ISSN 1440-9828
December 2002
No 182


Fredrick Töben's 2002 Early Seasons Greetings

Dear Associates and Supporters

A month ago today, Justice Branson handed down her orders that effectively gags me in disputing historically contentious events. 

For example, the following letter makes some rather contentious statements about Auschwitz and its alleged homicidal gas chambers — yet I am not permitted to respond to it and express my disagreement, not permitted to dispute the factual nature of the statements.

“Jews were not alone . Daily Telegraph, 19 September 2002

The Federal Court has ordered removal from the Internet material claiming that the mass gassing of prisoners in the Auschwitz extermination camp never occurred (Daily Telegraph, September 18).

The court said the material “was likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews”. Similarly affected non-Jews were not mentioned.

During my imprisonment in Auschwitz (1941-1945), 90,000 Poles, 100,000 Russians, one-third of the Gypsy nation, Slovaks, Slovenes and French citizens were killed as well. Dozens of my mates died in the gas chambers when they lost the capacity for heavy labour.

A year before the first transport of Jews arrived in the camp, the gassing by cyanide was introduced in August 1941 to kill a group of500 Russian POWs and 250 consumptives, mainly Poles.

Australians are surprised when they learn eight million non-Jews perished in the Nazi extermination camps.

The word ‘Holocaust’ comes from Jews, but many millions of Hitler’s victims were other Europeans.”

George Ryba , Wollstonecroft, Sydney


A couple of years ago I spent a night at Mr Ryba’s home and enjoyed his hospitality. His wife belonged to the old Australian Labor Party guard that also looked after Sam Fizeman, that notorious self-confessed murderer and Labor Party beneficiary who died a while ago.

My visit was in response to correspondence Professor Arthur Butz had with George Ryba during August 1999 wherein Ryba stated that “none of Töben’s friends has spoken with him”.

The whole matter is detailed in my book: Where Truth Is No Defence, I Want To Break Free, Appendix 30, pages 452-455.

In a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 September 1999, Arthur Butz stated, among other things, “It never occurred to these lawyers to probe Bielski (former name of Ryba) on things that, for us, cry out for elaboration. For example, Bielski testified that “we could always speak with the people who were going to be gassed”. No lawyer asked Bielski the obvious question: did he tell these Jews what was supposedly going to happen to them? Nor were there any other questions aimed at elaborating this amazing scenario.”

In a note to Mr Ryba, Butz stated: “More than 50 years have passed since you gave your testimony. I do not expect that today you could reliably reply to the many questions that, in my opinion, your testimony begs. However your article published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 5 May has made your testimony a contemporary problem.”

It is wonderful that I can refer to my book and let the expert speak on my behalf, and all this has been made possible with your continued support. In this sense, Adelaide Institute fights on and salutes you for making it all possible. In 2003 Adelaide Institute begins its 10th year and I welcome you to be a part of our continued intellectual adventure.

Fredrick Töben


Renewal of Newsletter Receipt: Please retain my address on your list and continue sending me your monthly newsletter. Send to: Adelaide Institute, PO Box 3300, Norwood 5067, Australia.


Address: …………………………………….



 I enclose a generous donation:……………




Early New Year Greetings


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 surely would 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 Bennett,  Ahmed 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, or any other search engine,  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!




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


The Bali Bombings : General Comment by Fredrick Töben: 15 October 2002

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.

PS: Ask the question: In Whose Interest? As was the case with the 11 September 2001 tragedy, the Palestinian tragedy has been pushed off the news bulletins for a few days. So, let us place our tragedy into perspective and remember that the Palestinians have endured decades of state-sponsored terrorism, ever since Zionist Jews established the apartheid, racist state of Israel in 1948. Need I say more? In whose interest must the innocent suffer so? Is it really just a battle of the wills over water and oil?


Cans and Cannots
The challenge of anti-racism

By Jeremy Jones

In the Sixteenth Century, Sarajevo had a reputation as a multicultural, tolerant city. The Islamic governors had welcomed Jews fleeing persecution at the hands of the Christian rulers of Spain and a multicultural society had taken root.

It was my honour and pleasure recently to speak in the Sydney Mosque of the Bosnian community where I was welcomed in a spirit of genuine friendship and participated in the launch of a booklet, "Appreciating Islam", published by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC). As I said at the launch, the booklet will contribute to a genuine relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia, despite, perhaps because of, the fact that the perspective of the booklet’s authors will contrast with that of many readers.

Töben on a 'research' tour of Auschwitz

The booklet provides answers from AFIC to questions and misconceptions their representatives most often encounter, ranging from understandings of the term "jihad", through dietary regulations to how Muslims choose their names. Most of the answers in the booklet will provide new insights for those with an interest in a growing community within Australia.

One example of the areas where there will be divergent perspectives can be found in the understanding by the authors of Caliph Omar who, according to the booklet, is an example of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths, however his reputation to Jews and Christians is of a person who instituted a regime which specified the role of Jews and Christians as second-class citizens, who had a series of impositions and restrictions placed on them by the conqueror of the city (Jerusalem) in which Jews and Christians had lived for hundreds of years prior to the Muslim conquest.

The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is not the focus of the booklet and I refer to this point only to indicate that its publication will lead to both education and the opening of a dialogue on important questions confronting communities seeking to coexist and together build a better Australia.

The most passionate speech at the launch was delivered by Abbas Ahmed, AFIC’s Vice-President, who used the opportunity to condemn terrorism and Muslims who had not done enough to teach other Muslims that terrorism was completely indefensible.

By coincidence, the mosque function was sandwiched between two Federal Court judgments in cases in which I had the role of complainant on behalf of the Jewish community.

In the case of Jones v Scully, Justice Peter Hely directed that leaflets which had contained a number of offensive and insulting comments, which together sought to create the impression that Jews are responsible for the promotion of anti-social evil and conspiratorial behaviour, were unlawful and ordered Olga Scully to desist from distributing them.

This was not only a blow against one particular racist campaigner and an affirmation that Australian society will side with the victims of racism against propagators of hate, but also is a tribute to the three Tasmanian men who, in the witness box in Launceston, responded to horrendous and offensive questioning with dignity and authority.

The second case, in which the Respondent was Fredrick Töben of the Adelaide Institute, has received far more publicity, primarily because the means by which he had been communicating insulting material was the Internet. The fundamental issues were the same as in the Scully case and he was also ordered to desist from behaviour which has been determined to be in breach of Australian law.

Justice Catherine Branson, in Jones v Töben, declared that Töben had "committed an act that is unlawful" under the Racial Discrimination Act through the publication of material on his website which she said was "plainly calculated to convey a message about Jewish people" and that "it is more probable than not that the material would engender in Jewish Australians a sense of being treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively".

The imputations which were at the heart of this breach of Australian law were listed in the document as being "there is serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred; it is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz; Jewish people who are offended by and challenge Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence; and some Jewish people for improper purposes, including financial gain, exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed".

Together with the findings in the Scully case, it has now been confirmed that Australian law recognises the racist nature of some of the most common anti-Jewish caricatures and also that it operates to give recourse against material distributed both by hand and across the Internet. In the two court cases the Jewish community had to find a way of dealing with individuals who not only purported to believe slanders but had taken to propagating them with relish and enthusiasm.

The Muslim community, through the booklet "Appreciating Islam", are seeking to address an audience which may be interested in learning what Muslims think of themselves, rather than hardened bigots who seem to only be interested in the views of those who appeal to the most base instinct of prejudice.

Amongst the flood of supportive e-mails and letters I received after media coverage of the Federal court cases were many from non-Jews, including some from Australian Muslims, some of whom alerted me to racist material that had come to their attention.

At the heart of anti-racism legislation is the philosophy that, in a situation where there is a propagator of hate and a victim of vilification, society - the Australian community as a whole - is not an idle spectator but on the side of the victim. As we build a more inclusive society I envisage a situation where racist divisiveness will be more and more marginalised




Comment on Jeremy Jones' 'Cans and Cannots, The challenge of anti-racism'. The Australia/Israel Review, October 2002.

What a pity Jeremy Jones continues to deceive his readers by flogging the racist card. Were he a man with any moral and intellectual integrity, then he would have to admit to his readers that being Jewish has nothing to do with the race category but rather with the religion category. However, he would have to state that his brand of Jewish Zionism is actually a racist delusion. The feverish mind syndrome is evident wherever Jews attempt to ‘prove’ that they are somehow exclusively ‘Jewish’. The identity crisis is evident whenever you meet someone like Jeremy who will ask you: ‘Are you one of us?”

Unfortunately, even the ethnic ‘group’ category does not produce anything but the realization that being Jewish is a religious matter.

Jeremy Jones’ feverish attempt at playing the racist card with him playing the main victim of so-called ‘racism’, is a gigantic hoax designed to deflect any criticism from his own racist behaviour. Hence in his rejoicing that Australia now has its own Hitler-like Nuremberg racist laws. His gigantic trick is that he also plays the victim card, thereby hiding his own perverse racist mindset that rests on the delusion he speaks on behalf of all Jews. The Australian Jewish News periodically publishes letters wherein individuals distance themselves from organised Jewry, especially of the racist-Zionist kind.

When Jones began acting against us, he initially claimed to be speaking on behalf of Australia’s Jews, then this was whittled down to his speaking on behalf of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and its present members. Before the Federal Court, it was reduced to Jeremy Jones v Fredrick Töben. In the following article he’s at it again, thinking he is speaking on behalf of someone. What is such behaviour called? Delusions of grandeur? Perhaps. What a pity at that meeting in Sydney Jeremy Jones did not condemn Israel’s state-sponsored terrorism.  

Of course, we know who the real haters are. Just look at the face and eyes of Jeremy Jones, the man who, when it got to the Talmud, lied in the Launceston court without flinching the eyelids of his hate-filled eyes! 


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2002 Adelaide Institute