ISSN 1440-9828
September 2003
No 202
Fredrick Töben Reports

Federal Court of Australia: In Matter: Fredrick Töben v Jeremy Jones

Please witness the death of free speech in Australia as the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) through its 27 June 2003 decision, upholding the 17 September 2002 judgment that granted Jeremy Jones Summary Judgment without testing any of his claims. Now the Federal Court extends legal protection to a period of world history called the 'Holocaust'. Anyone who wishes to dispute the orthodox version of events will be labelled a 'Holocaust denier'', 'denialist', 'antisemite'.

Now in Australia the legally-sanctioned defamation of dissenters and free thinkers begins and a critical period of European history is excised from an honest critical revision.

Australia's leading Zionist, Jeremy Jones, is now free to label anyone he does not like

a 'hater',

a 'Holocaust denier',

an 'antisemite',

a 'racist',

a 'neo-Nazi',

a 'whatever-phobe'.

Does this judgment need to be taken to Australia's highest court, the High Court of Australia?

Bearing in mind that legal costs have already reached $A150 000, please express your thoughts on how it is possible to overcome the legal straightjacket that has been imposed on all Australians wishing to discover the truth, or war-time propaganda lies, about the historical period loosely called the 'Holocaust'.

Remember, too, that there are assertions made about the 'Holocaust' that easily classify an individual into being either ignorant of the physical facts, or a liar.

For example, Australia's leading Zionist Jeremy Jones is now free to assert, without fearing that he may hurt anyone's feelings, that Germans during World War Two gassed millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers - without offering any proof whatsoever. Anyone who challenges him to provide proof to substantiate his allegation, will be breaking an Australian law, generated by the above judgment.

How does this mechanism work? Simple. Jeremy Jones merely claims to be hurt by anyone who touches the 'Holocaust'. He will not need to provide evidence that such hurt has actually occurred, as is usual in damages cases, for example a certificate from a psychiatrist, etc.

Further, Jeremy Jones will also claim that anyone who disagrees with his version of the 'Holocaust' is doing this because he hates Jeremy Jones, because he is a Jew, and not because Jones is a liar or ignorant of the historical facts. This is how the persecution angle is brought into the equation. It is a subtle form of eliminating one's opponents in the universal battle of the wills, and bearing in mind that Jeremy Jones has publicly stated that he wishes to stop us "from functioning", he has indeed won this round of the battle.

Now it is obligatory for Australians to believe in the 'Holocaust' and all that this belief entails, e.g. a belief in the hypothesis that Germans during World War Two systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers. Even at universities there will be heavy penalties for anyone who dares step outside of Professor Colin Tatz's realm of genocide studies. Any dissenting voice will be labelled a 'denialist'.

Now to question the historical factuality of the 'Holocaust' will be a taboo for any student. The 'party liner' will have to be towed because by disputing any aspect of the 'Holocaust' will be a breach of law. The above judgment now extends legal protection to the 'Holocaust', thereby protecting it from any critical analysis, from so-called 'Holocaust deniers'.

The 'Holocaust' is now a legally-protected dogma and any dissenting voice will pay the penalty for challenging it, as was/is the case with religious dogma, and as was the case in socialist/communist countries where the Marxist dogma enjoyed legal protection from normal critical analysis, and dissenters were called REVISIONISTS and banished to the Gulags.

Please advise.



---------------------The Heat Is On; The Beat Goes On---------

The following is an Op-ed piece from Adelaide Institute's Associate, Mohammed A Hegazi. Fredrick Töben distances himself from this item on account of the Federal Court of Australia Gag Order, 17 September, 2002, confirmed on Appeal 27 June 2003.


Who's Afraid of Jeremy Wolf?

I really have nothing but contempt for extremist Jews who are indulging in the illusion that they can control us humans. They may for a while be over-represented in politics, the media and the judiciary, but I am coming to the conclusion that their days are counted.

Their methods are no longer a secret. They try to drag their opponents through the dark alleys of western courts, hoping to deplete them financially and emotionally. They try to get revisionist historians to eventually tow the line of deception and the propagation of historical lies such as the drummed-up six million lies.

This is easily illustrated when low-ebb extremist Jews go to courts to challenge scholars of the calibre of Fredrick Töben or David Irving. All they can argue about is "hurt feelings" or "insulting the memory of the dead". How on Earth can you assess "hurt feelings" when faced by harsh and unforgiving historical fact? It is not sufficient a proof for Jeremy Jones to throw a tantrum and yell, "Ma, I have hurt feelings, Töben says that the Holohoax never happened". I may claim that if I ever set eyes on Jeremy Jones I would have "hurt feelings", but where is my proof?

Albeit that he, Jones, belongs to the clan that highjacked the land of Palestine, re-sprayed it and gave it the name of that "shitty little country", Israel. Albeit that those extremist Jews in Palestine hurt the living Palestinians, not just their feelings or the memory of their buried ancestors, whose remains make the soil of the stolen land of Palestine, from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea.

Let me emphasise to Jones et al that the Holohoax is a lie. Historians will never cease to expose that filthy lie in order to restore dignity to the German people.

If Jones and co. would like to witness a real holocaust, they can visit Jenin or Ramallah, where their ilk have been trying to establish a modern "Jews only" ghetto. They have been trying since 1948, but the project of the modern ghetto is doomed to failure and the land will be reclaimed by its rightful owners, the Palestinians.

The superimposed name of "Israel" will be replaced by the original name "Palestine". It might take another fifty years, or maybe a hundred years, but it will happen. Now, will Jones throw another tantrum and run to his mother with "hurt feelings" crying, "Mama, Hegazi says Israel never happened".

M. A. Hegazi

Adelaide Institute


Fredrick Töben Reports


A visit that wasn't a visit

Toronto: 2 July 2003

Together with Ernst Zündel's legal representative, Paul Fromm, I called in at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre where Ernst now resides. Although the request for permission to visit had been made, Captain Hutchison, then later Captain Moore, refused to grant the request on account of the SARS problem. Although Toronto was declared 'SARS-free' on this day, it will only be on Monday 7 July that the detention centre will remove this security check from its regulations that govern visits. While Paul Fromm had one full hour with Ernst, I paced up and down within the reception area for the duration of that visit, reflecting upon my own time spent in a detention centre. The feature wall of the reception area where a 19-point information board advises of the following, including deletions made in whiteout, etc.: Paul Fromm reports that Ernst is quite cheerful, but that it is absurd to withhold from him such things as a pillow, a chair, highlighters and other writing materials that he needs in order to prepare himself for the next court hearing on 28 July 2003. Ernst sends his greetings to all his supporters, and anyone who wishes to receive from Ernst a prison drawing, may contact Paul Fromm. Then it was off to taste the best fish and chips in town. And after, it was time for me to address a gathering wherein I stressed: Canada: Release pacifist and Holocaust Revisionist Ernst Zündel now!

A Wee Wee-Wee Coincidence in Pforzheim, Germany

9 July 2003

Throughout my brief journey, I enjoyed some fine American, Canadian, British and French hospitality, and so it was time for me to visit the land of my birth, the so-called 'Vaterland' that once imprisoned me because of my alleged thought crimes activities. I had written to a judge in Mannheim enquiring whether there is anything pending against me, and there was not. My lawyer indicated as much in a telephone conversation, adding that the authorities certainly had his address and could easily forward any notification through him on to me in Australia. Making things doubly secure, I wrote a personal letter to the Mannheim court registrar advising him of my physical address and telephone number in Australia, with a copy of that letter to state prosecutor Klein, also of Mannheim. After all, I had paid DM 6 000 bail for my release from prison the day after judgment was passed, on 9 November 1999.

It was now time for me to get that money back, money that supporters collected within twenty-four hours after the Mannheim Landgericht decided that upon paying that sum I would immediately be released from prison. So,

So, after a brief Paris interlude, I supped and wined in good measure in good old Tschermani. When nature calls, then nature calls, and we must do what we must do. I was driving along a country road near Pforzheim and saw a forest track with open boom gate.

The driving restriction sign, however, was clear for all to see and I stopped on the side of the track and did not proceed any further. In any case, I was out of view of the traffic and so I could in some privacy do what I always have to do almost like clockwork after drinking coffee. I also re-arranged my shirt and put on my tie again that I had removed for the day on account of the rather humid weather.

Then it happened.

A green police car pulled into the small forest track and a young man and a younger-still police woman emerged from their Mercedes patrol car.

In a pleasant tone the officer asked me to identify myself, something that is routine in Germany. While he took my passport and sat in his car for almost half an hour, the young lady seemed to be apprehensive, especially when he motioned her to close her passenger side door. I saw him sitting behind the steering wheel flicking through my passport and catching snippets of information about Koblenz. I asked her what this was all about, and she replied that it is unusual for them to see cars parked the way mine was parked.

I thought that perhaps I had blocked their afternoon plan to have a two-some drive along that forest road, and now unwittingly I had become their object of frustration.

After some considerable time, so it seemed to me, the gentleman emerged from his car and advised me that there is something about me on the Koblenz files, wherever that is.

I advised him that I am on my way to catch tomorrow's plane out of Paris. He advised me that he is requesting me to accompany him to the Pforzheim police station where matters would be clarified.

I advised him that I had also made arrangements to dine out around 6 pm with an acquaintant in Pforzheim and that I would briefly like to advise this person as to what is happening. He agreed that we could do that.

As we entered the town I indicated to him that I would be turning right at the next traffic light, and that he ought now to follow me. When I arrived at the parking lot, he was agitated and said that I need not see anyone because I can make telephone calls from the station.

I thought to myself that I had had one such experience before, and so I called a lady in the shop to advise the gentleman with whom I was to dine at 18.00 hours, what was happening outside the building. She did just that expeditiously.

I then suggested we all go up the elevator together, and as I led the way into the elevator, the officer threatened me with arrest if I insisted on travelling up. He further advised that if we were in the USA, then I would already have been shot dead. I responded by saying that I have done nothing wrong, and I have the highest regard for the German police force because it attempts to retain civilising standards of behaviour, something I appreciate and fully support.

I also advised him that he and his colleague are not to take this matter personally because they are merely doing their job, and that matters come from elsewhere and he ought to retain an open eye from where it all comes.

To cut the story short, contact was made with my acquaintant and it appeared that the police officer knew him. It was agreed that were I to be detailed any longer than necessary, then the officer would advise him of this action. It is obvious that in a town the size of Pforzheim most police officers know their prominent personalities. After all, from my own work as a policeman I know there are certain codes of conduct that the police are subjected to when it comes to treating VIPs.

Now in Germany, however, this code has criminalised those that are labelled 'haters', 'Holocaust deniers', 'antisemites', 'racists', 'Nazis', 'xenophobic', etc. All too often the Germans involved in law enforcement tasks are not sharp enough in their minds, nor have they the time to think things through, to see through this legal-verbal deception.

That is why Revisionists ought not to blame any individuals at the lower level of command for any inconvenience experienced on account of what those developing policy have decreed.

The ordinary police officer, the ordinary prison warden is just a human being who wishes to get on in life, care for a family and make ends meet. There is nothing more infuriating for these law enforcing individuals standing at the coal-face of social stability than to meet individuals who attack them personally for a policy that they are merely executing.

At the police station I had the opportunity of informing the young officer that she is witnessing something that she cannot merely put out of her mind by making out of me a terrible individual who is breaking German laws.

After almost an hour of standing about, I was advised that Koblenz has indeed my name on the file of undesirable persons, that I am in fact barred from Germany.

This gave me the opportunity to protest and wax heavily about free speech, and how the principle of Natural Justice requires that individuals be informed of what is going on against them. The lame excuse that I could not be reached, is rather sickening. My physical address in Australia is as well known as is Adelaide Institute's website address!

I think this matter highlights a moral problem because in matters of Paragraph 130 a number of individuals who make decisions based on that paragraph seek anonymity. They know their decisions will one day be challenged in a proper court of law.

I recall seeing this in courts in Berlin and Bielefeld where hearings were conducted without the judges' names displayed outside the court door, as is usual legal practice.

The prime example is always the DDR. What happened in the former German Democratic Republic is instructive here, where such secret procedures created a totalitarian fear apparatus; where husband spied on wife and wife on husband, and children on their parents, fuelled by foreigners; and much to the delight and benefit of foreigners who enjoyed how these Germans were self-destructing, all for the sake of an anti-German ideology that hates individuals who wish to express love for their physical place of residence - patriotism/nationalism.

In essence, I was advised that I should have been stopped coming into Europe at my first port of call, Heathrow Airport, London. Then I should certainly have been stopped at Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris.

I was checked at these airports and have stamps to prove it. I was also advised that there is a European agreement that is now in place that should have become active at London or Paris that screens for banned individuals from Germany.

I asked why the German judiciary did not formally inform me of such judicial decision. The young lady, Officer Sickinger, advised me that she did not know, and I advised her that this is an example of where a censored information flow causes painful situations.

It is an example of not giving someone Natural Justice, and unfair legal procedure begins to take effect that can be likened to those who thrive on gossip, and who then become set on destroying individuals at arms length, i.e. letting others do the dirty work for them.

My personal example is, of course, our own Australian Zionist, Jeremy Jones, who pleads hurt feelings, then gets a state apparatus to persecute those he cannot control. He publicly proclaimed that he will stop me "from functioning". He takes it upon himself to insult and hurt others, but when there is self-defence retaliation, he quickly claims hurt feelings and falls into the infantile position of claiming unconditional victimhood.

The trouble with parasites and control freaks is that in time individuals executing something on behalf of those who dictate, will also wake up: 'When the innocent awake'. The problem is faced as each generation enters life, and each time the lies and deception mechanism has to be primed anew.

No wonder that the 9:11 dogma is now being protected by President Bush's exclamation that anyone who rejects it is a 'Historical Revisionist', and that conjures up the horrible Soviet Union days where critics of the Marxist state ideology were labelled 'Revisionists', then sent to the Gulag prison system for had labour, all because these dissenting voices were threatening the security of the fragile Soviet structure because it was based on a lie.

Rainer Schönhaar, the police officer involved in this matter, then advised me that I could go, and that I may even stay for my dinner engagement. I requested that he give me some documentation so that, should the need arise, I could show anyone else something of my visit to his police station. He advised he had suitably stamped my passport.

And then it was time to relax a little with some sadness and a heavy heart. Germany is again an occupied country where democratic principles are absent. But I should have known that. After all, sixty years ago, the United States of America gave Germany a democratic constitution, and to this day the US Armed Forces are stationed on German soil.

What a democracy! Poor, poor, poor Germany. When will the German spirit rise up against mental oppression as it did in the former German Democratic Republic? I can safely predict that while the ideology of consumerism and hedonism run riot in Germany and Europe, nothing will liberate those enslaved to such powerful aphrodisiacs. Three cheers for freedom and democracy and against state-sponsored terrorism!


The reason for this trip to Windhoek, Namibia's capital city

15 July 2003

"In the Superior Court Of The District Of Columbia [USA], Civil Division The Herero People's Reparations Corporation, a District of Columbia Corporation, 1625 K Street, NW, #102, Washington, DC 20006, USA.

The Hereros, a Tribe and Ethnic and Racial Group by and through its Paramount Chief, By Paramount Chief Riruako, PO Box 60991, Katutura, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia 9000, et al. Case No 01-0004447, Judge Jackson. Initial Scheduling Conference: September 18, 2001 at 9:30 am.

First Amended Complaint


Defendants Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank"). Terex Corporation, also known as Orenstein & Koppel ("Terex") and Woermann Line, now known as Deutsche-Afrika-Linien ("Woermann" or "DAL"), in a brutal alliance with Imperial Germany, relentlessly pursued the enslavement and the genocidal destruction of the Herero Tribe in Southwest Africa, now Namibia. Foreshadowing with chilling precision the irredeemable horror of the European Holocaust only decades later, the defendants and Imperial Germany formed a German commercial enterprise which cold-bloodedly employed explicit-sanctioned extermination, the destruction of tribal culture and social organisation, concentration camps, forced labor, medical experimentation and the exploitation of women and children in order to advance their common financial interests. Well-recognized principles of District of Columbia law, United States law, and international law provide this court with the jurisdiction to impose long-delayed remedies for the atrocities from which the defendants profited ...".

Notice how important the works, of for example Germar Rudolf, are in defence of such outrageous claims? The Rudolf Report now needs to be taken to court as was implied by Justice Gray in the Irving v Lipstadt London 2000 trial where he noted that he did not receive a copy of this report for consideration. Should this claim against Germany and the companies listed succeed, then the other European colonial powers - France Britain, Belgium, et al, will face similar claims. We will be watching this matter with great interest.

And I meet a gentleman whose family has been in the country for five generations. A man of many talents, combining the hand and the mind, I am reminded of my 1977 visit to South West Africa, and how the South African Forces were just outside the Angolan capital, then suddenly withdrew on the express orders of the US government. At the time I wrote a letter to the editor about it to The Bulletin, which much to my surprise was published. That was the end of the white man's dream to hold the southern tip of Africa for themselves and for the sake of development, of making money: from Angola, across to Rhodesia and Mocambique, thereby safeguarding South Africa and its apartheid development. The various independent homelands sprang up; all the while the world had accepted as independent countries the Kingdom of Lesotho and Swaziland as independent nations. Why should the Zulu nation not have its own territory, for example? Why can South Africa not again become a number of independent states, or for that matter Namibia? One reason is a practical one of development. The continent is dry, and Namibia's water problems are severe. Hence, to this day the water shortage problem needs to be addressed, as it was during the German Schutzgebiet-protectorate. The maps drawn up at that time by the engineers as to where the most useful dams ought to be constructed are still used to this day.

Were Namibia and South Africa to fracture further into ethnic states, then such development would be impeded on account of the inevitable bureaucratic red tape that would develop in its wake. It is therefore better to retain the current political unity and follow a policy of affirmative action whereby members from all different ethnic backgrounds get a bite at the consumer cherry!

A number of South Africa's Jewish synagogues have been closed and even sold because its Jewish community is shrinking fast. The Jewish exodus from Southern Africa is notable, as it has been over the past thirty years. Australia, Canada, USA, Europe, and to a lesser extent New Zealand, are favoured direct emigration to Israel. The old saying: 'When the Jews leave, there is still time. When the Indians leave, it's too late', still applies. As in any community, there are Jews here who simply do not have the money or contacts, nor the inclination, toleave the country. They have made South Africa their home. This applies to the older generation, but not to the younger who seek the bright lights in London, etc.


Cross Purposes

Films about Christ's death are always controversial but

Mel Gibson's The Passion has caused an almighty ruckus

before its release, reports Christopher Goodwin

The Weekend Australian, Review section, July 26-27, 2003 (from London Sunday Times)

NOBODY should be surprised that a film depicting the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, and the moment of his greatest suffering, should be controversial. What happened to Jesus of Nazareth has been the source of religious controversy and social conflict for the best part of two millenniums - yet even veteran Hollywood observers have been gobsmacked by the vehemence of feelings over Mel Gibson's film The Passion, which is not due for release until next Easter.

The $40 million project stars Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene - and no film since Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988 has provoked such a furore.

Gibson, an ardent member of a traditionalist Catholic breakaway sect that rejects the current papacy as heretical, financed the film through his company Icon Productions. And he shot the film at Rome's famous Cinecitta studios and in the southern Italian town of Matera, where Pier Paolo Pasolini shot The Gospel According to St Matthew in the early 1960s.

At Cinecitta, Gibson built a 1 ha scale replica of parts of biblical Jerusalem, including the temple and Pontius Pilate's palace. The film is in Aramaic - the language spoken by Jesus - and Latin. Although Gibson had hoped to release it without subtitles, they were included at a recent screening of the unfinished work to a Christian group. It was a matter of pride for Gibson that the film should be as realistic as possible, not just in its language and settings but also by accurately portraying the intense violence inflicted on Jesus. And so the film shows Jesus' flesh flailed during whippings, blood spurting as nails are hammered into his hands and ribs protruding from his chest.

"By the time audiences get to the crucifixion scene," says Caviezel, a devout Christian, "I believe there will be many who can't take it and will have to walk out. And I believe there will be many who will stay and be drawn to the truth."

One person who saw an early cut at a screening in Los Angeles said the film is strongly eucharistic. "There is a beautiful juxtaposition of images that cuts from the stripping on Calvary to the unwrappingof the bread to be used at the last supper," the viewed said. "Fabulous stuff."

Gibson, who had Latin mass said every morning during the shoot, believes that in some way the film was divinely blessed. "There is an interesting power in the script," he told an interviewer on set. "a lot of unusual things have been happening - good things, like people being healed of diseases. A guy who was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene just got up and walked away."

But the film, which still does not have a distributor, has provoked blistering attacks and counter-attacks in the press. The row began in May when an ad hoc committee of nine respected Catholics and Jewish scholars privately submitted to Gibson an 18-page report on a draft of the screenplay, asking him for changes - a report that was leaked to the press.

"A film based on the present version of the script ... would provoke anti-Semitic sentiments," they wrote. Viewers without extensive knowledge of Catholic teaching about interpreting the New Testament will surely leave the theatre with the overriding impression that the bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry Jews had an implacable hatred of Jesus. "The scholars particularly objected to scenes they say are not consistent with gospel accounts showing Jews having the cross built in the temple at the direction of Jewish officials, paying "blood money" for the crucifixion and physically abusing Jesus beforehand.

One leading Catholic theologian in the group said the script was "one of the more anti-Semitic documents most of us have seen for a long time".

Gibson responded, swiftly and fiercely. "Neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic," he said in a statement. "Nor do I hate anyone, certainly not the Jews. They are Jews my friends and associates, both in my work and my social life. Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie."

He and Icon also threatened to sue the committee that evaluated the script. "Nobody has a right to publicly critique a film that has not even been completed," said Gibson's colleague Steve McEveety, "let alone base their critique on an outdated version of the script."

Surprisingly, Gibson did not appear to make any attempt to allay the fears of mainstream Catholic and Jewish groups about potential anti-Semitism in the film by showing it to them. At the end of June, however, he screened the film for a group of evangelical Protestant ministers in Colorado. According to a local paper, Gibson, who attended the meeting in Colorado Springs, had arranged the screening "to make sure its depiction of the Gospel was acceptable to leaders at Focus on the Family and to hundreds of church leaders."

Focus on the Family is an ultra-conservative evangelical group that has been at the forefront of campaigns against homosexual rights in the US. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film and I was just directing traffic," Gibson told the assembled clerics. "I hope the film has the power to evangelise."

The row over The Passion has raised important issues. The first is whether anyone has a right to voice concerns about a work of art before its release or publication. In this case mainstream Catholics, Jews and others seem to have a right to be worried in advance about whether a big-budget film about Christ's Passion (the word is derived from the Latin passio, meaning "suffering") might promote anti-Semitism. "We know the dramatic presentation of Jews as 'Christ-killers' triggered pogroms against Jews over the centuries and contributed to the environment that made the Shoah possible," the scholars' group that reviewed the early draft of Gibson's script said. "Given this story and the power of film to shape minds and hearts, both Catholics and Jews in the ad hoc group are gravely concerned about the potential dangers of presenting a Passion play in movie theatres."

There is a further concern. Despite Gibson's disavowals, do Catholics, Jews and others have reason to fear that, once finished, The Passion might contain "objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism"? The answer, unfortunately, appears to be yes. Gibson was hardly reassuring when asked in a radio interview about whether The Passion would upset Jews. "It may do," he responded. "It's not meant to."

According to the unanimous report by the ad hoc group, there were a substantial number of elements in an early version of the script that they believed could provoke anti-Semitism. (It is not clear whether these remain in the current version of the film.)

Gibson has also noted in interviews that the script had been inspired not just by the Gospels but also by The Dolorus Passion of Our Lord Jesus

Christ written by the 18th-century mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich. Gibson has said his original inspiration for the film came when the book literally fell into his hands one day while he was reaching for another on his library shelf.

Unfortunately, and perhaps unknown to Gibson, Emmerich has long been considered anti-Semitic, claiming visions such as one in which she rescued from purgatory an old Jewish woman who confessed that Jews strangled Christian children and used their blood in religious rituals. Emmerich's visions of the Passion include several elements not found in Gospels - such as the building of the cross in the temple of the high priests - that appear to have found their way at least into the early version of the script seen by the scholars.

Jews, Catholics and others also have a right to be worried about The Passion because of Gibson's intensely felt religious and social beliefs. He has acknowledged that his father, Hutton, has been the dominant spiritual and intellectual influence in his life. Hutton Gibson brought up his 11 children in line with his strict and conservative religious and social views, banning television and preaching against evils of alcohol and extramarital sex among other things. For more than four decades, in books and newsletters with such shrill titles as The War Is

Now! and The Enemy Is Here! Hutton Gibson has railed against the mainstream Catholic Church and other objects of his ire. In common with all so-called Catholic traditionalists, including his son, Hutton believes all popes since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-5 have been "anti-popes", and that the reforms put in place during Vatican II are the origin of the ills of today's mainstream Catholic Church.

The council did away with the tridentine mass, which was conducted in Latin, and also finally repudiated the charge that the Jews had been responsible for the death of

Jesus, a belief many feel informed the European anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust.Mel Gibson says the reforms of Vatican II "corrupted the institution of the church", while Hutton says the Council was a "masonic plot backed by the Jews". Mel Gibson has become the most prominent member of his breakaway Catholic sect and its most generous benefactor. It was recently revealed that he had paid $4.5 million to build a church, Holy Family, on a 6ha plot in the hills behind Malibu, in California. There, he, his family and 70 others practise their religion with the original Latin mass and listen to fiery sermons against the "heretical" papacy.

Of most concern in the context of the row about The Passion are Hutton's other extreme right-wing views, shared by many sedevacantists (people who do not recognise the pope). Hutton has long been a Holocaust denier and openly associates with some of America's leading anti-Semites and Nazi apologists.

In an interview earlier this year with The New York Times Magazine, he disputed historical accounts that 6 million Jews were exterminated in Nazi death camps. "Go and ask the undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body," he told the paper. "It takes one litre of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, 6 million?"

He also insisted there were more Jews in Europe at end of the war than before.

After the New York Times interview was published, Mel said in a radio interview that the attacks on him were being orchestrated: "When you touch this subject, it does have a lot of enemies." He also suggested the reporter had been "harassing" his elderly father, who is 85. But neither Mel nor his father has seen fit to repudiate what Hutton said about the Holocaust. Indeed, when asked about the New York Times story, rather than denying what he had been

quoted as saying, Hutton said: "You

expect to get the shaft when you're doing anything good. There are just too many devil-worshippers out there."

Despite the continuing controversy over his views and the possible anti-Semitism in his son's film, Hutton was late last month a featured speaker at the annual conference of The Barnes Review, the leading anti-Semitic, Nazi apologist think-tank in the US.

It is run by Willis Carto, one of the co-founders of The Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denial group based in California, and raises money by selling anti-semitic and Nazi propaganda on its website, including laudatory books on Hitler, Hess and other Nazi leaders, and a video called Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS.

Joining Hutton as speakers at the conference were noted Australian-raised Holocaust revisionist Fredrick Töben, who spent several months in jail in Germany for "hate speech", and Russ Granata, a notorious Holocaust denier. [and also Germar Rudolf!]

Such are the people Hutton Gibson

openly associates with, even after coming under intense public scrutiny because of the controversy over his son's film. There is nothing to suggest Mel Gibson shares his father's Holocaust-denying views, but what is surprising is that despite opportunities to do so, he has neither repudiated his father's views about the Holocaust nor sought to allay the fears many people, Jews in particular, have about what may be the message of The Passion. It is time he did so.


Adelaide Institute's policy is to follow any lead that sheds light/truth on any problem. Here, perhaps, some light is shed on the inevitable Israeli demise, and it deserves to be aired. Barry Chamish is a fervent Zionist who has little time for Revisionists, less time and empathy even for persons such as Ernst Zündel. Perhaps Zündel's current plight may open Barry's heart a little thereby revealing to us that Barry Chamish is indeed human! Fredrick Töben

----- Original Message -----

From: "Barry Chamish" <>

Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:28 AM

Subject fantastic


LET US RECALL a few of the things I wrote in my new book Save Israel that almost all of you thought were too fantastic to be real.

Shall we begin with the latest Peres scheme?

Peres Raises 'World Capital' Solution for Jerusalem

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Shimon Peres, the head of Israel's opposition Labor Party, has suggested resolving Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem by putting its holy sites under U.N. stewardship, a spokesman said Tuesday. His plan calls for declaring a holy area of sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem's old walled city as a "world capital," with the U.N. Secretary-General serving as mayor, Peres' spokesman Yoram Dori told Reuters.

Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, including the Arab eastern part captured in the 1967 Middle East War and annexed in a move that is not recognized internationally. Palestinians want to make East Jerusalem capital of the state they hope to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites) under a U.S.-backed peace plan. Peres raised the idea in a meeting with visiting Russian diplomats-in-training when they asked how he envisaged a solution to conflicting Israeli-Palestinian claims to the city, Dori said. Israel has previously rejected proposals raised by the Vatican (news - web sites) to internationalize Jerusalem. Peres, a former prime minister and an architect of interim peace deals with the Palestinians, has not raised the proposal with Israeli or Palestinian leaders, Dori said.

THE JERUSALEM POST added that under the Peres plan, the sovereignty of the holy places would revert to their owners. And since the Vatican has the lion's share of real estate claims, guess who gets to own the most holy land in Jerusalem?

AFTER PERES let the cat out of the bag, I was deluged with letters asking how ten years ago I knew this was his real objective. The explanation is found in Save Israel, pp. 131:

In March 1994, the newspaper Chadashot revealed a most remarkable secret of the Middle East "peace" process. A friend of Shimon Peres, the French intellectual Marek Halter, claimed in an interview that in May 1993, he delivered a letter from Peres to the pope. Within, Peres promised to internationalize Jerusalem, granting the UN political control of the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Vatican hegemony of the holy sites within. The UN would give the PLO a capital within its new territory and East Jerusalem would become a kind of free trade zone of world diplomacy. Halter's claim was backed by the Italian newspaper La Stampa which added that Arafat was apprised of the agreement and it was included in the secret clauses of the Declaration Of Principles signed in Washington in September 1993.

In March 1995, the Israeli radio station Arutz Sheva was leaked a cable from the Israeli Embassy in Rome to Peres's Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem confirming the handover of Jerusalem to the Vatican. This cable was printed on the front page of the radical leftwing Israeli newspaper, Haaretz two days later. A scandal erupted and numerous rabbis who had invited Peres for Passover services cancelled their invitations in protest of his treachery. Peres reacted by claiming that the cable was real but that someone had whited out the word, "not;" the cable really said that Israel would "not" hand Jerusalem over to the holy pontiff. Illustrating the sorry political state of Israel's rabbis, they accepted this cockamamie excuse and re-invited Peres to their tables. However, in the widely distributed minutes of a meeting with Clinton in 1997, Peres reiterated his diplomacy, ending with the words, "as I had previously promised the Holy See."


Save Israel pp. 82-86


The latest Rabin hushup murders were Dr. Dalia Eyal, her husband Nimrod Eyal and son Assaf. Dalia Eyal had been employed at Ichilov Hospital since the early 1980s. Currently, she was director of a health fund located there but shift-worked in the trauma department throughout her career at Ichilov. So far, she has not been positively located in the trauma center on the night Yitzhak Rabin died there but let's not rule out the possibility. What is certain is that she knew the doctors and nurses who attended Rabin and was privy to the truth. Let us repeat the murder motive: Dr. Eyal undoubtedly knew how Rabin was really murdered. Who conducted the autopsy on the Eyal family? Dr. Death himself, Yehuda Hiss, the head of the police pathological institute, which was raided last week for hoarding the internal organs of 81 corpses without informing the families of the dead. And as we all know, it was Dr. Death Hiss who changed Rabin's wounds in his infamous pathologist's report. Let us repeat the motive for the coverup: Dr. Eyal knew Hiss lied about Rabin's real wounds.Now let's look at another really sloppy mass murder.

The Chronology Of A Slaughter

Thursday night, Jan. 10 - Dalia and Nimrod Eyal die embracing in their bed.

Friday morning - Jan. 11 - Assaf, 22, dies sitting upright in a salon chair. According to The Jerusalem Post (15/1/2002): "Police theorize that Assaf came home and found his family dead. Failing to detect the presence of the odorless, colorless gas, he too, passed out and died."

Saturday, Jan. 12 - Yona Eliad, Nimrod's brother-in-law, discovers the bodies, as well as the family cats, very much alive. Police announce that it was an apparent family suicide. Friends and relatives of the Eyals vigorously deny the possibility.

Sunday, Jan. 13 - Police reinvestigate and come up with the answer within a day. From the Jerusalem Post: "They died as a result of inhaling carbon monoxide fumes leaked from the water heater in their closed luxury apartment, after a bird's nest blocked the exhaust pipe." The Post reports that about 100 victims a winter, "are overcome by gas from home heaters," though only one hospital in the country is equipped to revive carbon monoxide poisoning victims.

Now let's start thinking clearly:

The Bird's Nest - Birds do not nest in Israel in January. They do not put up a nest overnight anywhere in any season. They do not put up a nest on a pipe venting carbon monoxide. If they tried, they would not finish the nest.

The weather - It has been cold and rainy for most of the winter. The water heater was not turned on for the first time that night. If a summer nest had blocked the exhaust vent, the Eyals would have discovered it or suffocated by the cold November past.

The cats - The bodies were discovered 48 hours after they had succumbed. The apartment was sealed. The cats should have died as well by then.

The son - Assaf comes home, discovers his dead parents and instead of immediately calling an ambulance, sits down on a comfy chair and dies.

Ichilov Hospital - Every doctor and nurse who tended Rabin on Nov. 4/1995 has received written and verbal death threats. Two of the doctors, Kluger and Gutman, suffered unexplainable and almost fatal disorders. They learned to be silent afterward. Dr. Eyal, it seems, had not properly learned the lesson...

By murdering Dr. Dalia Eyal, one ticking bomb was neutralized but there are many more. So, expect many more murders. The Eyal family was poisoned, maybe with CO, maybe with another asphyxiating substance. And it wasn't a little birdie that did it.

NOW LET us look at the following item, reported by all the major Israeli media. Hebrew readers, please visit:

FOR everyone else, here is the translation:

Sunday, June 15, 2003 - Paz Gaz- The Eyal Family Died Of Cyanide Poisoning Paz Gaz presented the findings of its investigation of the deaths of the three members of the Eyal family and concluded they died of cyanide poisoning, possibly caused by a fire in the clothes dryer...OR, JUST as likely, by being force-fed cyanide.


Self-explanatory. Save Israel pp.216

"Israeli biological and nuclear scientists are being knocked off one by one and this covert war is going unnoticed. A plane carrying scientists to Russia's biological warfare center at Novosibirsk was blown up over the Black Sea and no one questions that the Ukrainian missile that supposedly did the job was a hundred miles out of range. Then a Swissair Corsair crashes killing the head of Ichilov Hospital's Hematology department, as well as directors of the Hebrew University School Of Medicine and the Tel Aviv Public Health Department and not a word of suspicion is raised. "


SO FAR, about no one believed me when I wrote that Peres wants to hand Jerusalem over to the Vatican and UN; now they have to believe me. Not many believed me when I wrote that a plane exploding over the Black Sea was, in fact, the murder of Israel's top microbiologists. Today, this serial removal of micobiologists is acknowledged worldwide. And just about everyone thought a bird's nest suffocated the Eyal family until I pointed out that in Israel and all northern countries, birds don't nest in January.

AND NOW onto the biggest claim of Save Israel, which is that the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) runs American diplomacy and that its intentions towards Jews are deadly, no matter how many Jewish pawns are members of the think tank.

A READER provides more verification, as if any more were really needed. However, since Jews are notoriously slow to catch on, add this to the pile of evidence:A while back I wrote an article titled "The Council on Foreign Relations & Mein Kampf" It fits in well with the material in your e-mail. It reveals that at least two editors of the American Version of Mein Kampf were Council on Foreign Relations members. They were also OSS operatives. One of the Editors, George N. Shuster, was closely connected with the Church. The article doesn't go into the connection. Among other things he was editor of a Catholic publication called Commonweal.

Many CFR members are connected to Georgetown University. It is a Jesuit University in Washington DC. Clinton graduated from Georgetown. One of his Georgetown University professors was Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope.


THE POINT BEING, nothing is fantastic. Now with such a good batting average, allow me to be playful. Late July of 2003 is turning into a stellar month for the New World Order, as well as for its opponents. The following are just a few thoughts I jotted down. There are no claims to proof.

1. Everyone had to know just by the CNN reports last month that public opinion was being readied to justify the landing of American troops in Liberia. We can be sure the NWO armed the rebels and ignited the bloodshed. But why? Well, it turns out there is a real good reason. It seems the US is viewing Saudi Arabia as unreliable and has turned to West Africa as a replacement oil source. Well done, NWO. With Iraq and Afghanistan under control, so are the Central Asian oilfields. Now West Africa is getting the same treatment. Kudos to the Bush administration. It is serving the oil industry well. Someone has to pay for the world takeover after all.

2. Even my twelve year old son saw this pattern. the NWO has about as little use for blacks as it does for Jews. To keep them repressed, you've got to bring the uppity ones down. Which might explain the Kobi Bryant scandal? Here's a guy with $45 million in endorsement contracts, a beautiful wife, and a reputation for clean living. So naturally he wants to throw it all away by raping a 19 year old chambermaid. After all, he's obviously someone who couldn't attract women any other way.

And when the world's most marketable athlete was exposed, who didn't secretly have thoughts about successful blacks not

being able to control their basest urges?

Come on, you did so.

I didn't. I thought about OJ Simpson and Mike Tyson. Admittedly they had records of violence but by the time they committed their worst crimes, they had made it to the top of their professions and had the world to lose. Violent tendencies can be brought out with hypnotic suggestion, all the easier if the tendencies are already there.

The pattern is everywhere. Squeaky clean Kirby Puckett becomes a molester. Now you've got a Baylor University basketball player murdered by a fellow player who "heard voices in his head." I pointed all this out to my son, who said, "I guess they gave Magic Johnson AIDS too." I guess they did. If I was Kobi Bryant's attorney, I'd put him under hypnosis to see if there is something he doesn't consciously remember about his stay in Colorado.

3. Did you think the before and after pictures of the Hussein boys looked like the same people? I couldn't tell. One detail is bothersome. It was widely reported hat Uday Hussein had a gash in his face which was repaired by the morticians. How did they do that if he was scarred for life? And why would they be interested in making him more attractive with corrective plastic surgery at that moment? And why were the bodies removed from Iraq to places unknown and then returned?

4. Sophisticated coverup. The History Channel broadcast a documentary on TWA 800 which painstakingly proved that an electric spark in a fuel tank blew up the plane. I recall that hundreds of witnesses on the ground saw a missile trail follow the 747 before it exploded. They weren't interviewed. So how did the producers of this program explain them away? Mass hallucinations is about all there is.

5. Didn't you love the way David Kelley killed himself; like a woman. First he swallowed pills, then he slit his wrists. Those are the preferred methods of women; men tend to shoot or jump. And why choose one method, when two will do? The murder reminds us of Irv Rubin's demise last year in a California lockup. First he slit his throat, then he jumped off a balcony. Why take chances?

6. Here's how you convince Israelis to spend half a billion dollars on a useless fence which will eventually be the final borders of a truncated state. You tell the PLO and Bush to oppose it. Then, the confused Israeli thinks, it must be a good thing.

FANTASTIC YOU say? Just remember, you said that before and you were wrong.


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute