does give more than sufficient information to indicate that Germar was reckless (and careless of his own good reputation) in issuing an statement asserting that Duke was not guilty squandering his supporters' donations on the roulette tables. I have edited her e-mail as it contains some very personal commentary which I feel was a distraction from the essential issue:

> From: "Marian Van Court" <>

> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:30:48 -0400

> Subject: David Duke (was something else)

> Pauly wrote a review of David Duke's book, Jewish Supremacism in which he said:

"Duke pissed away over $100,000 of his supporter's money on riverboat crap tables. Some of that money was mine. I personally read a letter that he wrote to Marian Van Court on that subject. He assured her that a mathematician friend had worked out a system to beat the house. He was going to use the method to win money for White Nationalist causes. Duke studied the Mathematics of Probability at LSU and knows fully well that such a scheme is impossible. The probabilities of dice throws have been known since they were worked out by Blaise Pascal in 1654."

What Pauly wrote about the email DD sent to me is all true. David asked me to forward it to J&E, which I did, so presumably it's still in the archives. Pauly no doubt read it on J&E, because he used to be a member. At the time, I didn't want to think badly of David, so I decided to reserve judgement until I knew more. But I couldn't help being skeptical of his explanation for squandering that much money. If someone sincerely believed he had a way to beat the system, then why in God's name couldn't he figure out that his method was no good after placing many small bets and losing,say, $100? Or $200? Why did he have to spend $100,000 before he figured out his method was worthless? It just doesn't wash. And as Pauly points out, it was not his own money, it came from donations to his organization.. . . [snip] . .....he called me again not long after getting out of jail. I was polite to him, but I asked him for his explanation about how he lost all that money. He said he couldn't possibly have lost $100,000 gambling because he only earned something like $54,000/year (some amount that was less that $100,000). So I said, "But that's the whole point -- that you were accused of spending money donated to your organization, not your own personal money." He was evasive, and I reminded him of the email he had sent to me (which Pauly refers to), in which he said he was gambling in order to beat the system and acquire money for the cause. He got angry and insisted that he never sent me such an email, and I told him I was positive that he did. So he said something like, "Well, I did try to get money for the cause by gambling, that's true, but I never used donors' money." The conversation deteriorated from there, but I think it was clear to him that I didn't accept what he said and that I didn't support him.. . . . [snip] .....At any rate, I'm telling what I know about him so people can judge for themselves. In my opinion, there's simply too much damning information to believe he is an honorable man. I believe people should know the truth when they decide how to contribute their time and money. Think about how many people's contributions it took to equal $100,000. If we say an average of $50 (too much, but easy to calculate), that would equal the contributions of 2000 people, most of whom are not rich, many of whom are very poor. They trusted him, and he betrayed their trust.. . . . [snip] . . .

I do not believe that Marian Van Court 's information can be described as "....dummy spitting, name calling, tongue poking and hissy fits...." which is the expression you used to characterise those who do not take a positive view of the association between David Duke and Germar Rudolf.


I just cannot take seriously your (and Fredrick Töben's) assertion that such information must be disregarded as "a waste of time". If the movement does not discuss and learn from its mistakes, then it is condemned to repeat them endlessly.

How can Nationalist cause be served if, due to lack of the free flow of information, its constituent organisations are left vulnerable to people who - however sincerely held their core nationalist beliefs may be - are in their day-to-day dealings financial predators?


Take notice that there is another (in my view major) scandal in the offing - this time not in the USA.

It involves the ruthless and cynical exploitation for financial gain of the idealism of young Nationalists in an operation conducted some years ago contrary to various laws which not only swindled the youngsters but, much more seriously, subjected them to a potentially lethal health hazard - a fact which one of the perpetrators is on record as admitting, and I have that record which constitutes, metaphorically, "a smoking gun".

A sufficient time has now elapsed for that lethal health hazard to start manifesting itself - if any of the potential victims are unlucky. However, these people have long since dispersed and are probably unaware of the dangers to which they were subjected as youngsters.

In order to reach and alert such people I have started to try and ventilate the incontrovertible evidence I possess through various quarters.

Thus far the pattern of responses I have received is drawing me to the conclusion that the 'Establishment' WANTS the organisations of the Nationalist movement to be led by unscrupulous, money-obsessed, ideological gad-fly opportunists. After all, these are EXACTLY the kind of people which the 'Establishment' has in place running its "respectable" mainstream political parties!

Sooner or later this story will break and you will be among the first to know about it - unless of course you are in the company of those people who think such matters should be hushed-up "for the sake of the Cause". Perhaps you will let me know.

Best regards,

Martin Webster.



From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Viciousness - more Revisionist politics


1. In Walter Mueller's email of 7 September I note therein material that contains a certain viciousness and gloating that almost smacks of hubris at a pinnacle before nemesis arrives - it is a kind of unsubstantiated bitchiness that is so typical of sterile minds who view things for today only, from day to day, so to speak, without having a generational perspective of Revisionist work. It is the quickening moment of rush, gush and flush that does not help clarify the vital issues contained therein.

2. However, I am not disturbed by such things because it is common/reasonably normal behaviour where individuals thrust, where thinking people express their view-points without fear or favour - one would hope! That all this is being conducted in public is what democracy is all about - no closet forms of behaviour where individuals are not given a right-of-reply, where dissembling, lying and backstabbing are the order of the day because individuals remain cowards on account of their fear of fear. Remember fear is the father of cruelty, and I am glad to say I have found you, and Walter and Germar, et al, to be fearless men.

3. As you know, I value the common law principle of Natural Justice because it reveals and enables the flourishing of intellectual rigour and mental agility with a dose of truth-seeking propelling it into unchartered regions of our mind.

4. Just a correction about the April 2004 Sacramento Conference - It was Adelaide Institute's sponsor who funded most of the individuals' scheduled to speak - and that did cause some antagonism because about all of Walter's speakers were replaced by ours, mostly from overseas. Walter did the unenviable task of organising things from his end. I was warned that associating with Walter could damage our reputation - and Walter received likewise advice from Ingrid Rimland. Both Walter and I ignored this attempt at initiating infighting and continued with the planning of the conference. Walter and I even contemplated getting into the IHR and starting its journal up again because Mark had admitted to me that he was just not capable in putting it out. The idea was to make Mark the research professor - something he is good at but he is not good at keeping to datelines, as we must if we are publishing newsletters, newspapers and magazines, as Walter, Germar and I are doing.

5. I know we had a problem with Barry Chamish as a conference speaker because Walter did not wish to have a Jew there, a Zionist at that, and I insisted we have him because any International Conference must present opposing view-points, i.e. unless you wish to have a feel-good conference like that conducted by some of the euphoric religious groups where dissent is impossible, and certainly not tolerated during their conferences. But that is what a conference, which claims to be academic, is all about - opposing view-points are aired and where individuals assert a view-point and get it refuted by another - or confirmed.

6. We did this in 1998 when at our Adelaide conference we brought out John Sack, among others. Again I had some resentment expressed at us bringing out a Jew to our conference.

7. I had a problem with Walter dis-inviting someone who apparently was a racist - I didn't know him, and this bothered me. What also bothered me with Walter was when he claimed that 70%, or whatever, of Revisionists were Christians. My definition of a Revisionist is very simple - it is a thinking person who has an open mind to new information flowing past that mind, absorbing it, digesting it, and adding any worth-while information to the world view that resides in that mind.

8. This open view of what a Revisionist is, of course, made it possible for us to make contact with the non-Christian Muslim world where individuals are also fighting for a world-view containing as much truth-content as possible.

9. What bothers me now is the constant use of the term 'racist', 'Nazi', 'white supremacist', etc. as a rejection concept/mechanism - without coming to grips with the issues that elicit the use of such terms. Users of such terms wish to indicate to their readers that they are not 'racists', are not 'bigots', are open-minded, etc. But we know from personal experience that the dogmatists - as developed and found in the PC brigade - are absolutists who fear an open debate, and so need to use the shut-up words against their opponents in order to survive public exposure.

10. For example, I personally do not regard any confrontation I may have in terms of win-lose but rather in terms of clarification, for example, I ask: what does Walter Mueller's email content that criticised Germar Rudolf, and that gave rise to my writing this response to you, Martin, contribute to clarifying problematic issues? Or is it just an emotional gush of verbiage without substance? I still have difficulty understanding what it is all about because Germar Rudolf in his response clarified the matter for me - Rudolf does not accept the term: guilt by association - Berührungsängste. I recall visiting Rabbi Abraham Cooper in 1997 and public prosecutor Klein in Germany. For my research it is important to visit the enemy's camp - if they will have you and don't lock you up or kill you in the process! I would address so-called left-wing or right-wing groups - as would Germar and others who refuse to be categorized, who refuse to be locked into a conceptual prison, as Mueller is attempting to do with Germar. This is all a cheap act that doesn't achieve anything at all. it's the Days of our Lives for Revisionists, the tabloid stuff, but it's not serious work.

11. Recently we had a prime example of shallow mental work on display when it was revealed that former NSW leader of the opposition, during a drinking bout, had claimed that the premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr had a "mail order bride". It was termed to be a most offensive racist statement because Mrs Carr is Asian. What no-one asked Bob Carr was whether there was any truth-content in that statement - was Mrs Carr a mail-order bride?

12. The ridiculous nature of considering the statement a "racist statement" becomes evident when we know that many Australian men travel to Russia to get themselves a Russian woman - of course they are European! They could also be considered to be mail-order/email-order brides. There is no shame attached to that - it is second nature, so to speak, for men to hunt and quest for women.

13. And yet, the leader of the opposition apologised, resigned from his leadership position, then attempted suicide. For me that is an indication he had the courage to dish out but when the heat turned on him he fell apart. Fortunately, most Revisionists are made of sterner stuff because the heat is on them most of the time.

14. It is therefore incomprehensible for me to understand what motivates Walter Mueller in attacking Germar Rudolf. Anyone who knows the two individuals concerned know it is a no-match situation. Walter and Germar operate at different levels - whether you like to see it like that or not. The Revisionists world has room for both their kind of work - one is academic, the other is populist. In the first instance it would be foolish for Walter to compare his work with that of Germar's work, much as Mark Weber cannot, and does not, compare himself with Germar's work output. Recently Walter stated that Germar was a 'phoney revisionist' - this statement tells me more about what is going in Walter's head than what it is intended to convey.I think Prof Faurisson's admonition still stands that Revisionists should do serious work, and such a comment is a throw-away line that is not worthy of coming from Walter.

15. What I notice if such a comparison is made, as Walter has done, and as Mark has not done, then there develops a conflict that has caused Walter to become rather a naughty and quite bitchy boy - the German word is Trotzreaktion - look it up - and that is somewhat infantile out of which nothing productive arises. Written missives become emotional missiles - hot air without any substance, and that is sad, very sad. In particular I note the vicious gloating over Germar's legal situation - that kind of un-empathetic understanding disturbs me because I note fear operating within those minds - or is it envy, an even baser motive because it reflects unrealistic/unfulfilled expectations within such a mind.

16. We are all at the stage in our life where we can eloquently justify our view-points - but there is the other hurdle that then looms large before us: depth and refinement of our knowledge base, of our thought and expression. I have a friend who views life through semi-smutty jokes. I have another friend who sees life through quotations from past thinkers. In both cases what I appreciate is the mental vigour and yearning to find that inner voice of the self. I found this inner voice in both Germar and Walter - both are not fence-sitters, but grasp the nettle of the time and gestalten-shape it to their world-view/Weltanschauung. That Walter has become absolutist and dishes out criticism, then refuses to publish replies to his criticism, that is a worry for me because he is well on the way to becoming a legend in his own mind, and ripe for founding his own Mueller Church. Unfortunately Walter would then be lost to rigorous and serious Revisionism.

17. One final matter, Martin. I could not understand in your last letter the reference to Germar attempting to 'emotionally blackmail' you. Walter ran your letter and I do not know if Germar's response was run by him as well. The response clearly stated that he would be pleased if you did visit him so that you could meet his wife and child. You interpreted that as an attack upon your homosexual life-style, which it was not. I viewed your comment with some concern because I saw in the 'emotional blackmail' comment outright censorship, something I have not met in your correspondence, nor when we met in London. I would have thought that you would be the first person who would share the delights of Germar being in a stable heterosexual relationship again and forming a family - the foundation of our social order.

For what it's worth.






From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: More on Revisionist politics

From Fredrick Töben: Revisionist Politics: “Denialism of the truth-content of the ‘Holocaust’ concept is met world-wide with legal sanction and name-calling. Why?”

To my recent exposition of Revisionist politics I received an expected reply from an exasperated reader:

From: Manfred
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: Viciousness - more Revisionist politics

What a waste of mental energy!!! Has the Revisionist Movement no enemies that you have to hack into each other? It makes me as a bystander shudder. No wonder there is no united front. Go and learn from your enemies. It just makes me more careful in accepting any utterances from any truth-seeker. Maybe that is a way to purify?

Then there was a reply from a reader who ignored the politics of Revisionism but sent me an article that mentions Pollard was also ‘gassed’ during his maltreatment in US prisons.


[Note from Patrick MacNalley:  Comment to statement in story: "Pollard is demanding Israel's highest court recognize him as a Prisoner of Zion, a status that obligates the Jewish state to do everything in its power to seek his release and may provide the U.S. and Israel a basis for immediate negotiations." Prisoners of Zion [Subjective genitive] In the Latin grammar taught several decades ago, a distinction was made between subjective and objective genitives. Israeli English only thinks of the objective genitive in the phrase "Prisoners of Zion," i.e. "goyim imprison Zionists." Today the much more common and widespread actuality is the subjective genitive, i.e. "Zionists imprison goyim." That is why Ernst Zündel is a "Prisoner of Zion." The same is the case today with the German word "Judenverfolgung," i.e. "Juden verfolgen die goyim - the Jews persecute goyim"]


And so the sufferings of a Jew continues, but Jewish convert to Christianity, Mordechai Vanunu can match with ease anything Pollard has suffered because he survived 18 years in an Israeli prison. Then, again, what about the Revisionists who are subjected to prison terms all because they refuse to believe in the HOLOCAUST, for example Ernst Zündel?


Now back to the issue of Revisionist politics and name-calling.

One of the items that Adelaide Institute was asked by the Federal Court of Australia to remove from its website concerned my introducing readers to Revisionism and our aims to propagate it on our website. Therein I stated, among other things, that Revisionism is not for the fainthearted. This is because a Revisionist – a thinking person – is imbued with restlessness in spirit that mirrors the chaos, the pulsations of the universe. Revisionists do not seek heaven on earth because the very concept ‘heaven’ is for some a ‘conceptual prison’ used by individuals to ensnare, to enslave those individuals who are hurting because someone’s actions towards them has brought them nothing but pain and suffering.

In our specific case, Holocaust Revisionism regards the proponents of the Holocaust story/industry/legend/myth/lies/dogma to be harmful to the mind, especially to developing minds that need factuality rather than blatant propagandistic hatred directed against Germans.

Denialism of the truth-content of the ‘Holocaust’ concept is met world-wide with legal sanction and name-calling. Why? The most prominent Revisionist prisoner at this moment is Ernst Zündel. This fact alone, that dissenters are hounded by upholders of the ‘Holocaust’ concept ought to make individuals rather skeptical of anything concerning matters dealing with ‘Holocaust’ claims.

That the term ‘Revisionist’ has been accepted as a concept designating a certain historical matter, a mind-set, is a fact, which for the Holocaust upholders is a nightmare. Why? The ‘Holocaust’ has become a useful concept in world politics, in particular by those who still justify the existence of the Zionist state of Israel.

The unifying principle for Revisionists is, of course, the love of truth, and to have the moral and intellectual courage to defend any truth-seeking activity that may come their way. So, if someone is critical of another person, and has expressed that criticism in public, then the legal concept of Natural Justice kicks in, and whether we like it or not, we are obligated – the Categorical Imperative – to give that person a right of reply. Anyone who refuses to comply with this imperative is offending against human nature itself because this refusal is a blocking, a terminating of the free flow of information – and that signifies the onset of sterility and impotence, which in turn leads to cynicism, nihilism and ultimately mental/spiritual death.

For individuals who have been following the political aspects of Revisionism, and my comment thereto that it is all normal human behaviour, may find the following items of interest, taken from The Australian Jewish News, September 9, 2005. The vigorous disputes aired within the Letters pages and other articles that reveal dissent within the Jewish community is instructive for those Revisionist who are ‘upset’ by what we have recently been witnessing about the internal Revisionist politics. Ultimately what will settle our internal disputes is productivity because talk is cheap and plentiful in our business.

The following items are interesting because they reveal how much dissent/unity there is amongst Jews. The importance of the ‘Holocaust’ as a unifying principle is always a factor that reveals itself, i.e. the Jews are covering all human bases by playing the absolute victim – they are either just coming out of, in one or expecting a Holocaust! Never is their behaviour the cause of resentment. As one Israeli, in an attempt to deflect legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, stated a while back: “Antisemitism is a disease”, which Edgar Steele augmented with, “You catch it from Jews”.

Danby launches pre-emptive strike against Voices of Reason

FEDERAL MP Michael Danby [the only open Jewish federal parliamentarian – FT] has launched a blistering attack on a book about Australian Jewry’s responses to the Middle East conflict.
But there’s a catch: the book, by Sydney-based journalist Antony Loewenstein, has not yet been published, and won’t reach bookstores until next May.
Danby, who declined to contribute material for the book, first slammed the book in a letter to the AJN (26/8) and this week reiterated his call to the Jewish community to “not spend a dollar” when the book is released because of the author’s track record.
“[Loewenstein] is completely alienated from the left, the right, the religious, the non-religious,” Danby said.
Loewenstein, a Jewish journalist and commentator, former Melburnian and onetime project leader for Victorian B’nai B’rith’s Courage to Care exhibition, has described himself on his web log as “a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state”.

I FIND Michael Danby’s call to boycott a book that is not even published very disturbing. Particularly as his decision was based purely on the basis that he didn’t like the questions which Antony Loewenstein asked him.
Maybe what Danby feared most was exposing his answers to an Australian public unsympathetic to Danby’s uncritical support of Israel’s illegal settlements.
If Danby wants the freedom to express his ideas, objectionable to many, he must support, not oppose, the rights of others to express their ideas, disturbing as they may be. To suppress free speech is foolish and dangerous especially for a politician.
Norman Rothfield
Fairfield, Vic

I SUPPOSE I should be flattered that Louise Adler of Melbourne University Publishing (MUP), two members of the Loewenstein family and the socialist left’s Larry Stillman have all denounced me (AJN 2/9) for my comments on MUP’s decision to publish two anti-Israel books. No-one can say now they weren’t warned!
Let me tell readers of the AJN what Antony Loewenstein thinks of them. At his blog, where he describes himself as “a Jew who doesn’t believe in the concept of a Jewish state” (“a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era”), he describes the Australian Jewish community’s response to his views as “usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic” and as “incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions”.
This is the person Adler has commissioned to write a book about the Australian Jewish community and its attitudes to Israel. He is of course entitled to his opinions. But I am equally entitled to say that his opinions stink, and to urge Australian Jews not to put money in his pocket by buying his book.
Then we have Professor Jacqueline Rose, author of The Question of Zion, which MUP is also publishing. Writing recently in the London Review of Books, Rose discussed the psychology of Palestinian suicide bombers. Discussing two Israeli teenagers killed by their bombs, she writes: “In fact these young Israeli women are living in, and acutely suffering from, a society that encourages them to be blind.”
One of the young women Rose sneers at in this way is Melbourne-born teenager Malki Roth, killed in the Sbarro restaurant bombing in 2001. Rose writes of her: “In a letter addressed to God on the occasion of the Jewish New Year, Malki Roth ended with the hope ‘that I’ll be alive and that the Messiah should come’. (Is this wholesome?)”
I showed this passage to Malki Roth’s father Arnold. He wrote to me: “Poor refined Ms Rose is unable to look innocence in the face without vomiting. All of us can see a murderer and a victim, and tell the difference. But not Rose. Right and wrong for her are simply issues to be sliced, diced and agonised over until they figure a way for it to fit in with their global outlook... She leaves me very cold.”
Contrary to the rather overwrought complaints of Adler and Loewenstein, I am not trying to have anyone’s books banned or censored. I am pointing out the fundamental hostility of these authors to the beliefs and values of the great majority of the Jewish community — of most Australians, in fact. In other words, I am doing what I was elected to do: speak up for the people I represent.
Federal member for Melbourne Ports

LOUISE Adler (AJN 2/9), the CEO of Melbourne University Publishing (MUP), fails to understand the inference which many Jews will draw from the decision of MUP to publish Jacqueline Rose’s The Question of Zion and Antony Loewenstein’s Voices of Reason.
Professor Rose is one of the most visible anti-Israel activists in British academic life, who has sought and received enormous publicity for her efforts to boycott everything Israeli and then to destroy the State of Israel and replace it with a so-called bi-national state in which Palestinians would have an automatic majority. Her book, The Question of Zion, which was published in the UK and has now been published by MUP, fully reflects her efforts to demonise the Jewish State.
I have only occasionally read Antony Loewenstein’s blog. Probably 99 per cent of the readers of this newspaper would describe him as the Chomsky-Pilger type.
Of course both writers espouse a viewpoint which should be published and which should not be suppressed. My concern is whether MUP, probably the most respected and best-known academic publishers in Australia, should be publishing two tendentious works whose aim is to demonise Israel, with nothing whatever in the way of balance.
Professor Bill Rubinstein
University of Wales-Aberystwyth, UK

SAM Lipski (AJN 2/9) raised important questions concerning mandating Holocaust education in the schools. Having been the only Australian who has attended the meetings of the Association of Holocaust Organisations over the past 10 years where this question has been discussed, there are a number of questions which arise.
Approximately 10 states in the USA have mandated Holocaust education, and in some cases, this is extended to genocide education. Those involved in states with mandated Holocaust education point out that mandating is useless without the funds for large- number, ongoing, teacher training being put in place. Also necessary are funds to enable schools to travel to facilities such as the Sydney Jewish Museum and the Holocaust Museum in Melbourne to hear the “voice of the living witnesses”.
One of the most successful programs of Holocaust education in North America has been offered by Texas — a state without mandated Holocaust education. The Holocaust Museum of Houston developed what they describe as “Holocaust trunks” sent to schools from one end of the state to the other. This project has been replicated all over.
The work of the (non-Jewish) Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in Nottingham could be a model in that it is tied to the UK National Holocaust Memorial Day. No Australian government has committed itself to anything similar.
Rabbi Jeffrey Cohen
Sydney, NSW

WITH regard to Sam Lipski’s comments (AJN 2/9), my wife and I returned only three days ago from a Yad Vashem graduates’ seminar to Poland and Lithuania. There were 33 participants from all corners of the globe, of whom 12 were non-Jews, educators in secondary and tertiary institutions. All who attended this course were passionate about teaching the lessons of the Holocaust to their students, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.
The obligation to remember is not only for our community alone but for all humankind. It is a sad reflection upon the human race that there has been attempted genocide since the Shoah, but this only strengthens the argument that it must continue to be taught to all as a lesson in man’s inhumanity to man. Indeed one of the non-Jewish members of our seminar made the point on several occasions that she teaches her students the maxim: “Never be a perpetrator, never be a bystander, never be a victim.”
I understand that currently in New South Wales at least 40 per cent of students will leave school not having heard of the Holocaust. While it may be true that there will always be those who will never wish to learn or will deny the truth, we need not be reticent about teaching this important and in many ways unique, horrific event of the 20th century to all children. My personal experience is that they will listen and take away the important lessons of racial tolerance.
Dr George B Foster
President, Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants

THERE is plenty of material in our traditions that teaches us to be moderate in our words and to be prepared to promote a fair and balanced legal system.
In fact our teachings tell us to cry out against the unjust use of man-made laws, and yes, even God-made laws. David Knoll (AJN 26/8) upholds that spirit when he questions our government adopting even more-extreme legislative measures in the fight against terrorism.
Mark Leibler’s shrill attacks on the Sydney barrister undermine those wonderful traditions. This latest lambast smells as if the privately-run, Melbourne-headquartered Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council is continuing “the Ashrawi wars” against the official Sydney Jewish community leadership. They failed to harm David Knoll’s predecessor, Stephen Rothman. Now they are hoping to have a win over Knoll.
This type of internecine war was condemned many years ago by our sages. Leibler should go back and study these wise sages carefully before once more publicly having a swipe at our sound-and-moderate Sydney leadership.
Andrew Casey
Roseville, NSW

7. ‘Sex sells’ Israel, says AUJS defending condom campaign
SEX sells. That’s the verdict of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), which has this week taken the unprecedented — and somewhat unpopular — decision to promote Israel on campus by distributing blue-and-white condoms.
Among the free falafels and the release of white peace doves as part of Israel Week — a program to promote the Jewish State — AUJS has attracted attention with free condoms bearing the slogans “Israel — you’ll never forget your first time”, “Israel — it’s still safe to come” and “Israel — standing tall and firm”.
However, Melbourne students will miss out on the condom giveaway, with AUJS Victoria vetoing the initiative.
President Jade Birman said the organisation decided against distributing the condoms because “we thought it would alienate certain members of the community”.
But the gimmick may have drawn the ire of anti-Israel activists at Sydney’s Macquarie University who daubed the campus with anti-Israel posters and graffiti on Wednesday.

8. South Africans study Holocaust
CAPE TOWN — Educators in a country that confronted its own racist past recently learned new ways to teach about Nazism in the nation’s schools.
A four-day seminar for educators was held last month, at the initiative of the Cape Town Holocaust Centre in consultation with South Africa’s National Department of Education.
Facilitated by Stephen Feinberg, the national outreach director for the education division of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, “Understanding social Darwinism, race, eugenics and human rights” attracted more than 60 curriculum advisers, administrators, education managers and teachers.
The subject forms part of the new Year 11 history curriculum, which examines how social Darwinism, race and eugenics motivated Nazi ideology and also partially influenced apartheid ideology.
The moral and ethical issues that arose out of the Holocaust are also being taught as part of a separate school curriculum for students in Years 10, 11 and 12.
[A Cape Town Muslim community radio station challenged the official version of the ‘Holocaust’, and Cape Town’s Jews failed to get this challenge criminalised in the South African legal system. Now they throw money at the problem - FT]

9. Sydney rabbi resigns over Gaza pullout
THE head rabbi at a Sydney synagogue has resigned his post as the shul’s representative to the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies because of its support for the Gaza withddrawal.
In his resignation letter, sent to the board on August 31, Strathfield Synagogue’s Rabbi Samuel Tov-Lev said he was shocked over the board’s “failure to object to disengagement”.
“I do not want to be part of such an institution that cannot distinguish between right and wrong and as a Jew and an Israeli I was deeply hurt and feel sick to see how Jews here are abandoning their brethren in Israel,” his letter said.
Board CEO Vic Alhadeff said: “The board does not agree with his position on the disengagement and we support Israel in its efforts to work towards peace.”
The president of the congregation, Dr Jack Moses, said: “[Rabbi Tov-Lev’s] decision to resign from the board is entirely his own. It has nothing to do with the governing board of the synagogue.”

10. Israel’s World Cup dream alive
EVEN after eight games, Israel’s dream of reaching soccer’s World Cup for the first time since 1970 remains intact.
The national team fell behind yet again, but came back for a 1-1 draw against Switzerland on Saturday night in Basel.
Israel, which has 12 points from eight matches, is fighting for one of the top two spots in the group. Switzerland currently leads the group — on goal difference only — ahead of Ireland and France, all of which have 13 points from seven matches.
The group winner automatically qualifies for the World Cup finals next year in Germany, while the second-place finisher advances to a playoff round against one of the other second-place finishers.
Despite finding itself in fourth place with only two matches left, Israel holds a slight edge over the teams above it in the standings. Its final two matches are against the weak Faroe Islands, including a game overnight (Wednesday).
[As Geoff Muirden mused, it would be best to let Israel win the World Cup without participating in the contest because then the expected ‘antisemitism’ card need not be used by the Jews who will not accept a defeat - FT]

11. Israeli-Pakistani breakthrough
ISTANBUL — Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri met last week in Istanbul with his Israeli counterpart, Silvan Shalom, in the highest-level encounter ever between the two nations.
Pakistani leaders said the meeting was appropriate now that Israel has evacuated the Gaza Strip, but warned that diplomatic relations were not possible until Israel concluded a final-status peace treaty with the Palestinians.
Shalom hailed the meeting as “historic” and said that following the Gaza withdrawal it is “the time for all of the Muslim and Arab countries to reconsider their relations with Israel”.
Contrary to media reports, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will not meet with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when the two are in New York later this month to attend a session of the UN General Assembly, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement Saturday.
Political sources said, however, that Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom may meet for the first time with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Israeli officials said the Gaza pullout has improved Israel’s image in the Muslim world, and may lead to improvement of relations with non-Arab Muslim nations.

12. Palestinian solution pivotal to winning war on terror — Hawke
THE “festering sore of the Palestinian problem” is thwarting the West’s ability to take effective action in the war on terror, former prime minister Bob Hawke told a Jewish audience in Melbourne last week.
Addressing more than 300 people at a testimonial dinner in memory of Isador Magid, his long-time friend and a towering Australian Jewish community figure, Hawke said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is pivotal to defeating the world terrorist threat.
Referring to notes he had penned in 2002 at the height of the intifada, the former PM said: “Whatever may be said or done to correct the extremists’ misrepresentation, which resonates in many corners of the globe, nothing effective can be done in this direction while the festering sore of the Palestinian problem continues.
“This issue is used to encapsulate and dramatise the enemy syndrome, with America and its leading supporters cast as the villains,” he said. “It’s imperative therefore that an entirely new approach be formulated to the Palestinian question, an issue which, in any case, cries out for resolution in terms of the aspirations of the Palestinians themselves and the security of Israel and the region.
“It’s not argued that resolving this issue resolves the challenge of international terrorism but that it is a sine qua non [indispensable element] for meeting that challenge,” he said.

13. The Jewish pioneer of the contraceptive pill
CARL Djerassi — playwright, author, chemistry professor and inventor of the contraceptive pill — believes that Australia needs to get more children involved in studying science and engineering or it will be overtaken by countries such as Singapore and India.
“Without science and engineering, countries can evaporate, therefore it is indispensable to get kids into it early,” he told the AJN.
Djerassi, 82, was in Brisbane and Canberra this week as part of a lecture series organised by Australian Science Innovations, a group encouraging excellence in science education.
“Today in Australia, just like the USA and in Europe, enrolments in science and engineering are dropping. But in India and China, two countries encompassing one-third of the world’s population, interest in science and engineering is booming.
“It is a huge economic and social issue for the West.”
Professor Djerassi was born in Vienna in 1923 and at the age of five he and his mother fled to escape the Nazis, then immigrated to the United States in 1939.
He is universally recognised for developing the contraceptive pill — a drug which changed the world forever by giving women more control over reproduction.
Since he stopped working as a scientist in the mid-1980s, he has taken up a new career — writing. He has published poems, short stories, five novels (with titles including Cantor’s Dilemma; Marx, deceased; Menachem’s Seed and NO) as well as six plays.
Menachem’s Seed and NO are both are set in Israel, while his play An Immaculate Misconception has an Israeli character.
“With Menachem’s Seed, I chose a name that was obviously Jewish because that was very important to the story,” he said.
“I have been to Israel many times; in fact when I was writing NO, I lived there for some time.”
He says the common theme in all of his books and plays (which have been translated and performed around the world) is a burning desire to increase people’s interest in science.
“It is burningly important for me to disseminate information about science,” he said.
“Most scientists are portrayed as mad and they are not seen as normal people.
“Few people are able to communicate to the public what happens in a laboratory or what being a scientist is like.
“I try and write ‘science-in-fiction’ and ‘science-in-theatre’ that illustrates the human side of science and the personal conflicts faced by scientists,” he said.

14. ‘New Orleans Jews safe’
NEW ORLEANS — Though there is no complete count of the New Orleans Jewish community, a sigh of relief was heard this week from the head of the Jewish Federation, now in Houston.
“I think we’ve got them all out,” said Eric Stillman, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans, which is now operating out of Texas.
On Saturday night, teams led by the sheriff of Baton Rouge went into the city in search of the few remaining members of the Jewish community not yet accounted for. In a few hours, they were all out. Half of the city’s 9000 Jews went to Houston, with the others spread out in several neighbouring cities.
Jackson, Mississippi, has taken in roughly 100 Jewish evacuees — a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of Jackson, which has seen its population nearly triple in the past several days to more than 700,000 people, but a large burden for a Jewish community that numbers only 200 families.
“It’s such an incomprehensible situation, we almost don’t know what to do,” said Valerie Cohen, rabbi of Beth Israel Congregation, Jackson’s lone synagogue.

15. Minister calls Barenboim ‘a real antisemite’
Jerusalem Post Staff
JERUSALEM – Israeli Education Minister Limor Livnat has denounced Israeli conductor, Daniel Barenboim as a “real antisemite” after the conductor refused to grant an interview to an Army reporter because she wore a military uniform to the launch of a book he wrote with a Palestinian.
Barenboim, who is Jewish, was approached by Israel Defence Forces Radio reporter Dafna Arad during the launch of a book he wrote with the late Edward Said, a leading Palestinian intellectual. The event was held in an exclusive hotel in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Yemin Moshe.
His snub of Arad outraged Livnat, who denounced the conductor as “a real Jew-hater, a real antisemite”.
Barenboim, who was born in Argentina and raised in Israel, has had frequent spats with Israel’s government. Last year, he angered Israeli officials when he criticised what he called the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as he accepted the prestigious Wolf Prize in a speech to Israel’s parliament.
Barenboim brought his orchestra, comprised of musicians from Israel, the Palestinian-administered territories, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan, to Ramallah on August 21 for a concert that packed a 700-seat concert hall. The concert was in memory of Said.
The conductor, in a telephone interview with Army Radio, did not deny the incident and defended his actions.
“Antisemitic? What is antisemitic about it? When I say that a uniform should be worn to the right places and not to the wrong ones, there is nothing antisemitic about it, there is no logic to this claim,” Barenboim said. “I just thought that in this place, discussing a book written together with a Palestinian, it shows a lack of sensitivity.” [Well stated! - FT]


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute