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 info@adelaideinstitute.org
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:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEGAL2006/contents.htm
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.
Cheers
Fredrick
Töben
___________________
From:
Larissa Detmold [mailto:ljcdetmold@mac.com]
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.
Fredrick
_____________________
From: Larissa
Detmold [mailto:ljcdetmold@mac.com]
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.
Fredrick
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN
THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW
SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
No.
N327 of 2001
JEREMY JONES
Applicant
FREDRICK TÖBEN
Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
OF 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,
By Yehezkel Dror, 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
joseph.anthony.yuja@alice.it
Sent:
Sunday, 25 May 2008 4:40 PM
To:
mshitrit@knesset.gov.il
Subject:
N. FINKELSTEIN'S ARREST ANOTHER SHAMEFUL EPISODE IN ISRAEL'S INCREASINGLY
LAWLESS BEHAVIOUR!
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:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/israelandthepalestinians/print
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.
Sincerely,
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
http://www.iranholocaustdenial.com/statements/statement-to-indict-irans-president-ahmadinejad.htm
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 jocelyn.stewart@latimes.com
, 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.
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-barnouw24-2008may24,0,4164550.story
11.3
As a Right-of-Reply to the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah allegations I made in 1998 Judea
Declares War on Germany
–
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GyT58_C6cjg
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.
http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases%20Chapter%2029/Ian%
20Rutherford%20Plimer%20v%20Allen%20Roberts.doc
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 –
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/index0.htm
Sworn
by Deponent
at
Adelaide
Before
me:…………………………
on
the 26th day of May 2008
Deponent’s
Signature
…………………………….
"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: nationalvernunft@web.de
Dirk's
first video:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=72dHps9pYSc&feature=user
Free
Downloads:
Rudolf's
book, 'Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross Examined,' can be
downloaded at the following link:
http://vho.org/dl/ENG/loth.pdf
Other
related downloadable books, for free or to purchase:
http://vho.org/dl/ENG.html
_______________________________________________________
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 - ladymrenouf@tellingfilms.co.uk
