Sunday, 22May


Democracy will be put to the test when in June 2005 when Professor Deborah Lipstadt visits Australia.


A theology professor, Dr Lipstadt has become the world's foremost enforcer of the


 'Holocaust' religion.






ABC Online

Radio National - Saturday Breakfast With Geraldine Doogue 21/05/2005

Holocaust Denial

All this year we’ve been celebrating the 60th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War, and of course you can’t think about that war without also having to come to terms with the Holocaust.

But as the distance from those times increases, a disturbing phenomenon has been growing – that of Holocaust denial – people who claim that the Nazis did not systematically set out to exterminate the Jews. They admit that Jews did die in camps - but not in gas chambers and not as part of a deliberate policy.

David Irving is the leading Holocaust denier, and the most litigious. His most celebrated case was when he sued an American professor of Jewish studies, Deborah Lipstadt, for libel. Lipstadt had accused him of distorting the evidence in order to reach untenable conclusions about the Holocaust. she has just published a fascinating account of her long, ultimately successful, legal battle with David Irving.

Guests on this program:

Deborah Lipstadt
Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, USA


History on Trial, My Day in Court with David Irving
Author: Deborah Lipstadt
Publisher: HarperCollins

Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory
Author: Deborah Lipstadt

Story Producer: Kathy Gollan

Saturday Breakfast With Geraldine Doogue




Geraldine Doogue: All this year we’ve been celebrating the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and of course you can’t think about that war without also having to come to terms with the Holocaust. You might have been watching the ABC series, ‘Ten Days to Victory’. Last Thursday we saw footage of the American soldiers entering the German concentration camps and their horror at what they saw there.

But as the distance from those times increases, a disturbing phenomenon’s been growing too, that of Holocaust denial, people who claim that the Nazis did not systematically set out to exterminate the Jews. They admit the Jews did die in camps, but not in gas chambers, and not as part of a deliberate policy.

David Irving is the leading Holocaust denier, and the most litigious. His most celebrated case was when he sued an American Professor of Jewish Studies, Deborah Lipstadt, for libel. Lipstadt had accused him of distorting the evidence in order to reach untenable conclusions about the Holocaust.

Deborah Lipstadt has just published a fascinating book about her long, ultimately successful legal battle with David Irving. It’s called ‘History on Trial’. Welcome now to Saturday Breakfast, Deborah.

Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you for having me.

Geraldine Doogue: What made you interested in this phenomenon of Holocaust denial?

Deborah Lipstadt: The truth of the matter is I was approached by two prominent Holocaust historians, Yehuda Bauer and Israel Goodman quite a few years ago, and they said to me, ‘Deborah, do you think you ought to take a look at this, probably do a research project on it, or maybe write a book?’ And I really sloughed it off and said, ‘Oh, I don’t think there’s anything there, I think it’s a silly phenomenon’, and I said it’s like flatter thirst. And they argued rather persuasively that it was a form of anti-Semitism and possibly racism, and that it deserved to be looked at, not so much to answer the deniers, because I think don’t think there’s any point to that, but to understand what the phenomenon was all about.

Geraldine Doogue: I just wonder whether some of the people, the eminent historians who continue to support David Irving, your antagonist, because of his meticulous body of research, but who are certainly not anti-Semitic, not known to be anyway, whether you came to understand that in a way they couldn’t believe human beings were capable of such behaviour.

Deborah Lipstadt: I think the few historians, and probably John Keegan?? is the most prominent amongst them –

Geraldine Doogue: Sir John Keegan, whom –

Deborah Lipstadt: Yes, the military historian, the very prominent military historian who testified at the trial under subpoena, not under his own accord, I think he was subpoenaed by Irving. His approach, and those few historians who haven’t really, most of them have abandoned Irving at this point, what they do is they sort of build a little wall around this Holocaust denial and say, ‘Well that’s completely worthless, that’s completely stupid, he goes off at a tangent there, he’s lost his mind, but his other work is good.’ And that’s one of the reasons why during the trial we examined topics like Irving’s treatment of the bombing of Dresden showed that it wasn’t just in relation to the Holocaust that his historical research was not trustworthy.

Geraldine Doogue: And look, just because we covered this very recently in Saturday Breakfast, in a nutshell, can you summarise what was the problem with his coverage of Dresden?

Deborah Lipstadt: With his coverage of Dresden, what he’s trying to do is to set up what I call an immoral equivalency. Yes, the Nazis did bad things, but the Allies, particularly the Americans and the British did as bad, if not worse. And they bombed the city of Dresden in one night and one day, they killed – his numbers are highly inflated, where he says that the number of Dresden victims, sometimes he says 100,000, sometimes he says 150,000, sometimes he says 250,000, he goes as high as 250,000. Which is, according to German records, Nazi records, Third Reich records, the number of dead was about 25,000, which is nothing, I’m not diminishing that in any way, but it’s not 100,000, it’s not 150,000. And what he’s trying to do is to present Dresden as an Allied war crime.

Geraldine Doogue: OK. Now look, getting back to the case itself. One of the initial problems for you was the difference between US and British Libel laws. In the US, David Irving would not have been able to sue you for libel, but in Britain and in Australia, you had to prove that what you wrote was either not defamatory, or that if it was, it was justified. So did that present problems for you, the British way of doing things being so different?

Deborah Lipstadt: It made me crazy. You know, I’ve been raised in a system which expounds that you are innocent until proven guilty, and suddenly I discovered I was guilty until I proved myself innocent. So that was one thing that was quite disturbing, it was a complete reversal of the First Amendment, that’s so important to Americans. And No.2, in America we have what’s called the Public Figure Defence, that someone, such as a politician or an author who puts herself or himself into the public arena, loses the right to sue for libel when it concerns their professional work, unless they can prove malicious intent, that the author knew it was false and went ahead and wrote it anyway. So that’s why he waited for the book to come out in the United Kingdom to be able to sue me there. And I was totally, I don’t know how to say it, was totally discombobulated.

Geraldine Doogue: Was the decision by your lawyers that you should not testify ultimately, was that a difficult one for you?

Deborah Lipstadt: Also exceptionally difficult. My business is talking, I’m a professor, I teach, I write, that’s the tool I have. I was dying to take the stand, I kept asking, ‘Put me on the stand, put me on the stand.’

Geraldine Doogue: Because David Irving makes a big play of that now on his website.

Deborah Lipstadt: Right, exactly. He tried to paint me as a coward, as frightened of him, as what he called ‘Taking the Fifth Amendment’, you know in the United States where you don’t have to testify against yourself. And what he didn’t know, or didn’t care to know, is that I kept saying to the lawyers, ‘Put me on the stand’, and they said, ‘You’re being sued for what you wrote. There’s nothing that you can add by putting you on the stand that is relevant to this case’

Geraldine Doogue: I’m talking with Professor Deborah Lipstadt about her book, ‘History on Trial – My Day in Court with David Irving’. David Irving being a prominent Holocaust denier.

Now Deborah, the trial was not about whether the Holocaust occurred or not, but whether you were correct in alleging that David Irving lied, distorted and mistranslated the evidence about it. Now can you give me some examples of how this played out in the court room?

Deborah Lipstadt: Right. Well what we did was follow the footnotes, follow his footnotes, and we found that in virtually every time we followed a footnote, there was a lie or a distortion. I’ll give you a couple of examples. In the Crema No.1, Crematorium No.2, excuse me, it’s one of the crematoria in Buchenau, the death camp adjacent to Auschwitz, or part of the Auschwitz complex, the gas chambers were on the bottom. The people came in, went down the steps, undressed, went into the gas chambers and then there was a small elevator which would transport the bodies up to the next level, the main level, and there were ovens there for burning the bodies.

Robert Jan van Pelt, an extraordinary expert witness on Auschwitz, at one point said, in this building approximately half a million people were murdered. And Irving says, ‘There’s only one elevator Professor van Pelt, correct? He says, ‘Yes’. And he says, ‘Well that must have been the bottleneck, you couldn’t transport half a million people in that one elevator.’ And van Pelt said, ‘Yes, you can’, and they went back and forth. And then he asked van Pelt to do some ‘back of the envelope calculations’ of whether you could transport that number of victims. And van Pelt had to do it and he figured it out, he said, ‘You know, a typical cadaver was of so many kilos’ because he did an estimate between emaciated people and un-emaciated people, and the elevator’s capacity could handle so many bodies, it took a minute to get up, a minute to get down, he did the calculations.

And I’m sitting there listening to him and I’m thinking, This is a perfect forensic answer, it’s not too much information, there’s no unnecessary detail, he’s giving just the facts, and this is exactly what the judge needs. And I was very pleased. I said this is a great ‘performance’, if you will, he’s performing terrifically as an expert witness, and I was very pleased. And I just happened, I don’t know for what reason, to glance around at the gallery when he was just completing this testimony, and there was an older woman sitting in the gallery who when I had walked into court that morning, had identified herself to me as a Holocaust survivor, and she was sitting with her head in her hands. And next to her was a younger woman who to my mind looked like her, I assumed it was mother and daughter, and the younger woman had her arm around the older woman trying to extend a measure of comfort. And I suddenly thought, maybe she had someone on that elevator, maybe she had more than some one on that elevator. And suddenly the perfect testimony was so perfect forensic testimony, but it must have been like a dagger to the heart of this woman.

Geraldine Doogue: But also I suppose the challenge to one’s own humanity as an observer, and you actually quote James Dalrymple, writing in The Independent after that day, when he was sitting in the Tube on the way home from sitting through the court case, doing his own calculations until he realised with disgust what he was doing. So I wonder about the challenge to, well, at any point, did you find yourself being drawn in, even though you were the defendant, thinking, Oh yes, I understand what David Irving’s on about there?

Deborah Lipstadt: That didn’t happen, because by the time we went to trial, I had seen so many examples of his egregious lies and distortions, but every once in a while I would say, ‘We’ve got to make sure that the press, that the public, understands what he’s doing here, because if you don’t know, it can sound logical. If you don’t know, it can sound like it makes sense.’ At some level the Holocaust itself is beyond belief, and on that same level we would like David Irving to be right, we would like the deniers to be correct, and say ‘This didn’t happen, we don’t live in a world that has this legacy.’ The problem is, it did happen. But there’s a desire to say ‘It could never have happened’, you think, ‘Oh my God, thank God, I really was upset that it might have happened.’

So I wasn’t drawn in but I was always listening with a third ear, thinking, are other people being drawn in?

Geraldine Doogue: Sociologically. Look, part of the case relied on proving that his denial of the Holocaust came not from his research as an historian but as someone who was inherently anti-Semitic and racist. How was that done?

Deborah Lipstadt: Well, first of all, we had access through the process of discovery, to his diaries and his videotapes and his private speeches that he gave that had been videotaped etc., and it revealed to us things that we never imagined we would find. In his diary we found that he describes singing a little ditty he had written to his nine-month old daughter when he’s taking her for walks and whenever he’d quote, as he describes them, half-breed children are wheeled by, he sings to her,

I am a baby Aryan,
Not a Jew or a Sectarian,
I shall not marry an ape
Or Rastafarian.


Or things like, once I think it was in fact on Australian radio, he was being interviewed, and the interviewer said to him, they were talking about black people, blacks, or people’s colour, playing for the English cricket team, and Irving said, ‘I feel queasy when I see blacks playing for the English cricket team’, and in fact when Richard Rampton, my barrister, my QC, asked Irving about this in court, Irving said, ‘Oh Mr Rampton, you’re trying to paint me as a racist, I am not a racist, I think God just made this species different.’ Well that’s pretty revealing.

Geraldine Doogue: Yes.

Deborah Lipstadt: This is a man who gives a speech to an audience, and the audience laughs when he says these things. He says, ‘I was on vacation and I turned on the television, and the BBC, and I saw one of them reading our news to us.’

Geraldine Doogue: And that was of course referring to Sir Trevor McDonald, the veteran British reporter.

Deborah Lipstadt: Right, exactly, who is of Caribbean descent. And then when the Judge asked him about it in court, Irving said, ‘Oh, I was talking about women, one of them being women reading our news to us’, as if that made it better, you know. So he’s also a misogynist, he’s not just a racist, but he’s a misogynist.

Geraldine Doogue: The big question is, which is what some people like Christopher Hitchens say, in effect if he is so mad or so distorted, and there’s personal quirks there, that would have been exposed. Why did it need this type of campaign?

Deborah Lipstadt: Well it didn’t need it. I mean, he sued me, I never would have sued him, I never would have dragged him into court. He sued me, so I was forced to put up a defence, I had no choice. If I hadn’t put up a defence, as your listeners know, the onus was on me to prove the truth of what I said. I don’t believe history belongs in the court room. I was dragged in there and had no choice but to fight. So I wouldn’t say he’s mad. I’ll tell you what I think he is, I think he is pathetic, I think he’s a pathetic figure. And I think in fact he’s not alone, I think all racists and anti-Semites and misogynists, are pathetic, and the challenge is to fight them and not to build them up and say they’re so important, but to defeat, utterly defeat them, and at the same time to show what pathetic kinds of characters they are.

Geraldine Doogue: Thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you. And I look forward to being in Australia in the not-too-distant future.

Geraldine Doogue: Yes, I think they’re welcoming you in a couple of months’ time, is that right?

Deborah Lipstadt: End of June.

Geraldine Doogue: End of June. Deborah Lipstadt, thanks so much.

Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you.

Geraldine Doogue: And Deborah Lipstadt’s book is called ‘History on Trial’, and it’s published by Harper Collins. And Late Night Live will be speaking to her when she does come in June, so keep an eye out for that.




Comment sent

Name Dr Fredrick Töben
Postcode 5066
Date 22/05/2005 10:24
Subject Holocaust denial


Remark: Dear Geraldine and Kathy

Please note David Irving is not a 'Holocaust' Revisionist because he believes in the gassing story, and he is on record as saying there were limited gassings.

Prof Robert Faurisson, Prof Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, et al, are real Revisionists because they claim there never were any gassings at all, that the 'Holocaust' is a lie.

Prof Faurisson's challenge: "Show me or draw me a picture of the homicidal gas chamber", remains unfulfilled. To date no-one has done it.

In 1994 Prof Deborah Lipstadt visited Australia and she assured me that the plans of the homicidal gas chambers were available - as written up by Pressac in his books.

I am still waiting for her to show them to me.

In 1997 I visited Rabbi Abraham Cooper at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. He terminated our discussion when I responded to his question: "Do you believe in the gassing"? with - "I don't want to believe, I want to know. We need to know how the murder weapon functioned."

Since 2003 I am not permitted to talk openly and freely about the 'Holocaust' because a Federal Court of Australia order has banned me from questioning the factuality of the 'Holocaust' - and so when Professor Lipstadt arrives here in Australia, she can tell her audience anything she likes but no-one is permitted to contradict her or to question the details that she will present to support her view of things.

Such similar laws operate with criminal force in a number of European countries, and Israel has a law that enables them to extradite so-called 'Holocaust' deniers from any country in the world, or to neutralise them if there is no reciprocal extradition treaty.

Anyone who 'denies' the 'Holocaust' is immediately branded with the usual shut-up words: "Holocaust denier', 'racist', 'antisemite', 'neo-Nazi, etc.

Serious discrepancies in the wildly-fluctuating numbers of deaths is not permitted to be addressed and questioned. For example, until the 1988 Zündel Toronto, Canada, Holocaust trial the death figures at Auschwitz were permanently engraved on 20 plaques: 4 million.

After the trial these plaques were removed - and a few years later replaced with a figure of 1-1.5 million.

However, the overall 6 million number remained the same. I am not permitted to comment on this matter as per court order.

Ernst Zündel refuses to believe in the 'Holocaust' and was kidnapped from his home in the USA, spent 2 years in a Canadian prison, then was flown to Germany where he awaits his trial for 'Holocaust' denial.

Gitta Sereny claims Auschwitz was not a death camp; that VanPelt/Dwork claim Krema I (Auschwitz- Stammlager) was made to look like the gas chamber at Krema II (Auschwitz-Birkenau); that Fritjof Meyer claims there were no gassings at Auschwitz but that these occurred in two farm houses outside of the camp - and he reduces the total number of deaths to around 510,000, from all causes. [mutmaßlich 510 000 Tote, davon wahrscheinlich 356 000 im Gas Ermordete.]

So, Geraldine and Kathy, perhaps you can give this a little airing. So, please no one-sided 'Holocaust' propaganda because that is pure German hatred!

It is too cheap to just dismiss this kind of serious research, on which this information is based, as coming from crackpots, haters, deniers, antisemites, neo-Nazis, etc. Imagine, we have reached a situation in the world where legal constraints enforce 'Holocaust' belief. Prof Lipstadt is the Grand Inquisitor coming to Australia to flush out all those Dissenters/Heretics who refuse to bow to the new dogma: 'Holocaust'.

I would appreciate a response from you both.


Dr Fredrick Töben







Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:34 PM
Subject: Gegen das Vergessen


In den fruehen Abendstunden des 13. Februar 1945 gegen 21:41 Uhr heulten die Sirenen der Lazarettstadt Dresden das erste mal auf. Die Bewohner der Elbmetropole machten sich zu der Zeit noch keine Sorgen, da Dresden als Stadt ohne Bewaffnung und ohne militaerischen Nutzen bekannt war und von ca. 1,2 Millionen Frauen, Kindern und Greisen bewohnt wurde.

Gegen 22:09 Uhr gab der Rundfunk durch, daß die alliierten Bomberverbaende ihren Kurs geaendert haben und nun auf Dresden zufliegen. Kurz darauf befanden sich 244 britische Bomber am Himmel der deutschen Kulturstadt. Drei Stunden nach dieser ersten Angriffswelle - es befanden sich bereits alle verfuegbaren Rettungsmannschaften, Sanitaeter und Feuerwehmaenner in Dresden - verdunkelten weitere 500 Bomber den Himmel.

Am naechsten Tag folgte die letzte Angriffswelle mit erneut 300 US-B-17-Bombern. Zwischen 12:12 Uhr und 12:21 Uhr warfen diese 783 Tonnen Bomben ab. - Das entspricht mehr als 85 Tonnen pro Minute. Nach dem Abwerfen setzten die US-Bomber zum Tiefflug an und beschossen Fluechtende mit ihren Bordwaffen. In diesen drei Angriffsschlaegen, die insgesamt 14 Stunden andauerten, warfen die "Befreier" 650.000 Brandbomben und 200.000 Sprengbomben ab, welche einen Feuersturm von ueber 1000 Grad in der Stadt erzeugten. Obwohl Dresden weder Flugabwehr, noch Ruestungsindustrie oder aehnliche kriegswichtige Ziele besass wurden weit mehr als 350.000 unschuldige deutsche Zivilisten in diesen zwei Tagen kaltbluetig ermordet.

Keiner der schuldigen Alliierten wurde jemals fuer dieses brutale Kriegsverbrechen auch nur angeklagt und die Massenmedien und die bundesdeutsche Regierung schweigen diese Taten tot und sehen es nicht als noetig an den Opfern zu gedenken.!





From: Joe
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Professor Lipstadt coming to Australia



What I don't understand is why you would publicize anything Ms. Lipstadt has to say. She all but impoverished Mr. David Irving when he foolishly pursued a suit against her.
Incidentally the casualties of Dresden were over 600,00 this was according to Generals Keitel and Jodel who were in a position to know. It took six months to bury the dead.
In my opinion there really isn't much point anymore in arguing about the Holocaust. Many people are fed up with the constant whining from the Hebrews as well as the deniers and many do observe how the Jews treat the Palestinians. Further as the conditions in the middle east continue to deteriorate a lot of folks are putting two and two together and drawing appropriate conclusions regarding Israel's role in that fiasco as well as coming events.
In point of fact a lot more energy should be devoted to the problems besetting today's world because the loony western leaders are leading our world into another big war and Armageddon for our human race.


Fredrick Töben responds: Publicity campaign for her entry into the Australian debate!



From: Gerry Frederics
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Geraldine and Kathy und Fritjof Meyer


What is wrong with this stuff is that they all mention ''gassed'', thereby playing right into the hands of Der Ewige Jude.


Whenever ''gassed'' is mentioned it should be qualified by ''allegedly'', or it should be mentioned that no autopsy and no gas chamber has ever been found.


I think we all should get into the habit of starting AND ending any discussion of the subject thusly, ''Australian/Jewish propagandist Sefton Delmer stated AFTER the war that anti/German horror propaganda must be increased forever, for it like a fine British lawn which needs to be nurtured, LEST THE WEED OF HISTORICAL TRUTH could grow again.''


Another thing, the official Owshits death figures of the International Red Cross amount to around 70,000 and NONE from any --gassings--, but all from disease and starvation.







From: Ardeshir Mehta 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Geraldine and Kathy und Fritjof Meyer


But HOW were they gassed? Even ONE person gassed would prove Faurisson wrong, wouldn't it?




From: Peter Wakefield Sault
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: Professor Lipstadt coming to Australia


Lipstadt states quite clearly - not that I trust her figures - that killing only the 25,000 people she claims died as a result of Allied bombing in Dresden, instead of the 250,000 she says Irving claims, means that the bombing of Dresden was not a war crime.


"... the number of dead was about 25,000, which is nothing", "...WHICH IS NOTHING"!!!


Now we see the true character of Lipstadt. That statement should be written across the heavens for all to see. In fact I may even put it on my website.

As for her figure of 25,000 for Dresden - I do believe she is engaging in genuine 'Holocaust Denial'. Why don't you bill her as such?


It's there in black and white, is it not?





Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Geraldine and Kathy und Fritjof Meyer


"Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht
und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht."

Es sei denn, daß er Jude wär.
Dann kann er millionenfach lügen
Man glaubt ihm desto umso mehr.
und läßt sich gern von ihm betrügen

Gegen Dummheit kämpfen selbst die Götter vergebens
(Friedrich Schiller)




From: Geoff Muirden



Now see what the Talmud actually teaches, and The Talmud Unmasked






May 18, 2005

  The Wyman Institute's Petition to C-SPAN

Below is the text of the petition sent by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies to C-SPAN on March 17, 2005 and March 24, 2005, followed by the complete list of 635 signatories.

Connie Doebele, Executive Producer
Book TV

Dear Ms. Doebele:

As historians and social scientists, we strongly oppose your reported decision to broadcast a lecture by Holocaust-denier David Irving, to "balance" your intended broadcast of a lecture by Holocaust historian Prof. Deborah Lipstadt.

We support Prof. Lipstadt's refusal to participate in this project.  Falsifiers of history cannot "balance" historians.  Falsehoods cannot "balance" the truth.   Justice Charles Gray of the British Royal High Court of Justice, in his verdict on April 11, 2000 dismissing Irving's libel suit against Prof. Lipstadt, concluded that Irving "is antisemitic and racist" and ruled: "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."

Just a few weeks ago, we concluded Black History Month.  Presumably C-SPAN did not consider broadcasting a program about Black history that would be "balanced" by a program featuring someone denying that African-Americans were enslaved.  C-SPAN should not broadcast statements that it knows to be false, nor provide a platform for falsifiers of history, whether about the Holocaust, African-American history, or any other subject.

A recent report by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies found that Holocaust-denial is a real and growing problem, and continues to be actively promoted in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere, and in some cases enjoys government sponsorship.  If C-SPAN broadcasts a lecture by David Irving, it will provide publicity and legitimacy to Holocaust-denial, which is nothing more than a mask for anti-Jewish bigotry.

We strongly urge you to cancel your planned broadcast of the Irving lecture, and to proceed with your original plan to broadcast a lecture by Prof. Lipstadt.


Prof. David S. Wyman
University of Massachusetts at Amherst (emer.)

Read on who belongs to the HOLOCAUST BELIEVERS at








Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:21 PM
Subject: Holocaust Denial -- How Jews Need to Suppress Free Speech




Holocaust Denial -- How Jews Need to Suppress Free Speech
by Mark Farrell

In Australia, as in many other countries nowadays across the globe, people are arrested for defying the Jewish propaganda concerning the Holocaust. This is because the facts show that most Jews are essentially a bunch of bald-faced liars when it comes to this topic, and they therefore need to suppress Free Speech to keep the truth from being heard.

Below this article, we see a link to part of an article about Holocaust propaganda being disseminated in Australia, followed by some comments by the good Dr. Fredrick Toben.

At one time, Dr. Toben was arrested at the behest of the Jewish propagandists who were unable to debate Dr. Toben on these issues. These Jews consequently arranged it so he was jailed for defying their totalitarian measures and propaganda.

In fact, Dr. Toben ended up spending seven months in jail for refuting with facts the massive Jewish propaganda campaign.

Nowadays, he is forbidden by law from contradicting the Jewish propaganda concerning the Holocaust.

This just goes to show that since the Jews cannot debate the facts, they have to resort to such measures, lest the truth spill out, the pity-party ends, and no one falls for their guilt-trip tricks.

Of course, if this occurred, people might not excuse the unchecked atrocities that occur in Palestine daily, where children are sometimes shot by Israeli troops.

People might not give Israel billions of dollars yearly.

People might be a little upset when they discover that their tax-dollars are being sent to Israel to fund a massive 36-foot tall wall.

People might grow a little disenfranchised when they discovered that several billion dollars of their grocery-money goes to support Jewish efforts, as illustrated by the "U" and "K" marked on most pre-packaged food products to signify the Jewish excise tax.

And people might begin to realize that Jews--such as Kaganovich, Trotsky (Bronstein), Apfelbaum, Zinoviev, Bela Kuhn, and many others--were behind the deaths of 65 million Russians in the former Soviet Union during peace-time. And this is why the Germans incarcerated them in first place, when they tried to spread the Communist menace there.

We couldn't have that happen--people realizing what has occurred and is still occurring to this day--could we? After all, if that happened, the rest of the world might not hate America for being Israel's mistress, doing the bidding of the Israeli-first plutocrats who essentially dictate America's foreign policy decisions.

Read about the debate:




From: Peter Kirsch
To: Adelaide Institute
Sent: May 2, 2005
Subject: Re: Holocaust Denial


 I recommend that every reader of the Adelaide Institute read a fascinating book called, in English, My Struggle. Auf deutsch, Mein Kampf, by a certain A. Hitler.

If applied to the American scene today (and the German), it regrettably shows the degeneracy of the West and the pathetic weakness of the German Bundesrepublik.

Why the hell aren't the German Volk doing anything about it?

Who ist das viertes Reich?

Peter Kirsch




From: ArtButz
Sent: May 22, 2005
Subject: after the Holocaust, we can do whatever we want


The attitude, says Gideon Levy, a columnist with the daily Haaretz, "is that we are the ultimate victim, and the only one--that after the Holocaust, we can do whatever we want."




A conqueror with the mind-set of the conquered

By Emily L. Hauser. Emily L. Hauser is an American-Israeli writer and peace activist. She lives in Oak Park


May 22, 2005

URI SAVIR, president of the Peres Center for Peace and a former member of the Israeli Knesset, once wrote that Israelis "may have been the first conquerors in history who felt themselves conquered."

Rereading this, I am reminded of something an Israeli friend said one evening: "We've raised a generation who've never been anything but conquerors," she said, reflecting on her three sons, all of whom served in the military, "and taught them they've never been anything but victims."

These comments seem to point to the very core of our relationship with the Palestinians and the intifada.

Have Israelis been victims? Without question. Every bloody body lying on an Israeli sidewalk testifies to the fact that Israelis have too often fallen to heart-rending violence.

Beyond that, however, our national narrative posits the Jewish state's suffering as the continuation of a history of persecution. Education Minister Limor Livnat doesn't equivocate: "For Israelis, and for Jews everywhere, the awareness of the Holocaust is part and parcel of our very identity," she wrote this March in Forward, America's leading Jewish publication. "As such, in our worldview it's a clear line that unifies the ancient Persian tyrants who sought our destruction . . . to the murderous Nazis who practiced genocide against us, to the current Islamic suicide bombers who have devastated our Israeli cities."

But have Israelis also been conquerors?

Yes. As Israeli revisionist historians such as Benny Morris and Tom Segev have documented, we have been in the conquering business since before we were, in fact, Israel.

From the earliest stages of Zionism on, Jewish and then Israeli authorities have consistently worked to remove Palestinians from their land. Around the time of statehood, this occasionally took the form of loading whole villages onto trucks and dumping the residents across the nearest border.

Today, we call that ethnic cleansing--and it's been documented that the state's founders understood it was best to speak about it only rarely on record. Indeed, when the English mandatory power proposed a population transfer in 1937, there was general agreement that the notion be presented as entirely British. In 1948, though, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, made his feelings very clear: "The Arabs of Eretz Yisrael have one role left--to flee."

Here's the thing--I don't find that shocking.

I would even venture this inflammatory guess: If the Palestinians had been the ones with British backing and a strong, international organization, they might well have done the same.

We were two small peoples locked in vicious battle over the same tiny piece of land, each convinced that the other had no claim. That's nationalism, and it's not pretty.

Bottom line, though, the Israelis won. We are the conquerors. The victims on our side have jet fighters to avenge their deaths; on the other side, they have more victims and not a single jet. To return to Livnat's writing, the only cities that have actually been "devastated" during this intifada--"ravaged," in the words of a recent Newsweek report--are Palestinian.

Yet our narrative leaves little room for this.

The attitude, says Gideon Levy, a columnist with the daily Haaretz, "is that we are the ultimate victim, and the only one--that after the Holocaust, we can do whatever we want."

Amira Hass, also with Haaretz, described the paradox in her book "Drinking the Sea at Gaza": "Israel's misreading of Palestinian intentions is rooted in its own illusions, in Israeli society's skewed grasp of reality whereby it fails to recognize its clear superiority in every sphere."

"Inherited and manipulated fear, the perception of oneself as the perennial victim, and the primordial Jewish dread of the gentile are projected on [the Palestinians]. . . . In this light, all Palestinian behavior is explained in terms of past Jewish experience."

To Stephen Worchel, a University of Hawaii psychologist specializing in ethnic conflict, this isn't surprising.

"History, both Jewish and Palestinian, justifies the fear of the other group and efforts to destroy the other group," he says. Group memory provides our link to a communal heritage, he says, and "these links give us place, identity and justification. So history, or better, the interpretation of history, plays a vital role in human/group behavior."

The fact that there have been Israeli victims does not undo our history as conquerors. Sometimes, almost in spite of ourselves, we seem to understand this. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak once announced that if he were living in a refugee camp, he, too, would be throwing rocks; current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--hardly a dove--has admitted that what Israel long called an "administration" is in fact an occupation.

Many Israelis have long fought for the recognition of this truth--look at Rami Elhanan, whose daughter, Smadar, was murdered by terrorists more than seven years ago. She was 14. Elhanan is a longtime member of the Parents Circle, a group of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who have all lost family members to the violence.

"Every innocent victim from both sides is a victim of the occupation," he wrote from Israel in an e-mail exchange.
"You can't ignore history," Worchel says, "but you can share interpretations. The conditions to achieve co-existence [are present] . . . but because neither side is secure in its identity and its existence, this end is difficult to achieve."

To my mind, hope lies in seeing both pieces of our identity. Israelis and Palestinians alike must certainly mourn our victims, but we must not allow their blood to blind us to the role we play in their deaths. Let us share our interpretations of history. Otherwise, I fear we will do nothing but repeat it.,0,136599.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune



Interview with Professor Norman Finkelstein


Broadcast: July 25, 2000

Professor Finkelstein is the author of a new book The Holocaust Industry which is causing angst and anger among Jews worldwide. Jennifer
Byrne caught up with him in London.


Read on


Welcome to the  website of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)      

Racist Violence in 15 EU Member States.

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) today released a report that highlights the extent and nature of racist violence in 15 EU Member States. The report warns that under-recording of racist incidents in many EU countries could hamper effective policy responses to racist violence against cultural, religious or ethnic minorities.  The report’s central conclusion is that official data collection on racist violence in many EU countries is non-existent or requires further development. The EUMC has critically assessed data collection mechanisms and practices in 15 EU Member States. It finds that only few Member States maintain a comprehensive system that adequately reveals the extent and nature of racist violence in their society. In most EU Member States, attacks on ethnic or religious minorities and non-nationals are not specifically recorded as racially motivated (or aggravated) offences, and therefore are not published through official crime statistics.

The report is available on-line [more information ]

The comparative reports are based on [analytical reports ] provided by the National Focal Points

On the invitation of the European Parliament's Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup, the EUMC will present key findings and conclusions of the report to MEPs in Strasbourg on 14 April.

Annual Report 2003/2004

- Racism and Xenophobia in the EU Member States - Trends, developments and good practice.

In this Report, the EUMC, concludes that the education system in EU states is still failing migrant and minority pupils and racism against the Roma community continues. The Report also notes that initiatives are taking place to identify and address problems, but a lot more needs to be done. The Report highlights that migrant and minority ethnic groups are over-represented in educational establishments with lower academic demands, have higher drop out rates, lower school completion rates, sometimes even facing segregation into 'special needs schools'

[more information <> ]


The primary task of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is to provide the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information and data on racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the European level in order to help the EU and its Member States to establish measures or formulate courses actions against racism and xenophobia.

On the basis of the data collected, the EUMC studies the extent and development of the phenomena and manifestations of racism and xenophobia, and analyses their causes, consequences and effects. It is also the task of the EUMC to work out strategies to combat racism and xenophobia and to highlight and disseminate examples of good practice regarding the integration of migrants and ethnic and religious minority groups in the EU Member States."Working Towards the Same Objectives" - UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism visits EUMC

Another liar confesses to fabricating a drama about 'Holocaust'!

Spanier erfand KZ Drama 12. Mai 2005

Enrico Marco

Mauthausen-Vergangenheit war falsch - "Ich log, damit man mir zuhörte"

Barcelona (SN, dpa). Enric Marco war das prominenteste spanische Opfer des deutschen NS- Regimes gewesen. Er war der Präsident des "Freundeskreises Mauthausen" und hatte in Hunderten von Vorträgen über sein Leben im Konzentrationslager Flossenbürg berichtet. Seit Mittwoch steht fest: Alles war eine Lüge.

Der 84-Jährige aus Barcelona sollte am vergangenen Wochenende in Österreich als Mitglied der spanischen Delegation an den Feiern zum 60. Jahrestag der Befreiung des KZ Mauthausens teilnehmen und eine Rede halten. Sein Auftritt war von Österreichs Innenministerin Liese Prokop auch angekündigt worden. Aber kurz vorher war bekannt geworden, dass Historiker in den Archiven von Flossenbürg nach seinem Namen gesucht, aber nichts gefunden hatten.

Der Freundeskreis beorderte seinen Präsidenten noch vor den Feiern aus Österreich nach Spanien zurück und setzte ihn ab. Jesús Ruiz, Schatzmeister der Organisation, reagierte erschüttert: "Das Schicksal der Deportierten ist viel wichtiger als die Lügengeschichte eines Mannes. Aber es ist natürlich klar, dass der Betrug unserer Sache enormen Schaden zufügen kann."

Marco hatte behauptet, nach dem Ende des spanischen Bürgerkriegs (1936-1939) nach Frankreich gegangen und sich dem Widerstand gegen die deutsche Besatzung angeschlossen zu haben. Er sei nach Flossenbürg deportiert worden.

Er gab eine Autobiografie heraus und erhielt einen Orden. Jetzt gab Marco zu, dass er weder der Résistance angehört hatte noch im KZ gewesen war. "Ich habe gelogen, weil die Leute mir so eher Gehör schenkten", sagt er. In Wirklichkeit sei er 1941 zu einem Arbeitseinsatz nach Deutschland gereist und 1943 nach Spanien zurückgekehrt.

Das deutsche Nazi-Regime hatte mehr als 10.000 Spanier deportiert und in KZ gesperrt. Nach der Befreiung kehrten die spanischen Überlebenden nach Frankreich zurück und erhielten dort Ausweise. Marco besitzt keine französischen Dokumente. "Er konnte uns leicht betrügen, weil wir ihn nie nach seinen Papieren gefragt haben", sagte Rosa Toran, neue Präsidentin des "Freundeskreises Mauthausen".

Perpetrators of 9/11 (US scam) continue work in Iraq, then blame Iraqis for it!

Only Israel would benefit if Iraq fractures into Suni/Shiite/Kurd entities.

Only Israel benefited when clean and beautiful Lebanon was ripped apart.

Lebanon's beauty and prosperity shamed the ugly and parasitic state of Israel.

From: John Kaminski
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:23 AM
Subject: Sick strategies for senseless slaughter


Sick strategies for senseless slaughter

The murderous fools are not trying to end the war; they're trying to keep it going as long as they can

By John Kaminski

The cat is out of the bag now.

It happened quite by accident, as most revelations do. And it is seen by most of the world as the most revolting of the American/Israeli atrocities in the past few years, although it's hard to prioritize that claim because of the level and frequency of barbaric acts that are committed on a regular basis by those affluent automatons who call themselves the good guys.

Yet everyone but the comatose American populace — blinded by its Orwellian media and stupefied by its demented diet of physical and mental poisons — can see it.

So permit me to spell it out for those cowardly people who say they're living in the freest country on Earth, but absolutely refuse in their silent ignorance to see the blood they're spilling. No country that condones deliberate torture for any reason can ever be trusted.

The first hint came in Imad Khadduri's "A warning to car drivers" written in Arabic and posted on on May 11. The dispatch was quickly picked up by two of the most realistic and reliable news sites on the Web,, which I try to read every day, and, which I try to read every week, since it offers less breaking and more analytical news. I consider these two sites essential to keeping up with the real news of the world, and highly recommend that you monitor them, too.

Khadduri recounted a scam that opens up a clear window to seeing who is perpetrating all this inexplicable violence in Iraq. Beyond the American attempt to pacify an outraged and abused nation through demonic destruction, and beyond the Iraqi attempt to resist this totalitarian takeover by a foreign conqueror, there are more than numerous acts of violence that simply can't be understood by straightforward explanations.

I mean, when a mosque blows up and Americans blame Islamic terrorists, whether Sunni or Shiite, it makes no sense. Muslims never blow up their own houses of worship. Or when reporters sympathetic to either the Iraqi cause of freedom, or even just general principles of international justice, are suddenly assassinated and the blame is placed on often imaginary Islamic extremists whose perspective is supported by these writers, how can anyone believe that Muslims did it, even thought this is what the Zionist American press and government continue to insist.

So who’s doing all these demented deeds? As if we didn’t know ....

Khadduri’s report went like this:

“A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license. The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car. He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour. At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him: ‘OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs. Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license. At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed, who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work”.

The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated “hideous attack by foreign elements”.

The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver’s license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives."

If this were the only example of this type I heard, I might have let it pass as just a story. But it wasn’t.

There was also the sorry tale of the Iraqi man who saw American soldiers plant a bomb which shortly thereafter exploded, and when he said so out loud for all to hear, he was hauled away, never to be seen again.

This story was reported on arguably the most authentic and riveting source of news from Iraq, the heart-rending "Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog from Iraq," which is compiled by someone known only as Riverbend or Iraqi Girl Again, recommended reading.

She recounts, "the last two weeks have been violent ....

The number of explosions in Baghdad alone is frightening. There have also been several assassinations — bodies being found here and there. It's somewhat disturbing to know that corpses are turning up in the most unexpected places. Many people will tell you it's not wise to eat river fish anymore because they have been nourished on the human remains being dumped into the river. That thought alone has given me more than one sleepless night. It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard.

The latest corpses were those of some Sunni and Shia clerics — several of them well-known. People are being patient and there is a general consensus that these killings are being done to provoke civil war. Also worrisome is the fact that we are hearing of people being rounded up by security forces (Iraqi) and then being found dead days later — apparently when the new Iraqi government recently decided to reinstate the death penalty, they had something else in mind.

But back to the explosions. One of the larger blasts was in an area called Ma'moun, which is a middle class area located in west Baghdad. It’s a relatively calm residential area with shops that provide the basics and a bit more. It happened in the morning, as the shops were opening up for their daily business and it occurred right in front of a butcher’s shop. Immediately after, we heard that a man living in a house in front of the blast site was hauled off by the Americans because it was said that after the bomb went off, he sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman.

I didn’t think much about the story — nothing about it stood out: an explosion and a sniper — hardly an anomaly. The interesting news started circulating a couple of days later. People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.

The bombs are mysterious. Some of them explode in the midst of National Guard and near American troops or Iraqi Police and others explode near mosques, churches, and shops or in the middle of sougs. One thing that surprises us about the news reports of these bombs is that they are inevitably linked to suicide bombers. The reality is that some of these bombs are not suicide bombs — they are car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs. All we know is that the techniques differ and apparently so do the intentions. Some will tell you they are resistance. Some say Chalabi and his thugs are responsible for a number of them. Others blame Iran and the SCIRI militia Badir.

In any case, they are terrifying. If you're close enough, the first sound is a that of an earsplitting blast and the sounds that follow are of a rain of glass, shrapnel and other sharp things. Then the wails begin — the shrill mechanical wails of an occasional ambulance combined with the wail of car alarms from neighboring vehicles… and finally the wail of people trying to sort out their dead and dying from the debris.

Then there was this one.

On May 13, 2005, a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. An American soldier climbed on the back of the pickup truck, followed by another a few minutes later, and thoroughly inspected the tomato filled plastic containers for about 10 minutes. Haj Haidar and his grandson were then allowed to proceed to Baghdad.

A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers. The Haj immediately slammed on the brakes and stopped the car at the side of the road, at a relatively far distance from the check point. He found a time bomb with the clock ticking tucked among his tomatoes. He immediately recognized it, as he was an ex-army soldier. Panicking, he grabbed his grandson and ran away from the car. Then, realizing that the car was his only means of work, he went back, took the bomb and carried it in fear. He threw it in a deep ditch by the side of the road that was dug by Iraqi soldiers in preparation for the war, two years ago.

Upon returning from Baghdad, he found out that the bomb had indeed exploded, killing three sheep and injuring their shepherd in his head. He thanked God for giving him the courage to go back and remove the bomb, and for the luck in that the American soldiers did not notice his sudden stop at a distance and his getting rid of the bomb.

"They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the 'terrorists', or 'insurgents' or who call themselves the 'Resistance'.

I decided to expose them and asked your reporter to take me to Baghdad to tell you the story. They are to be exposed as they now want to sow strife in Iraq and taint the Resistance after failing to defeat it militarily.
Do not forget to mention my name. I fear nobody but God, as I am a follower of Muqtada al-Sadir."

The background and admission of guilt for such satanic shenanigans was clearly outlined in Frank Morales' piece on "The Provocateur State: Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi 'Insurgents' — and Global Terrorism," by Frank Morales clearly demonstrates how Donald Rumsfeld said he was going to do exactly what these three sorry episodes show he actually did.

Morales writes:

Back in 2002, following the trauma of 9-11, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that? Perhaps because these attacks would be instigated on the order of the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing Oct. 27, 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" network that would "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception," to stir the pot of spiraling global violence.

We never got the full story on those ghastly beheadings of Nick Berg and others. Nor have we ever understood who killed the American mercenaries in Fallujah that eventually precipitated one of the great slaughters in history. Nor have we ever been able to discern if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is actually a real person or just another bin Ladenesque boogeyman. Nor if the al-Qaeda website which claims responsibility for various atrocities is not really run by the CIA.

Provoking this type of violence also further conceals the sinister genocide the Israelis continue to perpetrate on the hapless Palestinians, which is exactly its point, as is the entire Iraq invasion and destruction, and as was the inside job mass murder on 9/11 in New York City. The purpose of all these despicable acts is to conceal what the Israelis and the Americans have been doing all along to the entire Arab world, namely enslaving and destroying it.

There is not now nor ever was an Arab terror threat. That was all invented by Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Bush, Cheney, Sharon, Zakheim, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and Warren Buffett. These people are all traitors to not only their countries but to humanity in general, and should all be slammed and RICOed into Guantanamo immediately.

And so should the government officials, media lackeys, and ordinary citizens who, by their complicity or their ignorance, support them.

The main point in understanding these deliberate provocations to prevent peace is to understand how the American capitalist system, now hijacked by billionaires with no trace of conscience, thrives on war and profits from the misery of others.

The neocon murder menace has been for months ratcheting up the hyperbole about why we need to invade Iran — which some predict will happen in June — and just this week, rumors of troop movements in the Caribbean and lockdowns at Florida military bases appear to augur an imminent invasion of oil-producing Venezuela.

The overall plan is to create hell on Earth, and we are succeeding. By our silent complicity and cowardly reluctance to oppose and stop this homicidal behavior in the name of profit, we are all accessories to mass murder and the destruction of human society, not to even mention the extinction of individual human freedom and the God-given right to be safe and secure in the homes of our choice.

So now that you know, what are you going to do about it? You know if you do nothing, these same things will one day happen to you.

John Kaminski is a writer whose Internet essays are seen on hundreds of websites around the world. These stories have been compiled into two anthologies, “America’s Autopsy Report” and “The Perfect Enemy.” In addition, he has written “The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn’t Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001,” a booklet written for those who still believe the government’s cynical lies about that tragic day. All three books are available at


Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:46 AM
Subject: Prof. Dershowitz answers the open question submitted by


Dear Prof. Dershowitz:

A sick man! Don't you think Prof. Dershowitz?

"Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the Jews - reminds us who we are." --Jay Lefkowitz (NYT Magazine. Feb.12, 1995. Page 65).

Jay Lefkowitz is now Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

Please respond.
Thank you.

Michael Santomauro


May 24, 2005


Jay Lefkowitz is a great man and a great Jew, though I don't always agree with all of his views (or those of anyone else, except my mother).

-Alan Dershowitz


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute