ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                           No 249

Holocaust stir haunts Fudge

23 April 2005. By KERI WELHAM

The former Canterbury University academic who resigned over a "book-burning" scandal says American universities will not employ him for fear of having "some sort of Holocaust-denier" on their staff. Senior history lecturer Thomas Fudge left Canterbury in 2003 after his article in a university journal, revisiting the furore about a student's highly contentious thesis questioning key aspects of the Holocaust, sparked an emotional spat with university heads. Copies of the article were destroyed and an extensive nationwide debate about academic freedom ensued.

Fudge, a Canadian, who is married with one child, yesterday told The Press he was running a research centre in the United States and doing consultative work. He had book contracts and was travelling internationally as a speaker on medieval history. But his preferred job, teaching, eluded him. He believed American universities would not employ him because of "the New Zealand controversy. One speaks about the Holocaust at one's own personal peril."

Despite 13 years as an academic and two earned PhDs, he had had job interviews but could not secure a teaching position at a university. In one meeting to discuss job opportunities this week, the Hayward-Fudge controversy was raised and he was asked to explain his position. "My defence of Joel Hayward has been something that has created some consequences for me. Institutions, in my view, are scared to death of being associated with me because I guess they are afraid of being accused of having some sort of Holocaust-denier in their faculty."

Fudge had been commissioned to write an article about the impact on masters student Joel Hayward of the widespread condemnation of his 1993 thesis questioning the validity of the Holocaust. Hayward suggested the gas chambers used to systematically kill Jews and other minority groups could not have existed and questioned the number of people who died at the hands of the Nazis in World War 2. Hayward's mental health and job prospects suffered. But university heads objected to Fudge's article, sacking the editor of department publication History Now and controversially destroying 500 copies that carried Fudge's article.

Though the books were shredded, it became known as the "book-burning" scandal in academic circles. Fudge left New Zealand in November 2003, on leave, and later resigned. Hayward has also relocated overseas.

Speaking to The Press from Washington, Fudge said the Holocaust had become a modern taboo of such potency that any mention of it that was less than emphatically apologetic was unacceptable. Fudge said he had read Labour MP John Tamihere's recent comments about the Holocaust, which Prime Minister Helen Clark indicated would not be tolerated. "Obviously I wish that there were not consequences but I don't have any regrets for standing up for what I regard as academic freedom." Thomas Fudge, former Canterbury University academic 

Tamihere said he was "sick and tired of hearing how many Jews got gassed" and, although the Holocaust revolted him, he did not want to be continually made to feel guilty for it. Fudge said Tamihere's comment was "much ado about nothing. That statement, I don't find anything offensive in it. I don't find it anti-Jewish." Fudge said Tamihere's other comments, about women and gays, were "unacceptable" and "offensive".

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish human rights organisation, suggested Tamihere had a mental illness called Holocaust Fatigue. "That is nonsense, a sad comment on New Zealand society. When some person in Jerusalem can create a form of mental illness and society accepts that," Fudge said.

Opposition leader Don Brash called for apologies to the Jewish community. Fudge said: "Why? Obviously, he's not allowed to say how he feels. "On the matter of human suffering, it's not necessary to privilege the Jewish experience."

Fudge attributed the Holocaust taboo to the reach of the more radical factions of the powerful Jewish lobby. "There are some radical Zionist-types that bring a lot of pressure. The roads of the world should not, and do not, run through Jerusalem."

The Simon Wiesenthal centre estimates 5,680,000 Jews, and 5,000,000 people from other minority groups, were killed between 1933 and 1945 under Hitler's Nazi regime. Fudge said, despite the consequences of his decision to write about the Hayward Holocaust scandal, he did not regret "the stand" he made. "Obviously I wish that there were not consequences but I don't have any regrets for standing up for what I regard as academic freedom."


FORMER LECTURER Thomas Fudge says American universities fear he is a                   Labour MP John Tamihere says he is "sick and tired of                Holocaust-denier.                                                                                                                                             hearing how many Jews got gassed".  




11 April  2005  - Ted Lapkin Asssociate editor, The Review,Australia/Israel and Jewish AffairsCouncil


There is a Middle East country that legally defines itself as an ethnic state. The constitution of this same nation declares that a particular religious code constitutes its “principle source of legislation.”

The name of that country is Egypt; the ethnicity to which it declares its allegiance is Arab; the religious code in question is Islamic Sharia law. And the Egyptians are hardly alone. From the Palestinian Authority to Tunisia, the Middle East is dominated by nations that formally declare themselves to be Arab/Islamic states.

Yet whenever the subject of sectarian nationalism surfaces in public discourse on the Middle East, it invariably appears as a polemical weapon of abuse against Israel. In fact, the ethnic identity of the Jewish state serves as ‘Exhibit A’ in the anti-Zionist case against Israel’s moral legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

If Israel’s enemies were truly motivated by a principled opposition to ethnic sectarianism, then it seems reasonable to expect that they would fight other examples of this phenomenon with equal vigour. But leftist pundits and politicians maintain a deafening silence on the Arab/Islamic equivalents to Zionism that exist throughout the Levant. These salon revolutionaries castigate the Middle East’s oldest democracy for all manner of sins, while remaining largely silent about the region’s worst despots and tyrants

There are no raucous street demonstrations demanding non-sectarian statehood outside the embassies of Morocco or Algeria. There are no petitions circulating through university campuses calling for divestment from Jordan. And the blatantly ethnic and religious character of Palestine’s draft constitution has not dimmed affection for that cause within the ranks of the Western Left.

Selective criticism is also applied to Israel’s preferential immigration policy that affords immediate citizenship and benefits to Jewish migrants. Zionists maintain that Israel’s ‘Law of Return’ is an essential means of fulfilling its national mission as a Jewish homeland. And one of the most notable instances of Israel’s ingathering project involved the sole instance in history when Black Africans were transported en mass to freedom rather than slavery. From 1985 to 1991, the Israeli Air Force flew 36,000 Ethiopian Jews from persecution and degradation to a new life in the Jewish state. Yet to Israel’s detractors, Zionist immigration policy constitutes conclusive evidence that the Jewish state is irredeemably racist.

But the Federal Republic of Germany has long maintained its “aussiedler” (resettler) system of preferential ethnic immigration without attracting similar condemnation. Article 116(1) of Germany’s constitution confers automatic citizenship upon persons “of German origins,” as well as a generous social welfare package to soften their absorption into society.

Thus both Germany and Israel maintain affirmative action-style policies that facilitate preferential immigration on the basis of overtly ethnic criteria. Yet while Israel’s Law of Return serves as moral justification for those who demand the dissolution of the Jewish state, the aussiedler program generates no attacks against German national legitimacy.

And the same imbalance is brought to bear on the question of Israel and Palestinian refugees. The Arabs insist on a ‘right of return’ that would permit millions of Palestinians to settle in Tel Aviv, Haifa and other parts of Israel’s heartland. Thus this demand is simply euphemistic shorthand for the ethnic eradication of the Jewish state.

The cause of Palestinian return has been enthusiastically adopted by the Left. But one must wonder why there are no similar advocacy campaigns for the return of 16 million Muslims and Hindus displaced during the upheavals that accompanied the independence of India. One must also ask why the European Union opposes the compensation claims made by 10 million ethnic Germans who were expelled from eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII. And one must marvel at the global amnesia that is applied to the 800,000 Jews who were expelled from the Arab world during the years following Israel’s creation.

It appears that what is good for the non-Jewish goose is not good for the Jewish gander. Jewish self-determination is deemed to be morally insufferable, but similar manifestations of nationalism pass without pejorative mention.

But don’t pejorative attitudes that are selectively applied to a given ethnic group constitute the essence of bigotry? And if negative treatment is applied to Jews; but not to others, isn’t that the textbook definition of anti-Semitism?

Of course tempered criticism of a particular Israeli policy does not necessarily equal a call for the abolition of the Jewish state. But the selective outrage of Israel’s mortal foes does call into question their moral integrity. And if the anti-Zionist campaign to de-Judaise Israel is not motivated by sublimely universal principles, one must seek another source for its unyielding ferocity.

The explanation for this is simple: modern anti-Zionism is simply the newest face of the oldest hatred; a modern repackaging of ancient anti-Semitic doctrines that have marred human history for the past two millennia.


5 May  2005  - Paul Heywood - Smith QC, Chairperson Australian Friends of Palestine Association

A few weeks ago on this program Mr. Ted Lapkin made an apologia for Israel and its immigration policies and made an unwarranted allegation of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel. It is appropriate and necessary that there be an answer.

Mr. Lapkin commences by holding up Egypt as an ethnic state. I’m not sure what point is sought to be made. Most modern states are ethnic states, i.e. having a common national or cultural tradition. It is asserted that Egypt has a particular religious code. So does the United Kingdom which has an established Church; the Church of England. So too do many Western countries identify themselves with the Christian Church. The United States – “In God We Trust” – and Australia, are two examples

It is advanced that it is important to note that many middle-eastern countries identify themselves with Islam. This, it is suggested, renders Israel not alone in “ethnic sectarianism”. And further, it is suggested, Arab/Islamic equivalents to Zionism thus exist.

There is here a confusing of concepts. There are no Arab equivalents to Zionism. Nor, as is suggested, is Israel a democratic state. It may be democratic for its Jewish inhabitants, but when its Arab citizens are rendered second class citizens by being precluded from purchasing the vast majority of the lands of Israel, it cannot claim to be, and certainly is not, a democratic state.

The real problem for apologists of Israel is that Israel is a racist state. The Zionist catch-cry “God gave us (the Chosen) the whole of this land”, reeks with inherent racism. One only needs to consider the contemptuous way that Israel’s government refuses to even treat with Palestinian leaders to witness its implementation: ergo the unilateral so-called withdrawal from Gaza. However, let me be more specific. Let us look at Israel’s 1.2 million Arab citizens. Deprived of a constitution or bill of rights, the Israeli Arab must confront in his daily life the organisations having quasi-sovereign status such as the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund. These organisations exist only to promote Jews and ensure, through that objective, discriminations against Palestinians of every conceivable kind. Thus Israeli Palestinians have no right to live in areas reserved by law for Jews (i.e. over 90% of the country); and 17 basic laws discriminate against Israeli Arabs.

Israel’s immigration policy is referred to as a “preferential immigration policy”. That is a misnomer. It is in fact an exclusive immigration policy. There is certainly no preference to the indigenous inhabitants who were removed from the lands of their ancestors in 1948.

A comparison with Germany’s immigration policy is urged upon us but that policy does not exclude the indigenous owners of German lands. Rather it embraces them. Thus Germany’s ethnic criteria favour its traditional owners, whilst Israel’s exclude them. It is no good Israel and its supporters railing against the right of return. Israel created the problem that it has by driving these people from their homes. If the fact of their return means that the demographic landscape might not be to the liking of the Zionists that is their problem. They have chosen to create a racist, and artificially ethnic, society, on another people’s homeland.

And it is not just the left who identify with the Palestinian refugees’ plight. It is all people of goodwill and morality. The left, contrary to the views of some, does not have a monopoly on morality and truth. Many on the right also have a claim and they are commencing to exercise it. Witness the vote of Caterpillar shareholders in the US, in Chicago, on April 13, to call on their management to cease the sale of weaponised bulldozers to the Israeli Defence Force. Witness the decision of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to disinvest from Israel.

Israel points to the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from the Arab World during the years following Israel’s creation. The use of the word “expulsion” is contentious, but the fact remains that Arab communities were reacting, i.e. responding, to the aggression of the Zionists engaged in stealing another peoples’, brother and sister Arabs’, lands.

And finally might I say that I resent the description of me, or those Palestinian supporters like me, as anti-Semitic. This is surely the last resort of the moral bankrupt. For years the Jewish communities have used the Anti-Defamation League to counter genuine anti-Semitism. Now supporters of Israel appear intent on using defamation themselves to counter legitimate criticism of their racist and expansionist State. I, at least, am not prepared to be intimidated.


Battle of the Wills - Fredrick Töben, 16 April 2005

De-mystifying the Jewish mindset that hates honesty and other civilizing values, which make up our world civilization.

The Jews - A parasitic mentality that sucks love out of people but then never develops into mature autarky - and hates the truth concept.

In a brief but profound way Gilad Atzmon, below, illuminates  another aspect of the Kevin MacDonald analysis of Judaism - an  evolutionary strategy of group survival.

Horst Mahler grappled with this phenomenon in his Berlin 'Judaismus Prozess', and he clearly shows how it can be overcome by applying  German idealistic philosophical thought.

It is not easy to wrestle clear of the trickery that a primitive mind develops in order to dominate and subjugate another mind.

It does not surprise that in parts Adolf Hitler cracked the Jewish Code by postulating 'autarky' as a liberating concept to be employed in economic policies.

Perhaps he also foresaw that this attack of his on things Jewish would haunt the Germans with a vengeance in the form of the many Holocaust lies that to this day constrain and imprison the German mindset.

Thoughts of physical elimination is ever uppermost in such a mindset's makeup, but adopting this stance must be resisted by those who confront it because you then fall into its set trap. Revisionist are well aware of this trap made up of words such as 'hater', 'holocaust denier',  'antisemite',  'racist', 'neo-Nazi', etc.  Such terms will activate legal protection for its users.

How do you defeat this parasitic mindset?  

Through hard mental work, as Horst Mahler has shown, by thinking things through, instead of breaking off half way and claiming victim status or chosen-ness.

In the item below Gilad Atzmon illuminates the mindset that tends to upset the non-Jews who have a lesser-developed mental agility, thereby falling into the trap set by Jews.

This is the reason why the Jewish mindset loves to provoke physical violence against themselves because it offers them a confirmation of their own existence. For example, 'antisemites' are the life-blood of Judaism. Take it away and they would have to invent another concept so that they can play victim again.

This is the reason why physical violence is out of the question, and those that advocate it are fools.

It is through thinking, mental power, that this primitive mindset is overcome - dialectically. That's the freedom of which mature individuals crave and achieve.

Ernst Zündel has achieved this freedom in his mind because his Weltanschauung is independent of things Jewish - but the Jewish mindset has imprisoned his physical being, as it has also imprisoned those that put Ernst into prison on 5 February 2003.

So, what needs to be done? What legal tactics is Ernst Zündel to employ within a legal framework that already has him found guilty of the crime of 'denying the Holocaust'! Let me hear your thoughts on this, please.


Gilad Atzmon: The J word, the J people and the J spot

Many of us, the critical voices of Zionism and Israel, have already realised something: it is advisable to avoid using the ‘J’ word.

Once you use the ‘J’ word you had better expect some serious trouble. But in fact, this is not entirely true. You can safely apply the ‘J’ word, you just have to make sure you say the right things.

For instance no one is going accuse you of being a racist for flattering the ‘J’ people with some incredible positive superlatives.

No one will cause you any trouble for saying that the J’s are very intelligent or a nice bunch of people.

You can even lie and say that they are extremely good looking and by far the kindest people on earth.

It is only when you say what you really think that the real trouble starts. As soon as you become slightly genuine you will have to face an orchestrated smear campaign, you will be then called an ‘anti Semite’, a ‘new historian’ and even a ‘holocaust denier’.

If you happen to be a ‘J’ yourself you will probably end up being labelled a ‘self-hating J’, no doubt a pretty prestigious club to be a member of.

All of the above depicts a very obscure picture: as it seems, the ‘J’ people do not mind being collectively categorised, they do not mind racial generalisations as long as they come out looking good by it.

For instance saying that the J’s are the greatest and the most clever people on earth won’t be taken by them as an outrageous racist remark. But then, as soon as you mention that some of them may appear to be just slightly greedy at times, this is when trouble starts.

One may wonder how is it possible, clearly, the two statements are equally racially outrageous, equally categorical. Both statements attribute qualities to a specific racial group and yet only the latter is seen as inflammatory.

Rather than address this riddle, I would prefer to dismiss the issue altogether. In fact, none of these remarks should be considered racist, because the ‘J’ people aren’t a race.

Not only are they not a race, they aren’t a class, they aren’t a nation, they aren’t a tribe, they aren’t an ethnic group, they aren’t victims, they aren’t even the oppressors. They are none of these but they can easily become any of them whenever it is convenient.

The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient.

As soon as you criticise their expansionist militant national beliefs (Zionism) you hurt them as a race (Semites), they would insist that anti Zionism is in practice a form of anti Semitism.

When you condemn their racist tendencies, they are transformed immediately into an innocent cultural identity (merely chicken soup consumers).

When you criticise their exclusive cultural leanings, they then become a race again (it isn’t me it’s all down to my mother, she is Jewish, I am just a consequence of her racial belonging).

But it goes further, when you scrutinise their racist and supremacist religious law (Talmud) they remind you that most of them are in fact secular (true by the way), but then, when you question their secular philosophy, they would immediately confess that, in fact, there is no such philosophy.

You may push your luck and ask them what stands at the core of their ethnic belonging.

A readymade answer would be given instantly: ‘it is Hitler rather than Moses who made us into J’s’. Hitler never asked for our religious beliefs, he killed us just for being J’s.’ When you remind them that Hitler is no longer with us, they would assure you that a new one is just about to be born. Basically you can never win. But neither can they.

You can never win because you don’t really want to win, you just enjoy exploring a unique bizarre and yet a very powerful and victorious identity.

For you it isn’t about winning, all you want is to help the Palestinian people in their right and justified battle. For you it isn’t about a clear practical gain, you want to make this planet just a bit nicer of a place to live in. But for them it is a different matter altogether. For them, it is all about winning, they are set to win, unconditional success is brewed into their spirit both culturally and religiously.

But they can never win, by the time they win they get lost. They stop being victims.

Occasionally it looks as if they are almost there, you can see them running the show, running American political life, running American show business, running the ‘new middle East’, running the Communist revolution but then, as it appears, something always goes wrong.

Suddenly, completely out of the blue, everyone around is standing up against the plot. As it seems, they always win the battles but somehow manage to lose the war, very much like contemporary America. Is it a coincidence? I don’t think so.

Sadly enough for them, not only can’t they win, as tragically as it may appear, they can’t lose either, they can never be defeated.

Thus even their lowest moments are transformed into a glorious political manoeuvre. By the time millions of European J’s were facing murderous Nazi brutality, Ben Gurion was already capitalising on their imminent deaths.

By now, within the J’s common worldview, the holocaust is recognised as a justification and a pillar of self righteousness.

Rather than being a moral lesson, the holocaust stands as an excuse. Rather than use the tragic event as a moment of reflection, at least in the eyes of the Zionist J’s it is transformed into a militant expansionist philosophy backed with hundreds of nuclear weapons.

As it seems, they can neither win nor lose, Thus they are doomed to wander around engaging themselves in an endless metamorphosis.

They move forward and backwards, from left to right, from right to left, from spirituality into materialism, from orthodox Marxism into hard capitalism.

They are always at the cool side of game, when it was right to be a Socialist they were right there in the forefront of the Bolshevik revolution, now when it is hard capitalism that sets the tone, you read about them in the Wall Street Journal, they are the new prophets from Manhattan. Life is never boring for ‘J’ people.

But then, let me tell you, there is only one thing they can’t cope with, one thing that drives them mad. Something that never settles peacefully in their well protected binary world. It is called love. If you love them you kill them. Love shakes their confidence, for them it is far easier to be detested. The only way to destroy Zionism, to dismantle ‘J’ power, is to embrace them to your heart, to make love to their ‘J spot’. To worship them exactly when they anticipate your ultimate aversion. Always overwhelm them with affection. A brief look into their history makes it very clear. By the time they were fully emancipated by their European host nations, they invented Zionism. When anti Semitism was thrown out of the window, it was the Zionists who reintroduced it. By the time Israel was praised by the world for its military success and murderous strategies, Zionism was in ruins.

We must learn to accept everything they do. When they flatten a Palestinian village, rather than protesting, just look in their eyes and assure them that your love is unconditional.

When they throw a bomb on a school in Gaza, just hold them close to your heart and express your sincere understanding.

When their right wing American zealots take the West into war against Iraq, Syria or Iran just remind yourself that sooner or later peace will prevail.

Don’t you ever forget, they are doing all those horrible things not because they are that horrifying, they just feel an urgent need to remind you that you really hate them.

When you meet them in person you learn that they are not that vicious, they are just slightly immature beings due to the fact that they are not very competent in social life, they are born chosen.

They live in a segregated mental ghetto. They never learned how to handle human company, they know very little about empathy. In the end of the day, they don’t live among others. They prefer to live alongside.

Love is the way to redeem the ‘J’ people and hopefully to save the world. It isn’t easy; some would even say that it is pretty impossible. But as sad as it may sound, love is the only weapon against those who are fuelled by negation.

And by the way, don’t you ever use the ‘J’ word.


My Battle With The Thought Police


By Hans-Hermann Hoppe


posted April 12, 2005

Readers of this site probably know about my ordeal at my university, which has been covered quite extensively on this site and by the major mainstream press. Now that major combat operations have ended (to employ a phrase used by Bush in reference to Iraq...two years ago), I've had some time to reflect on what happened, why, and whether and to what extent I responded properly.


And so here are my thoughts on this incident that took my career as a professor of economics in a direction I would never have anticipated. Now that the case is more-or-less settled, I no longer feel bound by legal considerations to keep silent on important details. This article is the first to disclose the full details of the case.  


Las Vegas prides itself for its tolerance and so does UNLV, its university. At the university, however, tolerance is selective. You may assert that white heterosexual males are responsible for all of mankind’s misery, that Castro’s Cuba is a great success story, that capitalism means exploitation, or that most university professors are liberals because conservatives are too stupid to teach. If anyone should complain about this, such complaint will be dismissed outright.


And rightly so. After all, the university is committed to academic freedom. Its faculty has the "freedom and an obligation … (to) discuss and pursue the faculty member’s subject with candor and integrity, even when the subject requires consideration of topics which may be politically, socially or scientifically controversial. … (a) faculty member…shall not be subjected to censorship or discipline by the University ... on grounds that the faculty member has expressed opinions or views which are controversial, unpopular or contrary to the attitudes of the University…or the community."


None of this applies to professors who dissent from socialist, statist, or culturally left-wing views, however, as I would find out.

In March of 2004, during a 75 minute lecture in my Money and Banking class on time preference, interest, and capital, I presented numerous examples designed to illustrate the concept of time preference (or in the terminology of the sociologist Edward Banfield of "present- and future-orientation"). As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted--as have many other scholars--that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead."


During my lecture no question was raised. (You can hear the same lecture, given some time later, on the Mises Media server.) However, two days later an informal complaint was filed by a student with the university’s affirmative action "commissar." The student claimed that he as a homosexual had been made to "feel bad" by my lecture. Based on this "evidence" the commissar, who, as I would find out only weeks later, was a former clergyman turned "certified" gay activist, called me at home to inform me that he would shut down my class if I continued making such remarks.


I agreed to meet the commissar in my office thinking that this would bring matters to a quick end. The student would be informed about the nature of a university and academic freedom, including his right to ask and challenge his professor. Instead, the commissar lectured me on what and how I was to teach my classes. I explained to him the difference between a professor and a bureaucrat and that he was overstepping his bounds, but to no avail. However, because the student had falsely claimed that my remarks had been about "all" homosexuals, I agreed to explain the difference between "all" and "average" statements during my next class.


In my next lecture I explained that when I say that Italians eat more Spaghetti than Germans for instance this does not mean that every Italian eats more Spaghetti than every German. It means that on the average Italians eat more Spaghetti than Germans.


Upon this the student filed a "formal" complaint. I had not taken his feelings seriously. He felt "hurt again;" and as he had learned from the commissar, feeling bad twice constituted a "hostile learning environment" (an offense that is not defined in the university by-laws). From then on the commissar made the student’s case his own. Every pretence of acting as a neutral mediator was abandoned, and he became a prosecutor.


In April I was ordered to appear before an administrative committee assembled by the commissar and to prove my statement. This was in clear violation of university rules: not only is there no provision for any "truth squad," but as bureaucrats the committee members were entirely unqualified for such a task.


However, I naively provided the requested evidence. My request to have the meeting taped was denied. During the hearing, which was conducted in a style reminiscent of the interrogations of politically suspect academics in communist countries or Nazi Germany, essentially only the commissar spoke.


My repeated request to hear witnesses was denied. One student, recommended by the complainant, was later secretly interviewed, but because her testimony contradicted what the commissar wanted to hear, it was suppressed. Furthermore, in his indictment, which I would not see until November, the commissar referred to a previous unrelated student complaint, but he suppressed the information that this complaint had been dismissed as without merit and actually resulted in an embarrassment for the university administration.


The provided evidence was brushed aside, because some of it had also allegedly appeared on anti-gay sites which I had never visited. Indeed, whatever I or anyone else said was irrelevant because the commissar had already found "proof" of my hostility in my writing.


In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.


For instance, on p. 218, I wrote "in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant .. such as democracy and communism." "Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society."


In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context and omit the condition: in a covenant… then they appear unduly harsh.

My praise of discrimination was part of a frontal attack against what is sometimes called left-libertarianism--against the politics that equates liberty with libertinism, multiculturalism, and so-called civil rights as opposed to existence and enforcement of private-property rights. In retaliation, to discredit me as a "fascist," a "racist," a "bigot," etc., the left-libertarian smear-bund has routinely distorted my views by quoting the above passages out of context.


The commissar discovered these "quotes"--and voila! I was found guilty as charged. (Characteristically, upon challenge the commissar proved unable--also during a second hearing six months later--to cite on which page the alleged quotes appeared.)


An indictment, recommending a letter of reprimand and forfeiture of a week’s pay, was forwarded to my dean, who neither accepted nor rejected it but sent it to the provost. After waiting for more than 5 months, the provost acted likewise.


In November, he instructed the university code officer, who had been a member of the first inquisition committee, to send me the indictment, form another committee and order me to show up for a second trial. The committee was composed of the dean of natural sciences, the associate dean of the hotel college, a biology professor and the president of the student government. The code officer served as secretary and the commissar as prosecutor. I was accompanied by a lawyer, in response to which the university also sent a lawyer. No committee member had any knowledge of economics.

My lawyer’s request to have the meeting taped or have a court reporter present was denied. After the student explained about his hurt feelings, my lawyer asked where in the code a "hostile learning environment" was defined. Neither the code officer nor the university lawyer could answer the question because no such definition exists.


I read the above quoted passages regarding academic freedom and argued that my contractually granted rights had been infringed upon. I had spoken about my subject and beyond that I was not obliged to "prove" anything. In fact, my statement was hardly "controversial" but utterly reasonable in light of my adduced evidence. I again requested students be interviewed concerning my alleged "hostility," but again the request was ignored. I offered several student letters written on my behalf, but they were not admitted as evidence.


The committee members asked few if any questions; only the dean contributed some precious gems of political correctness. The most time was taken up by the commissar. In the meantime he had gathered information about me and my prominence and come to the conclusion that if he could silence me he could silence anyone. He set out on a tirade against me that in the judgment of my lawyer would have gotten him thrown out of any regular courtroom. After ranting for almost half an hour even the university lawyer had enough and told him to "Shut up," and when he continued, the lawyer admonished the committee chair to cut him off.


Two months later, at the end of January 2005 the code officer called my lawyer to inform him that the "peer" committee had affirmed the first committee’s "hostile environment" finding and would recommend to the provost a letter of reprimand and forfeiture of my next merit increase. There might be a little room for negotiation, but if I didn’t accept the offer even more serious punishment up to termination might be in the offing. My lawyer’s request to see the report was denied.


I rejected the offer and having until then been placed under a gag order, finally started a counteroffensive. I was put in contact with the ACLU Nevada, and though our political views are poles apart, the ACLU to its eternal credit was principled enough to take on my "rightist" professor’s case. In addition, a prominent local attorney volunteered his services, and within a few days the Mises Institute’s public relations machinery began its work on my behalf.


First, the ACLU sent a "letter of demand," requesting an immediate end to the charade or the university would be taken to court, then local news stories about the case appeared, and protest letters and angry calls began to pour in to the university.

As a first result, on February 9th the provost sent me a "non-disciplinary letter of instruction"--a far cry from a reprimand and monetary punishment. But if this letter had been sent to calm the waters, the opposite occurred. The "instructions" stood in patent contradiction to the bylaws on academic freedom, as even a dimwit could recognize. Whatever academic reputation the provost might have had before, the letter made him look like an invidious fool.


A local affair escalated into a national and even international one, and a wave of protests turned into a flood. The university had a public relations disaster on its hands. Only ten days later--almost exactly one year after the affair had started--the university president, at the order of the chancellor of the entire university system, officially withdrew all charges against me.


This was a moment of great personal triumph, yet some things remain undone: the university has not apologized to me, no form of restitution has been offered for a lost year of my work, and no one has been held accountable at UNLV. To accomplish this, a trial would be necessary. While my lawyers agree that I would prevail in court, another year or two of my life would be lost. This cost is too high. The outpouring of world-wide support on my behalf and the many uplifting and heartwarming letters are my satisfaction.


I have long regarded the political correctness movement as a threat to all independent thought, and I am deeply concerned about the level of self-censorship in academia. To counteract this tendency, I have left no political taboo untouched in my teaching. I believed that America was still free enough for this to be possible, and I assumed that my relative prominence offered me some extra protection.

When I became a victim of the thought police, I was genuinely surprised, and now I am afraid that my case has had a chilling effect on less established academics. Still, it is my hope that my fight and ultimate victory, even if they can not make a timid man brave, do encourage those with a fighting spirit to take up the cudgels.


If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.


Hans-Hermann Hoppe is professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA,



Neighbours lower Nazi flag

21 April 2005  AAP


Up in arms ... Jenni Duncombe says baby Breeanna enjoys watching the bright flag. Picture: Gary Graham

NEIGHBOURS say a Nazi flag flying in the backyard of a New South Wales Central Coast family home has been taken down after criticism from the RSL, Jewish groups and other neighbours. The flag had been flying in the backyard of the home of Mannering Park residents Darren Mackay and Jenni Duncombe for about a week.

It sparked criticism from the RSL, Jewish groups and local residents after the family refused requests to remove it. Ms Duncombe had told the Daily Telegraph she did not know what the flag signified until the controversy erupted, but would not remove it because her four-month-old daughter liked its bright colours.


Today, the couple's neighbour Amanda Smith said the flag disappeared this morning. "I can't see it and I can see the flag pole from my house," she said. Ms Smith said she was one of a number of residents who complained to the police about the matter. "I'm not usually the type of person to complain about these sorts of things. "But when you see it you think what is going on, what sort of people are they and what are they doing." Ms Smith said she found it hard to believe that Ms Duncombe did not know what the flag stood for or that it would be offensive. "You have to be very ignorant to not know what that was," she said.


A Wyong Council spokeswoman said it was understood the flag had been taken down. The red Nazi flag, with its black swastika on a white circle, was the symbol of Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitic German Third Reich, responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent people.



Galloway win causes alarm, Yaakov Lappin, JPost, 8 May 2005

"This defeat is for Iraq. All the people you have killed, all the lies you have told have come back to haunt you," declared maverick lawmaker George Galloway following his tight election victory Friday in London's East End district of Bethnal Green. Galloway, who once praised Saddam Hussein and was kicked out of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party for his stance against the Iraq war, got even by beating Jewish MP Oona King in a traditional Labor stronghold. Running for the Respect party, which he founded in opposition to the war, Galloway's win gives him a platform to keep needling Blair, who won a historic third term for his party despite a reduced majority in parliament. Parading through his newly won constituency in an open-deck bus on Saturday, Galloway told followers: "It is one of my first missions to bring him [Blair] in front of a court in The Hague and behind bars."

But Galloway's electoral success has been met with alarm and disdain across Britain. A source from the Conservative Party told The Jerusalem Post that "it is extremely worrying how lack of trust in Mr. Blair has been exploited by this demagogue." The election campaign for Bethnal Green, in which 50 percent of voters are Muslim, was one of the ugliest electoral fights in British political history. Oona King, the previous Labor MP for the area, accused the Respect party of inciting activists to hurl anti-Semitic abuse at her. A Labor source told the Post that the Respect party was "drumming up a poisonous atmosphere" as the election campaign reached its peak last month. King, who has a Jewish mother and a black father, told the British press that Respect party members instructed voters "not to vote for me because I am Jewish." Backing the Iraq war, King lost to Galloway by some 800 votes.

In a BBC interview which ended with Galloway removing his microphone and walking away, Jeremy Paxman, presenter of the News Night program, asked the newly elected MP whether he was "proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?" "If you ask that question again, I'm going, I warn you now," responded Galloway. "Don't try and threaten me, Mr. Galloway, please," answered Paxman. In the course of the interview, Galloway reiterated the message which has characterized his campaign: "There's absolutely no doubt that all those New Labor MPs who voted for Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush's war have on their hands the blood of 100,000 people in Iraq, many of them British soldiers, many of them American soldiers, most of them Iraqis. And that's a more important issue than the color of her [King's] skin."

"I think he's a carpet bagger," said David Lammy, Labor's Constitutional Affairs Minister, on the same program. Lammy, who is black, said that Galloway "came down from Scotland to whip up racial tensions. He has inherited now the most divided and polarized constituency. The manner in which he won that seat, whipping up racial tension, dividing some of the poorest people in this country, I think was obscene, and I'm deeply sad," added Lammy.

"Listening to Galloway's News Night speech was almost like hearing Saddam Hussein speak," said Gil Gorev, former head of the Israel Society at the London School of Economics. "It's a victory for British democracy that Galloway could run, but it's very sad that someone like that, with his history, gets elected," said Gorev. "He doesn't represent tolerance, or mutual respect. He's very aggressive. It's really sad," he added.

Galloway, who is regarded as anti-Semitic by some in Britain's Jewish community, is not a figure Israel should be particularly concerned about, according to Gorev. "Most of Galloway's agenda is about British domestic issues, and attacking Blair for the Iraq war."

Galloway and the election Saturday, May 07, 2005

Some days there seems to be nothing to write about, but this isn't one of those days. Moussaoui's plea, England's plea, Larry Franklin, the odd arrest in Pakistan, the 'smoking gun' of the Iraq war, North Korea, the murders of Razicka and Calipari, Syria . . . the list goes on and on. But I thought I'd mention the splendid election of George Galloway. Here is a good little summary of Galloway's recent trials and tribulations in the fight for truth and decency:

"Special congratulations must go to ex Labour MP, George Galloway. He was the first MP [of any party] brave enough to stand up in Parliament and call Blair a liar, straight to his face - long before Michael Howard did. What a price Galloway paid, though. The 'Dept of Dirty Tricks' sprung into overdrive. M16 helped Blair's government do its worst. In Galloway they found a man who took the gloves off; a bare knuckle, political street-fighter if ever there was one. He couldn't be allowed to go on the way he was - daring to take on and expose the stinking 'system'. Not for him the old school style, debating society. He said it how it was. He pulled no punches. Had he been in America, he'd have been 'Wellstoned' - take my word for it.

For his pains, he was vilified then crucified. All manner of allegations of treason, etc, were hurled at him by the Blair bunch. Documents 'proving' he was on Saddam's payroll were 'found' - in the rubble of Iraq. Documents which were later proved to be forgeries. They'd been 'found', just like the infamous passport atop the WTC , 9/11 rubble. The Iraq 'find' was made 'accidentally' by a journalist, who just happened to work for the shadowy 'establishment's' [un]official organ - The Daily Telegraph. Later, after assassinating Galloway's character and horribly humiliating the man himself, he was denied the Labour whip, and kicked out of the party.

Well, he went away, licked and healed his wounds, then planned his revenge. He started a new, virtually one-man-band, party - the anti-war party "Respect". Last night, he returned to parliament, in triumph. He ousted a sitting New-Labour MP; a real Blair-Babe. In his acceptance speech, he was as bold as ever: 'This is for Iraq, Tony Blair,' he said. He also railed about 'All the lives you [Blair] have lost. All the lies you have told.' Adding: 'The best thing the Labour Party can do - is sack [fire] you!'"

Galloway won a big libel judgment against the embarrassing Daily Telegraph. Here is his acceptance speech.

For his anti-war efforts and the fact that he is a true socialist - a group of human being vilified as evildoers and commies in the United States and unrecognized in Britain as the populace has been confused into thinking that the members of the neo-liberal globalist Blair Labour Party are 'socialists' - he is still being called such things as an 'islamofascist' (note the stupid comments by this usually smart blogger, and the even stupider comments from a 'guest' at Talking Points Memo, a blog with the single worst collection - with the notable exception of Harry Shearer - of guest bloggers in the so-called blogosphere). The usually smart Jeremy Paxman seems to feel that Galloway is some kind of racist because the woman he beat is black, a woman who voted in favor of Blair's illegal and immoral and racist attack against the Iraqi people! The unstated view is that British Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote (the only Muslims who deserve to vote are in . . . Iraq!).

The British people voted intelligently, rebuking Blair but avoiding the trap of falling again into the foul cesspool of Thatcherism. Despite his contrite words, however, Blair won't leave unless he is pushed, and there is an extremely serious danger of his playing the poodle again for Bush. Bush's next war will be preceded by an atrocity, probably either an assassination of a senior American official or a 'terrorist' attack against American civilians or a large group of American soldiers. Just like September 11, this will be followed almost immediately by an FBI identification of the identities of the 'terrorists', who will all turn out to be intelligence agents of the next country on the Bush-Zionist list of victims of American aggression. Blair will claim that he has no choice but to send British troops to fight against this outrage, and the Iraq debacle will be repeated. This poodle-ing will destroy the Labour Party for generations, and doom the British people to the predations of the Conservatives. Unless the members of the Labour Party get off their sorry asses and get rid of Blair as quickly as is decently possible, they are dooming their country, not to mention their party. Most politicians will never have another job as good as the one they have as an elected politician, and if they leave Blair around for any length of time he will ensure that they never have a chance to be reelected. Once he is out of power, the world can start to prepare for his war crimes trial.



In the country of ’perpetrators’ the guilt-tripping continues unabated


Holocaust-Mahnmal Über dem Führerbunker, Berlin 

Von Henryk M. Broder

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 10. Mai 2005, 08:45URL:,1518,355267,00.html

Es war einmal ein böser Ort, heute ist es ein guter: Nur 100 Meter vom ehemaligen Führerbunker-Gelände entfernt wird heute das Holocaust-Mahnmal eingeweiht. Bei allem Streit über Ausgestaltung, Sinn und Nutzen der monströsen Gedenkstätte - eine bessere Stelle hätte man nicht finden können.


Holocaust-Mahnmal in Berlin: Kein Anfang und kein Ende, nur Höhen und Tiefen

An einem klaren und sonnigen Tag liegt das Holocaust-Mahnmal in der Mitte von Berlin da wie der Inhalt eines Lego-Kastens, der von einem Kind ausgeschüttet und dann sauber im Sandkasten aufgebaut wurde. Aus größerer Höhe, von 500 Metern aufwärts, sieht das "Stelenfeld" mit den 2711 Betonpfeilern vielleicht wie der Friedhof einer klassenlosen Gesellschaft aus. Jedes der Gräber ist genau 95 cm breit und 238 cm lang, nur die Höhenmaße sind verschieden, von 0,2 bis 4,7 Meter.

"Das 19.000 Quadratmeter große Stelenfeld ist sanft aber unregelmäßig geneigt", heißt es in der Projektbeschreibung, die am Zaun hängt. Die Stelen ergeben optisch eine Welle, die ihrerseits endlose Weite und Ewigkeit suggerieren soll, denn eine Welle hat keinen Anfang und kein Ende, nur Höhen und Tiefen. Es ist suggestive Architektur, die den Besucher in ihren Bann ziehen soll. Wie im Jüdischen Museum, wo es einen fensterlosen "Holocaust-Turm" gibt, den die Besucher neugierig betreten und erschüttert verlassen. Eine, zwei Minuten lang haben sie das Gefühl, allein und von der Welt verlassen zu sein. Ja, so müssen damals die Juden auf dem Weg in den Tod gefühlt haben...

Verzicht auf Geschmacksverstärker

Suggestive Architektur, die temporäre Aufwallungen erzeugt, gehört in ein Gruselkabinett. Der Holocaust war so gruselig, dass ein Holocaust-Mahnmal auf solche Geschmacksverstärker verzichten könnte. Wer jemals ein KZ besucht oder nur an der Rampe am Bahnhof Grunewald gestanden hat, von wo aus die Juden in den Osten deportiert wurden, der weiß, welche Kraft authentische Orte haben. Nun ist auch das Berliner Holocaust-Mahnmal ein authentischer Ort, denn kaum hundert Meter südlich der Stelen liegen die Ruinen des "Führerbunkers", in dem Hitler und seine Höflinge die letzten Tage vor dem Kriegsende verbracht haben.

Die niemals ganz fertig gestellte unterirdische Anlage im Garten der Neuen Reichskanzlei soll gewaltig gewesen sein: Ein "Vorbunker" für 150 Menschen, der "Hauptbunker" mit zwanzig Zimmern, darunter auch Büros, Wohn- und Schlafräume, eine Arztpraxis, ein Konferenzzimmer, eine Telefonzentrale. Es existieren nur zwei Fotos vom Bunker aus der Zeit vor dem 30. April 1945, auf einem lachen SS-Männer scheinbar unbeschwert in die Kamera wie bei einer Party. Auf dem letzten überlieferten Foto starrt Hitler stumpf in die Trümmer der Neuen Reichskanzlei über dem Vorbunker. Besser dokumentiert sind die Abrissarbeiten aus den Jahren 1947, 1959 und 1988. Der Marmor aus der Neuen Reichskanzlei wurde in der nahe gelegenen U-Bahnstation Mohrenstraße und im Treptower Ehrenmal für die Rote Armee verbaut. An den Orten selbst, die mit den Resten so fein geschmückt worden sind, fehlt allerdings jeder Hinweis darauf.

Spurensuche am China-Restaurant

Nach mehreren vergeblichen Sprengversuchen wurde der Bunker, der nach dem Mauerbau plötzlich mitten auf dem Todesstreifen lag, "tiefenenttrümmert", mit Schutt aufgefüllt und planiert. Das DDR-Regime befürchtete, westliche Spione könnten unter dem "antifaschistischen Schutzwall" heimlich den Grenzwechsel organisieren. Wenn heute Touristen nach Spuren des Bunkers suchen, finden sie nichts. Nur Eingeweihte finden eine Tafel, die allerdings an der falschen Stelle steht: fünfzig Meter entfernt, vor dem China-Restaurant "Pekingente" an der Ecke Voßstrasse und Wilhelmstraße. Wer den Hinweis lesen will, der einen Fuß hoch über dem Pflaster angebracht ist, muss sich erst einmal hinknien.


Prime Berlin real estate above the former Führer bunker,             The drive behind the project Lea Rosh

                              now pure Holocaust ugliness.

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute