28 February 2008 Hearing
Notice of Motion for 28 February 2008 FCA Hearing
Amended Notice of Motion for 28 February 2008 Hearing
Written Submission for 28 February 2008 FCA Hearing
The following statement by Dr Fredrick Töben is submitted for clarification purposes to His Honour, Justice M Moore, presiding judge at the Federal Court of Australia hearing of 28 February 2008. A copy has been sent to the Applicant’s solicitor, Mr Steven Lewis.
If one follows the argument presented by the Applicant, Mr Jeremy Jones since he
initiated action against me in 1996, it seems that I am intentionally
contravening a court order, that I am criminally motivated in my publishing
enterprise on the Internet and that I need to be severely punished and
imprisoned. This assumption gave rise to Jeremy Jones requesting on 5 December
2006 that the court have me arrested and imprisoned – what an impertinence!
Such impertinence also aims to use as a proxy the Australian court system so
that any legal consequences flowing my way can then be published world-wide in
the Jewish press, et al, as having been authored by me because I have not obeyed
Australian law. This is the old trick of blaming the victim of legal persecution
because the claim will be that like any other Australian citizen Dr Töben is
duty-bound to follow the law. Such interpretation of legal persecution enables
the perpetrator to deflect attention from the fact that this whole matter is
specifically a Jewish matter of vengeance against those who refuse to believe,
without first asking basic questions of fact, in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah.
brief review of the development of this current action will illustrate that I
have attempted to stay within the limits of the law when publishing material on
Adelaide Institute’s Internet website.
This present action began on 5 December 2006, i.e. four years after the Federal
Court of Australia-FCA Court Order was made on 17 September 2002. Throughout
this time until I was informed of the 5 December 2006 legal action I was under
the impression that I was safely negotiating my way through the Court Order.
A similar embryonic episode to the current court action occurred in 2004 when on
5 March 2004 The Australian Jewish News ran
an item headed: ‘Is Toben at it again?’ Therein the Applicant, Jeremy Jones,
indicated that some of the material on Adelaide Institute’s website may have
been in breach of the Court Order. This was a few weeks before the planned April
2004 Sacramento Revisionist Conference, a conference that ultimately failed when
the Deutsche Turnverein club in Sacramento, California, yielded to Jewish
pressure and cancelled the venue.
article, below, quotes then ‘foreign minister’ of Australian Jewry, Mr
Jeremy Jones, thus:
are considering all options. There is material on the website which merits
serious investigation.” Jeremy Jones, President, Executive Council of
For more see Annexure 1 below.
27 November 2006 a process server attempted to serve legal papers on me at my
Adelaide home but I had left early for Iran and thereby escaped the machinations
set up by Jeremy Jones.
It is clear that the initiated legal action set down for 5 December 2006 aimed
to prevent me from attending the 11-12 December 2006 Teheran Holocaust
Conference. I say this because of my unjustified temporary detention at
Melbourne Airport on 13 November 2006 about half an hour before my overseas
flight was to depart.
This current legal action is thus an abuse of legal process. But not only.
This is a political matter
– Applicant Jeremy Jones, as former President of the Executive Council of
Australian Jewry - ECAJ, was then regarded as the foreign minister of
Australia’s Jewish Community, and he and his pressure group for a long time
have been ruthlessly persecuting those who refuse to bend to their pressure,
those who refuse to believe in their version of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah.
Jeremy Jones’ hounding and defaming of Mr John Bennett – see Amended Notice
of Motion, Annexure 3.
Jewish intimidation/blackmail of public figures as exemplified by Alan Goldberg,
QC, now Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, writing to former SA Minister
of Education, Mrs Joyce Steele – see ANM, Annexure 2.
Currently – Mr Anthony Grigor-Scott before the FCA.
A few years ago, Mrs Olga Scully, who declared herself bankrupt before the FCA
$130,000 court costs was awarded against her.
Abuse of legal process
– the aim of any action beginning before the HREOC is to settle disputes, to
clarify the problems and not to eliminate/destroy an individual’s livelihood.
When in 1996 Jeremy Jones lodged his complaint with the HREOC in refused to
conciliate and gleefully rushed into the legal system thereby revealing his
intention to get the matter legally resolved. At the time a HREOC member stated
to me that this is all politics.
the 5 December 2007 action the
Applicant sought imprisonment, and now threatens court-ordered financial ruin.
is using the FCA as a proxy. The Applicant – as is his usual practice of
deflecting from his seeking the legendary pound of flesh – will claim he had
nothing to do with the legal persecution/financial ruin/imprisonment because it
is between the court and Töben – and Töben, it will be claimed, has not
obeyed Australian Law. It is because of this deception by Jeremy Jones that the
material complained of should be subjected to a hearing in open court.
By criminalizing me Jeremy Jones has run true to form by doing what he began in
1996 – he will not discuss but he will gossip and defame me in the media, then
persecute me because he knows full well that I lack the financial means to
silence him by activating a defamation writ
against him, as was the practice of Australia’s richest man, the late Kerry
Packer, whenever anyone defamed him.
That a Revisionist also shies away from taking legal action against anyone is
taken for granted because legal battles can only hinder free expression and not
solve historical disagreements of interpretation. Where historical events are
legally protected and dissenters are ruthlessly criminalized, as in matters
Holocaust-Shoah in Austria, France and Germany, and the Armenian Holocaust in
Turkey, then research is non-existent because the subject matter becomes a
Jeremy Jones also feigns innocence, hurt feelings and plays the victim to the
full in order to have his way in any battle-of-the-wills situation. He knows
full well that he is defending a gigantic hoax, a massive lie that is perverting
our understanding of world events, i.e. that an open debate about this
Holocaust-Shoah topic would bring crashing down the numerous lies, for example,
that Germans ‘gassed’ Jews during World War Two, and that Germans had an
‘extermination program’. What motivates Jeremy Jones to set into legal
concrete such lies within Australia’s legal system is beyond my comprehension
because I shy away from attributing to him being ignorant of the true facts that
are covered up by those lies. Jones is clearly following the overseas pattern of
legal persecution used on Revisionist scholars. To date no-one has shown or
drawn a homicidal gas chamber.
The latest book about gassings at Auschwitz appeared in December 2007 in German
by Italian Revisionist, Carlo Mattogno: Auschwitz:
Die Erste Vergasung. Gerüchte und Wirklichkeit – Auschwitz: The First Gassing. Rumour or Reality. CHP. ISBN:
978-0-9557 162-1-8. See Annexure 2 below. Therein renowned Auschwitz scholar,
Italian Carlo Mattogno, clearly sets out how the genesis of the Auschwitz
gassing story began in October 1941 as part of a general horror propaganda
campaign against Germany. In 1946 the Polish judge, Jan Sehn, gave it legal
status when he attempted to synchronise the various contradictory eye witness
stories, adding numbers killed and method of gassing – but still without any
definitive dating. Then in 1959 the propagandist at the Auschwitz Museum, Danuta
Czech, used Sehn’s material and added an arbitrary date, and thus the ‘the
first human gassing’ story had become ‘history’. Mattogno delves into this
process and reveals how the gassing story lie originated. We saw similar mental
patterns emerge after the 9/11 tragedy when the US government developed the
official conspiracy theory, which attempted to suggest that a group of Arabic
terrorists perpetrated the acts of flying planes into buildings that then defied
well-known laws of physics to implode into a heap of rubble. To me the Pentagon
plane crash is the most amusing and absurd claim because the Pentagon lawn was
left untouched, unscratched and totally without damage. I want some of that lawn
for my dried up lawn in Adelaide because if it can withstand such an accident
without damage, it would survive anything.
The Consent Orders
– should be declared invalid because of deception/ legal ambush.
I received an email copy of the draft consent Orders at 7pm and signed the
Consent Orders at the Adelaide FCA the next day around 9am. Compare this with
the recent Australian Government Apology to the Stolen Generation – it took a
week to formulate the apology offered to Australian Aboriginals.
I had no input into the formulation of the Consent Order – and relied on my
My barrister failed to alert me to the fact that one item marked for deletion on
Adelaide Institute’s Internet website was a link to an item on another
website. It was never the subject of the apology, and so I did not delete it –
and now seek clarification from the FCA.
Apology was directed at one item only under ‘C’ of the 17 September 2002 FCA
Orders – and then it was for containing some crude expressions, which I have
no problem with in deleting. My barrister knew that I would never apologise for
publishing material that I consider to be factual/truthful.
Material that I publish reflects and canvases a broad world view of contentious
issues, on matters historical and current affairs.
I have no problems when individuals advise me they find material on our website
offensive and that they wish it to be removed – it happens at irregular
intervals when individuals raise an issue with me.
However, Jeremy Jones
refused to discuss matters with me – and from the beginning has pressed hard
for legal action. When he lodged the initial complaint in 1996 before the HREOC,
he refused to attend any conciliation meeting.
have deleted all the material mentioned in the Consent Orders bar the link from
The Applicant, Jeremy Jones, has spared no costs at initiating legal persecution
against me. It clearly follows a similar pattern initiated world-wide against
those who refuse to believe in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah, for example H-G Kögel,
Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz and Udo Valendy in Germany; Ernst Zündel in
Canada/USA/Germany; Germar Rudolf in USA/Germany; Wolfgang Fröhlich in Austria;
Gerd Honsik in Spain/Austria; Robert Faurisson, Vincent Renouard and Georges
Theil in France; Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium/Holland/Germany; Jürgen Graf in
Switzerland, and many more.
A matter of Injustice - the subject matter has never been aired in open court. The
Applicant has never had to prove his hurt feelings by presenting to court a
medical certificate indicating how some of the material on Adelaide
Institute’s website has caused him psychological damage.
I have participated in public meetings in Australia and overseas where the
subject matter of the Holocaust-Shoah has been discussed in open forum – see
Teheran Conference December 2006;
Inverell Forum March 2007
5.13 Forty Days Days in Teheran
I seek the court’s guidance as to what I am permitted to write and talk about
– see enclosed newsletters submitted as Annexures of the various Affidavits
submitted since January 2007.
The article, ‘Too much Holocaust’,
marked Annexure 2 below, illustrates how one-sided the current Holocaust-Shoah
discourse meanders about without questioning its basic premise and defining its
terms because it is assumed that ‘the Holocaust-Shoah happened’!
Revisionists, like all
scientific researchers, critically investigate all assumptions/premises on which
an argument has been erected. That is what moral and intellectual integrity is
In his book, Auschwitz: The First Gassing, Carlo Mattogno’s research clearly
reveals that the gassing story is built on a lie and not on facts.
1 – A. Friday, March 5, 2004
Toben to sponsor Holocaust denial conference
Gal, Australian Jewish News, March 19,
Adelaide Institute is sponsoring a conference of Holocaust deniers, revisionists
and self-styled "activists" in Sacramento, California, next month.
so-called "Major revisionist conference" has a scheduled list of
speakers which includes Dr Fredrick Toben, who heads the Adelaide Institute;
Lady Michelle (sic) Renouf, a former Miss New Zealand (sic); German Horst
Mahler; Institute for Historical Review director Mark Weber; and Canadian
Association for Free Expression director Paul Fromm, according to the conference
Council of Australian Jewry president Jeremy Jones told AJN:
a matter of showing with whom the Adelaide Institute is willing to associate.
The fact that any Australian would associate themselves with a gallery of
individuals attempting to distort history is abominable."
Toben, who was ordered by the Federal Court last July to remove any material
which denies the Holocaust from his Adelaide Institute website, has again come
under scrutiny by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Executive Council of
Australian Jewry over the contents of his website.
To be held at an undisclosed location for "security reasons", the conference is dedicated to Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, who is currently incarcerated in Canada, and "all the victims of Zionist terror, as well as freedom of speech" by organiser Walter F Mueller, according to the website.
Mueller publishes a revisionist newspaper under the innocuous title Community
News. It has included articles headed "Lies of the century – life in
Buchenwald camp" and "How Zionist Jews got America into World War
conspiracy theorist Barry Chamish was also due to address the symposium, but
reportedly withdrew due to pressure from American political commentator Daniel
European American Culture Council of Sacramento is hosting the two-day event.
The conference will receive financial assistance from the revisionist Institute
for Historical Review.
2 – Too
much Holocaust, February 18, 2008
The New York Review of Books
for February 14 2008 carries an article of more than 4,000 words by Tony Judt,
adapted from a lecture he gave in Bremen last year on being awarded the Hannah
Arendt prize. Arendt's Eichmann
in Jerusalem is a work that no serious student of the fate of
European Jewry under the Nazis can bypass, and it is therefore entirely
appropriate that Judt should centre these reflections of his - 'The
"Problem of Evil" in Postwar Europe' - on the ways in which the
Shoah or Holocaust (I use the two expressions interchangeably) is remembered and
written about today. The general tenor of what he has to say on the subject is
regrettable, however. Because Tony Judt's is a name that is respected in the
academic world and beyond, I take the space I need here to subject his essay to
a period of relative inattention in the years following the Second World War,
the Shoah was increasingly taken up from some time after the 1960s, Judt says,
until it became a universal reference point - in films, television, books,
specialist studies, memoirs, school curricula. So it remains today. Now that it
is so generally emphasized, is everything all right? Judt's immediate answer is
that he isn't sure. But by the time he has spelled out the sources of his
uncertainty, the burden of the argument has become clear and it is that he
thinks that things are not
all right. He goes through five difficulties he has with the amount of attention
now given to the Holocaust. In what follows I summarize these, recording at the
same time the difficulties I have with his difficulties.
Judt's first difficulty arises from the
fact that the way the so-called Final Solution is remembered in Western
Europe is not in harmony with the memories of the Second World War in Eastern
Europe. Why - he reports people asking there - the sensitivity to the mass
murder of the Jews? What was so distinctive about it? What about the non-Jewish
victims? And the victims, also, of Stalinism? That these other victims, whether
of Nazism or Stalinism, are worth every bit of historical and memorial attention
they get, and if this is not enough, then more attention still, is not a point I
would dispute. But beyond that, I'm puzzled why this East European perspective
should pose any difficulty for Tony Judt. For the question why people should be
so sensitive about the destruction of European Jewry is not a good one, and the
irritation behind it is not an impulse worthy of respect. These are responses
based either on ignorance or on something worse than ignorance and which Judt
himself has identified a few paragraphs earlier in his piece in talking of 'the
powerful incentive [there was] in many places to forget what had happened, to
draw a veil over the worst horrors'. These places include Eastern Europe for the
obvious reason that there were East Europeans who colluded with the persecution
of the Jews, with expropriation of Jewish property, deportation and all the rest
so much attention should be aroused by the mass murder of any very large number
of people - in this case millions, but the same would apply were it 'only' tens
of thousands - is not the kind of question that should be indulged. It is hard
to imagine Judt or any other morally serious person asking, for example, why
people should be so focused on what happened in Rwanda in 1994 when there have
been victims aplenty in other parts of Africa; or on what is happening in Darfur
now, when the people of Zimbabwe or the Congo are also suffering. To draw
attention to these other victims and to say that there isn't enough of it, where
there isn't, is perfectly proper. To ask why people should be so sensitive to
what happened in Rwanda or is happening in Darfur, or to ask what is so very
distinctive about the killing in one or other of those two places, would be
morally obtuse. Killing of this magnitude doesn't have to be distinctive to
justify anyone's attention; it just has to be what it is - the mass murder of
it is hard to fathom why Tony Judt, or we West Europeans, should consider that
we have a difficulty here. That some East Europeans have a different view from
many West Europeans isn't a compelling reason for thinking so. The difficulty is
rather theirs who frown upon the impulse of others to remember a major
historical crime. Let us defer, therefore, coming to any conclusive judgement
about the meaning of Tony Judt's first difficulty.
His second difficulty is a
historiographical one: now that 'we are encouraged to think about those
sufferings [i.e. of the Jews] all the time', there is a danger that historians,
reading the perspective of the present back into the past, may inflate the place
the Holocaust actually had at the time in the meanings, the preoccupations, the
experiences, of those who lived through the war. But if we think like this,
think that the Second World War was about
the Holocaust, we will not teach 'good history', Judt says. He's right. Again,
however, I don't see that this is a difficulty of general scope, rather than
just a necessary concern in the training of historians and history teachers. It
is practically a law of nature that in any widely populated field of human
endeavour there will be mediocre and indifferent productions alongside the
examples of excellence or merely competence. Where novelists are many, some
novels will be poor; where poetry abounds, some of it will not serve to decorate
everyone's day. Just so, if there is much written, spoken and taught about the
tragedy of European Jewry and its place in the war that was its backdrop, then
some of that will be of better quality and some of it of worse; there will be
examples of poor history. So what? The better can be relied on to make its way
in the world and outlast the not so good. Judt himself allows that in 'moral terms' (his
emphasis) it is proper that the central issue of the war should now be
Auschwitz. If on this account we get some poor history, that is simply an
inevitable product of the moral focus that is a proper one according to Judt
himself. Unless, that is, he thinks that, its moral centrality notwithstanding,
there is just too
much attention being given to the Shoah today. But we need a reason,
in that case, for thinking that this much attention is too much. And we don't
yet have it. Could it be that Judt's difficulties are not themselves reasons
supporting that conclusion but are rather inferences from the preconception
that this much attention is too much attention - so that what Judt's essay gives
us are not parts adding up to a reasoned whole, but instead an originary meaning
essential to the whole and which bathes the individual parts in its
Judt's third difficulty has to do with
the word 'evil'. I quote him at length on this:
secular society has long been uncomfortable with the idea of "evil."
We prefer more rationalistic and legal definitions of good and bad, right and
wrong, crime and punishment. But in recent years the word has crept slowly back
into moral and even political discourse... However, now that the concept of
"evil" has reentered our public language we don't know what to do with
it. We have become confused.
the one hand the Nazi extermination of the Jews is presented as a singular
crime, an evil never matched before or since, an example and a warning: "Nie
Wieder! Never again!" But on the other hand we invoke that same
("unique") evil today for many different and far from unique purposes.
In recent years politicians, historians, and journalists have used the term
"evil" to describe mass murder and genocidal outcomes everywhere: from
Cambodia to Rwanda, from Turkey to Serbia, from Bosnia to Chechnya, from the
Congo to Sudan. Hitler himself is frequently conjured up to denote the
"evil" nature and intentions of modern dictators: we are told there
are "Hitlers" everywhere, from North Korea to Iraq, from Syria to
Iran. And we are all familiar with President George W. Bush's "axis of
evil," a self-serving abuse of the term which has contributed greatly to
the cynicism it now elicits.
if Hitler, Auschwitz, and the genocide of the Jews incarnated a unique evil, why
are we constantly warned that they and their like could happen anywhere, or are
about to happen again?
Judt's concern about our becoming confused, he couldn't have given better
evidence of it than the number of his own confusions collected in these
First, while the Holocaust
doubtless plays its part in generating references to human evil, I don't think
anyone could plausibly maintain that there is a shortage of alternative sources.
From other mass atrocities of historical notoriety, through smaller-scale acts
of political murder and torture, to ghastly individual crimes in the private
sphere, the word 'evil' has plenty to keep it on the lips of humankind. Why the
Holocaust should be lumbered with special responsibility here isn't clear. The
idea, just to entertain it for a moment, that if the Holocaust hadn't happened
modern conversation would be freer of the idea of evil is merely quaint.
Second, look at the list of
items that Judt compiles to show the profligacy with which public discussion has
recourse to the word 'evil'. This list includes: Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia,
Chechnya, the Congo, Sudan, Saddam's Iraq and North Korea. God Almighty (if I
may allow myself an imprecation sustained by the beliefs of others). To speak
the word 'evil' in any of these cases doesn't seem the least bit exorbitant. Of
course, if that word exhausts your verbal or intellectual tool-kit, you won't
have much of an understanding of any of the events or political patterns that
stand behind these names. But why it should be a difficulty or a worry to anyone
that, for example, genocide is spoken of as evil, or an evil, is entirely
may be noted, in passing, while we're on the subject of naming evils, that one
name that has got in on the act here is that of George W. Bush. Talk about a
universal reference: rather like the Holocaust for evil, Bush's name has today
become the embodiment of much badness for Western liberal intellectuals, so it
is perhaps no surprise that he is now attached to showing the difficulties that
can arise from... remembering the destruction of the European Jews.
Third, Judt sees it as
problematic that the Holocaust should be considered by some as both a unique
evil and a repeatable one. He is aware that the claim that the Holocaust is
unique is controversial, because he has earlier gestured towards the view that
there is an answer to the question why the Shoah is distinctive, without saying
what that answer is. I have for my own part argued (here
at length, and here
more briefly) that there may indeed be a morally significant sense in which the
Holocaust was unique, but that if it is, this is not because of any
particularity of Jewish victimhood or suffering; it is rather to do with the
nature of the Nazi crime. However that may be, the problem Judt makes of the
idea of Holocaust singularity is only testimony to his own confusion. An event
can be at once unprecedented, and therefore unique to date, and repeatable. Even
apart from this, one can perfectly well believe both that the genocide against
the Jews had some morally singular features and that it stands as a warning for
the future - this not because of its singularity, but just as a genocide, i.e.,
because of what it shares with other genocides. That, I venture to suggest, is
what the vast majority of those who emphasize the Shoah as a warning do in fact
Fourth, as an additional sign
of the omnipresence in contemporary usage of the idea of evil, Judt goes on to
say, immediately after the passage I have quoted above:
time someone smears anti-Semitic graffiti on a synagogue wall in France we are
warned that "the unique evil" is with us once more, that it is 1938
all over again. We are losing the capacity to distinguish between the normal
sins and follies of mankind - stupidity, prejudice, opportunism, demagogy, and
fanaticism - and genuine evil.
shall come back to the theme of anti-Semitism shortly. But this verges on
argument by clowning. Anti-Semitic incidents are to be taken seriously where
they occur for a simple reason: anti-Semitism is a form of racist prejudice and
racism is a serious matter, a poison in the body politic, in the places where it
is secreted or reveals itself. But there is also a specific history of the form
of racism that is anti-Semitism, a history the final fruit of which was
Auschwitz and Treblinka. There may be some amongst those who invoke these
horrors who really do think that it is always 1938, or 1942. But most of them
don't think so - no more than people who remind us of the history of lynching in
the US think that drawing the noose
as a racist symbol in 2007 actually throws the country back to the
1890s when 'a black person was lynched almost every other day'. These are potent
historical reminders of what racism has produced and they have their place in
moral and political argument. They are not meant to equate anti-Semitic graffiti
with the gas chambers except in the minds of a few know-nothings.
Much the same may be said about Judt's
fourth difficulty - a concern he has about 'tunnel vision' or, as he also
puts this, 'invest[ing] all our emotional and moral energies into just one
problem'. What problem is that? Why, anti-Semitism. Judt writes:
like terrorism, is not
the only evil in the world and must not
be an excuse to ignore other crimes and other suffering. The danger of
abstracting "terrorism" or anti-Semitism from their contexts - of
setting them upon a pedestal as the greatest threat to Western civilization, or
democracy, or "our way of life," and targeting their exponents for an
indefinite war - is that we shall overlook the many other challenges of the age.
leave aside terrorism; that is not my topic here. But the suspicion I voiced
earlier about Judt's not working from (good) reasons to a conclusion, but rather
from a founding preconception towards confecting some (bad) reasons, is really
confirmed by these remarkable statements. I don't know what audience or set of
interlocutors he has imagined for himself, but if there are people who believe
that anti-Semitism is the only evil in the world and the greatest threat to
Western civilization, I doubt there would have been many of them listening to
his lecture on Hannah Arendt, I doubt there are many (relatively speaking) in
the world at large, and a man of Judt's intellectual capacities and reputation
could do with addressing himself to listeners of a higher calibre than he has
fashioned with this fourth difficulty of his.
Judt's final difficulty, as it had to be
in view of what has gone before, is the relation of the Holocaust to arguments
about Israel and the Palestinians.
has several components, some of which have already been foreshadowed in what has
gone before. (a) Judt deplores the way the Holocaust is invoked to deflect
criticism of Israel by the suggestion that such criticism is a stimulus to
anti-Semitism or just is anti-Semitism without further ado. (b) In fact, the
reverse is true, he says: it is the taboo on criticism of Israel and a too
intense focus on the Holocaust that are stimulants to cynicism and
anti-Semitism. (c) Relative to other minority groups in the US and Europe, the
Jews are not especially stigmatized, threatened or excluded; they are
successful, and prominent in many spheres. (d) The Holocaust may 'lose its
universal resonance' if it is too closely attached to the defence of a single
country; as things are, if you ask outside the West, ask amongst Africans and
Asians, what lessons there are from the Shoah, the responses 'are not very
is striking about these arguments of Judt's is their unqualified, their
completely one-sided, character. It is true that the Jewish tragedy in Europe is
sometimes misused to justify or excuse Israeli policies that should not be
defended. But to say this without noting that there is also
anti-Semitic hostility to Israel, in the Arab world and in the West, some of it
perfectly overt and some of it more discreet, is to pretend that anti-Semitism
is a smaller problem than it is. To lament such misuses of the Holocaust without
mentioning the misuses in the opposite direction that equate Israel with the
spirit and the methods of the Nazis is to see with only one eye. The same goes
for writing as if the most serious sources of anti-Semitism might be arguments
used by defenders of Israel or an over-emphasis on the Shoah. Really? This is a
centuries-old hatred, and yet here we find ourselves in a situation where it is
defence of the Jewish state and memory of the genocide against the Jews that are
the stimulants of anti-Semitism; these, at any rate, are Tony Judt's sources of
does not see fit even to notice what many others have perceived as a real trend
during the last decade, a resurgence of anti-Semitism. But attacks on Jews have
been on the increase in many countries. To take only the example of Britain, you
might think it was of some significance that the Jewish community is 'forced to
provide a permanent
system of guards and surveillance for its schools, religious centres, and
then Judt reprises, with his fifth difficulty, the theme already announced with
the first of them: namely, that outside of the West awareness of the Holocaust
and responses to the question of what lessons should be drawn from it would not
reassure us. And this is our difficulty, not theirs. Why? Can you imagine
something similar transposed on to another major ethnic experience of suffering?
Being told that because, say, in Sweden or Ukraine, there wasn't much of an
awareness of, or there was a cynical disregard for, the experience of New World
slavery, this suggested we shouldn't go on making too much of the victims of
that terrible institution and the trade in human beings that went with it? I
don't think so.
A few words now in conclusion.
Is there too much about the Holocaust - too much writing, too much memorializing,
too much reference? The whole weight of what Judt has to say pushes towards the
conclusion that there is, though without his providing, as I have tried to show,
a single compelling argument for this. But my own answer to the question is: no,
there is not too much. I offer a moral and a political argument in support of
- humanly - if you were to spend an hour of every day during a lifetime
remembering, learning, lamenting, teaching what was done to the victims of the
Nazi genocide you could not encompass all the cruelty and all the pain of those
years. We do better to take note of Primo Levi's poem 'Shema':
Consider that this has been:
I commend these words to you.
Engrave them on your hearts
When you are in your house, when you walk on
When you go to bed, when you rise.
Repeat them to your children.
is true not because of what happened to those Jews, but because of
what happened to those people;
and it is therefore likewise true, exactly true, for the other millions of
victims of other genocides - in Turkey, in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Darfur,
I have argued
there is not too much attention given to the Holocaust or any other genocide,
there is too little. Think only of the energy and attention that is being given,
in the US and globally, to the American presidential election; or think of a
major sporting event like the football World Cup; and then think how it might
be, politically, if there were a planetary consciousness, a world-wide human
rights movement, so cognizant of the worst crimes of the past, not turned away
from them towards easier preoccupations, that people marched and agitated in
their tens and hundreds of thousands whenever there was a genocide in process or
threatening, demanded that the governments of the world and the institutions of
world governance would treat these situations as urgent. Can Tony Judt, or
anyone, be confident that this would not make the world a better place?
But Judt has all these difficulties with Holocaust remembrance, and he has them by way of honouring Hannah Arendt - Hannah Arendt who suggested the possibility that 'mankind in its entirety... might have been grievously hurt and endangered' by the crime of exterminating whole ethnic groups. It is hard to imagine a more unworthy tribute to her. http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/02/too-much-holoca.html
3 – Fredrick Töben’s brief review of Carlo Mattogno’s December 2007 book,
Erste Vergasung. Gerüchte und Wirklichkeit –translated from the original
Italian 1992 edition – Auschwitz: La Prima gasazione - by Henry Gardner with Günter
ISBN: 979-0-9557 162-1-8. Castle
Hill Publishers, PO Box 118, GB-Hastings TN34 3 ZQ, United Kingdom. www.ety.com/HRP.
Distribution Australia/Asia: Peace Books, PO Box 3300, Norwood – 5067,
Revisionist, Carlo Mattogno, is the world’s expert on the Auschwitz-Birkenau
concentration camp. His detailed analysis of physical and documentary evidence
enables him to answer with a definitive ‘NO!’ anyone who asserts gassings
occurred at Auschwitz. His detailed knowledge enables him, literally, to state
what size of screws were used on doors, etc.
published results have been re-published and updated in a German edition by
Castle Hill Publishers in Great Britain where, unlike in Germany, such
publishing venture is still legal.
146-page paperback contains notes on primary sources, a detailed bibliography
but no index. A number of typographical errors could have been avoided by closer
proof-reading, especially by eliminating the number of wrongly hyphenated words.
Also, it would have helped the German reader to visualize Mattogno’s argument
had the photo appendix of the 2005 English edition been included. A reference in
the Introduction states Mattogno is reflecting on 12 years since the Italian
edition was published, but that should have been 15 years, which is corrected at
the end of Mattogno’s Introduction dated ‘Rome, July 2007’.
- In the first sentence of the Introduction the author states that although new
material facts have emerged since the publishing of the 1992 Italian version
there is no need to revise the conclusions then made. Mattogno also comments on
the fact that mainstream historians have totally neglected the genesis of the
‘The consequences of
this strange inactivity on the part of official historiography is that the
bibliography on this topic is, as yet, practically non-existent. Up until 1992,
only a single article had been dedicated to this subject…’.
Mattogno then comments
on how Jean Claude Pressac in 1993 arbitrarily changes the commencement dates
and the duration of the gassings:
‘Here, I must point
out another error of J-C Pressac, which will deliver the coup de grace to his
explanation: it is not true that block 11 was unheated in December 1941. In
fact, a heating device had been installed in this building by the end of May
In the 1995 five-volume
anthology, Auschwitz 1940-1945.
Fundamental problems of the history of the camp, the director of the
Auschwitz Museum, Dr Franciszek Piper, in
his article ‘Gas chambers and crematoria’, he devotes four pages to the
The publication of the
1995 Auschwitz Death Books did not
contribute anything to the first gassing genesis.
According to Mattogno
the first gassings are treated with incredible superficiality by Robert Jan van
Pelt in his The Case for Auschwitz.
Evidence from the Irving Trial. Indiana University Press, 2002.
The main source of
information about the first gassing is still Danuta Czech’s 1959 published
German edition, Kalendarium der Ereignisse
im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The second edition,
published in 1989, adds new details that often contradict what appeared in the
1959 edition, and are based on the material produced by Polish investigative
Judge Jan Sehn in 1946.
In magnificent academic
style, and to the annoyance to the Holocaust-Shoah believers, Carlo Mattogno
demolishes any argument about homicidal gassings at Auschwitz. The Chapter
headings give an overview how it is done:
and significance of the first Gassing
Stage of the First Gassing: Block 11
Source of the First Gassing
and Comparative Source Analysis
not speaking of the First Gassing
An English edition of
Mattogno’s book has been available since September 2005: Auschwitz:
The First gassing. Rumour and Reality. Volume 20 in the HOLOCAUST Handbooks
Series – ISBN: 1-59148-025-6, and Volume 5 in the Auschwitz Studies Set –
If we add to the above
considerations the fact that in 1996 Robert-Jan van Pelt admitted in his Auschwitz: From 1270 to the
Present, there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz Stammlager,
then add to that Fritjof Meyer’s documented claim of 2002 that there were no
gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau, but that such gassings occurred in outlying
farmhouses, then it is evidently irrational to believe in the Auschwitz
homicidal gassing story. Also, there ought to be open research where
Revisionists, such as Carlo Mattogno, are free to conduct their research instead
of being legally persecuted.
4 – Solzhenitsyn breaks last Taboo of the Revolution
laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression
Paton Walsh, Moscow, The Guardian,
Saturday January 25 2003
who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to
tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career - the role of the
Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.
In his latest book
Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution:
that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims.
Two Hundred Years
- a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly
increased the Russian Jewish population - contains three chapters discussing the
Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet
But Jewish leaders and
some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned
Solzhenitsyn's motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and
of fanning the flames of anti-semitism in Russia.
Solzhenitsyn argues that
some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period "consciously or
unconsciously descends on the Russians" as being behind the genocide. But
he states that all the nation's ethnic groups must share the blame, and that
people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.
In one remark which
infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: "If I would care to generalise, and to
say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and
would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps
where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw - their life
was softer than that of others."
Yet he added: "But
it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be
blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka
[secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly
the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison
camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experiences. He is currently
in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must
come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides - and that its
Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they
are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.
"My book was
directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews
- their spiritual component," he said. "I have never made general
conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews.
One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was
trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered
prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our
Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us."
But Solzhenitsyn's book
has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was "not
of any merit. This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes," said
Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. "Richard
Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great
Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews. "This
is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but
one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory.
This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond
criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit."
But DM Thomas, one of
Solzhenitsyn's biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by
anti-semitism. "I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly
supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are
Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist
Professor Robert Service
of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from
what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was "absolutely right".
Researching a book on
Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish
origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red
army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet
civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.
"Trotsky's idea was
that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their
entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not
just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and
part-perpetrators. "It is not a question that anyone can write about
without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the
Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn's book seems
much more measured than that."
Yet others failed to see
the need for Solzhenitsyn's pursuit of this particular subject at present.
Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services
and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said: "The question of ethnicity
did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD.
This was a social
revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of
social change. "If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the
NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in
Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now."
Annexure 5 – Jewish Lawsuit against US for NOT bombing tracks to Auschwitz!
Hungarian Jews called to register for class action
Author: Anna Byström
Date: 2008.02.13. 08:00
Wolz, who describes himself as an attorney for Jewish survivors of Auschwitz and
their heirs, is appealing for Hungarian victims of the death camps and their
heirs to contacts him over a possible class action.
Witchcraft - the impossible crime
Professor Emeritus of Religion, University of Queensland
The penalty for bewitchment was one
year imprisonment. The penalty for murder by witchcraft was death. For us it is
an impossible crime. But in Elizabethan England, it was not only possible, but
common. The accused, though innocent, often confessed to having harmed and
murdered others by witchcraft. And not only did they confess to these impossible
crimes, but they elaborated their confessions into complex tales of giving their
souls - and their bodies - to the Devil, of suckling their familiar evil
spirits, and of sending demons into others to torment and vex them. Why did the
innocent confess? This was the question that I set out to answer in my book on
one of the most infamous, horrifying and celebrated cases of witchcraft
persecution and demonic possession in early modern England - The Witches of
story began on Sunday November 12, 1589. On that day, Alice Samuel paid a visit
to her next door neighbours, the Throckmortons. Their daughter Jane was ill and
Alice had come to inquire how the child was. But hardly had she arrived when the
child shouted loudly, gesticulating wildly, 'Look where the old witch sits. Did
you ever see one more like a witch than she is?' And with those words, Jane set
in motion a series of events which included the possession by demons of her and
her four sisters, the death of Lady Susan Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell's
grandmother, and the eventual appearance in court four years later of Alice
Samuel, her daughter Agnes and her husband John on charges of witchcraft and
story was of intense interest to Elizabethans. For them, it was a matter of
fact, not of fantasy. For they lived in a world which accepted as a given the
reality of sorcerers and witches, of devils and demonic possession, of ghosts
and angels. The demonic world mirrored the divine world. To me, the story is
fascinating because it embodies assumptions about the world which couldn't
possibly be true. We don't inhabit a world in which it is feasible to bewitch
others to death and send demons into children. So the appeal of the story lies
in its very 'otherness', in its powerful evocation of a world which could not
possibly be so. And to try to understand this story is to enter a realm in which
suffering and death are not the consequence of ill luck or misfortune, but
rather of powerful dark forces which lie just beneath the surface of things.
yet it is a world which, alien though it is, is familiar to us. For we, too,
know unforeseen accidents and illnesses, with inexplicable deaths, of conflict
between neighbours, of heinous accusations by children against adults and of
parents worried sick about their children's well-being. We, too, are confronted
by the inexplicable, the accidental, and the serendipitous. Apart from the hand
of God or the whims of Fate, we have no explanation. But for good, and mostly
for ill, the Elizabethan looked to the activities of witches and demons to
explain the inexplicable.
the possessed children did behave extremely. They gnashed their teeth, and
foamed at the mouth. They were violent and self destructive. They vomited
strange objects, they spoke from their stomachs in strange voices and languages.
They barked, and crowed, snorted and screamed. Their bodies were a battleground
between God and the Devil, between the forces of light and the powers of
children's accusations, the apparent power of the witches over the Devils, the
confession of Agnes Samuel - all these things pointed to the guilt of Alice and
her family. We, too, might have been persuaded by the witch's mark on the body
of Alice where she fed her demons. Were we on their jury, we too would probably
have found them guilty. For all the evidence - as evidence was then understood -
pointed to their guilt. And it cost them their lives.
and demonology no longer play a significant part in 21st century Western
culture. But the story of the Witches of Warboys should be a salutary reminder
to us to be ever wary of 'demonising' the 'other' - the marginalized, the
dissident, and the unorthodox in our midst. We, too, still need to be vigilant
in protecting that fragile tolerance which we have achieved at the cost of many
innocent lives like those of the witches of Warboys.
Philip C. Almond: The
Witches of Warboys: An extraordinary story of sorcery, sadism and satanic
Tauris, ISBN 978 1 84511 508 1. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/default.htm
Top | Home
©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute