Dr. Charles E Weber, former professor of European Languages at the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, passed away on Christmas Day 2002. A long time Revisionist, Dr Weber was also on the editorial advisory committee of The Journal of Historical Review.

Dear Reader

To date Revisionists have spent a lot of money defending free speech: We
must be guaranteed the right to be wrong, and any robust democracy defends
this right to be wrong. This is what the marketplace of ideas is all about.

Revisionists are persecuted through legal prosecution. Interestingly, it is
permitted to doubt whether the moon landings happened, but in many countries
it is illegal to doubt whether the 'Holocaust' happened.


In the past, many supporters have given generously to causes before the
courts, then found that their donations certainly brought a case into court,
but the matter was either lost or decided inconclusively. In most cases
individual careers were destroyed in the process. In rare instances, such as
Ernst Zündel at Toronto, a law was actually struck off the books.

We are hoping that the challenge we are throwing out to Australia's
Zionist-Jewish Community will transcend the normal factional in-fighting in
all spheres of social/political endeavour.

Our fight is far more fundamental than that, and it transcends any quarrel we
may have with the Zionists. They, themselves, are faced with the unspeakable
horrors that they have unleashed against the Palestinian people.

We are fighting to safeguard our humanity from an attack that attempts to
reduce our minds to slavery, as prevailed in the former Soviet Union
countries where every life's whim had to be seen through
atheistic-Marxist-materialistic eyes.

Parts of that 70+ years Soviet Union horror story is now told by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
in his latest volume '200 Years Together, a historical study of the
relationship between Russians and Jews in Russia'.

Such a horror story must never happen again - never again! Yet, our court
case is preparing the legal climate for such an event.

It is in the interest of many individuals and groups to proclaim the
'Holocaust' dogma as a new world religion, and we must resist this with all
our strength.

Not only money will help in this enterprise, but also moral support.

The issue now before the Australian court is not whether the 'Holocaust'
happened or whether Jews/Zionists can use it to hide behind and deflect
legitimate criticism of their behaviour, especially their oppressive
behaviour towards the Palestinians.

Whether you believe in the 'Holocaust' or not is now irrelevant because
there is a much larger issue at stake.

During my 1999 German imprisonment I penned the following: If you deny me my freedom to think and to speak, then you deny me my humanity, and you commit a crime against humanity. Truth is my defence.

The issue now is FREE SPEECH, and a ruling, albeit from a tribunal, in South
Africa has opened a possible avenue from which there is hope of  finding
relief from legal oppression.

After Cape Town's  Radio 786 won in the Constitutional Court, South Africa's
Jewish Community took the Moslem community radio station back to the
Broadcasting Complaints Commission, as it had done previously, but lost its
case in November 2002.

In dismissing the complaint, Commissioner Roland Sutherland wrote that "the
trivializing of the extent of the suffering [of Jews during World War II is]
doubtless perceived by many who accept the accuracy of Holocaust evidence as
churlish and insulting. Nevertheless, in my view, it is not the stuff of
which reasonable people take offence to the degree it warrants the
proscription of the expression of such views ... no attack in the broadcast
on the Jewish religion or Jews as such ... no exhortation to hatred of any
particular religious group or group of individuals."

(Read the full text of the Judgment at:
www.MoslemRadio786 )

The above decision may be significant because our case is a test case. If we
lose, then Australia's legal system will lose its Common Law tradition, and
our already limited freedom of speech will cease to exist.

Do you feel strongly enough to back this fight and put your money where your
mouth is?

Our battle is a global battle against those who thrive on enslaving the
minds. Are we going to let this happen? If we did, we would be mad.

Fredrick Töben


*Simulated terrorism attack to take place in Sydney*
ABC News 19 December 2002

There will be a major counter-terrorism exercise in Sydney today to test
authorities' preparedness to respond to a real-life attack. But the details about the incident, its exact location and timing have been kept secret.

New South Wales Premier Bob Carr and Police Commissioner Ken Moroney announced two days ago that a simulated terrorist attack would take place in Sydney today.

But little information has since been revealed about the exercise, with both men saying the nature, exact location and timing of the incident has been kept secret from them.

Led by Chief Superintendent Norm Hazzard, the exercise will be staged in the Sydney suburbs of Alexandria and Parramatta. It is believed it will run for four hours this morning and will involve up to 70 police.

Authorities say the mock attack is necessary to test government and police readiness to combat terrorism.

Mr Carr says while he knows nothing about the plan, it is of great value
to the state's sense of security. "It is a message of reassurance that in at every level we are testing
our preparedness, and I think that should be reassuring to people," he said.

*Iraq war closer as dossier rejected*

ABC News
Friday December 20, 2002

The threat of war on Iraq is one step closer with the United States and
Britain rejecting its 12,000-page weapons declaration.

The American and British response came after the United Nations' chief
weapons inspectors, Dr Hans Blix and Mohamed el Baradei, provided their
initial assessment of Iraq's declaration to a closed meeting of the UN
Security Council.

Dr Blix told the Security Council Iraq had failed to provide the
evidence that it no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction.

"An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot evidence,"
he said.

The US Secretary of State Colin Powell, says Iraq is in material breach
of the resolution.

"This declaration totally fails to meet the resolution's requirements,"
he said.

Mr Powell called for the inspections to continue and to give high
priority to questioning Iraqi scientists outside of the country.

"Iraq is obligated to make such witnesses available," he said.

Resolution 1441 calls for serious consequences if the Security Council
finds that Iraq has failed to comply.

Before United Nations weapons inspectors had even delivered their
assessment, Iraq was already rejecting the allegations it had failed to
declare all of its weapons of mass destruction.

Iraqi presidential adviser Amer Al Saadi says there is nothing new in
the declaration, because there is nothing new to report.

He says weapons inspectors have already received all the information
they need.

"We are not worried," he said. "It is the other party that is worried
because there is nothing they can pin on us."

Iraq says the US and Britain have no evidence to support their
allegations that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction.




Think on these Things

There is nothing new in the return of inspectors of so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq 

An attempt to subjugate a defeated state and population 'forever' was made with the Versailles Treaty in 1920 against Germany and its World War One allies. 

To enforce the 'de-militarisation' an Inter-Allied Military Control Commission was formed, which had the power to go anywhere, anytime in Germany to find concealed and illegal weapons. The Commission, formed out of intentionally-chosen technical experts and German-haters, soon became notorious for its chicaneries, which extended not unexpectedly into centres of industrial espionage, economical sabotage, especially in areas where the victors feared German competition. The German chemical industry was therefore its favorite target.  

In spite of extensive use of bribery and treason in finding forbidden weapons it was an almost total failure. Yet the commission continued to hang around Germany until 1927 when it was reluctantly disbanded. 

General von Seekt, chief of the Reichswehr — the German army of that time — had personally ordered and insisted on adhering to the limitations imposed upon Germany by the treaty. That patriotic officers of lower rank did not always comply was a different matter. But in principle this mattered little, for Germany was effectively disarmed, much weaker than the smallest of its aggressive neighbours, for example, Czechoslovakia. Remember, that even that 'shitty little state' of Lithuania was able to annex part of East Prussia in 1923.


This reminds us of what is now happening in Iraq.

Suring the 1920s French politicians unashamedly and without proof pulled the 'secret German armaments and hidden armies' card and, for their own vindictive ends, made unending demands for 'reparations' with which to blackmail the feeble Weimar republic.

It is worth to remember that the previous search for 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq was a failure, and when Iraq kicked out the inspectors, it was not because of their useless search, but for  espionage condoned by that infamous Australian 'diplomat' Richard Butler.

The de-militarisation Commissions for the other loser states of World War One were just as ineffective as in Germany. Austria and Hungary were bankrupt; in Bulgaria the army saw to it that the investigators were utterly frustrated and thereby accomplishing nothing, while in Turkey they never managed to start at all because Turkey refused to ratify the Treaty of Sevres.,14183,351982,00.html

Playing Toss, Israelis Force Palestinians to Choose Torture Method | December 17, 2002, 10:58 PM

"Israeli torture methods vary from breaking a right hand, a left hand, a
head, a hand and a leg, both legs, a tooth, a nose or simply a shot with a
bullet .."

By Awad el-Rajub

HEBRON - Among various torture schemes adopted by Israeli occupation forces
against Palestinians is a so-called "toss" game whereby they force
Palestinians to choose their own type of torture.

Speaking to IslamOnline Tuesday, December 17, Youssef, a 22-year-old
Palestinian, recalled that he was on his way back home to Al-Khalil
(Hebron) when he ran into four Israeli soldiers.

"They held me at gun-point, ordered me to take off my shirt and searched me
to the nose," he recalled.

"They dragged me ten meters away and told me I have to choose my own
torture through a toss by picking a paper out of eight pieces of paper put
in a
small pot," said Youssef.

"I chose one of the eight papers and it had a "hand breaking" phrase. One
of them [Israeli soldiers] grabbed me while the three others broke my right
hand with the rear of their rifles. They then beat me up until I was
unconscious and I was taken to hospital.

"I later learned from other boys how they too were forced to choose one of
the torture methods which varied from breaking a right hand, a left hand, a
head, a hand and a leg, both legs, a tooth, a nose or simply a shot with a
bullet," he asserted.

Omar, a 30-year-old Palestinian taxi driver, said he was driving with seven
passengers when four Israeli soldiers stopped him on the way, ordered them
out and searched the car.

"Although they did not find anything, they took me to a pot which had four
pieces of paper with writing varying from breaking car glass, to blowing
tires, to taking the car keys to confiscating the vehicle altogether," he

"I chose the easiest of the four tough choices and they broke the car glass
and then let me go," he asserted.

On other torture methods the Israeli forces use against Palestinian
civilians, Mohammad said he witnessed Israeli soldiers torturing
Palestinians near the
new barbed wires in downtown Al-Khalil.

"I saw them removing the teeth of Palestinian youths and hitting one child
with the rear of their rifles," said Mohammad, asserting that the
Palestinians were taken to hospital.

Rami, a 27-year-old Palestinian who was also a victim of Israeli torture,
recalls: "I was going to wok in Al-Khalil industrial zone and on the road
patrol soldiers stopped me and beat me until I couldnt stand on my feet.

"After that four soldiers stripped me and threw me into cold water of
industrial waste.

"They finally ordered me to run home without allowing me to put my clothes
on," Rami conculded.

The Palestinian Human Rights Society condemned these Israeli barbaric
aggressions, branding them as "stark violation of the simplest human

Speaking to IslamOnline, Fahmi Shahein of Al-Khalil Law Society stressed
they received several complains about Israeli tortures.

The society will contact Arab and foreign human rights watch-dogs to update
them on the Israeli violations and racist assaults, he said.

"The Israeli aggression is part of maltreatment and disrespect of human
dignity that contradicts all international conventions and laws," Shahein

He blamed the world community for such Israeli crimes, asserting that
international silence directly encourages the Israeli occupation to pursue
its waged war on the armless Palestinian people and perpetrate more crimes.

   -IslamOnline ( Redistributed via Press International
News Agency (PINA).



"Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction,
manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world
into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent,
arrogant and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth.
The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president." 

Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First
Amendment at Yale Law School, September 22, 2002



If the State of Israel continues to exist, then racism remains a legitimate form of political activity.

If Israel expels the Palestinians, then this will be the greatest Holocaust of all times perpetrated by the Jewish people.



*Simulated terrorism attack to take place in Sydney*
ABC News 19 December 2002

There will be a major counter-terrorism exercise in Sydney today to test
authorities' preparedness to respond to a real-life attack. But the details about the incident, its exact location and timing have been kept secret.

New South Wales Premier Bob Carr and Police Commissioner Ken Moroney announced two days ago that a simulated terrorist attack would take place in Sydney today.

But little information has since been revealed about the exercise, with both men saying the nature, exact location and timing of the incident has been kept secret from them.

Led by Chief Superintendent Norm Hazzard, the exercise will be staged in the Sydney suburbs of Alexandria and Parramatta. It is believed it will run for four hours this morning and will involve up to 70 police.

Authorities say the mock attack is necessary to test government and police readiness to combat terrorism.

Mr Carr says while he knows nothing about the plan, it is of great value
to the state's sense of security. "It is a message of reassurance that in at every level we are testing
our preparedness, and I think that should be reassuring to people," he said.



Comment: 19 December 200




Secret documents recently released by the British Records Office at Kew in London reveal the stark horror of ritual executions of German POWS carried out by British, American and Jewish torturers, assisted incredibly by certified doctors. Here is a story that will shock the world.


The stark contrast between the Axis and Allied treatment of prisoners of war is only now being revealed. Typically, in September 1939 after the speedy success of the German-Polish campaign, captured Polish generals and officers, as well as those of other ranks, were treated according to convention and even chivalrously. There are no records of their being abused or maltreated by their German captors.

Acclaimed historians such as A.J.P Taylor, as far as permitted, resisted political interference in the accurate recording of events. The late professor conceded that the German attack on Poland was in response to British-backed Polish aggression to which Czechoslovakia was already a victim. Since the Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia Germany too suffered repeated Polish attacks on its borders and the occupation of its territory.

Matters were finally brought to a head by Polish Foreign Minister Beck’s inflexibility over the Danzig question as well as daily revelations of murderous atrocities committed against German nationals in Polish occupied territories.

Having secured German borders Adolf Hitler paid a personal visit to the tomb of Marshall Pilsudski, the renowned Polish President. Bareheaded and with military cap in hand he paid silent respect for several minutes. In 1940 after the fall of France the German leader made a similar chivalrous gesture when visiting the tomb of his predecessor Napoleon Bonaparte.

During the occupation members of the former French government were left in peace and were never molested by the German authorities. An honourable peace agreement had been signed with the lawful government of France at the beautiful spa town of Vichy.

Throughout occupied France life went on as normal. William L. Shirer the Jewish journalist and author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, though notorious for putting a Jewish spin on the Third Reich, accepted that "The Parisians actually believed the Germans would rape the women and do worse to the men ... the ones who stayed are all the more amazed at the very correct behavior of the troops."

German soldiers undeniably behaved in a correct and courteous manner towards the French populace. Any violations of this code were severely punished by court martial. As a remarkable further gesture of reconciliation Adolf Hitler ordered that the remains of Napoleon’s son, the ill-fated Napoleon 11, be removed from its burial chamber in Vienna and re-interred at Les Invalides in Paris. It is difficult to imagine a more conciliatory and generous act of placation being placed before the French people.

Professor David Dilks giving a lecture at Leeds University disclosed "that the British version of the famous film in which Hitler skips for joy at the defeat of France was doctored by us (the British) for propaganda purposes". He also revealed that "Hitler’s tread that day was in fact remarkably sober." - Sunday Telegraph, 26.3.72.

Those attending this lecture, ‘Chamberlain, Churchill and the Fall of France’ included Lord Boyle, former Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Mrs. Stephen Lloyd, daughter of former Prime Minister Chamberlain.

Good relations continued until the Soviet Union’s entry in to the war 1941. It was then that the French Communist Party, in cohort with the French runaway renegade, General deGaulle who with Winston Churchill took the war to the German occupiers by planning acts of terrorism; sabotage, assassination and murder.

Members of Britain’s special forces were parachuted in or dropped off along France’s extensive coastline. Once ashore atrocities were committed against German troops and their civilian administrators, and then evidence was left to suggest local rebellious guilt. The purpose was to goad the Germans into reprisals that would then ignite the inconveniently complacent population. The Germans assisted by the French authorities, did resort to vigorous counter measures.

One such agent was the Anglo-French woman, Violette Szabo. Recruited as an agent she made several drops into occupied France and with others brought about considerable destruction and loss of life. Twice she was captured and twice she escaped. On a third occasion, holed up with others, she killed several German soldiers before being captured. She was shot – according to convention – in the winter of 1944-1945.

Szabo was never tortured as has been alleged. Claims that the Gestapo routinely tortured captives are so wide of the mark that incidences of maltreatment had to be made-up. The most infamous of these frauds related to the captured Violette Szabo which were later repeated in the film (Carve Her Name With Pride), books and of course various websites.

Her fellow prisoners, Captain Peuleve and Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas G.C., both of whom were interrogated and imprisoned with Szabo stated unequivocally that Szabo was never maltreated by the Germans.

"The torture claims made by her researcher Mr. Minney caused Captain Peuleve much embarrassment. He had wrongly and without his knowledge been named as the sole source of evidence for the torture allegations in the posthumous George Cross citation awarded to Szabo." - Sunday Times 4th April 1965.


US Commander-in-Chief Ge-neral Dwight D. Eisenhower who took personal responsi-bility for ensuring the des-truction of the German people was also of Jewish descent.

Through the early period of the war an unspoken understanding and shared chivalry existed between the British and German air forces - until May 1940. Then Winston Churchill, by cajolery and trickery succeeded in ousting influential government ministers who regarded him as a warmonger and favored honorable peace negotiations with Germany. Consequently British attitudes rapidly deteriorated as the ‘phony war’ rapidly turned into the total war for which Churchill had long plotted. America’s President Roosevelt had by this time assured him of the material support of the United States.

From this point on the military war against Germany turned into the world’s first war of racial genocide; a war that had one purpose; to totally destroy Germany as a nation and to decimate beyond recovery the German people. Their nation had been handed a death sentence and the consequences would cost millions of lives.

It was a war in which prisoners of the allies would be taken only reluctantly. Those captured would be slaughtered; others enslaved, deported, worked to death or subjected to mortal deprivation. Simultaneously the allies prepared for an unprecedented air war that would incinerate Germany’s civilian population in their homes.

Virtually all Germany’s adversaries were of non-European stock. Roosevelt was of Dutch-Jewish ancestry and surrounded himself with America’s most powerful Jewish figures, many of them prominent in the underworld.

Winston Churchill though not Jewish was the offspring of an American ‘society family’ and was proud of his Iroquois Red Indian blood. He detested and feared Europe and felt belittled by its culture. He is also on record as saying: "I am a Zionist." One of his first acts on seizing power (Churchill was unelected) was to halt all intelligence gathering on Soviet suspects, which led to the wholesale infiltration of MI5 and MI6.

US Commander-in-Chief General Dwight D. Eisenhower who took personal responsibility for ensuring the destruction of the German people was also of Jewish descent. The eminent anthropologist Arnold Leece described as ‘sheer nauseating nonsense’ his message of goodwill to the sinister Jewish lobby group B’nai B’rith.

"Our primary purpose," Eisenhower later told war journalist J. Kingsley Smith "Is the destruction of as many Germans as possible. I expect to destroy every German west of the Rhine and within that area in which we are attacking." - General Eisenhower. J. Kingsley Smith (INS) Paris. February, 24th, 1945.

On the eve of the Jewish New Year Eisenhower issued this message: "Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, is significant to every American, in the deepest spiritual sense, we are all the seed of Abraham and Issac."

The Soviet dictator, the blood-soaked Georgian Joseph Stalin, whose racial origins are far from European, also surrounded himself by Jews, which included his father-in-law. Yiddish was the language used habitually by his family.

Against this formidable international array holding stupendous world power stood a revitalized Christian and financially independent Germany with its European Axis partners.

Roosevelt at this time was about to plunge the unwilling and deceived American people into war with Japan and soon afterwards Germany. Despite America’s so-called neutrality its warships had already been given the nod to sink German shipping and betray German shipping movements to Britain’s armed forces.

Britain in the meanwhile, again in defiance of international law, had initiated the cold-blooded deliberate bombing of civilian targets. This understandably provoked retaliatory German raids on Britain’s cities. The ruse gave the British warlord two advantages. It weakened Germany’s defensive capabilities (Russia was mobilizing to attack Germany) and it brought about a total war psychosis in the beleaguered English populations. It ended reluctance for his war against Hitler’s Germany. The ultimate fate of Britain and Europe, indeed the world was about to be sealed.

As the war neared its conclusion in 1944 and Germany and its Axis partners fought against overwhelming odds, the principle instigators of the near destruction of western civilization relished their moment. Winston Churchill, often drunk, attended conferences at Tehran and Yalta to conspire in the dismemberment and looting of central Europe and the removal of Germany as a trade competitor.

Attending the conferences were the world’s most evil men including Josef Stalin and of course Roosevelt and his henchmen. Between these malevolent conspirators representing the Capitalist and Communist facade of world Jewry, all of prostrated Europe lay at their mercy. There was to be no mercy and no compassion.

Never in the history of mankind have the northern hemisphere’s multi-national populations had their fate decided by so few. Tragically among those manic few were men who already held humanity’s chilling record for race genocide - and the worst was yet to come.

In 1943 at the Tehran Conference Stalin with cold-blooded effrontery, among other diabolical schemes, proposed that following the Allied victory 50,000 German officers were to be randomly selected and shot.

The Soviet dictator had already executed virtually all of his own Red Army general staff in 1937 so the casual liquidation of tens of thousands of German officers posed no particular problem for him.

Winston Churchill balked at the proposal but not because he was opposed to the scale of the unfolding atrocities. He had already covered up the Soviet Union’s wholesale slaughter of 14,500 Polish Army officers at Katyn and elsewhere. He had by then turned a blind eye to the deportation and partial liquidation of 1.7 million Poles under Soviet jurisdiction. Nor was his reluctance due to the fact that the proposed atrocity was a gross violation of international law. He demurred simply because even the British people, despite years of poisonous anti-German propaganda, would be repelled at being dragooned into assisting the Soviet Union’s genocidal killing machine.

US Admiral Daniel Leahy was angry: "I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning - and we had the force to carry out our plans - to obliterate a one mighty nation."

Churchill favored instead the immediate mass shooting, without trial, of the 100 most influential leaders of the German nation. Sham trials would be arranged for the rest so that Stalin would get what he wanted and the British warlord would keep his bogus respectability.

The European-wide killing machines were already being set up. These included military tribunals and mock judicial trials later to be damned as kangaroo courts by thousands of jurists, ecclesiastics, military leaders, politicians, diplomats and writers throughout the world

These courts were given a judicial veneer to add spurious legitimacy to the wholesale slaughter of the defeated nation’s military personnel. The outcome was that Stalin got his 50,000 corpses – and more, whilst Winston Churchill was able to distance himself from implication in Soviet-style mass murder without trial.

The number of captive German soldiers, National Socialist and civilian functionaries summarily killed or tortured to death from the war’s end and through the 1950s runs into tens of thousands. One of the biggest mass slaughter machines ever created was cranked up to liquidate 20% of the people of the defeated German nation, but there was capacity and desire to increase this dreadful quota.

Henry Morgenthau US Secretary of the Treasury and Robert Vansittart, the US London-based Diplomatic Advisor in 1940 along with other prominent Jews demanded the genocide of the German people. Theodore Nathan Kaufman, another of America’s most influential Jews also insisted on the end of the German peoples existence. He demanded the forced sterilization of all people of German stock and demanded that the German nation be divided between the conquerors. He calculated a period of two generations to achieve this aim.

Much of these plans were in fact carried out. Germany’s population was decimated and one third of its historical lands are even now occupied by satellite states.

The Soviet Union within months of the war’s end kidnapped an estimated 5,000,000 people. Mostly but not exclusively they were members of the German armed forces. Their destination, the notorious Gulag Archipelago chain of slave camps through the Siberian hinterland. Few survived.

The United States, France and Britain were directly and indirectly responsible for deaths far exceeding these dreadful figures. The official figure of 3.5 million German dead is completely bogus. Even Churchill who was unlikely to exaggerate such figures stated: "I am not alarmed by the reduction of the population. Six million Germans have lost their lives in the war. We can expect that by the end of the war many more will be killed, and then there will be room for those expelled" (ethnically cleansed from their original homelands) – Voice of History 1944-1945. Speeches and Papers of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Chiang, Hitler and Other Leaders, p 615.

To Churchill’s figures can be added an estimated 13,000,000 – 15,000,000 German people who were liquidated by various means - after the war’s end. Approximately 20 million central Europeans, members of one of the most gifted Christian nations on earth had lost their lives by the early 1950s. All had perished at the hands of the victor nations who almost to a man took their instruction from those who were neither European by race nor Christian by faith.

(British dead including civilians is placed at 264,000. For every Briton who died 80 Germans died).

With tens of millions of displaced people wandering aimlessly across central Europe it was left to the ravages of nature, principally typhoid, starvation and a destroyed infrastructure to 'cull' the surviving German population. All means of survival were blocked at the defeated country’s borders to assist nature in 'taking its course'. Corpses littered the highways and byways, towns and cities of the German nation. What Stalin had brought to the Ukraine he brought to central Europe, with the assistance of Churchill and Roosevelt.

In the vast holding camps of General Eisenhower it is estimated that 740,000 German POWS died from malnutrition, disease and maltreatment. This included casual murder on a horrifying scale. One ex-guard described how some of the other guards would amuse themselves by placing food outside the camp parameters, and then shoot dead those POWS who were sufficiently foolhardy to take their chances.

Five million members of Germany’s armed forces had already been spirited away to the slave camps of the USSR. Millions more fetched up in camps across Europe, America and Canada. The French post war army took charge of nearly one million prisoners from the Americans for use as slave labour euphemistically called ‘reparations’. Even Rome at its most decadent had stopped short of carnage and slavery on such a monstrous scale. Of these postwar prisoners such were the conditions they were held in that 250,000 of them died in the most distressing of circumstances. Britain laid claim to 460,000 German slaves who were kept until 1948 when the International Red Cross insisted upon their release.

Most were soldiers of the Wehrmacht who had laid down their arms in May 1945 but scores of thousands were civilians including women, elderly people; even children. Most of these appalling deaths were listed as 'other losses' or 'Perdu Pour Paisons Diverses'. James Bacque in his book, 'Other Losses' has established the truth about these and other atrocities beyond all doubt.

The first war in which race was the killing factor rather than by unfortunate circumstance, as with the Native American and Australian aboriginal populations, was Jewish. Its victims white European and Christian.

The evidence suggests that the killing frenzy of America’s Jews was motivated by the desire to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, not for any crime they had committed, but simply on the grounds that they were of different race to themselves.

In Washington DC as the Second World War came to its bitter end with the ‘unconditional surrender’ of Germany imminent, a bitter policy dispute arose between Henry Morgenthau and the then Secretary of State Henry Stinson.

Morgenthau by this time proposed the execution (without trial) of all members of the German National Socialist Party. Such was the Jewish desire for the spilling of German blood. Only when he learned that there were 15,000,000 NSDAP cardholding Germans was he forced to modify his demands. Stinson held his ground in favour of legally processing individual Germans – which was in itself without precedent and illegal – but he was on the losing side for several months.

Meantime the killing machine in Germany ground on. It was only when Morgenthau’s plan to exterminate the German people leaked out to the American Press, which was not entirely Jewish controlled, that Stinson’s view prevailed.

Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery, the British military chief at the time derisively described the planned trials of Germany’s political and military leaders as ‘victors justice.’ They were a mockery of real justice. In planning such ‘war crimes trials’, a dictum of Clausewitz was applied: ‘The pursuit of political aims by other means.’

The entire quasi-legal process reeked of hypocrisy and double standards. The chief Soviet ‘jurist’ at the Nuremberg Trials was none other than the malevolent Andrej Vyshinsky, the chief prosecutor at Stalin’s 1930s show trials. Those sham trials had horrified the world before the Soviet dictator became ‘Good old uncle Joe (Stalin)’. Victims of those ‘trials’ included hapless British engineers who had been enlisted to work in Russia only to be abandoned when later condemned as ‘imperialist spies.’

Goering spoke of his faith and lack of fear. He had fearlessly faced death many times but hitherto against honorable opponents.

Stalin’s show trials served as a prototype for the military tribunals and Nuremberg ‘trials’ then being set up. These kangaroo courts excluded a defense, relied on evidence obtained through torture and made up laws as they went along.

The wickedness of these trials haunted the British Chief Prosecutor, Sir. Hartley Shawcross, for the rest of his life. He was often heard to declare that he "often inwardly wished that the great allied war criminals, Stalin, Churchill and FDR (Roosevelt) could also be put on trial" Muttering under his breath that the war with Germany had been unnecessary and a terrible mistake leading to Britain’s downfall. Sir Hartley freely and publicly admitted the ghastly mistake but by then it was far too late.

In stark contrast to Germany generosity accorded to leaders and governments of countries occupied by the Reich, Germany’s captured leaders suffered as few other captives have in history. All civilized standards were excluded as Asiatic bloodlust for the victors ‘rights’ took hold. The ‘lucky prisoners’ were those who before capture took their own lives and those of their loved ones.

As the German leaders were rounded up they were fed into a manic process of humiliation, torture and death. On being seized they were placed in manacles and placed under armed guard. They were then stripped of their uniforms, even in freezing conditions and their decorations and insignia were torn away from them. They were then unceremoniously placed in unheated cells.

In these cells bright lights burned all night and with guards watching over them they were even forbidden to change their sleeping posture. In fact it was common procedure to keep the prisoners awake as a form of torture.

Beatings up were commonplace and typical was the statement proffered by Ken Jones of Wrexham, Wales. This former private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery had been stationed at Heidi in Schleswig Holstein. He described the standard procedure when Rudolf Hoss "whom the Dutch hadn’t been able to break" was brought in to be prepared for interrogation.

Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Rudolf Hoss in the cell to help break him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance." bragged the former private.

"When Hoss was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. The prisoner was simultaneously being starved. After three days and nights without sleep Hoss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities." Jones concluded. – Wrexham Leader, October 17, 1986.

Rudolf Hoss was afterwards charged with murdering 2,500,000 Jews, which has since been derided as ludicrous.

Just as typical (thousands of times over) was the torture and murder of Dr. M.M Rost van Tonningen, former High Commissioner for the League of Nations in Vienna and President of the Bank of the Netherlands.

As a prisoner of the allies he was eventually transferred to Scheveningen prison. The term transferred is best considered a laundered expression. On his arrival at the prison he was physically thrown from the vehicle. As his legs had already been tied to a pole and he couldn’t bend them sufficiently to recover his balance he fell to the ground, much to the amusement of his baiters. He was then beaten with poles and told that he would never leave the prison alive. He didn’t.


From there on his daily routine was a cycle of maltreatment and humiliation which included his being stripped naked and paraded with a line attached to his penis as a bull is baited by pulling the ring through its nose. Such were the horrifying conditions of the hellhole of Scheveningen prison; such were the screams emanating from the prison, that even the local police felt it necessary to intervene.

The brutality persisted and finally the son of the Commander in Chief of the Netherlands Indian Army was beaten to death with a rifle butt, his lifeless body was then hurled over the prison balustrade. Years later his adored wife, Florentine gave an interview to the Netherlands Television Network.

"Everybody thinks my husband committed suicide, which is not true. I did not even get a death certificate. So I contacted the sanitation service since it was they who had carted his body to the cemetery. On the way I learned which cemetery it was, so I looked up the director. I was told that I couldn’t be told anything it was all too secret. But they led me to the area where the graves of the poor where and pointed out to me a mass grave in which my husband was said to rest. Then I went to the hospital and there I learned, my husband had been tortured so horribly, the body couldn’t possibly be shown to the public." – Deutsche Nationalzeitung, July 27 1979.

It should be stressed that these were not isolated incidents and were typical of the treatment meted out to many thousands of prisoners of all ranks by the victorious allied armies.

Even the wives and children of prisoners were not spared and although perfectly innocent they were imprisoned, insulted and abused over long periods of time. A case in point being the wife of Alfred Rosenberg the esteemed National Socialist philosopher and author (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) and his pretty teenage daughter.

No family members were allowed to visit the accused though one or two exceptions were surreptitiously made. Never since the English king, after his victory over the French at Agincourt, had personally slit the throats of the captured nobles of France, had such acts of horror been committed.

With fabricated ‘retrogressive laws’ – laws that were invented for the obscene quasi-judicial proceedings, various German ranks were accused of planning and carrying out acts of ‘aggressive war.’ against other countries. The most eminent non-German historians and commentators have since refuted these charges.

Released Soviet archive material has since confirmed the German Reich’s claims that Stalin’s Red Army was poised to attack Western Europe and that Hitler’s reaction was pre-emptive. It is equally now well known that the attack on Poland and France were equally pre-emptive as both of these countries, backed and goaded by Britain, had first declared war on Germany by carrying out acts of war against Germany. France had formally declared war against her peaceful neighbor on September 3rd 1939.

The German leaders were also falsely accused of having carried out deliberate acts of genocide, an allegation, which has beaten a retreat since the 1950s. Today it finally stands exposed as "The Hoax of the 20th Century"; bogus blackmail to keep Germany in the thrall of a never ending cycle of slavery and national masochism devoted to paying out endless ‘reparations’ to Israel.

Of the Nuremberg ‘trials’ Lord Hankey spoke for thousands of others of similar standing who similarly expressed themselves: "There was something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the bench with a colleague representing a country which before, during, and since the trials, had perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar." - Lord Hankey, House of Lords, May, 5th, 1949.

These show trials were not international at all; just a few of the victor nations were responsible for them; neutral countries representatives were excluded. Even the US Supreme Court washed its hands of any responsibility for them

Before, during and after these ‘trials’ torture of German and other POWs was routine: At the Dachau US Military Tribunals, interrogators posed as priests to extract confessions. The American judge, Edward L. Van Roden, one of the three members of an American Army Commission set up to investigate claims of maltreatment found:

"Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners' fingernails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near-starvation rations. The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and five months.... the investigators would put a black hood over the head of the accused and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operation procedure with our American investigators."
Louis Marschalko, Special Correspondent; Playwright and Poet affirmed: "Out of 3,000 people employed on the staff at the Nuremberg Courts, 2,400 were Jews." Many of them wore uniforms to which they had no entitlement.

In the Nuremberg courtrooms crowded with exultant Jews a torrent of lies, distortions and fake evidence, provided by bogus witness, were hurled at the ill fated prisoners in the dock. The questioning of witness or their allegations was denied. Each of the prisoners faces revealed evidence of deliberately induced torture and lack of sleep. The verdicts of their vengeful accusers were a foregone conclusion. Denied a proper defense they were to be systematically killed.

All retained their courage to stand up and confront their accusers, vehemently denying the preposterous catalogue of outlandish allegations. The defensive words of the prisoners were summarily dismissed and no appeals were allowed.

On the night of October 15th 1946 – the Jewish Feast Day Hoshana Raba - the American News Service announced at 2.45am that eleven members of the defeated but nevertheless legitimately elected government of Germany had been executed.

The executions had begun at 1.00am and ended at 2.15am. The bodies were then laid out in rows for witnesses to inspect and gloat over. However, of the eleven victims Reichsmarshall Herman Goering, the First World War ace fighter pilot had succeeded in cheating his captors by taking his own life in his cell.

Details concerning the burial of the eleven martyrs to Germany were kept secret; such was the enormity of the allied crime and the sadistic way by which the wretched prisoners were slain. Furthermore, even in death the victorious allies were mindful of the affection and example, which the executed still held in German hearts. Even the victims families were denied all knowledge of their loved ones final resting places.

In advance of these judicial murders a spokesman for the prison governor had maintained a running public commentary of sickening bad taste on how Goering and the other victims had spent their last days on earth.

The condemned men passed most of their time reading and writing and talking with the two chaplains. Most seemed resigned to their fate whilst Goering spoke of his faith and lack of fear. He had fearlessly faced death many times but hitherto against honorable opponents.

Two of the captives complained about the security regulations requiring the prisoners to sleep with their hands placed outside the filthy blankets. Such was the deliberate stringency of measures against suicide attempts that they were awakened if in their sleep they turned away from the brilliant spotlights shining on their prison beds.

All the prisoners, manacled to guards, took exercise in the corridors of the condemned block except for Goering who for several days declined. When taken to see his wife for the last time he walked briskly ahead and turning to the warder chained to him remarked with a smile: "You see, I am still a Führer (leader)."

Julius Streicher, a man with a finer intellectual mind than has been represented by his gloating Jewish captors and their Gentile propagandists, remained defiant to the end, even hurling abuse at his tormentors. He had held no official position in the government of Germany and throughout the war was a simple farmer. He was hanged merely for exposing and defying Jewish power. The official United States undertaker, who was present at the executions, stated that: "The Jewish-American boy in charge of the execution (of Streicher) let him strangle, horribly for a long, long minute."

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the US Fleet shared the outrage of America’s officer class: "The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly its leaders."

At the time of these internationally condemned executions of Germany’s defeated leaders, Sir. Anthony Eden, former British Foreign Minister and leading Conservative rose to his feet in the House of Commons and pointedly asked Clement Atlee, premier of the first postwar Labour government, if as had been rumored a film of the executions had been made. He asked if the government was taking any action to prevent the public exhibition of such film footage.

Atlee replied: "My attention has been called to this report. It is inaccurate. The Allied Control Council, on which His Majesty’s Government is represented, decided last week that no cinematographic film or photograph should be taken of the executions. Photographs of the bodies will be taken after death by an official photographer as representative of each of the four powers, record purposes."

But was this true? Although it remains uncertain whether an actual film of the killings was made, executions of Tojo and other Japanese leaders were filmed by their American executioners and shown to the delight of cheering American audiences. Excerpts from this footage were certainly shown on British cinema newsreels.

Eden’s reasons for posing this question remain unknown, but as a former First World War officer who had fought in the trenches he may have felt pangs of guilt and self-loathing. He was also known to be anti-Jewish, a sentiment he shared with Ernest Bevan the then British Foreign Secretary who by then had registered his disgust to the destruction of Germany and its frightful genocidal consequences.

There are in plentiful circulation photographs of the judicially murdered German leaders. These photographs reveal that the men had died a deliberately induced agonizing death with the blood still oozing from their mouths and plenty of evidence of extreme violence to their faces.

When residing in Cornwall, Mr. Vivian Bird contributor to this essay, happened by chance to be shown copies of these photographs by a former British Army photographer. The proud possessor kept them as gruesome mementos and produced his large collection of looted silver plate bearing the official stamp of Adolf Hitler. These treasures had been looted from Hitler’s Berlin Chancellery.

The photographs of their murdered former leaders were distributed among the defeated German people in an attempt to terrify them into the most abject submission. Like Carthage in Roman times Germany was to be reduced to a desert of dust and ashes, removed from the face of the earth along with its people for all time.

Surrounded by grinning staff officers, Churchill had already shown his contempt for European values by standing on the banks of the beautiful River Rhine and urinating into its waters. The viciousness of his Iroquois Red Indian blood was supremely manifest in this unspeakable action.

US Jewish newspapers described one of the principle executioners of the German leadership as "a nice Jewish boy." It was this Jew, John C. Woods (not his real name), a sergeant in the US Army, who ensured that his victims met a prolonged and agonized death, literally by slow strangulation after their faces had been smashed against the side of the execution trap. Asian callousness was having its day and relishing it. One of the other US executioners later committed suicide.

The official British executioner Albert Pierrepoint also supervised the executions and at the time showed no qualms about his dubious place in history. Pierrepoint was of French lineage and later retired to the licensed trade.

Official British government documents recently released for public inspection by the Records Office in Kew, London, reveal that the executions were used to test ‘efficiency methods’ after it was revealed that it had taken up to twenty-five minutes to kill the victims.

The experiments disclosed in these files confirm that the hangings did not inflict instantaneous death either by accident or design. The hearts of those hanged could be heard beating after the execution had taken place. Death could only be hastened when doctors (some doctors!) injected chloroform and other substances of a lethal nature.

The experiments at Hamelin during the winter of 1946 involved 64 Germans being executed there after the war’s end following trials based upon evidence that would have been rejected out of hand by any properly constituted legal court.

Because there were batches of as many as thirteen prisoners awaiting execution at any one time, it was felt that there would have been an "inordinate delay" if bodies were left suspended for an hour or more to ensure that the person hanged could not regain consciousness.

The Director of Medical Services asked Dr. F.E Buckland, British Army of the Rhine Assistant Director of Pathology, whether he thought there might be any objection to injecting the body immediately after execution. This would involve a lethal dose of some ‘chemical solution’ to ensure that the body could be taken down without delay. According to the released files, Dr. Buckland felt no ‘ethical objections’ and believed 10% of chloroform was appropriate.

The first series of executions on December 13, 1945 were of three women and ten men. The women were hanged one by one, the men in pairs.

According to the file, after the trap was sprung, the medical officer went down the stairs to the room below, where standing on a step ladder, he listened to the beat of the heart for a half minute, and then injected 10% of chloroform. Some he injected directly into the heart, which he noted caused instant heart stoppage. Others were injected intravenously in the arm, which caused the heart to stop within a few seconds.

According to Dr. Buckland all were unconscious before the injections were administered. During the second series of hangings, on March 8th 1946, he decided not to use chloroform. Instead he listened to their hearts through a stethoscope to measure how long it took the victim to die. He recorded the results on a table, which showed that it took between ten and fifteen minutes for audible heartbeats to cease.

In a third series of executions on May 15, 1946, he used the electrocardiograph, an instrument that records the electric activity of the heart. His findings showed that inaudible impulses were produced a further ten minutes. Thus it took some of the victims up to twenty-five minutes to die from the initial drop.

During the macabre experiments two of the victims had started to breathe and had to be injected with chloroform. In one case records show that this took place a full eighteen minutes after the execution.

Despite evidence of heart activity for up to twenty-five minutes, Dr. Buckland concluded that in future executions, bodies should be left hanging for fifteen minutes until a heartbeat was no longer audible, instead of the customary hour. This, he surmised, would ‘make it possible to effect double executions at half hourly intervals.’

The vengeful victors, whipped up by theatrical Jewish outrage, continue to pursue clandestine murders and long terms of imprisonment of its former foes even to this day. Each murder lengthens an indelible stain across the honour of these British Isles for all time to come. It is hardly surprising that Britain is increasingly regarded as a pariah state throughout the world.

The admiration and respect Britain once regarded as a right has long since evaporated. It is unbelievable in the light of recent events that England ever earned a reputation for decency and fair play. Such goodwill has all but gone. One can only wonder if by the Hand of Nemesis it is now reaping the wind it has sown across Europe. Its present ignominious state can hardly be put down to poor luck.

The greatest irony of all is that whilst Britain stands on the edge of an election predicting unprecedented apathy, in Germany there is an equal unparalleled swing back towards National Socialism.

Germany is now negotiating for the return of its stolen lands, a peaceful and mutually beneficial reconciliation with Russia whilst it turns away from the increasingly backward island, isolated from Europe, across the North Sea. Comparisons are already being drawn between Albany (England) and Albania, another once great country now reduced to Third World status, a European mixed-race has-been nation deserving of contempt.

US Admiral Leahy had concluded his remarks by saying: "I had an uneasy feeling that those eighty million Germans some how or other would survive to fight again."

As a Briton one can only pray that should the Germans ever dominate Europe they will do so with high-mindedness and leave vicious unbridled vengeance to those of far lesser race.




Comment: 3 December 2002

Think on these things

From a local perspective —Robbery and Killings.

By Fredrick Töben

A while ago Dr Margaret Tobin, South Australia's top health administration bureaucrat, was gunned down outside her office in Adelaide by a Sydney man whom she allegedly de-registered as a practising psychiatrist. There is a rumour, and I stress it is only a rumour, that Dr Tobin was also clamping down on a legal drug supply that passed through her health services, then reached the open market. 

Murders in Australia are becoming more common. So much so that legislators think by introducing stricter gun controls, they will arrest this trend. Definitely far more numerous are the break-ins, muggings, and willful arson attacks. All too often these arise out of the perpetrator's disconnection from societal obligations, from a need to feed some kind of habit that costs money. More horrifying are the thrill-crimes, often of a sexual nature that have no apparent material gain as a motive.

The latter is symptomatic of a total democratisation of public morality — anything goes, and where individuals have disconnected from any form of civilised behaviour.

 I am reminded of individuals in relationships who object to committing themselves as such on account of some fear that it may not work out. Yet when such partners couple, then an offspring after nine months is usually the result.

I cannot accept any man's or woman's claim that they didn't know this would happen, or that they were ignorant of how the biological process in basic outline functioned. Yet, all too often there are individuals who claim:" It surprised me, I didn't expect to become pregnant"; or,  "I only wanted children but not a man"; or, "I never wanted any children, but I wanted a woman".

I just wonder how many mothers or fathers, who refuse to marry their mate, cannot understand what moral message they are sending to their children. Father won't marry mother; mother won't marry father. I hasten to add that this is certainly not a new phenomenon — it's been with us since the family unit crystalized itself into a formal entity.

The negative message to our offspring is devastating, and many individuals then spend the rest of their life trying to work out why their parents did what they did rather then dismissing their parents as selfish, emotionally immature and irresponsible beings.

Parents who play such games with their offspring are unnecessarily handicapping them by robbing them of their energy even before their children reach puberty. It is difficult enough for any child to get a perspective on things, to begin to develop a morally sound world view without such added burdens imposed upon them by their selfish parents. 

Mind you, in our consumer society, it appears that public objections are brushed aside, especially if there is a cushioning effect created through money. It does not amaze me anymore to note how many individuals lose all perspective on moral concerns when the element of money promises a child some material comfort — never mind the child's emotional and mental development. 

 It is thus not surprising to note how many of our young are literally lost in this world, wasting their time groping at nothing that is character building. Were it a relatively few only, then my concern would be misplaced. However, it is a larger group each year that emerges from the sheltered workshops called schools who are not robust enough to face life without breaking down in some way.

What such youths do in their desperation, and for whatever reason, I would call 'local terrorism'. Snatching old women's bags, for example, is inexcusable. Just the other day a man who wished to help a stranger that some thugs had set upon, was himself knocked senseless. He says he's leaving Adelaide, never to return.

Some critics claim that this local civil disturbance is deliberately nurtured, and that this is the price we have to pay for our policy of giving individuals so much freedom  that in their perverse way they are able to self-destruct. Who, after all, wishes to guide our young, offer them a rights of passage, from childhood-youth and into adulthood. Some religious traditions still offer a definite coming of age ritual. In Australia the current end-of-school celebrations take the form of wild celebrations on the Gold Coast and elsewhere.  

And what of those who cannot afford to travel, cannot afford to buy alcohol and other drugs?

As late as yesterday, Thursday, 28 November 2002, I spoke with a couple of my neighbours who related how thieves had a few days ago broken into a car and stolen tools, and dug up and removed seven bushes from the front lawn — all during the early hours of the morning.

I relate this in my capacity as a long-standing volunteer with our local community's Neighbourhood Watch organisation. 


One of Australian society's great unifying factor is voluntarism. It is always sobering to see Australians pulling together in time of natural catastrophes that regularly sweep the country such as drought, bush fires and floods.

Our local community is supportive of Neighbourhood Watch but there are some critical voices who refuse to make a donation towards the cause. The reason given is that it ought to be the police patrolling the streets and making them safe, not citizens.  

What we are experiencing at this micro level is, of course, mirrored at the macro level, in our current attempt to fight terrorism and safeguard our freedom and democracy.  

Do we simply hunt down our criminals and imprison them, and build bigger and bigger prisons because the current ones are overflowing? Surely by criminalising our own citizens we are hurting ourselves, or brothers and sisters, our parents and grandparents.

 Or, do we also look at the cause and ask the difficult why-question: Why is there this anti-social behaviour?  For some it is easier to rely on some worn-out dialectic thought pattern and dismiss those conflicting with the law as less human, as inferior, as deserving of punishment. This thought pattern relies on the them-us, friend-enemy and rejectionist-hatred driven exclusivity pattern that shuns any notion of inclusivity, of belonging, of loving the outsider.

We can directly relate this to a macro-world phenomenon,  to the Palestinian tragedy. Why would youngsters martyr themselves for a cause when their other choice is living in subsistence condition and total repression?

What a choice!

And what about when someone wants to steal your cheap oil? And what about when a bully begins to fabricate a story about your intentions so as to distract the world from revealing his own intentions? What about when someone begins legally to defame your good name in order to collect rogue elements around him, therewith then to get control of your mineral wealth? What can you do if that bully has half a million soldiers ready, and is just waiting for a pretext to invade your country?

Iraq is in trouble because of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has admitted it, too, has weapons of mass destruction, yet the USA has no interest in gaining control of North Korea. The USA has learned its lesson from the Korean War. If the US attacks Korea, then China enters on the side of North Korea, and that would be the end of the bully Zionist-inspired USA.

Israel has weapons of mass-destruction, and Mordecai Vanunu is still serving time in solitary confinement for revealing this fact to the world. []

When will Israel release this man who converted from Judaism to Christianity in Australia, then on 30 September 1986 was 'stolen' back by Israel and placed in a prison where he remains to this day? What governments of the so-called 'free world' have asked the Israelis to pardon Vanunu?  

In any case, North Korea has no valuable oil reserves. That's what this war on terrorism is all about: ownership of resources and trade, and soulless consumerism: money and power. 

Not only, of course.

And, let's hope that moral cant will not rear its ugly head within the above reflections, and let us not slip into error and hope that Marxism's 'abolishing the family structure' policy does not again rear its ugly head either.

 And let us remain sensitive to the plight facing peoples on the African continent, bearing in mind that no-one need go hungry in today's world.

And let's welcome an end to current Palestinian suffering, and see an end to the war-mongering tyrants who wish to steal Iraq's oil! 



Deane Defends battle for truth

Nicolas Rothwell

The Australian, 28 November 2002

Fierce ideological battle has been joined over the the legacy of former governor-general William Deane and his committed campaign to highlight the massacre of Aborigines on the Australian frontier.

Sir William, whose semi-official biography has just been published, weighed in yesterday with a column in the Sydney Morning Herald to defend his position against revisionist critiques.

The most strident of these comes from historian and cultural polemicist Keith Windschuttle, whose core argument against the 'black armband' view of Aboriginal history is his claim that oral testimony from indigenous people is unreliable. He has used the former governor-general's most controversial speech to illustrate his claim.

Sir William, trailed by an ABC television crew, visited Mistake Creek in the East Kimberley in June last year, where he apologised in his own name for a massacre he said occurred there in the 1930s.

But he "got the facts completely wrong", according to a fiery presentation delivered by Windschuttle at the National Museum last December, and "made a fool of himself" as would have anyone relying on uncorroborated oral testimony, he said.

There the matter might have rested, with the former governor-general maintaining a dignified silence, had not another series of broadsides, spurred by Windschuttle's new book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, provoked Deane into replying yesterday.

Sir William, while now conceding that the massacre of Mistake Creek took place in 1915, not as he first believed in the 1930s, insists Aboriginal oral history can stand alone as historical evidence.

In the case of Mistake Creek, he says: "The oral history is remarkably strong. It lacks any dreamtime element of the kind that can occasionally lead to confusion between fact and allegory."

Who is right? Neville Green, the leading professional historian of the Kimberley, told The Australian yesterday he felt that on the basis of consistent Aboriginal reports the Mistake Creek massacre had in fact taken place.

Dr Green and other regional historians make qualified use of Aboriginal testimony and says it is backed by clusters of interlocking stories.

"The truth is that the Aboriginal viewpoint can be ephemeral in the telling, as is all oral history — ours as well," Dr Green says. "The plot of stories can change, people can write themselves into old stories, a story can be modified to depend on the audience and the time. What is the role of evidence at the end of the day — to confirm what some people say, or to conceal what others want hidden?"  


Fredrick Töben comments: Unfortunately with that 17 September 2002 Federal Court of Australia gag-order hanging over my head, I am unable to say and write what I think. What a pity Revisionists cannot have a fierce debate with the anti-Revisionists and claim truth as our defence!

But I shall risk this: What's new? The matter of that ever illusive clarification ideal being given the run-around by the creation of new stories, re-interpretations, distortions and lying through omission, and even outright lying, is all too familiar a pattern for Revisionists.

After all, it is the love of truth —the foundation on which our civilisation rests — that gives us the moral certainty within a sea of moral and intellectual cowardice to proclaim the various truths that we now hold to be self-evident! The idea of Truth is as strong as the idea of God because God is Truth. It cannot be legislated away, curtailed somewhat but not eliminated because that would also eliminate our own humanity.

The court order of 17 September 2002 prevents me from exploring this issue any further — or face contempt of court charges. I have no fear of the consequences of being in breach of the court order, but it is not worth my while to spend time in prison for that heap of feces called the 'Holocaust'!

That aspect of our history forms a minute though fundamental and crucial picture of our world view — of the larger issue to which we are now a witness: the USA-Zionist-led war for 'freedom' and 'democracy' and on the abstract-concept 'terrorism', and its related physical/concretised form in the shape of Iraq —with the hunt for Osama bin Laden used as a tool to restrain any Moslem interference or direct opposition that may arise as the USA stakes its claim for the possession/control of cheap Iraqi oil. Again, it's as basic as that! Anyone disagree?



22 November 2002

For Reasonable People It's on in February 2003

We have requested leave to appeal against Justice Branson's 17 September 2002 Judgment before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. A date for the hearing will be set sometime after 22 February 2003.

 We have engaged a Solicitor, Junior and Senior Counsel who will prepare the matter, and if leave is granted to appeal, then this test case will clarify how much free speech we still enjoy in Australia.

We presented the matters of fact on which our view is founded before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), then before a single judge before the Federal Court of Australia (FCA). But all this was ignored as irrelevant because the only thing the Applicant, Jeremy Jones, needed to prove was 'a hurt feeling'. He did not have to prove, through medical reports,  the 'hurt' suffered on account of having read our material on Adelaide Institute's website. 

Usually in such damages cases, an Applicant needs to produce extensive medical evidence to prove that he has suffered some mental damage. The HREOC commissioner and the FCA judge merely accepted his word as evidence that he has been 'offended' by reading our material. Neither the commissioner nor the judge advised Jeremy Jones to ignore the material, thereby avoiding experiencing a hurt feeling, and thereby exercising his willpower, maturity and moral courage to turn away from our website. 

His claim before HREOC and the FCA made him a 'Holocaust' affirmer. But he did not have to provide any proof that the alleged murder weapon existed, or about the alleged six million Jewish deaths. The judge accepted his claim without asking him to substantiate his claims in any way whatsoever. 

Instead, the judge handed out a gag-order, which categorically states that certain historical matters — the gassings and the 'Holocaust' — must not he doubted and questioned. The judge has sent a chilling message to any Australian who refuses to blindly accept the orthodox version of an historical event, thereby creating an historical dogma from which no-one may deviate even if this dogma contains factual errors. 

In effect the judge has adopted a censorship form that prevailed in all former Soviet Union countries where dissenting individuals were sent to the Gulag prison camps for being 'Revisionists'.   

We are at the beginnings of this process in Australia, and Justices Branson and Hely willingly complied with the implementation of such persecution of dissenting opinions.  

Australia does not have a First Amendment that guarantees free speech, as the USA enjoys.

Now, at the appeal stage, matters of fact become almost irrelevant and it is now matters of law that will be illuminated, to see whether the judge has erred in law.

We shall also attempt to test the constitutionality of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is our view that the 17 September 2002 FCA Judgment has made Australia a racist country. The judgment has categorized Jewish Australians as a racial entity, which they are not. This is exactly what the German National Socialists (Nazis) did with their Nuremberg Racial Law during the 1930s. It suited the Jewish National Socialists (Zionists) who needed a pretext on which to base their claim to the Moslem and Arabic-speaking land of Palestine.  

The latest case on matters 'Holocaust' comes from South Africa.

Muslim radio station victorious in latest round of Shoah-denial case

"I dispute the fact [World War Two Jews] were ... killed by gassing."
- Yacoub Zaki, historian for the Muslim Institute in London, quoted by
the Jewish Telegraph Agency, November 18, 2002

By Michael Belling

18 November 2002

CAPE TOWN - Jewish leaders here are reacting with dismay after their complaint charging a Muslim radio station with trivializing the Holocaust was rejected.
In an acrimonious case, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies had filed
the complaint with the nation's Broadcasting Complaints Commission about a
1998 broadcast on Radio 786, a Muslim station in Cape Town.

Appearing on the program was Yacoub Zaki, a historian at the Muslim Institute
in London. During the broadcast, Zaki said, "I accept that 1 million-plus Jews died
during the Second World War, but I dispute the fact that they were murdered, that they were killed by gassing.

"These people died, like other people in the camps, from infectious diseases, particularly typhus," he said.

The interview prompted a series of legal actions, including one brought before the Constitutional Court, the nation's highest court. In that case, the radio station sought to overturn a section of the broadcasters' code of conduct that prohibits hate speech.

Radio 786 brought the case after the Board of Deputies had lodged a complaint against the station for airing the program, which dealt with the ideology of Zionism and how it resulted in the creation of the Jewish state.

Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court sided with the radio station and struck down several provisions of the Broadcasting Code of Conduct as unconstitutional infringements on the right of free speech.

After that ruling, the Jewish Board of Deputies turned to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, as it had done previously, in hopes of obtaining a ruling against the radio station.

Now those hopes have been dashed.

In his ruling dismissing the complaint, commission official Roland Sutherland wrote that "the trivializing of the extent of the suffering" of Jews during World War II is "doubtless perceived by many who accept the accuracy of Holocaust evidence as churlish and insulting."

"Nevertheless, in my view, it is not the stuff of which reasonable people take offence to the degree it warrants the proscription of the expression of such views."

Hate speech is not protected under the free speech provisions of the South African constitution, but Sutherland ruled that the broadcast did not fall under the category of hate speech.

Sutherland found there was "no attack in the broadcast on the Jewish religion or Jews as such."

He also ruled that the broadcast had included "no exhortation to hatred of any particular religious group or group of individuals."

The Board of Deputies subsequently issued a statement saying the ruling evoked "a deep sense of shock."

Denying or trivializing the Holocaust is "an attack on the dignity of the Jewish people and not just 'churlish' behavior," the statement said.

Jewish leaders are vowing to keep the case alive.

"We will pursue every avenue open to us to take this matter further," Russell Gaddin, the Board of Deputies' national chairman, told JTA. "We believe we have a case they have to answer."

So, it's not all doom and gloom. There are spot-fires breaking out everywhere and the anti-Revisionists are doing everything in their power to put out these liberating fires. 

We now need your urgent financial support so that we can mount a solid appeal in the Federal Court of Australia and have these matters clarified.

Please send your cheque or cash to:

 Toben Defence Fund  

P O Box 1137

Carleton 3053





Direct electronic transfer to:

Toben Defence Fund

National Australia Bank

271 Collins Street

Melbourne 3000

Account Number:  083.170.54878.5499 


This is a test-case, a precedent-setting legal case that will either chill or liberate our enquiry into the truth of contentious historical issues.





19 November 2002


Sir Walter Crocker dies, aged 100, view at Dissenters

The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris. Comment les Etats Unis voient la france
urrounding the City of Light are threatening Cities of Darkness.
City Journal, Autumn 2002 Vol. 12, No. 4, Theodore Dalrymple

Everyone knows la douce
France: the France of wonderful food and wine, beautiful landscapes, splendid châteaux and cathedrals. More tourists (60 million a year) visit France than any country in the world by far. Indeed, the Germans have a saying, not altogether reassuring for the French: “to live as God in France.” Half a million Britons have bought second homes there; many of them bore their friends back home with how they order these things better in France.

But there is another growing, and much less reassuring, side to France. I go to Paris about four times a year and thus have a sense of the evolving preoccupations of the French middle classes. A few years ago it was schools: the much vaunted French educational system was falling apart; illiteracy was rising; children were leaving school as ignorant as they entered, and much worse-behaved. For the last couple of years, though, it has been crime: l’insécurité, les violences urbaines, les incivilités. Everyone has a tale to tell, and no dinner party is complete without a horrifying story. Every crime, one senses, means a vote for Le Pen or whoever replaces him.

I first saw l’insécurité for myself about eight months ago. It was just off the Boulevard Saint-Germain, in a neighborhood where a tolerably spacious apartment would cost $1 million. Three youths—Rumanians—were attempting quite openly to break into a parking meter with large screwdrivers to steal the coins. It was four o’clock in the afternoon; the sidewalks were crowded, and the nearby cafés were full. The youths behaved as if they were simply pursuing a normal and legitimate activity, with nothing to fear.

Eventually, two women in their sixties told them to stop. The youths, laughing until then, turned murderously angry, insulted the women, and brandished their screwdrivers. The women retreated, and the youths resumed their “work.”

A man of about 70 then told them to stop. They berated him still more threateningly, one of them holding a screwdriver as if to stab him in the stomach. I moved forward to help the man, but the youths, still shouting abuse and genuinely outraged at being interrupted in the pursuit of their livelihood, decided to run off. But it all could have ended very differently.

Several things struck me about the incident: the youths’ sense of invulnerability in broad daylight; the indifference to their behavior of large numbers of people who would never dream of behaving in the same way; that only the elderly tried to do anything about the situation, though physically least suited to do so. Could it be that only they had a view of right and wrong clear enough to wish to intervene? That everyone younger than they thought something like: “Refugees . . . hard life . . .. very poor . . . too young to know right from wrong and anyway never taught . . .. no choice for them . . . punishment cruel and useless”? The real criminals, indeed, were the drivers whose coins filled the parking meters: were they not polluting the world with their cars?

Another motive for inaction was that, had the youths been arrested, nothing would have happened to them. They would have been back on the streets within the hour. Who would risk a screwdriver in the liver to safeguard the parking meters of Paris for an hour?

The laxisme of the French criminal justice system is now notorious. Judges often make remarks indicating their sympathy for the criminals they are trying (based upon the usual generalizations about how society, not the criminal, is to blame); and the day before I witnessed the scene on the Boulevard Saint-Germain, 8,000 police had marched to protest the release from prison on bail of an infamous career armed robber and suspected murderer before his trial for yet another armed robbery, in the course of which he shot someone in the head. Out on bail before this trial, he then burgled a house. Surprised by the police, he and his accomplices shot two of them dead and seriously wounded a third. He was also under strong suspicion of having committed a quadruple murder a few days previously, in which a couple who owned a restaurant, and two of their employees, were shot dead in front of the owners’ nine-year-old daughter.

The left-leaning Libération, one of the two daily newspapers the French intelligentsia reads, dismissed the marchers, referring with disdainful sarcasm to la fièvre flicardiaire—cop fever. The paper would no doubt have regarded the murder of a single journalist—that is to say, of a full human being—differently, let alone the murder of two journalists or six; and of course no one in the newspaper acknowledged that an effective police force is as vital a guarantee of personal freedom as a free press, and that the thin blue line that separates man from brutality is exactly that: thin. This is not a decent thing for an intellectual to say, however true it might be.

It is the private complaint of everyone, however, that the police have become impotent to suppress and detect crime. Horror stories abound. A Parisian acquaintance told me how one recent evening he had seen two criminals attack a car in which a woman was waiting for her husband. They smashed her side window and tried to grab her purse, but she resisted. My acquaintance went to her aid and managed to pin down one of the assailants, the other running off. Fortunately, some police passed by, but to my acquaintance’s dismay let the assailant go, giving him only a warning.

My acquaintance said to the police that he would make a complaint. The senior among them advised him against wasting his time. At that time of night, there would be no one to complain to in the local commissariat. He would have to go the following day and would have to wait on line for three hours. He would have to return several times, with a long wait each time. And in the end, nothing would be done.

As for the police, he added, they did not want to make an arrest in a case like this. There would be too much paperwork. And even if the case came to court, the judge would give no proper punishment. Moreover, such an arrest would retard their careers. The local police chiefs were paid by results—by the crime rates in their areas of jurisdiction. The last thing they wanted was for policemen to go around finding and recording crime.

Not long afterward, I heard of another case in which the police simply refused to record the occurrence of a burglary, much less try to catch the culprits.

Now crime and general disorder are making inroads into places where, not long ago, they were unheard of. At a peaceful and prosperous village near Fontainebleau that I visited—the home of retired high officials and of a former cabinet minister—criminality had made its first appearance only two weeks before. There had been a burglary and a “rodeo”—an impromptu race of youths in stolen cars around the village green, whose fence the car thieves had knocked over to gain access.

A villager called the police, who said they could not come at the moment, but who politely called back half an hour later to find out how things were going. Two hours later still, they finally appeared, but the rodeo had moved on, leaving behind only the remains of a burned-out car. The blackened patch on the road was still visible when I visited.

The official figures for this upsurge, doctored as they no doubt are, are sufficiently alarming. Reported crime in France has risen from 600,000 annually in 1959 to 4 million today, while the population has grown by less than 20 percent (and many think today’s crime number is an underestimate by at least a half). In 2000, one crime was reported for every sixth inhabitant of Paris, and the rate has increased by at least 10 percent a year for the last five years. Reported cases of arson in France have increased 2,500 percent in seven years, from 1,168 in 1993 to 29,192 in 2000; robbery with violence rose by 15.8 percent between 1999 and 2000, and 44.5 percent since 1996 (itself no golden age).

Where does the increase in crime come from? The geographical answer: from the public housing projects that encircle and increasingly besiege every French city or town of any size, Paris especially. In these housing projects lives an immigrant population numbering several million, from North and West Africa mostly, along with their French-born descendants and a smattering of the least successful members of the French working class. From these projects, the excellence of the French public transport system ensures that the most fashionable arrondissements are within easy reach of the most inveterate thief and vandal.

Architecturally, the housing projects sprang from the ideas of Le Corbusier, the Swiss totalitarian architect—and still the untouchable hero of architectural education in France—who believed that a house was a machine for living in, that areas of cities should be entirely separated from one another by their function, and that the straight line and the right angle held the key to wisdom, virtue, beauty, and efficiency. The mulish opposition that met his scheme to pull down the whole of the center of Paris and rebuild it according to his “rational” and “advanced” ideas baffled and frustrated him.

The inhuman, unadorned, hard-edged geometry of these vast housing projects in their unearthly plazas brings to mind Le Corbusier’s chilling and tyrannical words: “The despot is not a man. It is the . . . correct, realistic, exact plan . .. . that will provide your solution once the problem has been posed clearly. . . .. This plan has been drawn up well away from . .. . the cries of the electorate or the laments of society’s victims. It has been drawn up by serene and lucid minds.”

But what is the problem to which these housing projects, known as cités, are the solution, conceived by serene and lucid minds like Le Corbusier’s? It is the problem of providing an Habitation de Loyer Modéré—a House at Moderate Rent, shortened to HLM—for the workers, largely immigrant, whom the factories needed during France’s great industrial expansion from the 1950s to the 1970s, when the unemployment rate was 2 percent and cheap labor was much in demand. By the late eighties, however, the demand had evaporated, but the people whose labor had satisfied it had not; and together with their descendants and a constant influx of new hopefuls, they made the provision of cheap housing more necessary than ever.

An apartment in this publicly owned housing is also known as a logement, a lodging, which aptly conveys the social status and degree of political influence of those expected to rent them. The cités are thus social marginalization made concrete: bureaucratically planned from their windows to their roofs, with no history of their own or organic connection to anything that previously existed on their sites, they convey the impression that, in the event of serious trouble, they could be cut off from the rest of the world by switching off the trains and by blockading with a tank or two the highways that pass through them, (usually with a concrete wall on either side), from the rest of France to the better parts of Paris. I recalled the words of an Afrikaner in South Africa, who explained to me the principle according to which only a single road connected black townships to the white cities: once it was sealed off by an armored car, “the blacks can foul only their own nest.”

The average visitor gives not a moment’s thought to these Cités of Darkness as he speeds from the airport to the City of Light. But they are huge and important—and what the visitor would find there, if he bothered to go, would terrify him.

A kind of anti-society has grown up in them—a population that derives the meaning of its life from the hatred it bears for the other, “official,” society in France. This alienation, this gulf of mistrust—greater than any I have encountered anywhere else in the world, including in the black townships of South Africa during the apartheid years—is written on the faces of the young men, most of them permanently unemployed, who hang out in the pocked and potholed open spaces between their logements. When you approach to speak to them, their immobile faces betray not a flicker of recognition of your shared humanity; they make no gesture to smooth social intercourse. If you are not one of them, you are against them.

Their hatred of official France manifests itself in many ways that scar everything around them. Young men risk life and limb to adorn the most inaccessible surfaces of concrete with graffiti—BAISE LA POLICE, fuck the police, being the favorite theme. The iconography of the cités is that of uncompromising hatred and aggression: a burned-out and destroyed community-meeting place in the Les Tarterets project, for example, has a picture of a science-fiction humanoid, his fist clenched as if to spring at the person who looks at him, while to his right is an admiring portrait of a huge slavering pit bull, a dog by temperament and training capable of tearing out a man’s throat—the only breed of dog I saw in the cités, paraded with menacing swagger by their owners.

There are burned-out and eviscerated carcasses of cars everywhere. Fire is now fashionable in the cités: in Les Tarterets, residents had torched and looted every store—with the exceptions of one government-subsidized supermarket and a pharmacy. The underground parking lot, charred and blackened by smoke like a vault in an urban hell, is permanently closed.

When agents of official France come to the cités, the residents attack them. The police are hated: one young Malian, who comfortingly believed that he was unemployable in France because of the color of his skin, described how the police invariably arrived like a raiding party, with batons swinging—ready to beat whoever came within reach, irrespective of who he was or of his innocence of any crime, before retreating to safety to their commissariat. The conduct of the police, he said, explained why residents threw Molotov cocktails at them from their windows. Who could tolerate such treatment at the hands of une police fasciste?

Molotov cocktails also greeted the president of the republic, Jacques Chirac, and his interior minister when they recently campaigned at two cités, Les Tarterets and Les Musiciens. The two dignitaries had to beat a swift and ignominious retreat, like foreign overlords visiting a barely held and hostile suzerainty: they came, they saw, they scuttled off.

Antagonism toward the police might appear understandable, but the conduct of the young inhabitants of the cités toward the firemen who come to rescue them from the fires that they have themselves started gives a dismaying glimpse into the depth of their hatred for mainstream society. They greet the admirable firemen (whose motto is Sauver ou périr, save or perish) with Molotov cocktails and hails of stones when they arrive on their mission of mercy, so that armored vehicles frequently have to protect the fire engines.

Benevolence inflames the anger of the young men of the cités as much as repression, because their rage is inseparable from their being. Ambulance men who take away a young man injured in an incident routinely find themselves surrounded by the man’s “friends,” and jostled, jeered at, and threatened: behavior that, according to one doctor I met, continues right into the hospital, even as the friends demand that their associate should be treated at once, before others.

Of course, they also expect him to be treated as well as anyone else, and in this expectation they reveal the bad faith, or at least ambivalence, of their stance toward the society around them. They are certainly not poor, at least by the standards of all previously existing societies: they are not hungry; they have cell phones, cars, and many other appurtenances of modernity; they are dressed fashionably—according to their own fashion—with a uniform disdain of bourgeois propriety and with gold chains round their necks. They believe they have rights, and they know they will receive medical treatment, however they behave. They enjoy a far higher standard of living (or consumption) than they would in the countries of their parents’ or grandparents’ origin, even if they labored there 14 hours a day to the maximum of their capacity.

But this is not a cause of gratitude—on the contrary: they feel it as an insult or a wound, even as they take it for granted as their due. But like all human beings, they want the respect and approval of others, even—or rather especially—of the people who carelessly toss them the crumbs of Western prosperity. Emasculating dependence is never a happy state, and no dependence is more absolute, more total, than that of most of the inhabitants of the cités. They therefore come to believe in the malevolence of those who maintain them in their limbo: and they want to keep alive the belief in this perfect malevolence, for it gives meaning—the only possible meaning—to their stunted lives. It is better to be opposed by an enemy than to be adrift in meaninglessness, for the simulacrum of an enemy lends purpose to actions whose nihilism would otherwise be self-evident.

That is one of the reasons that, when I approached groups of young men in Les Musiciens, many of them were not just suspicious (though it was soon clear to them that I was no member of the enemy), but hostile. When a young man of African origin agreed to speak to me, his fellows kept interrupting menacingly. “Don’t talk to him,” they commanded, and they told me, with fear in their eyes, to go away. The young man was nervous, too: he said he was afraid of being punished as a traitor. His associates feared that “normal” contact with a person who was clearly not of the enemy, and yet not one of them either, would contaminate their minds and eventually break down the them-and-us worldview that stood between them and complete mental chaos. They needed to see themselves as warriors in a civil war, not mere ne’er-do-wells and criminals.

The ambivalence of the cité dwellers matches “official” France’s attitude toward them: over-control and interference, alternating with utter abandonment. Bureaucrats have planned every item in the physical environment, for example, and no matter how many times the inhabitants foul the nest (to use the Afrikaner’s expression), the state pays for renovation, hoping thereby to demonstrate its compassion and concern. To assure the immigrants that they and their offspring are potentially or already truly French, the streets are named for French cultural heroes: for painters in Les Tarterets (rue Gustave Courbet, for example) and for composers in Les Musiciens (rue Gabriel Fauré). Indeed, the only time I smiled in one of the cités was when I walked past two concrete bunkers with metal windows, the École maternelle Charles Baudelaire and the École maternelle Arthur Rimbaud. Fine as these two poets are, theirs are not names one would associate with kindergartens, let alone with concrete bunkers.

But the heroic French names point to a deeper official ambivalence. The French state is torn between two approaches: Courbet, Fauré, nos ancêtres, les gaullois, on the one hand, and the shibboleths of multiculturalism on the other. By compulsion of the ministry of education, the historiography that the schools purvey is that of the triumph of the unifying, rational, and benevolent French state through the ages, from Colbert onward, and Muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in schools. After graduation, people who dress in “ethnic” fashion will not find jobs with major employers. But at the same time, official France also pays a cowering lip service to multiculturalism—for example, to the “culture” of the cités. Thus, French rap music is the subject of admiring articles in Libération and Le Monde, as well as of pusillanimous expressions of approval from the last two ministers of culture.

One rap group, the Ministère amer (Bitter Ministry), won special official praise. Its best-known lyric: “Another woman takes her beating./ This time she’s called Brigitte./ She’s the wife of a cop./ The novices of vice piss on the police./ It’s not just a firework, scratch the clitoris./ Brigitte the cop’s wife likes niggers./ She’s hot, hot in her pants.” This vile rubbish receives accolades for its supposed authenticity: for in the multiculturalist’s mental world, in which the savages are forever noble, there is no criterion by which to distinguish high art from low trash. And if intellectuals, highly trained in the Western tradition, are prepared to praise such degraded and brutal pornography, it is hardly surprising that those who are not so trained come to the conclusion that there cannot be anything of value in that tradition. Cowardly multiculturalism thus makes itself the handmaiden of anti-Western extremism.

Whether or not rap lyrics are the authentic voice of the cités, they are certainly its authentic ear: you can observe many young men in the cités sitting around in their cars aimlessly, listening to it for hours on end, so loud that the pavement vibrates to it 100 yards away. The imprimatur of the intellectuals and of the French cultural bureaucracy no doubt encourages them to believe that they are doing something worthwhile. But when life begins to imitate art, and terrible gang-rapes occur with increasing frequency, the same official France becomes puzzled and alarmed. What should it make of the 18 young men and two young women currently being tried in Pontoise for allegedly abducting a girl of 15 and for four months raping her repeatedly in basements, stairwells, and squats? Many of the group seem not merely unrepentant or unashamed but proud.

Though most people in France have never visited a cité, they dimly know that long-term unemployment among the young is so rife there that it is the normal state of being. Indeed, French youth unemployment is among the highest in Europe—and higher the further you descend the social scale, largely because high minimum wages, payroll taxes, and labor protection laws make employers loath to hire those whom they cannot easily fire, and whom they must pay beyond what their skills are worth.

Everyone acknowledges that unemployment, particularly of the permanent kind, is deeply destructive, and that the devil really does find work for idle hands; but the higher up the social scale you ascend, the more firmly fixed is the idea that the labor-market rigidities that encourage unemployment are essential both to distinguish France from the supposed savagery of the Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model (one soon learns from reading the French newspapers what anglo-saxon connotes in this context), and to protect the downtrodden from exploitation. But the labor-market rigidities protect those who least need protection, while condemning the most vulnerable to utter hopelessness: and if sexual hypocrisy is the vice of the Anglo-Saxons, economic hypocrisy is the vice of the French.

It requires little imagination to see how, in the circumstances, the burden of unemployment should fall disproportionately on immigrants and their children: and why, already culturally distinct from the bulk of the population, they should feel themselves vilely discriminated against. Having been enclosed in a physical ghetto, they respond by building a cultural and psychological ghetto for themselves. They are of France, but not French.

The state, while concerning itself with the details of their housing, their education, their medical care, and the payment of subsidies for them to do nothing, abrogates its responsibility completely in the one area in which the state’s responsibility is absolutely inalienable: law and order. In order to placate, or at least not to inflame, disaffected youth, the ministry of the interior has instructed the police to tread softly (that is to say, virtually not at all, except by occasional raiding parties when inaction is impossible) in the more than 800 zones sensibles—sensitive areas—that surround French cities and that are known collectively as la Zone.

But human society, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and so authority of a kind, with its own set of values, occupies the space where law and order should be—the authority and brutal values of psychopathic criminals and drug dealers. The absence of a real economy and of law means, in practice, an economy and an informal legal system based on theft and drug-trafficking. In Les Tarterets, for example, I observed two dealers openly distributing drugs and collecting money while driving around in their highly conspicuous BMW convertible, clearly the monarchs of all they surveyed. Both of northwest African descent, one wore a scarlet baseball cap backward, while the other had dyed blond hair, contrasting dramatically with his complexion. Their faces were as immobile as those of potentates receiving tribute from conquered tribes. They drove everywhere at maximum speed in low gear and high noise: they could hardly have drawn more attention to themselves if they tried. They didn’t fear the law: rather, the law feared them.

I watched their proceedings in the company of old immigrants from Algeria and Morocco, who had come to France in the early 1960s. They too lived in Les Tarterets and had witnessed its descent into a state of low-level insurgency. They were so horrified by daily life that they were trying to leave, to escape their own children and grandchildren: but once having fallen into the clutches of the system of public housing, they were trapped. They wanted to transfer to a cité, if such existed, where the new generation did not rule: but they were without leverage—or piston—in the giant system of patronage that is the French state. And so they had to stay put, puzzled, alarmed, incredulous, and bitter at what their own offspring had become, so very different from what they had hoped and expected. They were better Frenchmen than either their children or grandchildren: they would never have whistled and booed at the Marseillaise, as their descendants did before the soccer match between France and Algeria in 2001, alerting the rest of France to the terrible canker in its midst.

Whether France was wise to have permitted the mass immigration of people culturally very different from its own population to solve a temporary labor shortage and to assuage its own abstract liberal conscience is disputable: there are now an estimated 8 or 9 million people of North and West African origin in France, twice the number in 1975—and at least 5 million of them are Muslims. Demographic projections (though projections are not predictions) suggest that their descendants will number 35 million before this century is out, more than a third of the likely total population of France.

Indisputably, however, France has handled the resultant situation in the worst possible way. Unless it assimilates these millions successfully, its future will be grim. But it has separated and isolated immigrants and their descendants geographically into dehumanizing ghettos; it has pursued economic policies to promote unemployment and create dependence among them, with all the inevitable psychological consequences; it has flattered the repellent and worthless culture that they have developed; and it has withdrawn the protection of the law from them, allowing them to create their own lawless order.

No one should underestimate the danger that this failure poses, not only for France but also for the world. The inhabitants of the cités are exceptionally well armed. When the professional robbers among them raid a bank or an armored car delivering cash, they do so with bazookas and rocket launchers, and dress in paramilitary uniforms. From time to time, the police discover whole arsenals of Kalashnikovs in the cités. There is a vigorous informal trade between France and post-communist Eastern Europe: workshops in underground garages in the cités change the serial numbers of stolen luxury cars prior to export to the East, in exchange for sophisticated weaponry.

A profoundly alienated population is thus armed with serious firepower; and in conditions of violent social upheaval, such as France is in the habit of experiencing every few decades, it could prove difficult to control. The French state is caught in a dilemma between honoring its commitments to the more privileged section of the population, many of whom earn their livelihoods from administering the dirigiste economy, and freeing the labor market sufficiently to give the hope of a normal life to the inhabitants of the cités. Most likely, the state will solve the dilemma by attempts to buy off the disaffected with more benefits and rights, at the cost of higher taxes that will further stifle the job creation that would most help the cité dwellers. If that fails, as in the long run it will, harsh repression will follow.

But among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation, especially if you were imprisoned? Would you not seek a “worthwhile” direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc. Islamist proselytism flourishes in the prisons of France (where 60 percent of the inmates are of immigrant origin), as it does in British prisons; and it takes only a handful of Zacharias Moussaouis to start a conflagration.

The French knew of this possibility well before September 11: in 1994, their special forces boarded a hijacked aircraft that landed in Marseilles and killed the hijackers—an unusual step for the French, who have traditionally preferred to negotiate with, or give in to, terrorists. But they had intelligence suggesting that, after refueling, the hijackers planned to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In this case, no negotiation was possible.

A terrible chasm has opened up in French society, dramatically exemplified by a story that an acquaintance told me. He was driving along a six-lane highway with housing projects on both sides, when a man tried to dash across the road. My acquaintance hit him at high speed and killed him instantly.

According to French law, the participants in a fatal accident must stay as near as possible to the scene, until officials have elucidated all the circumstances. The police therefore took my informant to a kind of hotel nearby, where there was no staff, and the door could be opened only by inserting a credit card into an automatic billing terminal. Reaching his room, he discovered that all the furniture was of concrete, including the bed and washbasin, and attached either to the floor or walls.

The following morning, the police came to collect him, and he asked them what kind of place this was. Why was everything made of concrete?

“But don’t you know where you are, monsieur?” they asked. “C’est la Zone, c’est la Zone.”

La Zone is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
à Source:


Comment: 12 November 2002


See Section under German Club fire



Comment: 6 November 2002

Australians are asking themselves: Why is there this indecent haste to enact terrorist laws within Australia?

Admittedly, the terrible tragedies that have befallen the world since 11 September 2001, require a positive response. However, such horrible acts pale into insignificance when contrasted with what has befallen the world prior to 11 September 2001.

One glimmer of understanding may come from the following, again from South Australia, which has always been Australia's 'State of Dissent'!

Draw your own conclusion, but bear in mind that the control freaks are driven by hate, that they cannot tolerate a free and independent mind at work, a mind that loves nothing better than to clarify and explore the limits of its own existence.

Parliament of South Australia


Thursday 15 August 2002



The Hon. M.D. RANN (Premier): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

     Leave granted.

     The Hon. M.D. RANN: It is my not so melancholy duty to report to the house that World War II is over in South Australia. But please, before the bells ring, let me explain why I make such a blindingly obvious claim. Cabinet has agreed today that a bill will be introduced to repeal the wartime Emergency Powers Act 1941. This legislation was passed and enacted at the darkest time in our history when Europe was enslaved and when Australia's freedom was in peril to give the government of South Australia broad powers to organise and fund civil defence in the state during World War II.

     The act gave the wartime government of Tom Playford sweeping powers to make regulations to secure and maintain the safety and wellbeing of the civil population during wartime and to maintain public order. Civil defence was then the responsibility of state governments, and there was a fear that voluntary measures for civil defence could not be relied upon in a time of crisis. The Playford government of the time was concerned about the activities of certain parts of the population, including trade unions. The wartime Emergency Powers Act gives the government, and any government since then, extraordinary powers to suspend all civil liberties in South Australia. The government has the power to remove any group of South Australians from any part of the state and to require anyone `to furnish any prescribed information to any authority'. It includes the power to regulate almost anything produced or grown in South Australia. This includes `the production, manufacture, sale, supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, gas, electricity and any other commodities or things'. The Minister for Energy might be reluctant to see some of these powers repealed!

     The act allows for the removal of livestock from any portion or property in this state, the regulation of transport of all kinds and can prohibit the use of lights. The Emergency Powers Act, still in force in South Australia to this very day, allows for rationing, fixing or controlling the acquisition or selling prices or profit margins, and requiring producers to amalgamate their production facilities or to work collectively. We can instruct factories to make any products that we see fit. I know that the Treasurer will be sad to lose some of these powers just on the day when he has learnt that he has them!

     More seriously, the act gives the government the power to authorise any prescribed persons to enter and search any premises. These powers supplemented commonwealth war legislation and ensured the control of businesses—something now achieved through the Corporations Law. Some of the powers in this act exist in a more modern and appropriate form in state disaster legislation.

     As I am sure almost all of us know, World War II ended in 1945. After extraordinary sacrifice, Australia and its allies prevailed. The war was won, and through that victory our freedom was assured. So, the obvious questions are: why is this act still current on South Australia's statute book? Why is it still the law of South Australia? I am advised that the intention of the Playford government was that the Emergency Powers Act would expire when peace treaties were signed; that is the way it had worked after World War 1 with the Treaty signed at Versailles. But, after World War II, peace treaties were never signed because the Axis powers surren­dered—

     An honourable member: Unconditionally.

     The Hon. M.D. RANN: It was unconditional surrender; there was no need for treaties. But the South Australian law lives on. In 1952, this act and a number of other South Australian wartime acts were amended to enable the Gover­nor to issue a proclamation declaring that World War II had ended. So, seven years after the war, South Australia was set to formally declare that the war was over. But I am advised that no record could be found that this was ever done. In effect, the state of South Australia, its parliament and its laws do not acknowledge the passing of history. It seems that we are the only state in Australia with World War II legisla­tion like this still on the statute book; and I do not know if we are the last place on earth to formally recognise the cessation of hostilities and the end of the Second World War.

     So, I am informing this house today that the government will move by legislation to abdicate and relinquish the boundless wartime powers we now have at our disposal but, I hope, like our parliamentary colleagues opposite when they were in government, wielded with wisdom and moderation.

     Like many members gathered here, my own family served in World War II, so I make this declaration with a certain regret, but at the same time with a good deal of relief and some inward rejoicing. It is now time, by repealing this legislation, to recognise the long 57-year walk South Australia has made towards the sunlit uplands of peace, where our children can dream of the glad hope of tomorrow.

     This legislative anomaly has been discovered through the process of conforming to our obligations under National Competition Policy. We have been required to conduct a sweeping review of legislation which discovered this act and which we are now required to remove from the statute book. So, the cabinet has agreed that we shall repeal the Emergen­cy Powers Act of 1941. As Winston Churchill said during the darkest hours of the conflict in Europe:

     The price of greatness is responsibility.

But what I can say is that, thankfully, due to the courage and sacrifice of many Australians, their families and our allies, we no longer need the powers set down in the Emergency Powers Act of 1941. The war is over, but let us never forget that we enjoy our freedom and prosperity because of that victory.

     Honourable members: Hear, hear!



Comment by David Brockschmidt

Ultimately power comes always out of the system's, any system's, guns. Whoever endangers power structures from outside or within will have to face the fire works. No time lost for love and compassion, for truth and honesty and dignity. The priority is power over people and never ever power from the people, through the people, and for the people.





Comment: 4 November 2002

8604 Second Avenue, PMB 173
Silver Spring, Md. 20910

"In boot camp, deceit and manipulation accompany the necessity to motivate
troops to murder on command. You can't take civilians from the street, give
them machine guns, and expect them to kill without question in a democratic
society; therefore people must be indoctrinated to do so."

Why I Oppose the US War on Terror: an ex-Marine Sergeant Speaks Out

CHRIS WHITE (October 23, 2002)

The more I juxtapose logical world opinion with the Bush administration's
actions in the war on terror, I realize one overwhelming theme: hypocrisy. No
one in any of the branches of government runs a physical risk to themselves
by entering a war with Iraq, and we can bet that none of their family members
are at risk, either. That is, until the next 'terrorist' attack. I put
'terrorist' in quotes because its definition is subjective, and I myself used
to be in the Marine Corps, part of the most powerful 'terrorist' organization
on the planet: the U.S. government. Of course, we never call our operations
'terrorism' because every operation is considered legitimate to us. 

When found guilty by the World Court for violence in Nicaragua, we ignore the
decision. Too bad the nations we hurt can't just ignore what we do to them.
When the planet condemns us for killing between 2,500-4,000 people in Panama,
we're too busy planning the next invasion of a country that can't fight back.

I oppose this war as a U.S. citizen, a veteran, and a doctoral student in
history. While my military experience is what first made me skeptical about
our government's motives in the developing world, it wasn't until I went to
college and began reading hundreds of books and thousands of articles that I
was able to truly grasp the profundity of our leadership's contempt for the
freedoms they claim to protect. As a rule, we have worked hard to prevent 

the rise of democracy in the developing world, all the while claiming legitimacy
as "the world's police force" because of our so-called "democratic" values.
The hypocrisy is astounding. When one investigates our complicity in death
squads, torture, massacres, rape, and mass destruction, one realizes that
freedom often threatens the current power structure in this country.

I used to consider those incidents as anomalistic in comparison to the
"protection" we offered the planet at seemingly no charge. But then I joined
the Marines, and I realized why I had believed in the government: they were
experts in manipulation. Barely out of high school, the Corps broke us down
and built us up in order to shape us into machines, willing to defend the
ideals of the power elites in Washington and corporate America. Just look at
the companies, which are funding political campaigns, and benefiting from
war: weapons producers, technologies, food, clothing, munitions, oil,
pharmaceuticals, etc

U.S. interventions since WWII have not been done in the name of the world's
people (although that is always the claim), but for the preservation of
concentrated power. The fact that they have been carried out against the
tenets of international law (i.e. the rights of non-intervention and
self-determination), in itself deflates their validity. If the U.S.
government were held to the FBI's official definition of terrorism ("the
unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate
or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives"), their list of victims since
WWII alone would include:

Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras,
Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Chile, Granada, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela,
Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Zaire, Namibia, Lebanon, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus,
Bangladesh, Iran, South Africa, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq,
Cambodia, Libya, Israel, Palestine, China, Afghanistan, Sudan, Indonesia,
East Timor, Turkey, Angola, and Somalia.

In boot camp, deceit and manipulation accompany the necessity to motivate
troops to murder on command. You can't take civilians from the street, give
them machine guns, and expect them to kill without question in a democratic
society; therefore people must be indoctrinated to do so. This fact alone
should sound off alarms in our collective American brain. 

If the cause of war
is justified, then why do we have to be put through boot camp? If you answer
that we have to be trained in killing skills, well, then why is most of boot
camp not focused on combat training? Why are privates shown videos of U.S.
military massacres while playing Metallica in the background, thus causing us
to scream with the joy of the killer instinct as brown bodies are
obliterated? Why do privates answer every command with an enthusiastic,
"kill!!" instead of, "yes, sir!!" like it is in the movies? Why do we sing
cadences like these?:Throw some candy in the school yard, watch the children
gather round. Load a belt in your M-60, mow them little bastards down!!" and
"We're gonna rape, kill, pillage and burn, gonna rape, kill, pillage and

These chants are meant to motivate the troops; they enjoy it, salivate from
it, and get off on it. If one repeats these hundreds of times, one eventually
begins to accept them as paradigmatically valid. The demonization of the
enemy is crucial to wartime planners, and the above examples of motivation
techniques are relevant to the present. 

Before carrying out a security
exercise in Qatar, my unit went through Muslim "indoctrination" classes. The
level of racism was unbelievable. Muslims were referred to as "Ahmed," "
towlheads," "ragheads," and "terrorists." We were told that most Muslim males
were homosexual, and that their hygiene was so primitive that we shouldn't
even shake their hands. 

The object was demonization through feminization and
dehumanization, so as to make it easier for us to pull the trigger when
ordered to. But Qatar is our ally, so imagine the language being used today
in these indoctrination courses about Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraqi population has suffered countless U.S. supported atrocities over
the past eleven years. Not only were between 100 and 200 thousand people
killed in 1991, but the bombing has continued ever since then, and sanctions
have led to the deaths of possibly 1 million people, in a nation of 17
million. Former UNSCOM execs assert that they destroyed 95-98 percent of
Saddam's weapons by 1998, and that a nuclear weapons capability is extremely
unlikely due to their devastated economy.

According to this morning's New York Times, the U.S. reasons that Saddam's
gassing of his own people and his hatred of the U.S. are what warrant our
harder stance toward Iraq in comparison to North Korea. While we pursue
diplomacy with North Korea (which has admitted to having nukes), we prefer to
invade Iraq, who we claim is only looking for nukes. 

Have we forgotten the
1994 Congressional report revealing that we supplied Saddam with biological
and chemical weapons during the 1980s? Although U.S. casualties will be lower
than that of Iraq, let's not forget the danger we are placing squarely on the
shoulders of U.S. troops, who have been indoctrinated as I was. 
Funny how the people who are least likely to go to war are the ones working
the hardest to convince others to fight it for them!!

Chris White is an ex-Marine and current doctoral student in history at the
University of Kansas, Lawrence. He can be reached at:


The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians
by Michael Hoffman and Prof. Moshe Lieberman
6 x 9 paperback. 110 pages. A MUST READ!

For book send $20.00 donation to:
253 west 72nd St #1711
New York, NY 10023

Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891

1 November 2002


Dear Fellow Patriot!

Not too long ago, I sent you an e-mail about the death
of Third Reich composer Norbert Schultze. The press,
of course, had nothing good to say about him and
alleged that he apologized and the song Lili Marleen
was banned in Germany. The truth is quite different as
you can see below from an e-mail, forwarded to me by
IHR Director Mark Weber, written by a Hans Rudolf. It
just shows what incredible liars some Jews are:

"1.  Lili Marleen was never banned during the Third
Reich!  It was on the contrary heard everywhere right
up to the end of the war.  I myself heard and saw
Norbert Schultze on one occasion in Ukraine during my
service on the Eastern Front and I even shook hands
with him.  Furthermore, the composer appeared in the
singular Wehrmacht film Wunsch-konzert,  which is
banned in post-war Germany. In it, he intoned Lilli
himself, and he was enthusiastically applauded
and honored by no lesser personality than Adolf

2.  The song was heard literally every day on the
famous Soldatensender Calais which was actually
located in Belgrad, and this is the principal reason
why the song was not only picked up by the Allied
armies, in particular the British, who had it
translated into English.    Why then was this
allegedly 'banned' song sponsored by the authorities
of the Third Reich until the very end of the war?

3.  Norbert Schultze never apologized for supporting
Hitler's regime!  On the contrary, he was proud of
having been "a convinced National-Socialist"!  He said
so himself in the course of a so-called 'documentary
film' only a few year ago. There he not only intoned
Lilli Marleen himself , but related his unforgotten
experiences in company of "meine alten Kameraden"
whenever he was was cordially invited by military
commanders, in particular "an der Ostfront, wo sie
alle so tapfer für Deutschland kämpften und viele
ihr junges Leben lassen mußten!
Norbert Schultze ist tot.  Lange lebe Norbert

From: Walter F. Mueller
'The truth is back in business'


The latest on suicide bombings: an act of martyrdom or an act of crimes against humanity?

The Human Rights Watch has deemed a suicide bomber to be a war criminal.

What nonsense this is because it does not hide the hypocrisy attached to such reasoning. There is a long Western tradition of self-sacrifice, even romanticised, in the knightly-love tradition where men would fight - altruistically - for their princess lady. And we all know of the pathetic Anzacs that sacrificed their young lives for the sake of the British Empire's glory as they were decimated by Turkish machineguns. We celebrate their martyrdom with a memorial day call Anzac Day.

Martyrdom is an essential part of Islam culture, as it is within Christian and Judaic societies.

What is new is the acceptance of suicide - a self-destruction - within Western Society. We are not permitted to criticise our social structures, but we are allowed to self-destruct via drugs and motor cars.

   During the 1960s German students chanted as a fight-back slogan: 'Macht das Kaputt was Euch kaputt macht - destroy that which destroys you. In other words, defend yourself, an eye for an eye, and turn away from the sickly Christian sentiment, 'Turn the other cheek'. That only serves those who practice an eye for an eye. It neutralises their enemy and enables them to walk over the Christian world. We see the remnants of this in the way the fundamentalist are supporting the Zionist-racist state of Israel against the aspirations of the local Palestinians. 

That is why Islam is feared by the Jews and Christians are siding with the Jews against Islam. It is a tragic mistake for the Christians to align themselves with the Jewish-Zionist battle of the wills.

Naturally, the latest neutralising of the Christian world, and its will to live,  is done by foisting upon them, through legal means, a belief in the new religion - designed especially for the non-Jews/Goyims - the Jewish Holocaust.

This gives the Zionist racists a free hand to do whatever is in their limited and sectarian interests.

Where is the balance in this equation?



Holocaust fact or fraud?

Dan Goldberg, TV Review, The Australian Jewish News, 1 November 2002

As It Happened: Truth And Lies screens on SBS TV on Saturday, 9 November 2002, at 7.30pm.

When Benjamin Wilkomirski's book, Fragments: Memoirs of a wartime childhood, was first published in 1995 it was hailed as a literary masterpiece, elevating Wilkomirski to the plane of Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi.

In his book, subsequently translated into 12 languages, Wilkomirski described his early childhood experiences in Majdanek and Auschwitz, where he claimed  he was experimented upon by the angel of death, Dr Joseph Mengele.

The fragments of his early memory were so vivid that child survivors suddenly found a voice that had been lost for more than 50 years.

But three years after its publication, Daniel Ganzfried, an Israeli journalist working in Switzerland for the news weekly Weltwoche, began finding holes in Wilkomirski's account of his childhood survival.

He alleged that Wilkomirski wasn't in Auschwitz. That he wasn't a child survivor. That he wasn't even Jewish. And that his name was not Benjamin Wilkomirski, but Bruno Grosjean, a Swiss Protestant born in 1941 - and he had documents  to prove it. Wilkomirski vehemently denied the allegations.

In short, Ganzfried claimed that Wilkomirski has perpetrated a Holocaust fraud, and that he has abused the victims of the Holocaust in what he called a "coldly-planned swindle".

This BBC documentary traces the whole affair, interviewing Wilkomorski/Grosjean, Ganzfried, Wilkomirski's alleged father and other child survivors. It uncovers the paper trial that led to Switzerland's archives and that forced Random House to withdraw the book and order an investigation.

The result was Stefan Maechler's new book, The Wilkomirski Affair. A study in biographical truth, which concluded that Fragments was not Holocaust fact, but Holocaust fiction.

No doubt to most Jews and all Holocaust survivors, its alleged fiction was tantamount to fraud.

Truth And Lies  is a comprehensive account  of how an alleged Holocaust survivor's autobiography became a scandal.




15 October 2002


I believe in the truth. To seek and search for it, in and around ourselves, must be our highest goal. In doing so we serve the past, the present and the future. Without truth there is no security and no survival. Do not be afraid when the mob cries out, for nothing is hated and feared more than truth. In the end, every resistance to it will vanish, like night before day.

— Theodor Fontane, German novelist, poet and critic


Die Sonne —so gewiß sie morgen wiederkehrt in ihrer Klarheit, so unausbleiblich kommt der Tag der Wahrheit.

—Friedrich Schiller, German poet and dramatist


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

—Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher



Exoneration of an archbishop

Editorial, The Advertiser, 15 October 2002


The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Dr George Pell, has been exonerated by a formal enquiry and thus is innocent of charges of molestation of an altar boy 41 years ago.

No other fair conclusion is possible. The independent commissioner, Alex Southwell QC, acknowledged that both parties believed they were speaking the truth and those who bear ill to Dr Pell personally or the Church as a whole will still find ammunition.

No unbiased, intelligent person could do so. The events, if they happened at all, took place longer ago than many Australians have been alive.

In such circumstances recollections may be sincere but, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, must be regarded  as fallible as most memories, even those of recent events.





General Comment by Fredrick Töben: 15 October 2002

The Bali Bombings

The reality of world conflict has come closer to home — and it is sickening.

To date Australia has been fortunate in that war situations have been played out anywhere but on our shores. For that though, we fight a war against nature —floods, bush fires and droughts.  Our rural communities, especially, rally when threatened by such natural catastrophes.

Not so now with this new world phenomenon — the US-led fight against an abstraction called world war against 'terrorism'. Ordinary Australians oppose involvement in any engagement against Iraq. Now Australia's government has been given the lever to further pressure Indonesia to fight terrorism and anyone who opposes western interests in South East Asia.    

The last great war-event celebrated by Australians as heroic is encapsulated in the Anzac legend. Thousands of Australian 'diggers' lost their lives fighting the Turks during World War One. Revisionist historians claim it was an unnecessary sacrifice of young Australian lives fighting against impossible odds a kind of suicide 'bombing' mission done on behalf of the mother country, the British Empire.    

Regrettably, the Bali bombings have certainly succeeded in inciting hatred against things Muslim. Yet are we certain that it was a Muslim group that planted the bombs?

Soon after the incident, Australian and US secret service personnel — some of whom happened to be already on Bali — volunteered to help the Indonesian with forensic investigations; more are arriving.

To date no-one has claimed responsibility for the act — and that causes concern 

Two main theories are now floated:

1. Terrorists did it to teach Australia a lesson, to remind Australia to stay away from a possible US-led engagement against Sadam Hussein, and

2. It was a 'self-inflicted' wound so as to whip up world opinion against Sadam Hussein, thereby to justify a trigger-mechanism to form a South-East Asian coalition —led by Australia — for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

Poor Indonesia. The country's economy is still recovering from the plundering/destruction of its financial system by George Sorros. Now the tourist-dependent areas of Indonesia have an anti-Islam divide.  

It is reminiscent of the Hebron massacre during the the 1920s when the newly-arrived Zionists in Palestine ripped apart the then prevailing harmony that had existed between Jews and Moslems for centuries —all for the sake of establishing the Zionist-apartheid-racist State of Israel.

Is the radical Islam group in Indonesia following the Zionist pattern of terrorism, for the sake of establishing a Moslem state?

Time will reveal a pattern that may shed light on what and why the Bali bombings happened.

Pity the poor innocent individuals.


A contentious first explanation at:


A second explanation: Bali Halloween. By Israel Shamir

There were no previous demands; no terrorist group took responsibility for the Bali bombing, making it an act of unnecessary carnage. President Bush 'assumed' the Bali explosion was connected to al-Qaeeda and demanded to scan Indonesia for Muslims. It is our luck he never heard of Atlantis, otherwise he would assume the continent was sent to the bottom of the sea by the omnipresent Muslim terrorists. However, important new information came to us from London, and it allows us to peer through darkness surrounding the explosion.

Last week, one of the most powerful figures of our days, a colourful Russian billionaire and media lord, Boris Berezovsky, the man who enthroned Vladimir Putin and later parted ways with the Russian President, gave an exhaustive interview [] to Zavtra, the main Russian opposition weekly in his London exile. While it is an exciting read for Russia-watchers, it provides a clue to the Bali mystery.

Three years ago, Russia was shaken by massive explosions. Whole apartment blocks in Moscow and other cities were stuffed up by extremely powerful explosive RDX (also called Hexogen in Russia and Germany) and were blown up by terrorists, causing huge death roll. It was immediately presumed the Chechen terrorists were behind the acts, and they served as casus belli for Chechnya War. The Russian people were thoroughly horrified, and supported the bloody military campaign. Grozny city was bombed and strafed; Chechnya invaded, thousands lost their life, while two major changes occurred in Moscow. One, the war of vengeance guaranteed the election of Vladimir Putin to the post of President and secured positions of pro-American forces in ex-USSR. Second, Russia was turned against the Muslim world, after one thousand years of peaceful coexistence, and became a strategic partner for the US-led and Israel-orchestrated War on Terror.

In his interview last week, Berezovsky claims there were two teams working to assure the election of Putin. While he personally led one of the teams acting via his TV channel, the second team chose a violent path. Berezovsky quotes the words of the Russian Parliament speaker, Gennady Seleznyov, who informed the Parliament on 13.??.?? about a horrible explosion in a small Russian city of Volgodonsk. It was the best documented piece of prophecy in recent history, as Volgodonsk was bombed only three days LATER, on 16.??.??

In the London interview, Berezovsky was asked, how he explains this incredible botch-up of the perpetrators. "These security services are not that professional as they want us to think, - he said. "They are not united, either. Within the security services, there are many groups serving various power structures. One of them botched up its job, or failed its tie-in with another group. They reported the explosion before it was done, and it revealed the truth"

In Ryazan, watchful residents discovered bags with RDX in the basement of their tenement block and called up police. Police removed the bags, but claimed it was just sugar planted by the security services in order to check people's vigilance. Berezovsky proves it was real RDX with real explosive device.

In Moscow, the journalists connect 'the second team' to a strongman of Russian politics, Anatoly Chubais, the man behind vast privatisation campaign that made him and his cronies immensely rich, and other Russians - immensely poor. A great friend of Israel, Chubais supported the pro-Israeli turn in Russian politics.

Revelations of Boris Berezovsky came in real time, while the bodies of Australian tourists are being counted on Bali. Is it a sheer coincidence that our Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, began his glorious career by exploding fifty homes of Palestinians on the heads of their inhabitants in Qibie, in far-away 1953? Is it a sheer coincidence that these explosions, from Moscow 2000 to New York 2001 and to Bali 2002 used the same technique to horrify people and cause them to support Israeli and American plans?  Is it a sheer coincidence that the Zionist-infested media covered up the obvious faults in the official versions, starting with the unique 'prophecy' of Gennady Seleznyev, and continuing with the ODIGO internet warnings to a few Israelis on Manhattan on 9/11?

One thing is certain: the 'Islamic' tag speedily attached to Bali explosion by Bush and Sharon is a revolting blood libel against one billion Muslims. There is no "Islamic' terror but in the eyes of the beholder. The Catholic IRA was bombing London pubs well before Hamas discovered Tel Aviv cafés. The Tamil Tigers, Hindu militant organisation trained by the Israeli Mossad, are world leaders in suicide bombings. The biggest terrorist act in Palestine was and remains the explosion of King David Hotel by a Jew, Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Apparently, people who object to every reference to 'Jewish'crimes, terror or genocide, do not hesitate to turn Islam into the bogey of this Halloween.


Hi Dr Fredrick!
These photos don't seem to me to prove the hypothesis.
In particular, the so-called 'mushroom cloud' looks EXACTLY like the cloud that I observed heading toward Carlton [Melbourne] after Coode Island blew up about ten years ago. Believe me, that cloud is forever etched in my mind. I was terrified because of its potential effects on our children's asthma.
 Best wishes,


Subject: Re: Mushroom Cloud at Bali Explosion
This is terrible, unproven, unfounded, unwise disinformation.  C4 and many commonly-available chemicals will create exactly the kind of explosion seen.  Do you really believe 'they' could keep RADIATION a secret??  That the government of Bali wouldn't tell its citizens and rescue workers about potential life-threatening exposure to radioactive debris?  Or, that anyone with a simple gieger counter wouldn't find radiation all over the site not to mention on the victims and their clothing? This is really getting to be nutter time, folks.
No one is thinking clearly and everyone is leaping to absurd conclusions because ONE writer releases a wildly unnecessary speculative story.  There is NO NEED for a 'mini-nuke' explanation of this blast.
Best wishes,



8 October 2002

In her 17 September 2002 judgment, Her Honour Justice Catherine Branson ordered, among other things,  that I 

" ... be restrained, and is hereby restrained, from publishing or republishing to the public, by himself or by any agent or employee, on the World Wide Web or otherwise:

(iii) any other material which conveys the following imputations or any of them -

A.  there is serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred;

B.  it is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz;

C.  Jewish people who are offended by and challenge Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence;

D.  some Jewish people, for improper purposes, including financial gain, have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed."


I do not remember ever using the words as in C. "...are of limited intelligence."

Were I to have expressed that kind of thought, I would surely have used figurative language, but I may have had a memory lapse. Anyone who can provide me with evidence that this expression is mine, and not made up by Justice Branson, please advise me.

I think that I have for many years maintained the thought-structure that formulates dishonesty and outright lying thus: 

'Either the person is ignorant of the facts, or is lying'. 

We at Adelaide Institute have always maintained that many individuals who believe things, without demanding physical evidence to test that belief, cannot be labelled as 'liars'. 

We have always maintained that anyone can 'believe in the Holocaust' since that is then a matter of belief, and not a matter of a physical fact. Even Justice Branson was wise enough to recognise that the court case was not out to prove whether the 'Holocaust' happened or not. 

She has, however, by the above Order made an attempt to force me to 'believe' in the 'Holocaust' — and that is reminiscent of Orders made so often in the former Soviet Union where such orders then led to the filling, with political dissidents, of  the Gulag prisons . 

Any intellectual activity demands questioning — asking those difficult and politically incorrect questions. Doubt is a necessary prerequisite to any intellectual activity, or as I put it: 

"If you deny me my freedom to think and to speak, then you deny me my humanity, and you commit a crime against humanity. Truth is my defence!"

However, such questioning must be embedded within a sound moral/ethical framework where truth-content is of paramount importance.

Justice Branson has banned anyone to doubt the 'Holocaust' story. So be it — it reveals she has legal power, and she has used it. 

But perceptive students of history will draw the parallels with the former Soviet legal system and ask Justice Branson: "Why do you order we believe and not doubt? Is this not also reminiscent of the Inquisition — and the subsequent witch-burning?"

So much of our commonly derived knowledge about historical events rests on authoritative sources that we trust. This, however, is our current social problem — we know there are historians who have blatantly lied about historical events. 

Revisionists have all the proof needed to sustain this claim of trusted knowledge, though our Adelaide anti-Revisionist, Anthony Long claims he is out to show where Revisionists have lied about their work and results. I have challenged him on this and hope he comes up with the goods, or shuts up.  By making such claims he thinks he will get away with smearing the Revisionists, and that impressionable students will listen to what he has written. Any student whose moral and intellectual integrity is still intact will not bother to have mediated opinion, but rather go to the source directly. 

That is the dilemma faced by the control freaks who wish to tell others what to believe and think. The internet is the Revisionist's weapon of mass instruction. Any student can approach the Revisionists who are standing at the battlefront where knowledge is gained and formulated, and where the evidence is still raw and warm, rather than second or third hand and coloured by so much personal prejudice. 

Revisionists still hold that there is such a thing as objective truths/ objective knowledge. If the reality-test is not required, then that leads to ideology!   

When it comes to the matter of proof, I always mention the matter of flying saucers: "Let me touch one of these things, but don't bring to me a book with some pictures in it that then has a caption stating: 'This is a flying saucer'.

So, the courageous and serious student will take the next step and contact any of the following:

Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel and Ingrid Rimland, Wilhelm Stäglich, Jürgen Graf, Russ Granata and Carlo Mattogno, Michael Hoffman II, Mark Weber, Willis Carto, David Irving, Bradley Smith, John BennettAhmed Rami, Fred Leuchter, Siegfried Verbeke, Robert Countess, Udo Walendy, Ingrid Weckert, Olga Scully, Günter Deckert, Andreas Röhler,  Roger Garaudy, Pedro Varela, Carlos Porter, Serge Thion, Henri Roques, Hans Schmidt, John Ball, Richard Krege, among others.  

Place the names in Google and see what comes up, then contact these individuals and let them speak for themselves, rather than having some hate-filled anti-Revisionist libel and defame them with crude truth-denying rhetoric.

This explains why the anti-Revisionists place such importance on social, economic and legal restraints on those individuals who will not simply 'believe', but wish to 'know' the truth about contentious historical events.

The chilling effect Justice Branson's judgment sends into academia is welcomed by those who have an authoritarian and control-freak mindset, those who cannot cope with contradictory opinions being aired in open forum. And thus they demand that an historical dogma be legally protected. May we ask why an historical truth needs the protection of the law? 

Professor Arthur Butz has always claimed that we do not need eye-witness evidence to prove that the American civil war happened, nor do we need eye-witness evidence to prove that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during World War Two. There is no legal protection necessary to prove these two historical events.   

Need I say more? 

Oh, yes, one more thing. Wittingly or unwittingly, Justice Branson has re-activated the 1930s Nazi Germany's Racist Law that gave Jews a racist status (something welcomed by the Zionists so as to get the State of Israel established — and this is where the Nazi-Zionist collaboration began!), and thus Justice Branson's judgment has made Australia a racist country. This needs to be tested in our highest court, the High Court of Australia, so that one way or another we have it clarified whether Australia is now a racist country. 

We, and others, state that the concept 'Jew' is a religious category, and thus the matter of the 'Holocaust' should never have been presented to a court of law. However, racists such as Jewish Zionist Jeremy Jones — who supports the apartheid-Zionist-racist State of Israel — are pleased with the 17 September 2002 verdict. He can now finally pull out the racist card and use it as a weapon to silence those that are critical of his behaviour. A Jew who dissents from his views he will label a 'self-hating Jew'.

How easy it is to stifle intellectual discourse. But then I forget Jones stated some years ago that he set out to stop me from functioning. I remember that I did  lodge a complaint with the HREOC, but it was deemed inapplicable to HREOC's rules, and dismissed.

Such is life!



5 October 2002


Arafat appeals to Christians to oppose US law on Jerusalem/Al Qods

October 03, 2002, 01:56 PM


The Holy City Al Qods


RAMALLAH, West Bank (AFP) - Yasser Arafat called on Christians to join Muslims in rejecting a US congressional demand that Jerusalem be recognized as Israel's capital.

"No one can touch Jerusalem," the Palestinian leader said in a meeting with representatives of the Palestinian Christian community, with which he has close ties, at his wrecked headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"I call on Muslim and Christian nations to act against any decision attacking (the status) of Jerusalem," Arafat also told reporters after the meeting, although he did not elaborate any further on the discussions.

Arafat on Wednesday added his voice to Arab criticism of the US congressional move, calling it a "disaster."

Washington has rushed to calm Arab rage at the bill signed into law by congressional President George W. Bush this week allowing for the US embassy in Tel Aviv to be moved to the holy city.

The move implicitly recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, although the Jewish state's 1967 annexation of the disputed holy city has never been acknowledged by the international community.

Most states have their embassies in Tel Aviv to avoid adding weight to Israeli claims.

Despite Bush's insistence that he reserved the right to override the clause in the bill as he signed it, the law caused a storm of protest across the region Middle East, while Israel has kept quiet on the issue.

Deputy State Department spokesman Philip Reeker has insisted US policy on Jerusalem was unchanged and Washington still believed the status of the holy city should be settled between Israel and the Palestinians.






Bush signs law designating
Jerusalem as capital of Jewish state

Congress says it sees Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Although Bush says he doesn't recognize the provision,
the new US law is sure to upset Arabs.

The Christian Science Monitor   Wednesday, October 2, 2002
By Howard LaFranchi

Even in the roiling Middle East, few topics raise as
much passion as the future status of Jerusalem. So President Bush's
signature Monday on a law that requires the United States to identify
the holy city as the capital of Israel is sure to cause both elation and

Mr. Bush
who supported Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital
in his 2000 campaign
says he takes the new law as an expression
of "the sense of Congress," and that despite the law, US policy on
Jerusalem "has not changed." That means the US still officially sees
Jerusalem as a "permanent-status issue" to be negotiated between
the Israelis and the Palestinians in a final peace accord.

Still, the new law cannot help but raise suspicions among Arab
countries about American evenhandedness in the region. This comes
at a crucial time, as the US is laboring to cobble together Arab and
Muslim support for a tough stance and eventual military action on Iraq.

"This is just pouring more fuel on a smoldering fire," says Michael
Hudson, a Middle East expert at Georgetown University in Washington.

The law also risks raising eyebrows in more than just the Middle East.
For one thing, most other countries don't recognize Jerusalem as the
Israeli capital. 
In addition, some analysts note that, if carried out, the
legislation would require the US to disregard a series of United Nations
resolutions concerning the status of Jerusalem. Those resolutions call
on Israel to reverse its annexation of Arab East Jerusalem.

A provision in the law that in effect recognizes this annexation of
East Jerusalem "would go against at least three UN Security Council
resolutions," says Stephen Zunes, a specialist in Arab-Israeli issues
at the University of San Francisco. "That would be ironic and wouldn't
be lost on the world, given that we're about to invade a sovereign nation
based on its violations of UN resolutions."

The law Bush signed is the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2003,
which provides $4 billion for American diplomacy to operate worldwide
during the fiscal year that began yesterday. The authorization includes
a number of provisions problematic for the administration, which is  taking them merely as congressional advisory measures. Otherwise, they would constitute encroachment on the president's constitutional mandate to conduct foreign policy, Bush said in a letter to Congress.

The Jerusalem provisions are the prickliest. Congress has pressed
several administrations to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, but this law goes further in several ways. It requires all official
US documents to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and calls on
the US Consulate in East Jerusalem that deals with Palestinian issues
to report to the embassy in Tel Aviv
rather than directly to Washington,
as it currently does.

"That's a big deal," says Mr. Zunes. "It's the most clear-cut legal
maneuver to date towards recognizing Israel's annexation of East

The law reflects a Congress that has turned even more adamantly
pro-Israeli in recent years. And during the bill's formulating stage,
several congressional aides reported receiving none of the high-level
objections that past administrations have made over similar language.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher countered those
claims Monday, saying "the State Department made consistently
clear that it was opposed to those provisions. We also have made
consistently clear to everybody on the Hill we oppose legislation that
hinders the president's ability to advance our interests in pursuing a
negotiated [Israeli-Palestinian] settlement."

Still, William Quandt, a Middle East specialist on the National
Security Council under President Carter, says congressional provisions
like those on Jerusalem "cannot force the hand that does not want to
be forced."

Mr. Quandt, now at the University of Virginia, says the Bush
administration is taking steps to improve its standing with Arab
countries as it focuses on Iraq. He points, for example, to the US
decision last month not to veto a Security Council resolution condemning
Israel's siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah.
US pressure on Israeli leader Ariel Sharon was instrumental in getting
the siege lifted.

But Georgetown's Mr. Hudson says that because of continuing
dissatisfaction over how the US has handled Palestinian matters, the
administration faces hardened suspicions about US goals in Iraq and
broader intentions in the region. To illustrate US troubles in the Arab world,
he points to negative reaction to recent US moves in favor of a prominent
pro-democracy activist in Egypt, Saadeddin Ibrahim.

"The gesture went down very poorly, even among the human rights
advocates and those opposed to a dictatorial regime that otherwise
might have welcomed it," Hudson says. "It was spoiled by the
reputation of the messenger."

Experts add that Israel-friendly moves by Congress just before
congressional elections are an easy way to garner favor with pro-Israel
constituencies. But they disregard the overriding desire of the American
public for the US to preserve an evenhanded role in peace negotiations,
these experts say. "Most Americans don't want us to be the ones
determining where Arab Jerusalem is to be," says Quandt, "or what
exactly is Israeli Jerusalem."


Fredrick Töben asks:  What is the Muslim world doing about this unilateral act?

Is it designed by the Zionist-US administration to provoke a reaction so that an attack on Iraq is justified?

How much suffering can an individual endure before breaking-point is reached?

How much suffering will the Palestinians continue to endure before a peace settlement is reached?

And what about the Israelis who believed the dream, and now face death from their own snipers?

Suicide rates among teenagers in western nations is rising; it is permitted to self-destruct, but it is not permitted to fight against that which depresses and makes life meaningless. 

Any youngster who does not flee into the hedonistic consumer society soon begins to question the moral and intellectual foundations of the pleasure-seeking society.   

The global justification for what we are witnessing in the Middle East rests on the 'Holocaust' story, and the Revisionists have the solution.

I would like to say more on this matter but am prevented from doing so by the 17 September 2002 Federal Court of Australia decision that prevents anyone from casting any doubt on the 'official' version, i.e. that 'it' happened. That this gag-order is a moral and intellectual obscenity, is beyond doubt - but not beyond belief! 


General Comment (end Sept.2002)

The truth concept is the foundation of our civilization. Where truth is no defence, lies flourish. Where lies flourish, relationships break down because trust is lost. Without trust, a society begins to rot and the control-freaks have a field day while the creative impulse dies.

German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer put it differently. Truth emerges in three stages: First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is accepted as common place. The Revisionists find themselves in the second stage of the battle to uphold moral and intellectual integrity. When the final stage is reached, the fiercest opponents of the Revisionists will then attempt to pretend they had always been on their side. 

The above thought structure makes it evident why it is important to challenge the enemy of truth at this stage. This important battle clarifies the moral and intellectual climate prevailing within our society.


Weekly comment 

30 September 2002

I accuse Zionist Australian, Jeremy Jones, of being a racist because Zionism is racism.

This fact explains why Jones so urgently seeks to hide behind the Racial Discrimination Act. He can thereby hide his own personal racism, and label our work as emanating from a racist mindset. The 'Holocaust' topic is an historical matter and has nothing to do with any form of racism. An historical enquiry cannot be 'racist', nor can it be 'antisemitic'. These terms are used as shut-up words, to stifle any vigorous debate that seeks to shed light on conceptual confusion on matters historical. And so Jones produces an unbalanced, biased and bigoted worldview spiked by hatred and envy for all things beautiful: Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty!

I reject his world-view because it is an ugly world-view. This has nothing to do with his claim that he is 'Jewish' because there are ugly Jones' a-plenty the world over who belong to other religions. A religion does not determine an ugly character. As we have free will, we also have such thing as basic manners, and it is the behaviour of the ugly Jones' of the world that I criticise. Ironically, Jones plays the victim to the full, then cries foul when someone advises him: This far and no further.

I oppose anyone who is not honest and sincere about defending our Australian democratic life style where robust debate on any topic is guaranteed. I accuse Jones of being a control-freak whose authoritarian mindset fears and hates free speech — and that is sad, very sad.

Read how Zionist Jones and the apartheid-Zionist-racist State of Israel handles non-Caucasian Jews such as the Ugandan Jews!

Judaism is a religion, not a race. It does not help the Caucasian racist Jeremy Jones over sixty years after the event —  that on 17 September 2002 the Federal Court of Australia has re-activated Hitler's 1935 Nürnberg Race Laws. 

This re-activation of a racist law now makes Australia a racist country. Is this what Australians want? I think this question has to be decided by the highest court in the land, the High Court of Australia.

Do you wish to help mount a legal challenge in this matter? Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is? 

Remember, in this business talk is cheap!

Send your contributions to: (details to follow)



Top | Home

©-2002 Adelaide Institute