ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                    No 393  




Dear Supporters

The following is the final Affidavit that I have submitted to court before the case is heard at Adelaide on 30 June 2008. My court-appointed legal counsel wished me to wait and submit the Affidavit until after we meet on Wednesday, 26 May 2008. Unfortunately I have another time-table and my vie-point on that is expressed in the below email exchange. This time there will not be any compromise on my side as happened when I agreed to sign that Apology in November 2007. I am prepared to face the consequences of my actions because as Dr Siegfried Tischler just reminded me, what on earth have Australian courts to do with the historical subject of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah?

Until after 30 June 2008.

Fredrick Töben, Adelaide 26 May 2008.



From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Monday, 26 May 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Our meeting - points to consider - not yet for publication!

Dear Ms Detmold

1. My legal position is that last time I had court-appointed Mr Paul Charman guide me through the legal argument – and the result was not satisfactory, which does not reflect on Mr Charman in any way. I did indicate to His Honour that I am able to present the matters of fact that are relevant to this matter and that a barrister need to find the appropriate argument to support my matters of fact.

2. When Mr Charman came on board I compromised on a number of issues, and as the filing of the Affidavit with the attached newsletters is part of my evidence to the court I needed to complete this task, which has now been done. I attach a copy of the Affidavit filed this morning at the FCA Registry, Adelaide, or better still, view it at: and scroll down to Affidavits.

3. What remains to be sorted out is the matters I compromised on with Mr Charman so as to settle the matter via that flawed Apology, which I withdrew as soon as I realized it had a fish-hook in it – the deletion of hyperlinks/URLS.

3.1. Witnesses: I request that Justice Alan Goldberg attend, most likely a hostile witness, as well as Mr Richard Krege. Both will indicate to His Honour that this whole matter is a political thing.

3.2 I take it as a given that Applicant Mr Jeremy Jones will be available for cross-examination because it will be important to ascertain how he arrives at his ‘quantum of hurt feeling’ after having read the material on Adelaide Institute’s website. You do know, of course, that Mr Jones was, when the action began in the HREOC in 1996, considered to be the Foreign Minister of Australia’s Jewish Community. I would insist that you also indicate to Mr Jones that his obsessive Holocaust talk is hurting me because anyone who propagates the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah story is propagating racial incitement and disparagement of the German people.

3.3 This matter was heard under the Racial Discrimination Act, but the aim was to censor a part of history that has nothing to do with racial discrimination. This pattern of legally censoring matters pertaining to the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah is itself an abuse of legal process because Jewish and other interests are using state legal services as a proxy to do their work for them. This is Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler all over again.

3.4. The abuse of process argument flows into my case before the FCA and hence I have no case to answer, i.e. why the delay in bringing an action on 5 December, 2006, a few days before the International Teheran Conference. I rightly assumed that up to that date I was successfully negotiating my way through the 2002 Court Order, especially when nothing happened after the 5 March 2004 Australia Jewish News front-page article headed: Is Toben at it again?

4. The Applicant somewhere states that my agreeing to and signing the Apology form indicates I have admitted my guilt of contravening the Court Orders, something I reject outright.

5. As the Applicant now has had ample time to get their formal Notice of Motion, claims and Affidavits legally presentable, it is my intention not to re-post the deleted items on our website, but certainly in open court to re-visit each one of them – all 144 of them, and make comment on them.

6. Then, I also propose to contest each one of the 4 Orders made on 17 September 2002 and make comment thereto.

7. The matter then rests on whether I am able to comment on something in the course of my work and whether I am allowed to tell the truth of the matter. The way I see things developing is that a fundamental question needs to be answered: is the Court Order absolute or not? If it is, then it is suppressing Truth, and I am quite prepared to spend time in prison for that. To be punished for truth-telling would be an honour for me.

8. Again, as stated below, if you cannot see yourself appreciating this kind of mental approach –  the expression of this Weltanschauung/world view – then it would be best for you to ask Justice Moore that he release you from your court-appointed task.


Fredrick Töben


From: Larissa Detmold []
Sent: Monday, 26 May 2008 10:12 AM
To: Adelaide Institute
Cc: Maeve McCarthy
Subject: Re: Our meeting - points to consider

Dear Dr Töben

I confirm my advice to you by telephone this morning that:

- filing another affidavit at this stage ( ie before our meeting) may not be in your best interests and may cause difficulties;

- we should have our meeting on Wednesday to discuss the content of future affidavits;

- as you now have court appointed counsel it is best if documents to be filed in court on your instructions are settled and filed by either myelf or Ms McCarthy. That way we can make sure that they protect your legal position.

If you continue to unilaterally file documents you make the task of defending you much more difficult: you essentially tie one hand behind my back in doing my job for you.

I will reply to the remainder of your letter below once I have had an opportunity to consider it more fully.

Yours faithfully

Larissa Detmold


On 26/05/2008, at 9:42 AM, Adelaide Institute wrote:

Thanks – and I am now off to court to file my final Affidavit, a copy of which I have for you.

1. I note in the Consent Order that Applicant will be sending you a list of Affidavits on which he will be relying.

2. I shall be relying on all Affidavits and Notices of Motion filed to date.

3. The witness list will include Justice Alan Goldberg and Richard Krege, the former’s appearance was something my former Barrister Paul Charman was not happy about. If you refuse to accept the task of getting Justice Goldberg as a witness for me, then you may as well request that Justice Moore relieve you as my court-appointed barrister.  Mr Goldshaft of the Sydney Registry, FAC, is another witness possibility.

4. I seek dismissal of the action – abuse of process, a legal ambush, because of time-lag of about 4 years.

5. The matter is political – it is persecution through prosecution; Applicant did not have to prove his “hurt feelings”, something that is manifest nonsense for Applicant is a seasoned politician in his Jewish community. Australian Jewish News and article – to be investigated by FCA Registrar.

5.1 My attending international conferences at which Holocaust-Shoah matters are discussed.

5.2 Persecution of barristers, eg in Germany recently Sylvia Stolz sentenced to 3.5 years prison for attempting to defend Ernst Zündel

6. Offered Apology – normal matter if offend on grounds of rude/crude tone, etc . Material complained of has been removed except –

7. Non-removal of hyperlink – URL – because not part of Apology agreement.

8. The Trades Practices Act may be relevant – Plimer v Roberts – where skeptic, Prof Plimer, wished to stop Dr Roberts from plying his trade, i.e. conducting research into the existence of the Ark in Turkey; in 1996 (?) Plimer publicly stated he needed to win the appeal because were he to lose, then “Holocaust deniers could continue their trade…”. Plimer lost the appeal in 1997.

9. If I am in breach of Court Order , eg. No 2. that I am not permitted to state there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, then I am in a moral dilemma: it is the court order versus telling the truth, as I am required to do in court.

9.1 Do I refrain from telling the truth because of a gag order?  To date the accepted research results state there were no gassings at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

10. If this gets to a full hearing, then I would like to respond to each of the 144 allegations, the bulk of which I have removed/deleted from the website.

Larissa, are you still with me on this matter?

Please also be advise that I am Bcc-ing this email to a small group of supporters.



From: Larissa Detmold [
Sent: Monday, 26 May 2008 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Our meeting

Dear Dr Töben

The meeting is scheduled at 3.00 pm 28 May 2008 at Howard Zelling Chambers, L11, 211 Victoria Square Adelaide.

I look forward to meeting you then.

Yours faithfully

Larissa Detmold


On 26/05/2008, at 8:34 AM, Adelaide Institute wrote:

Dear Larissa Detmold

 Kindly confirm our time and date of meeting because I have marked it down for Wednesday , 28 May 2008 at 3pm, but in my mind it is 30 May – which may have been caused  by my focus on the 30 June trial date.





No. N327 of 2001     

                                                                                        JEREMY JONES


                                                                                         FREDRICK TÖBEN



On 26 May 2008 I, Fredrick Töben, of 23 Caloroga Street, Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, director of Adelaide Institute, say on oath:

1. That the Affidavit filed on 14 May 2008 contains an error in Annexure “1”. The Newsletter numbers No 366, 367, 368, 369 should read No 386, 387, 388 and 389.

1.1 Newsletter No 386 is re-submitted and is to be replaced by submitted Newsletter No 386 contained in Annexure “1” as this contains my final draft of the talk I delivered at the 14-15 May 2008 Jakarta conference.

2. Included in this Affidavit are the final newsletters I am submitting to the court for consideration as evidence. Annexure “A” contains Newsletters No 386, 390, 391 and 392 to which I shall make reference in court.

3. That my academic qualifications eminently are suited to investigate the veracity of contentious matters, especially of an historical nature such as the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah, which is saturating our public media to no end. My doctoral thesis considered Sir Karl Popper’s theory falsification and Charles Saunders Peirce’s principle of fallibilism. In essence I looked at how beliefs are formed, with what certainty they are held, and how they develop or are rejected over time.

3.1 As an Australian citizen of German origin it is only natural that I would doubt and ask questions about the allegations levelled against the Germans, i.e. that during World War Two the German war machine exterminated 6 million European Jews in homicidal gas chambers. It is a massive allegation that engenders guilt and is quite hurtful to all Germans. It is only normal to doubt and to question the factual nature of such an allegation.

3.2 No ethnic or racial group would accept an exposure to an incessant hatred campaign that is the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. As my former Barrister, Mr Paul Charman, stated to me before the 27 December 2007 FCA hearing: “You lost the war”. I do not accept this point-of-view as a reason for my not looking into the hateful allegations levelled against Germans and anything German. Anyone who propagates the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah narrative is propagating racial incitement and disparagement of the German people.

3.3 My parents were farmers and I grew up in a small community in Australia where most of my schooling occurred. I graduated from The University of Melbourne, and from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and began my full-time teaching career in New Zealand in 1968. My philosophical studies occurred at the Universities of Heidelberg, Tübingen and Stuttgart, obtaining from the latter the doctoral degree under Profs Max Bense/Elisabeth Walther in February 1977. My Graduate Certificate of Education came from the University of Rhodesia in 1978.

3.4 I taught at both secondary and tertiary levels, and this enabled me extensively to travel the world with longer stays in Germany, Rhodesia-Zimbabwe and Nigeria before returning home and starting a family in Australia.

3.4.1 The climate within the education sector did not reflect reality outside of the classroom. The following email content of a couple of years ago spells it out:

“Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!

Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were.

So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

If you can read this - thank a teacher!”

3.5 In 1985 I was dismissed from the Victorian State Education Department on grounds of “incompetence and disobedience”, which was overturned in the Victorian County Court and confirmed on appeal by the Victorian Supreme Court in 1990. In my book, The Boston-Curry Party I detail my educational beliefs. It is 23 years after the dismissal that I can see how far ahead I was in my pedagogical advocacy. Also, the elimination process used against me by colleagues and members of the Education Department contained a large element of German hatred and envy. Recently we saw German trauma expert, Dr Thomas Kossmann, who has been in Australia for over seven years, at the Alfred Hospital being subjected to a similar dismissal process – but he resigned rather than fight because the Natural Justice principle had been clearly fulfilled in his case. In my case I could, over the assertions of the Education legal officers, Drossinos and Levin, prove that I had not been given natural justice. From this almost decade-long battle I am well-placed to fight the historical lies that defame the Germans in the form of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah story.

3.6 So it is with my research about the allegation that during World War Two Germans killed six million Jews. The Jewish Holocaust-Shoah is the only historical topic that is legally protected without anyone clearly defining what is protected. The court orders of Branson J of 17 September 2002 are imprecise and unhelpful in stating what I am not permitted to say and write for our Internet website, and this is indirectly admitted by the Applicant when one considers the time of lodging a complaint, on 5 December 2006, four years after the 17 September 2002 FCA orders were handed down and on 27 June 2003, two years after these orders were confirmed on Appeal by the FCA. It was therefore normal for me to maintain that I was successfully negotiating my way through these FCA orders. All this changed on 5 December 2006, but by then I had arrived at Teheran and gave my address to the 11-12 December 2006 International Holocaust Conference.

4. This legal action before the FCA originally began in 1996 when the Applicant took me to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-HREOC. He refused any attempts at my seeking conciliation-mediation and pressed hard to have a formal hearing of the matter. Conciliator, Kirsty Gowans, stated to me that the whole procedure before the HREOC was purely political.

4.1 I could not get legal representation because “no-one wished to take on the Jews”; state and federal legal aid refused to assist and barristers shied away from doing the case at this factual stage of the proceedings. One Adelaide law firm would consider the matter were I to put up front a $10,000 deposit.

4.1.1 The commissioner accepted Applicant’s contention that no-where in any of the western democracies’ universities is “Holocaust denial” an accepted topic for discussion, that there is no discussion about any aspects of it – something that did not reflect the truthfulness of the situation because there is a raging debate on the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’.

4.2 I had submitted to HREOC the J S Hayward 1993 MA thesis wherein it is stated that there was no evidence available to suggest that homicidal gas chambers existed, this being a central premise of those who propagate an orthodox and non-critical version of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah narrative.

4.3 The HREOC hearings stalled for a number of reasons, one being my insistence to hear from the commissioner that she clarify whether my submissions, which rely on the factual truth of matters asserted, would be assessed for truth-content. She refused to clarify this point and I refused to attend further hearings because I considered them to be immoral: Where Truth is no defence, lies prevail and that is an immoral situation.

4.4 On a visit to Germany during 1999 I was imprisoned for 7 months by the public prosecutor with whom I had discussed German legal procedures in 1997. While I was spending time in Mannheim Prison, Commissioner McEvoy received a Human Rights award from the University of Mannheim!

4.5 Also, the Hayward thesis had become contentious and in New Zealand the Jewish community pressured Dr Hayward and the Canterbury University, Christchurch, which granted the degree, to initiate an enquiry into its veracity – something quite extraordinary. The procedures initiated by New Zealand’s Jewish community followed the pattern set by Germany’s Göttingen University when it in 1983 revoked the doctoral degree granted during the 1950s to Judge Wilhelm Stäglich for having written the book: The Auschwitz Myth – it being judged below academic standards.                                                                                        

4.6 The University of Canterbury initiated an enquiry into how Hayward received the MA honours Degree. It found Hayward was not dishonest but should have been more closely supervised, and it apologised to New Zealand’s Jewish community. Dr Joel Hayward also apologised because he “stuffed up”. He recanted the results in his MA thesis, stating that the 2000 David Irving v Deborah Lipstadt defamation trial in London had produced new information about the gassing claims. To date Dr Hayward has not made public the material that led him to recant. Privately he stated to me that during this ordeal, which began after he had sent me his copy, I had submitted to HREOC, his MA thesis, as my defence in 1998, his life and family had received a number of death-threats.

4.7 That this stifling of debate is on-going in academia can be seen how Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom was treated by University College London. See Newsletter No 387, Affidavit filed 14 May 2008.

5. When the HREOC finding was announced on 5 October 2000, I deleted the alleged offending material listed from Adelaide Institute’s website but refused to sign the written dictated apology submitted to me through HREOC by Mr Jones – and began again to assemble material for Adelaide Institute’s website.

6. The matter then proceeded to the Federal Court of Australia-FCA, and again I could not find a barrister to represent me at this fact-finding stage of the proceedings, and on 17 September 2002 Justice Branson handed down an ex-parte judgment, which confirmed the HREOC findings.

6.1 Again I deleted the content of the whole website – and began again bearing in mind what the judge had ordered.

7. Civil Liberties Victoria was interested enough in the case to arrange a pro-bono appeal before the Full Bench of the FCA, and on 27 June 2003 the appeal was dismissed.

8. On 5 March 2004 the Australian Jewish News ran an article on its front page: Is Toben at it again? Therein reference is made to the Applicant stating that the Adelaide Institute’s website may contain material that may be contravening the FCA Court Order and thus may warrant a closer look. At the same time I was co-organising an international Revisionist conference to be held at Sacramento, California, which ultimately failed when the owners of the conference venue broke the hire contract.

9. It was not until 5 December 2006 that the Applicant initiated legal action against me. However, as I had already left Australia to attend the 11-12 International Holocaust Review conference at Teheran, Islamic Republic of Iran, legal papers could not be served on me and colleague, Mr David Brockschmidt, who had been checking my mail, advised the FCA Registry of my being overseas when he checked the mail on 5 December 2006. Around 27 November 1006 service of FCA documents was attempted but failed for the above reason. In the Notice of Motion filed in the FCA the applicant wished to have me arrested and sent to prison!

10. That the Applicant wished the court to act in such drastic way – befitting treatment reserved for the most dangerous criminals – is indicative of an obsessive, vicious and vindictive mindset that helps to explain why Mr Jeremy Jones has refused from the outset to talk with me about his expressed concerns, i.e. that the material on our website causes him hurt and grief.

10.1 His refusal to attend suggested HREOC conciliation sessions and move immediately to a formal hearing proves his following a global political agenda that attempts to retain control of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative.

10.2 He attempted to defame me at the UN Conference on Racism and Xenophobia, held at Durban on 28 August – 7 September 2001, under the pretext of offering information on how to counter ‘hatred’ on the Internet. This is the Applicant’s way of conducting himself: he will gossip about me and defame me in the media but he will not give me a right-of-reply, something that the media blackout against me, especially at the Australian Jewish News, supports.

11. As historical investigations are merely doing politics in reverse, then the Applicant’s attempt at legally censoring the expression of my historical views is an overt political act. That the Applicant is involved in a global attempt by Zionist Jews and their supporters to suppress specific historical investigations proves the conspiracy. The political nature of this abuse of legal processes is reflected in the way the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative is used by Jewish Zionists to justify their ongoing genocide of the Palestinian peoples. 

11.1 The Zionist project in Palestine attempts to stifle open debate on the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah –for obvious reasons. The extreme view expressed here impacts on what decision this court makes in this matter.

When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals
Opinion, , Thu. May 15, 2008

There is little disagreement that every Jewish leader, organization, community and individual has a duty to help ensure the continuity of the Jewish people. But in a world where the long-term existence of the Jewish state is far from certain, the imperative to exist inevitably gives rise to difficult questions, foremost among them this: When the survival of the Jewish people conflicts with the morals of the Jewish people, is existence worthwhile, or even possible?

Physical existence, I would argue, must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent.

Clear external and internal dangers threaten the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It is very likely that the collapse of Israel or the loss of its Jewish nature would undermine the existence of the Jewish people as a whole. And even given the existence of a Jewish state, less clear but no less fateful dangers threaten the long-term sustainable existence of the Diaspora.

When the requirements of existence conflict with other values, therefore, realpolitik should be given priority. From the threat of a disastrous conflict with Islamist actors such as Iran, to the necessity of maintaining distinctions between “us” and “others” in order to limit assimilation, this imperative ought to guide policymakers.

Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral. Given the foreseeable realities of the 21st century and beyond, harsh choices are unavoidable, with requirements of existence often contradicting other important values.

Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. However, the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations. The unfortunate reality is that the Jewish people may be faced with tragic choices in which important values have to be sacrificed for even more important ones.

Responsible decisions in such difficult situations require clear recognition of the involved moral issues, careful pondering of all relevant values and acceptance of responsibility for one’s autonomous judgment. They also demand an effort to reduce to a minimum the violation of moral values.

Nonetheless, when faced with such choices, the Jewish people ought not be captivated by political correctness and other thinking-repressing fashions. When it comes to China, for example, efforts to strengthen the rising superpower’s ties to the Jewish people should trump moral-minded campaigns to alter Beijing’s domestic policies and handling of Tibet. The same goes for Turkey: Given its crucial peacemaking role in the Middle East, discussion of whether the Ottomans committed genocide against the Armenians ought to be left to historians, preferably non-Jewish ones.

That is not necessarily to condone China’s policies, or to deny Armenian history. Rather, it is to recognize that however just such moral stances may or may not be, the Jewish people must give primacy to existence.

What is required is a priori pondering of values, so as to have guidelines ready for judgment in specific contexts and under crisis conditions. The overall issue is whether the imperative for the Jewish people to exist is a categorical one overriding nearly all other values, or one among many imperatives of similar standing. Given both the history and current situation of the Jewish people, I would argue that the imperative to assure existence is of overriding moral weight.

Let us leave aside reliance on transcendental arguments, biblical commands and sayings of the sages, all of which are open to various interpretations. The justification for giving priority to the needs of existence is four-fold.

First, the Jewish people has an inherent right to exist, just as any other people or civilization.

Second, a people that has been regularly persecuted for 2,000 years is entitled morally, in terms of distributive justice, to be very tough in taking care of its existence, including the moral right and even duty to kill and be killed if this is essential for assuring existence — even at the cost of other values and to other people. This argument is all the more compelling in light of the unprecedented killing only a few decades ago of a third of the Jewish people — mass murder that was supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented when possible, by large parts of the civilized world.

Third, given the history of Judaism and the Jewish people, there is a good chance that we will continue to make much-needed ethical contributions to humanity. However, in order to do so we require a stable existence.

Fourth, the State of Israel is the only democratic country whose very existence is endangered by deeply hostile actors, again, without the world taking decisive countermeasures. This justifies — indeed, requires — measures that would be not only unnecessary but also potentially immoral in other circumstances.

The Jewish people should give much more weight to the imperative to assure existence than to other values. There are, of course, limits; nothing can justify initiating genocide. But with the few exceptions where being killed and destroyed is better than transgressing against absolute and total norms, assuring the existence of the Jewish people, including a Jewish State of Israel, should be valued as a top priority.

Thus, if the security of Israel is significantly strengthened by good relations with Turkey and China, but in some views Turkey is guilty of genocide in the past against the Armenians and China of now repressing Tibetans and domestic opposition, Jewish leaders and organizations should support Turkey and China, or at least remain neutral when it comes to their affairs. At a minimum, Jewish leaders should not join the chorus of liberal and humanitarian actors condemning Turkey and China.

Similarly, Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists who potentially endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law. And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.

To be sure, there is much room for debate on what is really required for existence. Giving priority to the imperative to exist does not imply supporting each and every policy of Israel. Indeed, the opposite is true: Diaspora leaders, organizations and individuals have a duty to criticize Israeli policies that in their view endanger the Jewish state and the Jewish people’s existence, along with an obligation to propose alternative existence-assuring policies.

But at the end of the day there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination. Support or condemnation of various countries and their policies should be decided upon primarily in light of probable consequences for the existence of the Jewish people.

In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns — however important they may be — including liberal and humanitarian values, support for human rights and democratization.

This tragic but compelling conclusion is not easy to swallow, but it is essential for the future of the Jewish people. Once our existence is assured, including basic security for Israel, much can and should be sacrificed for tikkun olam. But given present and foreseeable realities, assuring existence must come first.

Yehezkel Dror, the founding president of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, is a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A recipient of the Israel Prize, he served as a member of the Winograd commission of inquiry into Israel’s war with Hezbollah in 2006.

11.1.1 That the above matter is without morals, i.e. immoral, is reflected in the arrest of Dr Normal Finkelstein, who authored The Holocaust Industry, and who was arrested upon arrival in Israel on his way to visiting the Palestinian territories. He has been banned from visiting Israel for ten years.

From: Anthony Joseph Geha Yuja

Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2008 4:40 PM



Dear Mr. Sheetrit,

Through you may I address this message to the Israeli Government and Knesset ;  like thousands of people around the world increasingly aware and shocked by your brutal and callous policies against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories particularly the ongoing siege and starvation of Gaza, I am appalled to learn of  the arbitrary arrest and forthcoming deportation of Dr. Norman Finkelstein .

Dr. Finkelstein is a living symbol of the traditional humanity and morality of the Jewish people and a distinguished and rigorous  American Academic whose principled and brave efforts to promote justice for the Palestinians and genuine peace in the Holy Lands have earned him the respect of millions of people  .

You may be aware that an increasing number of prominent and honourable Jews are condemning your racist and brutal policies in the Occupied Territories as the splendid declaration recently published in the Guardian, UK by 100+ Jewish Personalities (see link below) on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary demonstrates:  

The eloquent and principled declaration by these  distinguished Jewish signatories represent the beautiful and moral face of the Jewish religion and indirectly of Israel itself. Let us hope , against any hope so far, that their call for  long overdue justice for the Palestinians and for genuine peace will be heeded by the decision makers in Jerusalem, Washington and London.

Under the cover of a fraudulent War on Terror , the might is right policies, for oil grabbing by the US and for land grabbing by Israel,  victimizing millions of people can only lead to further devastation and  human tragedies in the Holy Lands, in Iraq , Lebanon and elsewhere whilst outraging civilized people everywhere.

Dr. Finkelstein should be immediately released and allowed free movement in Israel and the Occupied Territories. 

With best wishes for an Israel that upholds human rights and the rule of law.


Anthony Joseph Geha Yuja

Florence, Italy

11.1.2 That the Zionist State of Israel is ‘immoral’ is a given, and it is interesting how there is the attempt to deflect from this by focusing on the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its President, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, especially since Iran hosted the December 2006 international conference that aimed to ‘review’ matters concerning the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah’. There is now a move to indict the Iranian President, something the Australian Labor Party has endorsed.

Speech to UN Human Rights Council, September 24, 2007

Iran vs. Human Rights and The UN charter: Statement to indict Iran's President Ahmadinejad

Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch

Mr. President, we meet to address urgent human rights situations.  There are so many. But if we look to the highest authorities of the UN, one country stands out:  the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. But the illicit nuclear program of President Ahmadinejad potentially threatens these rights for millions, near and far. That's why the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII against threats to the peace, held Iran to be in breach, and imposed sanctions.

The Iranian leader speaks at the UN about "human dignity and justice." Yet the UN itself -- GA Resolution 61/176 — found that Iran treats its own people with neither dignity nor justice. It called on Iran:

  • to end its use of torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment;
  • to end its execution of minors, and its violence and discrimination against women;
  • to end its discrimination against minorities, including Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, Kurds, Christians, Jews, Sufis, Sunni Muslims, and the Baha'i.

Mr. President, Iran's policy of racism was on world display when it hosted the Tehran conference denying the Nazi Holocaust. The GA responded with a condemnation of Holocaust denial, which Iran alone refused to support.1

This council's expert on racism said the following: "By organizing this conference, President Ahmadinejad demonstrated his intention to legitimize the revisionism of other forms of racism by inviting symbolic figures of anti-black racism, such as the Ku Klux Klan, whose main platform is the racial inferiority of black people and the need for their physical elimination."2

But it's worse. Iran's president not only denies genocide, but he incites to genocide. When he first threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," he was condemned by Kofi Annan and the Security Council.3 When he called for the "destruction of the Zionist regime," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed his shock and dismay.4

Dr. Hamburg, an advisor to the Secretary-General on genocide, said that he could not recall anyone "since Hitler who so repeatedly and explicitly called for genocide," and he warned of the combustible conjunction of this with nuclear weapons capability.5

Mr. President, does the UN have an answer for a government that tramples human rights, practices racism, denies the Holocaust, incites to genocide and threatens international peace?

It does. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a country that persistently violates the Charter’s principles may be expelled.

And the correct answer for a government leader who commits such acts is not an invitation to a UN podium and global platform. It is the response recommended by Noble Laureate and UN Messenger of Peace Eli Wiesel:  the indictment of President Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention.

Thank you, Mr. President. 


1 Additionally, on the day he was sworn in as new Secretary-General, Mr. Ban also spoke out. He was asked about Iran's conference on the scale and nature of the slaughter of 6 million Jews. "Denying historical facts, especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust, is just not acceptable," he replied. "Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any State or people."

2 Doudou Diene, UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, Report of May 2007, A/HRC/5/10 at 21.

3 "The members of the Security Council condemn the remarks about Israel attributed to H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The members of the Security Council support the Secretary-General's statement of 27 October noting that, under the United Nations Charter, all Members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State." Security Council Press Statement on Iran, 28 October 2005.

4 "The Secretary-General was shocked and dismayed at the remarks attacking Israel attributed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, on 3 June, in which he says repeatedly that the world could witness the "destruction of the Zionist regime" soon.  The Secretary-General points out that the State of Israel is a full and long-standing Member of the United Nations with the same rights and obligations as every other Member.  He reminds that, under the United Nations Charter, all Members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. The Secretary-General has repeatedly made his views clear on this issue." Secretary-General Shocked By Iran President's Remarks Attacking Israel, 7 June 2007.

5 "Remembrance and Beyond: The United Nations and the Response to Genocide" on September 14, 2006, at UN Headquarters in New York, UN Webcast video at 1:36:00.

11.2 Further, academics who dare venture into matters that concern German interests are not well treated, if not outright persecuted, Dagmar Barnouw is an example, and only the obituary dares state and celebrate her academic achievements:

Dagmar Barnouw, 72; USC professor wrote provocative books on post-WWII era. By Jocelyn Y. Stewart , Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, May 24, 2008

Dagmar Barnouw, a USC professor and author whose provocative works about the aftermath of World War II took aim at what she called the sanctification of Holocaust survivors, the "politics of not-forgetting Nazi evil" and the idea of collective German guilt, has died. She was 72.

Barnouw died May 14 at a San Diego hospital from complications of a stroke she suffered April 14, said her husband, Jeffrey Barnouw.

In a career that produced 12 books and 150 papers, Barnouw covered many topics, including the cultural politics of Thomas Mann and feminist and utopian science fiction. But post-World War II Germany was a recurring theme for the scholar, who was born in Berlin. Her works -- described by some critics as "brilliant and unsettling" and by others as "deeply flawed" -- challenged long-held views of guilt and innocence, suffering and memory.  

SCHOLAR, AUTHOR Dagmar Barnouw

In her most recent book, "War in the Empty Air: Victims, Perpetrators, and Postwar Germans" (2005), Barnouw examined Germans' failure to acknowledge and mourn their war dead and the devastation German citizens suffered in Allied air raids.

After the war, ordinary Germans were viewed collectively as perpetrators of the Holocaust and responsible for World War II. Silenced by this presumed guilt, even German war remembrances maintained an exclusive focus on Jewish victims of the Nazi regime, to the detriment of historical reality, she wrote.

"My concern is not that Germans suffered too -- all populations caught in this particularly terrible war suffered," she wrote in "War in the Empty Air. The issue is the usefulness now, sixty years later, of an enduring hierarchy of suffering that has removed from historical memory the larger part of a war so familiarly and viciously destructive that it should have meant the end of all wars."

In his review for the H-Net website, Frank Biess of UC San Diego asserted that the book was "based on a distorted diagnosis of the postwar politics of memory." He faulted Barnouw for "rhetorical transgressions. It forcefully argues for a new politics of memory that would give more room to German suffering and reduce the centrality of the Holocaust. . . . The book ultimately fails to offer a conceptual agenda for a more complex and comprehensive history of the Second World War and its aftermath," Biess wrote.

In favorable reviews, the Journal of American Studies said Barnouw "establishes a case for creating a more complete historical remembrance for postwar generations," and the German Studies Review said "Barnouw confronts the petrified, sanctified and officially approved memories of the German past."

Joyce Appleby, a longtime friend of Barnouw and professor emerita of history at UCLA, called the book "courageous."
"She raised this issue of, 'Isn't there enough charity to appreciate the suffering of other people in Germany during the war?' " Appleby said in an interview with The Times.

"It's the kind of book that you can imagine raised some hackles. But it's a very powerful book and one in which she examines post-World War II intellectual life in Germany as well as a bit of her own history," Appleby said.

Born March 22, 1936, Barnouw was a child when Allied bombing destroyed her family home in Dresden. Her father served in the German army during the war. Her mother, who had been a research scientist, led the family out of Dresden to a small muddy village in northern Bavaria where they were scorned as refugees.

"Over the decades, I have sometimes remembered those years as nothing but hunger, cold, boredom and fear," Barnouw wrote in an autobiographical essay. "But it also seemed that in these memories, the child preoccupied with finding food and staying clear of the ferocious village geese, dogs and teenage boys was retreating."

After earning a degree in Germany, Barnouw traveled to the United States in 1962 as a Fulbright teacher at Stanford University. She earned a doctorate in German literature from Yale University in 1968, and the same year began her career in academia at the university. Before joining USC in 1988, where she was professor of German and comparative literature, Barnouw held positions at several universities including Purdue, Brown and UC San Diego.

In a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in a separate lawsuit, Barnouw accused UC San Diego of gender bias. The commission agreed, and the lawsuit was settled out of court. In 1977 Barnouw testified about her experiences in front of the state Legislature, which later passed a measure increasing UC employees' access to their personnel files.

In Barnouw's case, men had filled her file with unfavorable -- and sexist -- reviews, according to Karen Leonard, a UC Irvine professor of anthropology and a founder of California Women in Higher Education, which supported Barnouw against the university.

Barnouw "had a very intense, almost fierce intellect, a very lively personality," Appleby said. "She had very strong opinions, which she had no fear about expressing."

Barnouw also wrote about the war in Iraq, about Israel and Lebanon, about Oprah Winfrey's selection of Elie Wiesel's "Night" as a book club choice.

"Why was the new translation of 'Night' so important now?" Barnouw wrote in an essay posted on the History News Network. "Why did Oprah really choose that book? . . . Are we more comfortable with the familiar horrors that do not ask for our social and political intervention now, but only for the busy timeless rituals of never-forgetting?"

In addition to her husband, Barnouw is survived by son Benjamin Barnouw of Los Angeles; grandchildren Nicholas and Natalie, also of Los Angeles; one brother and two sisters, who live in Germany.,0,4164550.story  

11.3 As a Right-of-Reply to the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah allegations I made in 1998 Judea Declares War on Germany

12. Further, the Applicant offends against the Trades Practices Act – Plimer v Robertson. In a Sceptics meeting at Adelaide in 1996 Prof Plimer revealed his motive for appealing against the matte: “If the appeal fails, then Holocaust deniers can continue to assert their views…my wife has a swastika on her birth certificate.”

12.1 The appeal failed.



12.1.1 "Professor Plimer claims to have been affronted by what he says were misleading or deceptive statements made in the course of public lectures given by Dr Roberts throughout Australia in April and May 1992. Professor Plimer also complains about statements made or authorised by Dr Roberts in certain publications and in video and audio tapes of the lectures. The lectures and publications of which Professor Plimer complains advance the hypothesis that a boat-shaped geological formation at a place known as Akyayla, near Mt Ararat in Eastern Turkey (to which I refer as the Site [as do I]), is or could contain the remnants of Noah's Ark, thereby providing tangible evidence of the literal truth of the account of the great flood in Genesis, 6:13 - 8:19. It is important to appreciate that Professor Plimer's case, as presented on his behalf, is not directed to establishing the invalidity of the hypothesis put forward by Dr Roberts. Rather, Professor Plimer relies on what he says is the falsity of particular statements made by Dr Roberts in the lectures and in the publications." (at 493)

"... considerable care must be exercised before making orders restraining statements made in the course of public discussion on issues regarded by many people as important to their religious or ideological beliefs, at least where the motivation for making such statements is not primarily, commercial in character. Unless caution is exercised, there is a serious risk that the courts will be used as the means of suppressing debate and discussion on issues of general interest to the community." (at 550 - emphasis in original) [p13-14]

13. The current action is also an abuse of legal process, certainly since the publication of the 5 March 2004 Australian Jewish News report with the front page headlines: ‘Is Toben at it again?’ I then expected legal action to be initiated against me, but not until dates for the international Holocaust Review conference were announced – 11-12 December 2006 – did the Applicant initiate legal action around August 2006. It was clearly aimed to prevent me from attending the conference because a hearing date for the Applicant’s Notice of Motion was set down for 5 December 2006. The four-year legal non-activity since the 2002 FCA judgment led me to believe that I was successfully negotiating my way through the Court Orders.

14. The 5 December 2006 hearing date, which turned into various directions hearings set down for the following year, culminating in Justice Moore making Consent Orders on 27 November 2007. I agreed to deleting material from the Adelaide Institute website because in principle I do not have a problem with such a request. See Newsletter No 392 where an example is given on how disputes can be resolved without the heavy hand of the law interfering.

14.1 Deleting material from the Adelaide Institute website is something that is done as a matter of course. I have done this in the past if someone requests such and offers well-founded reasons why material should be removed. I have also refused to remove material because the request is not formally done. Another arrangement is to augment material appearing on the website with an explanation from someone who objects to points made within an article. In all cases I have adhered to the Common Law principle of Natural Justice, giving someone a right of reply.

14.2 In this respect, as in all other matters before the court, The Applicant has developed a dictatorial attitude towards me and has succeeded in finding media outlets that refuse to give me a right of reply, i.e. they will defame me publicly but then will not give me a right of reply, not accord me Natural Justice. The Internet is therefore feared by such individuals because I do not need their permission to express my view-point/world-view. That the Internet has become our weapon of mass instruction is thus feared by individuals who to date have controlled the world media outlets and censored the airing of historical topics, in particular the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah narrative.

15. The 27 November 2007 Consent Orders were emailed to me in draft-form around 7pm on the night before the hearing. I had thus less than 12 hours in which to consider the written text which had no input on my part. If one recalls that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd needed a whole week in which to formulate and publish the Apology to the ‘Stolen generation’, it was oppressive of the Applicant to put me under such pressure, and I relied on my barrister to clarify matters for me. At no time was there a suggestion that I should remove links from Adelaide Institute’s website that linked to material located on other websites.

15.1 Further, the Prime Minister supports free expression, as he himself practised while in Beijing where he offered critical comments to his Chinese hosts about the Tibet situation without such criticism being regarded as an insult to Chinese political sensibilities.

16. My understanding of the Consent Orders had always been my apologizing to the FCA for having published material that can be considered to be ‘rude and crude’, which in part fulfilled 3. of the 17 September 2002 Court Order, no more, no less, as the court transcript reveals.

16.1 I could never apologize for having written about and published material that I believe to be factually true and correct and has been proven to be factually true and correct. The Apology I gave to the FCA on 27 November 2007 was interpreted and crowed about by the Zionist world press as an admission on my part for having been in breach of the full Court Order of 17 September 2002, something that I did not do.  

17. I request that this current action be dismissed on grounds that it is an abuse of legal process because since March 2004 I was under the justified impression that I had been successfully negotiating my way through the 17 September 2002 Court Orders. I can conclude it was only because the Applicant wished to prevent my attending the December 2006 Teheran International Holocaust Review Conference that this current action was initiated, thereby again proving the Applicant’s absence of good faith in these proceedings.

18. Further, this action uses the FCA court process as a proxy for World Jewish Zionist political ends, as becomes evident when observing how historical factual matter is legally censored in western democracies in particular where civil law is used as in most European countries. And bearing in mind again that history is merely politics in reverse, then it is clear that this current action is overtly political

18.1 Were it not for the British Common Law principles that imbue this current action, my response to the Applicant’s allegations in this court would, as for example in Austria and Germany, among other European countries, further ‘prove’ my guilt of being in breach of the Court Order. In the aforementioned countries any mounted defence is regarded as further proof of the Defendant’s criminal intent.

19. Costs should be awarded against the Applicant and the Applicant should be declared to be a notorious, obsessive, vexatious Holocaust-Shoah litigant who has used the political and legal process to block enquiry into historical matters, something that cannot be justified and is an abuse of legal process.

20. In the alternative, I deny that I have been in breach of the FCA Orders of 17 September 2006 and I request that – although removed from Adelaide Institute’s website – I be given the opportunity to respond to each of the allegations the Applicant maintains has breached the 17 September 2002 Court Order. Further, I will be relying on all filed Affidavits and Notices of Motion since the action was begun in the FCA in November 2006. Bearing in mind that the Allies at the 1945-46 Nürnberg Military Tribunal trials submitted 333,000 Affidavits, my submissions for this trial seems manageable.

21. Annexure “B” is Adelaide Institute’s Reports Page - to which I make reference when discussing my rejection of removing hyperlinks as requested by the Applicant as part of the Consent Orders –

Sworn by Deponent

at Adelaide 

Before me:…………………………

on the 26th day of May 2008

Deponent’s Signature



From: Adelaide Institute  
Sent: Monday, 26 May 2008 9:45 AM Subject: Dirk Zimmermann

"Grüß Gott! Greetings!

This is Dirk Zimmermann once more. I am glad you have time to lend me an ear. In this context I would like to thank all of those people who cared for my first video not getting censored off by uploading it over and over again.

Many people approached me since I made my self-indictment public. There were some questions on the background. I was pleased with all of the questions, for even children's TV knows: "Who does not ask questions stays stupid" or "Every wise man started out by asking many questions."

So questions help us to gain knowledge, brainpower, perception, truth and wisdom. Certainly not everybody strives for these non-material values.

There is also the strictly materialistic Weltanschauung. What does the materialist care about the truth when his career is at stake? So, this is about opposites. Each of them, idealism and materialism, have different colors. With my self-indictment I showed my colors openly. I prefer the truth to material temptations.

And the representatives of the legal system, who pass judgment on me, they will have to show their colors, too. They will have to decide whether truth and justice are as important to them as it ought to be for representatives of the legal system. Whether they admit questions on the only taboo subject of our times, or suppress any discussion by means of faulty logic and circular arguments.

Even so there are of course jurists who prefer to shirk responsibility and decision-making, those who do not want to show their color.

And that is what I finally want to explain in more detail: You might know Horst Mahler who is classified as holocaust denier. It has been said he has been previously convicted and disbarred from practicing law. Well, he has not yet been sentenced for denial of the holocaust, although there is a vast number of pending lawsuits.

Several proceedings against him, including those for denial of the holocaust, have been discontinued owing to the statute of limitations coming into effect. Can you imagine what this means? One of those thought-criminals is committing a thought-crime, the prosecutor meticulously shapes his indictment, and then absolutely nothing happens for years?

 Criminals ought to be punished, and not pursuing and punishing criminals while in office is dereliction of duty. Therefore, I could not do otherwise but inform against the judicial persons who refuse to do their job because I long to know on which side of the fence they are sitting on.”

Dirk can be contacted at:

Dirk's first video:

Free Downloads:

Rudolf's book, 'Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross Examined,' can be downloaded at the following link:

Other related downloadable books, for free or to purchase:


Holocaust Tyranny Expels Sceptical UK Scientist from Academia

A firsthand report by Michele, Lady Renouf, director and producer of the free enquiry dvd JAILING OPINIONS,

25 May 2008

Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, a respected astronomer and author, is the latest scientist to discover the limits of academic freedom in the Western world.

Until recently Dr Kollerstrom was an honorary fellow of University College London. His views as a science historian were sought by scientific journals and media organisations, such as the BBC in its report on new research concerning the planet Neptune. Yet on 22nd April University College (UCL) abruptly terminated his fellowship, without any consultation or right of appeal. Dr Kollerstrom's offence was to have published sceptical views about forensic aspects of the “Holocaust” on the CODOH website, based in America. 

In the objective opinion of this distinguished academic, the alleged mass murder of Jewish people by gassing during World War 2 was scientifically impossible.  At no time had he promoted these views within University College, or done anything to bring the college into disrepute. Rather, it is University College London which now brings itself into disrepute by forbidding the application of normal source critical analysis to “Holocaust” history in mockery of its founding principles for freedom of enquiry.

The UCL is not the first to let itself down as London's cowardly academic establishment.  One reports from personal experience of academic anti source critical treatment when a student, from 1999-2001 reading for a post-graduate degree in the Psychology of Religion at the University of London.  My college, Heythrop, the Jesuit college specialising in theology and philosophy, smeared my politely factual correction of a tutor during a seminar as “unwelcome anti-Semitism”.  My offence was in clarifying that it had been established by steadfast historical revisionists and now accepted by all sides in a libel action at London’s High Court that Jewish prisoners under the Third Reich were neither reduced into “human soap” nor were their skins made into lampshades.  

Yet instead of myth versus fact meeting with objective, courteous debate as one expects at a Masters level university seminar, no-one present could or would hear of this above the ensuing personal insults and uniquely universal Holocaustianity hysteria aroused by the tutor’s own misguiding lead.  Instead, uncritical source reliance prevailed round that university table on faked artifacts and selective reporting by a biased media - even as one witnessed, as I had, that these pious impostures were now acknowledged in our courtrooms as war propaganda lies.  Such pious (ceremonially buried) “human soap” (as commemorated in Holocaust Museum fraud) was verified as Jewish wartime myth by Mr Justice Gray and eventually by Jewish “Holocaust” historians on the Defence side during the British historian David Irving’s libel action taken against an anti-gentile Jewish racist and being fought in London’s High Court at the time. One need hardly speculate whether this anti source critical ethos in seminars at Heythrop College was influenced by the fact that this Jesuit college of apparent Christian treachery had appointed an Hassidic Jewess as sole examiner with a veto on who graduates.

The London based Jewish Chronicle at the time in 2000 quoted on its front page my eye-witness dissatisfaction with the final, non-jury judgment against Irving’s civil action.  It asked me as a daily court attendee over the two months’ running civil case taken by Britain’s foremost non-consensual historical bloodhound who risked and eventually lost his shirt to the fearsome wind forces of World Zionism. I saw for the first time, not knowing of Mr Irving nor familiar with Holocaust Revisionism beforehand, that so many of his source critical leads were considered “too sensitive” by Judge Gray to be pursued. Yet, surely justice must be served and alleged crimes fully and openly investigated along with all findings freely presented in our courtrooms?  To my chronic astonishment as firsthand witness of these extraordinarily unfair trials, a common sense assumption of natural law is denied to each revisionist and defence attorney - and a forthcoming sequel to my dvd JAILING OPINIONS will be an exposè of JAILING THE LAWYERS.  I aim for lawyers everywhere to take an interest.

In 2008 the Jewish Chronicle duly boasted of Dr Kollerstrom's dismissal on the front page of its 25th April edition.

On 7th May Dr Kollerstrom and I first became acquainted when he sought my advice (as a person vilified internationally ... yet more and more listened to for championing the normalising of historical revisionists’ free enquiry) on whether he could expect to travel safely to Germany where he hoped to present his paper The Walls of Auschwitz - a review of the chemical studies to the Berlin Conference on 15th-18th May 2008. This conference (Extermination in Gas Chambers in National Socialist Concentration and Extermination Camps) was designed to refute the revisionists' case on the alleged mass murder weapon - the WDM “gas chamber”.

From my observations in many European (and Canadian) courtrooms of revisionists facing persecution for merely expressing their individual source sceptical opinions and scientific findings, I advised that:

a) it was unlikely that the organisers would include a revisionist paper in their unchallengeable conference (as opposed to the entirely open to all comers Tehran Conference in 2006 on The Holocaust - A Global Review in which I presented a paper on The Psychology of Holocaustianity). And to prove the case, I asked the Berlin Conference organisers whether I could be included as press, but received no response; and that

b) if Dr Kollerstrom were to open his scientific mouth in Germany, or in any of the ten European countries (including Israel) where it is illegal to bring forensic science in to question the “Holocaust” legend "in full or part", he would risk certain prosecution and a long term of imprisonment.

About to appear myself on a Press TV live Fine Print panel discussion - (on Israel’s 60th/Palestine’s Nakba about which I had made a film from the British veterans’ eye-opening witness and screened in the House of Lords in 2003 to absurd howls of “anti-Semitism” from Lord Skidelsky simply because in my narration I had quoted the revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson) - I suggested to this new channel - which at last offers UK viewers a democratic choice of information sources - that they interview Dr Kollerstrom.  It was surely a newsworthy story given that the distinguished academic had been persecuted by the mainstream media, and thus, in my experience of Iranian fair play balance, one could expect this channel would provide him with some redress for the vilification and libel he has recently suffered following publication of his scientific article on a U.S. website.  The feisty new channel promptly responded.

On 14th May Press TV duly filmed an interview with the science historian Dr Kollerstrom in which he honoured the pioneering work of USA gas chamber and state human execution machinery expert Fred Leuchter (an innocent professional of admirable fortitude who never cowered or compromised to the amoral Jewish tyrants' twenty years abuse of him); and Germar Rudolf the PhD chemist who graduated from the prestigeous Max Plank Institute and is currently serving a long sentence in Germany (with dignity as I have personally witnessed with a prison visit to this valiant young prisoner of conscience) for his forensic report: Dissecting the Holocaust.  

Having been asked by a non-combative Dr Kollerstrom to come along with him for moral support, the channel there and then invited me to provide an introductory background.  That is, the stark contrast between the open democratic approach I had experienced at the Tehran Conference in 2006, as compared to the tyrannical and closed programme of that week’s forthcoming government-sponsored Berlin Conference where no revisionist was invited - though the conference was supposed to be all about revisionists and their (source) criticism.

The substance of Dr Kollerstrom's interview is his hope that a scientific journal will sponsor his own on-site chemical analysis of the walls of Auschwitz, in the tradition of the Leuchter Report and the Rudolf Report. These experts, like Dr Kollerstrom himself, came to this revisionist work, out of scientific curiosity and with no political interest.

After recording his interview Dr Kollerstrom, as I had arranged then appeared live on Press TV's Between the Headlines 14th May edition featuring presenter Jan Fossgard and fellow guest the journalist Kate Bevan.

Despite Ms Bevan's earlier hypocritical stance in favour of scepticism (during a discussion of Le Monde's recent admission that it had misidentified photos supposedly of Hiroshima after the 1945 atomic bombing) in her subsequent unthinking mandatory denunciation of revisionism one recognises at once the archetypical parroting response of the mainstream journalist, confronted by a taboo source-critical attitude towards what Jewish race supremacist historians term the "Holy of Holies".

Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom has no political links with the so-called far right - no obvious axe to grind.  He merely seeks a sceptical scientific approach to the issue of Auschwitz gas chambers, but it appears that British academia will not tolerate scepticism in this area.

The alleged Holocaust of European Jewry is a uniquely privileged area of history - and not only in the ten countries where "Holocaust denial" is criminalised.  And drawing on my lifelong acting expertise as a kind of propaganda tool in international advertising commercials, it is pertinent to note that “Holocaust denial” is in itself a devious propaganda tool. By this sly mispackaging term “denial”, an unwary public is dissuaded from normalising source critical enquiry into Holocaustianity - to separate religious “Covenantal burnt offering” myth from evidential forensic history.   This foreclosure term “denial” falsely defines Holocaust-revisionism as denying all wartime actions taken against European Jewry and thus implying revisionists have a mendacious agenda.  

Simply asking the indepth question “why” some action against European Jewry needed taking without due reference to a factor virtually never explained in our pro-Zionist media, would in itself risk abhorrence as if an immoral thought crime.   World Zionist leadership gave that “why”, not least once it formally defined itself as “a state acting within a state” and declared in 1933 a total destruction, an economic war on Germany.  This was both a self-identification of Jewry as Germany’s enemy within and without and, to the extend it began to succeed in restricting German exports, a guarantee that Germany would have to expand eastwards at the risk of war.  Indeed, due to the media monopoly of our thus undemocratic information outlets in the “free world”, we hear nothing of an “invisible army” as declared by Jewish leaders of the period, in this devious propaganda device of simplistic “denial” rather than economic and geopolitical historical revision of one dimensional victor myths.  

But even here in Britain more subtle methods of censorship (denial of debate as manifest “hate”) and intimidation (baseless smears and disinformation guilt by association with would-be “gas chamber” collaborators) are tyrannically deployed.  These are patent advertising ruses by which vested interests create and control the narrative.  Indeed these propaganda terms are most suitable cases for university seminars in media studies ... which I would raise if I were still lecturing in the media studies course I initiated in 1969 at the Queensland University of Technology.  No need to ask nowadays for how long such a seminar would run before the tutor was miscast morally unemployable by the orchestrated behaviour of the “Swarm” (as Israel Shamir aptly describes the siren chorus before the “Holy of Holies” sting).

Fortunately there is now a media outlet which is prepared to defy the prevailing mood of surrender to this censorship and intimidation, so Dr Kollerstrom's article can be found on the website of Press TV under the section Reflections.  The twistspeak case (my term for the cynical twisting or distorting of the facts by which the culprit is made to appear the victim) to be addressed is not whether Dr Kollerstrom and the revisionists are in “denial” or regardless of whatever their alleged motivations.  But rather that it is, a) academically incorrect procedure to deny revisionist findings from public and general academic scrutiny; and b) morally criminal to allow the systematic terrorising by those suspect censors who deny the norm of research into  the historiography of myths versus facts.

Further to Dr Kollerstrom’s TV appearance and the publication of his article on the Press TV website, the Jewish Chronicle in its page 12, 23rd May 2008 edition, adds “disgusting” from Mark Gardner, director of communications of the Community Security Trust to its columns of Jewish advertising journalism.  The said Trust denies Press TV its demonstrative balance and deems “disgusting” the way this worthy Iranian-based channel does invite all sides to debate openly and fairly  - as befitting a scientifically advanced nation still evidently influenced (unlike our academia today) by its historic Classical Greek tradition of scientific attitude towards history.  

Could it create a mutually great fresh wind if together the academia of Europe and Iran encourage each other to breathe as much of their once common Classical heritage back into an upstanding renewal of those elegant pillars of inseparable Four Virtues: Measure, Scientific  Attitude, Justice, Courage? I have far from forgotten my elected role to take the Tehran Conference on the road.  Nice thing is that meantime more scientists as we see are stepping forward, and due to such Kollerstrom/Press TV raising of general awareness, more public too are getting readier to roll up. 

Michele Renouf -





Let's Get This 'Holocaust' Straight: A Polite Request to 'German' Jews Concerning the 'Six Million'

Dear Frau Knobloch and Herr Stephan Kramer - Central Council of Jews in Germany:

As an English journalist and academic author resident in Germany since 1992, who has been requested to write an historical and legal assessment relating to the so-called "Holocaust" narrative, I am urgently and very respectively seeking real scientific evidence to support the alleged claims that exactly "six million Jews" were systematically murdered by the Third Reich.

I am requesting from you authentic, objective source material and archival references that substantiate these claims. I need to take receipt of verifiable statistics that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the "six million" figure is accurate beyond any dispute. I have repeatedly asked the German government for authoritative evidence, but for some strange reason I have been supplied with no supportive information.

One may be given to thinking that my patience has run thin.

I absolutely trust that you are sincere and have no reason to conceal from me the real facts. I am seeking the truth and beg you to provide me with the very precise details as to why the figure of the alleged "sacrificial victims" is neither 5,999,999 nor 6,000,001, but an oddly esoteric and very Kabbalistic 6,000,000.

Knowing that Jews are scrupulously honest in their dealings with the Goyim and never tell lies, I trust your integrity and intellectual honesty in answering my question. Please be advised that I have submitted the same questions to members of the German government, various legal bodies and other international agencies interested in such questions.

I am particularly interested in the apparently unlawful detention of men and women who have not contravened their constitutional and internationally-guaranteed rights to free expression of their personal opinions in respect to the scientific study of what may appear to be inexplicable historical anomalies.

As you may already know from past experience, I am an Englishman of Geordie origin and not easily dismissed with ostensibly polite answers, nor do I fear an illegal judicial system, the legitimacy of which expired in August 1990 (the now defunct BRD reparations corporation). Please bear this in mind when very humbly and respectfully presenting to me what I expect to be real, concrete evidence in support of your extraordinary claims.

I shall not be content until I receive a satisfactory answer subject to objective international peer review. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

With best regards,

Michael James

April 28, 2008

Michael James, an Englishman, is a former freelance journalist resident in Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland.

Originally published at: 

Adelaide Institute comment: To date it has not been possible to confirm if this Michael James is a real person, someone who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being, or just fiction carrying a message. Stay tuned!




Vlotho: „Collegium Humanum“ verboten.

Aus für rechten Thinktank. Junge Welt - 08.05.2008

Das Bundesinnenministerium verbietet Zentrum  der Holocaustleugner. »Collegium Humanum« war jahrzehntelang als »gemeinnützig« anerkannt. Von Julius Kaiser

Das Bundesinnenministerium hat am Mittwoch (07.05.2008) das rechtsextreme Tagungszentrum »Collegium Humanum – Akademie für Umwelt und Lebensschutz e.V.« (CH) im ostwestfälischen Vlotho mit Verweis auf das Vereinsgesetz verboten. Ebenfalls verboten wurden der im CH angesiedelte »Verein zur Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocaust Verfolgten« und die als Teilorganisation des CH geltende »Bauernhilfe e.V.«.

 Seit den frühen Morgenstunden durchsuchten Polizisten rund 30 Räumlichkeiten der rechtsextremen Szene vor allem in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Niedersachsen und Hessen.

Bei den verbotenen Organisationen handle es sich um »Sammelbecken organisierter Holocaustleugner«, begründete Innenminister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) das Vorgehen.

Vertreter aller Bundestagsfraktionen begrüßten das Verbot. Die innenpolitische Sprecherin der Fraktion Die Linke, Ulla Jelpke, nannte es »längst überfällig«. Im Innenausschuß des Parlaments verwies Jelpke darauf, daß das »Collegium Humanum« schließlich bereits seit 1963 besteht. Das CH war sogar - wie der ARD-»Tagesschau« vorliegende Spenden- bescheinigungen belegen - als gemeinnütziger Verein steuerrechtlich begünstigt.

Obwohl die Bundesregierung im Frühjahr 2007 auf eine Anfrage der Linksfraktion erklärte, daß »die Vermeidung der steuerrechtlichen Anerkennung der Gemeinnützigkeit von verfassungswidrigen Körperschaften … Teil der ganzheitlichen Strategie der Bundesregierung« zur Bekämpfung des Rechtsextremismus sei.

Regelmäßig fanden in dem vom ehemaligen NSDAP-Mitglied Georg Haverbeck gegründeten und nach dessen Tod von seiner Frau Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel geleiteten Collegium Humanum Seminare, Vorträge und Mitgliederversammlungen statt, auf denen Altnazis, NPD-Mitglieder, Neonazis der »freien Kameradschaften« sowie Anhänger der rechten Öko- und Esoterikszene zusammenkamen.

Mit dem provokativ zum Jahrestag des faschistischen Pogroms am 9. November 2003 gegründeten »Verein zur Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocaust Verfolgten« wurde das CH zum Zentrum der Holocaustleugner aus aller Welt. Diesem Verein gehören unter anderem der gerade erst zu einer Haftstrafe wegen Volksverhetzung verurteilte frühere NPD-Anwalt Horst Mahler, der kanadische Geschichtsrevisionist Ernst Zündel, der ehemalige Rechts-Terrorist Manfred Röder und der Neonazi-Barde Frank Rennicke an.

 Örtliche Initiativen wie das »Vlothoer Bündnis gegen das Collegium Humanum« haben seit Jahren ein Verbot des CH gefordert. Doch weder die SPD-Grünen-Landesregierung noch die nachfolgende von CDU und FDP sahen sich als zuständig an. Mehrfach stellten die Grünen im Landtag von Nordrhein-Westfalen sowie die Bundestagsfraktion der Linken parlamenta- rische Anfragen, die ausweichend oder nichtssagend beantwortet wurden. Unter Verweis auf das Steuergeheimnis verweigerte das nordrhein-westfälische Finanzministerium selbst die Auskunft über die Steuerbegünstigung des CH als gemeinnütziger Verein. Auch die Grünen, die Anfang 2008 im Bundestag einen Verbotsantrag gegen das CH einbrachten, müssen sich fragen lassen, warum sie eine solche Initiative nicht schon während ihrer Zeit als Regierungspartei ergriffen haben. Quelle:


I’ve seen the future and it doesn’t work!


Dubai in 1990 prior to the craziness of 2003


Last year; The Dubai Waterfront.  When completed it will become the largest waterfront development in the world


The Palm Islands in Dubai. New Dutch dredging technology was used to create these massive man made islands.  They are the largest artificial islands in the world and can be seen from space.  The World Islands. 300 artificially created islands in the shape of the world.  Each island will have an estimated cost of $25-30 million.


Hydropolis, the world's first underwater hotel.  Entirely built in Germany and then assembled in Dubai, it is scheduled to be completed by 2009 after many delays.



Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute