ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                    No 423   



From POM, Prisoner of Her Majesty, XF 9993: The Battle of the wills continues …

Dear all

1. After 20 days imprisonment my personal upheaval is stabilising into familiar patterns of routine - the whole affair is becoming a repeat of my 1999 German imprisonment with a few novelties thrown into it.

2. There is always the need to adapt to stark reality, to the physical imperative that I have lost my freedom to move about at will. I cannot get up after a night’s sleep and go about my daily routine of checking emails for example. I cannot use the phone at will, nor can I just jump into the car and visit friends - all because I am not currently living in my own home.

3. In 1999 it was Peter Rackemann who’s 30 years as a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, taught me to be a real revisionist and adapt to the physical reality of imprisonment instead of dreaming of having psychic superpowers with which to escape from this physical prison. To date I have escaped the mental prison of the Holocaust – Shoah

4. So, having accepted the current reality as a given fact, I can without hindrance, here at Wandsworth prison - with over 1600 prisoners one of Europe’s largest - use my mind to make sense of my situation.

5. Why am I locked up, or as they say here, banged up? I was arrested on Wednesday 1 October 2008 at 11-30 am on AA98 by the Heathrow police. The newspaper report of my attempting to evade arrest by hiding in the plane is nonsense. I had left my aisle seat and with permission settled down into a 5-seater centre row for a 7 hour sleep – that’s the time it took to fly from Chicago to London.  When we docked, an announcement came through there was an incident and a person walked to my original seat, which someone else by then had taken.  When the announcement was made for Dr. Toben to identify himself and to come forward that is what I did! When I reached the entrance door I saw the police standing there.  I stopped and retrieved my camcorder from my coat pocket with the comment: I'll have to make a record of this!  Then I was pulled out the plane - and the rest is history.

Just last Sunday a United Airlines pilot was luckier because after the police breath-tested him in the cockpit, he was taken to the Heathrow police station and bailed to appear in January 2009 on a drunk while flying charge! It appears ground staff had alerted the police that something was not quite right with the pilot.

Of course I did not get police bail, nor was I granted court bail.  In both instances, on 1 October and 17 October, district judges Nicholas Evans and Daphne Wickham did not grant me bail because of 'fear of flight'.  It did not help my saying to Evans that the world is my prison.

The prosecution pointed out that I had in my passport visas or stamps from the USA, Iran, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.  Little did she realise by stating this fact she was also indicating where it is still safe for me to travel.


6. That the USA is still a safe haven for dissenting minds must hurt those individuals within the British establishment who wish to adopt the European Arrest Warrant so as to establish 'Holocaust denial' as a criminal matter in Britain without it having specifically been enacted in law.


7.  And that is the problem with which the prosecution has to grapple - how can 'thought crimes' be absorbed into British common law where thoughts are not yet criminalised.


8.  During the 1970s this dichotomy - the physical and the mental - was clear to me when I grappled with the philosophical difference between French Rationalism, German Idealism and British Empiricism.

8.1. For me, as far as Revisionism is concerned, the clarity of French rationalism has produced Robert Faurisson, Georges Theil, Vincent Reynouard, et al, who are all feared by the French judiciary. Hence a French judge will rarely, if at all, hand down a verdict that also records in detail what actually transpired in court.  They also shy away from imprisoning dissenting individuals because that would negate what the French Revolution was all about - to be enlightened through rational debate.


8.2. The German judiciary does not hesitate to imprison dissenting minds, such as Germar Rudolf who by the way was arrested in the US this month on 19 October 2005.  There is also Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz, and perhaps again Horst Mahler, who have for a long time been legally persecuted by individuals who claim to be merely following the law.  I need not stress that Austria's judiciary is a mirror image of Germany's because it too happily imprisons Revisionists such as Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik and others.

8.3. However, when someone like Horst Mahler comes along, who is philosophically schooled in Hegel and Kant, then the German judiciary miserably fails in justifying the imprisonment of dissenting minds.  All of Mahler's many court appearances have pushed German judicial thinking to its logical absurdities.  It has reached the critical stage that also broke down the 16-17th century witch trial mentality.

8.4. Basic civilising legal principles have been thrown overboard.  Factual evidence is irrelevant when a judge makes his determinations and formulates his judgment.  This means that anyone brought to court under Section 130 of the German Penal Code is already guilty of the alleged offence.  No proof, no evidence is required by the prosecution, something that is so elementary that even in summary offences some proof needs to be offered to the court.  What a judge has to do is assess an accused’s level of remorse or contrition.  The question is not whether the accused is guilty or innocent but rather whether he is sorry for having thought about and expressed his opinion over certain matters.

8.5. My own Mannheim November 2004 planned re-trial speaks volumes on this German judicial farce.  It did not proceed because:

a. My choice of defence counsel, Horst Mahler, was rejected by presiding judge Adam.  It happened on the 20 May, just before Mahler received a mandatory requirement to sit an exam to practise law! - Coincidence? I think not.

b. Judge Adam ordered Mr Michael Rosenthal to represent me. Rosenthal refused this court appointed role by stating to judge Adam that were he to insist on this appointment then he, Rosenthal, would remain silent throughout the proceedings, as had done my legal counsel Ludwig Bock on 8 and 10 November 1999.


c. Rosenthal stated to me, and to Judge Adam, that at the factual stage of the proceedings it is not possible to effectively mount a defence because he would be making himself liable for prosecution as no absolute privilege attaches to matters aired in open court as it does in common law courts.

d. My German re-trial did not take place in November 2004 because under such circumstances I refused to attend. In any case since 8 January 2004 I had formally been banned from entering the European Union and was I to travel to Germany, then I would immediately have been arrested-and that is not an ideal way to prepare for a defence.

9. It appears from the above that the British Common Law system radically differs from the French and German system, while both use the civil law or Napoleonic legal legacy. The common Law system does not criminalize thoughts- not yet! and so the Holocaust - Shoah topic has been side lined, at best formally, and legal technicalities of a factual nature are moved to the forefront of any proceedings, which for some is quite boring especially if they seek to publicise their held views during such proceedings.

9.1. The problem in my case is whether the European Arrest Warrant is sufficiently detailed to fulfill basic legal procedural principles. The prosecution claimed this was not necessary because I well know what I am alleged to have done. This is saying in effect that an accused need not be proven guilty-it can be assumed. That is how it is done in Germany.

9.2. Another problem is: Can common law criminalize thoughts? If statute law also remains silent on this issue, can another nation impose its censorship of thoughts on the British People? This problem raises the sovereignty issue, something the European Union advocates would dearly like to eliminate.

9.3. The simplest issue is whether the alleged crime has been committed in the UK. It has not, but that is just the point in categorising my "crime" as a cybercrime. 


HMP Wandsworth, London, UK

20 October 2008


Statement from Fredrick Töben – 3 December 2008

"I said, 'We will go all the way to the House of Lords with this and let the House of Lords decide'. But when the draft extradition Act passed through the House of Lords in 2002, one of the questions was what would happen if someone was arrested on a European arrest warrant to be extradited to a country where Holocaust denial is an offence. The response was, 'No, that will never happen'."


Kevin Lowry-Mullins, solicitor, Dass Solicitor, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP, UK


1. Here are some of the facts on the misleading/false statements made about my person after my 1 October 2008 Heathrow Airport arrest:

1.1 I was on American Airlines 98 flying from Chicago, USA, which landed at Heathrow Airport at 1130 on 1 October 2008.

1.2 After docking, an announcement was made that ‘There is an incident’ and a man walked to the back of the aircraft and addressed a passenger who had taken my aisle seat that I vacated at Chicago to sleep in a centre-row of seats for the duration of the seven-hour+ flight. I saw how the passenger shook his head and I knew this incident related to my person. It’s the fight-flight syndrome that some may be quite familiar with when the Holocaust-Shoah persecutors get their proxies to do the work for them. There is no reason to resist by fighting or fleeing because since 1994 I have been stressing constructive dialogue, which means also walking into the enemy camp! The fact that the Holocaust-Shoah believers use the ‘full weight of the law’ to stifle open debate is proof of their failure of moral and intellectual nerve.

1.2.1 In any case, Revisionists have won the war on paper. Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust have settled the matters of fact issue. Unfortunately Revisionists lack the political power – but when did pioneers ever care about political power?

1.3 Another announcement was made: “Would Dr Toben please identify himself”. I stood up from out of my seat and stepped into the aisle. Next request: “Would you please make your way to the exit” – which I did with my hand luggage in tow.

1.4 As I approached the exit door I saw four men standing just outside the entrance to the plane, one of them heavily armed and wearing a flack jacket. One officer invited me to come along with them – there was no talk about an arrest. I stopped just short of the doorway and began to pull out of my suit pocket my camcorder, making a clear statement: “I think I’ll have to make a record of this!”

1.5 As I spoke those words and pulled the camcorder from my jacket pocket two men reached inside the plane, twisted both my arms behind my back and dragged me out of the plane and along for a few moments, then desisting because I said to them it hurt and this level of force was unnecessary. Later, upon reflection, I could understand such a reaction because the silver object I was retrieving from my pocket could well have resembled a gun – but then security at airports, especially within the USA, is so strict that it would have been unlikely for anyone to board a plane carrying a weapon.

1.6 I was briskly walked to the immigration counter where I received a 3-month visa stamp. This was revoked a day later, around 6pm, when an immigration officer visited me at H M P Wandsworth and handed me a form letter advising me I am subjected to ‘further investigations’ and ‘I am detaining you’.

1.6.1 This, in effect, made me an illegal visitor, and later when under an executive order of 19 November 2008 I was released from Wandsworth at 5pm, Immigration officer G Gilbert, who was responsible for my case, could have, were he so inclined, insisted on my being placed in a detention centre until my orderly exit from the UK. The silly headline from the Melbourne-based Herald Sun is just one example of spin where the suggestion is that I was in fear of anything: ‘Toben wins extradition fight, flees UK’ From correspondents in London November 25, 2008 05:08am.

1.6.2 At the commencement of his acting on my behalf, solicitor, Kevin Lowry-Mullins, made quite clear to me that the anticipated deficient European Arrest Warrant could be ‘perfected’ at any time during any appeal period. Were I to be court released, so Mr Gilbert in writing to Mr Lowry-Mullins, I was still subjected to Immigration’s approval to remain free. And having learned from Ernst Zündel’s case that time spent in a detention centre does not count as prison time, I mentally prepared myself to remain in prison, because such time if and when I would be sent to Mannheim would count towards any actual prison sentence imposed on me. This was one of the great injustices perpetrated upon Zündel by the Canadian and German judiciary that his two years in detention was not counted towards his five year prison sentence imposed on him by Mannheim Judge Meinerzhagen. This was especially an injustice because the Canadian Supreme Court declared illegal the Security Certificate under which Zündel was held for two years.


2. My 1 October 2008 City of Westminster, COW, Magistrates’ Court appearance.

2.1 After spending an hour in the Heathrow Airport Police cell as a WoW – wanted on warrant – I was taken by police car to the Horseferry Magistrates’ Court now called City of Westminster. The 2pm radio news bulletin carried an item that a Dr Gerald Toben had been arrested on a plane while in transit from London to Dubai, which was not quite correct. My transit stop would have lasted from 1130 to 2130 hours when a British Air plane was scheduled to depart for Dubai. I was lucky not to have made it to Dubai because the United Arab Emirates has adopted the European Arrest Warrant, and any legal wranglings from there would have had me at Mannheim within a matter of hours! Dubai can thus be considered to be an outpost of European colonialism, much as Israel is in Palestine.

2.2 While in the holding cell beneath the court I saw a number of duty solicitors hawking their services to those who had become, for whatever reason, be it the slightest assault charge or a breach of bail condition, enmeshed within the British legal system. One legal lady, Nina Baba, of Central Law Practice, Wembley Point, heard of my predicament and briefly spoke with me, suggesting that to the up-coming question of Judge Evans whether I agree to be extradited to Germany, I should say, “I refuse to be extradited”. – in the cell next doo there was an Irishman by the name of G Tobin!

2.3 At this first of two possible bail hearings I decided to represent myself before Judge Evans because I knew that as soon as I had representation I would have to remain silent. I took the opportunity of stating that this action initiated by the German government was a legal ambush. The Mannheim judiciary, with which I have been in contact per telephone and emails for a number of years, knew my Adelaide address. When Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel were processed there in 2005, I spoke with public prosecutor Andreas Grossmann on a number of occasions, as well as liaising with Judge Adam about that 2004 re-trial.

2.3.1. Remember, as the 1999 trial went to an appeal and the appeal court ordered a re-trial, technically I have as yet not been convicted by any German court, as stated in various newspaper columns writing about this current 2008 action against me. No doubt there is great urgency within the Mannheim judiciary to catch up on that – as well as to have me extradited on the new 2004 arrest warrant. The German edition of Wikipedia claims that in 1999 I was not immediately arrested in prosecutor Klein’s office – which I was – but only two days later. Also, various publications state that I handed out leaflets while in Germany – something I have never done!

2.3.2 Reference is sometimes made about my 1999 arrest in public prosecutor Klein’s office and no reference is made to the fact that my local community newspaper The Wimmer Mail Times prior to my departure featured a front page article informing its readers that I was going to challenge the German legal system to a dialogue. This was prior to my meeting any other revisionists where I discussed my intentions.  I had previously visited Klein in April 1997 because Adelaide Institute’s Tasmanian associate, Mrs Olga Scully, and I were pioneering legal procedures before the newly established Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – HREOC. This body set up by then Federal Court Justice and ardent Zionist Marcus Einfeld who used his influence deliberately to set up a body resembling a military tribunal before which truth is no defence. Specifically, before HREOC matters Holocaust-Shoah would gain legal protection by withdrawing any public discussion about this historical event and moving it into the realm of dogma, much as the Talmudic-Marxist Bolsheviks protected their dogmas by using the concepts ‘antisemite’ and ‘revisionist’ with which to kill and to send any dissenters to the GuLag.

2.3.3 Mrs Scully and I could not find legal representation and both federal and state legal aid was not available for such cases. We therefore presented our matters of fact to the best of our ability, but what mattered most was the matters of law.

2.3.4 We had noticed that the 1984-5 and 1988 Zündel Toronto trials were full-blown matters of fact and matters of law trials. Prof R Hilberg had to admit under Doug Christie’s expert cross examination that the two written Hitler Orders did not exist. To that date all historians writing about the ‘final solution’ stated that they did exist. After this fiasco, and parallel with the John Demjanjuk persecution fiasco in Jerusalem – and continuing to this day – it was Prof Alan Dershowitz who realized that anyone who claimed the countless Holocaust-Shoah horror stories to be true stories would be proved  a liar in a rigorous court situation. From then on tactics were changed and the various Human Rights Commissions sprang up specifically designed to utilize the racial concept in order to extend legal group protection to Jews only. British Common Law does not quite achieve such group protection. The legacy of Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus can still, if a judge is courageous enough to make use of such legal principles, protect individuals from legal excesses.

2.3.5 Mrs Scully and I walked out of our HREOC hearings because we considered such to be immoral because where truth is no defence, lies flourish and where lies flourish we have an immoral situation. When the matters were then re-heard before Federal Court of Australia judges, things did not improve the maters of fact and matters of law problem facing us. Mrs Scully offered all her knowledge and then was predictably found ‘guilty’, while I refused to defend myself because I knew that I could not offer any legal argument. The judges simply adopted the commissioners’ findings and found we had been in breach of the RDA.

2.3.5 I recall that for my HREOC case I had asked most publicly active Revisionists to send me Affidavits of support but which the commissioner then rejected as irrelevant. Prof Arthur Butz offered an affidavit on my behalf, stating therein I was guilty because the terms of the Racial Discrimination Act, RDA were thus structured that anyone claiming ‘hurt feelings’ when reading some of my published material, would make out a case against me.  I don’t recall if the commissioner rejected Prof Butz’s affidavit but such a one she would most likely have wished to retain because it helped prove her case against me.

2.3.6 Further, the Applicant in my matter, Jeremy Jones, also had stated to the HREOC commissioner that nowhere in the western democratic world was there a university that offered ‘Holocaust denial’ as a subject, and hence my views did not gain the protection of the RDA where academic works were exempt from prosecution. That I had submitted as part of my defence the 1993 Dr Stewart Joel Hayward MA thesis, wherein

the Revisionist argument was made out, was glossed over. In any case, during 2000 Jewish groups in New Zealand pressured the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, to investigate the granting of the thesis. Hayward recanted after receiving death threats stating “I stuffed up”. The university refused to revoke the degree, as the University of Göttingen had done in 1983 with Dr Wilhelm Stäglich’s doctoral degree, on the grounds that Hayward had not been dishonest. This matter clarified for me the pressure exerted by Jewish groups and I formulated the following:

“Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure”.

2.3.7 In the Scully judgment, the judge did state it was not a precedent setting case. My case went to an appeal before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, and then developed into a contempt of court matter, which is still pending because of my recent 50-day sojourn in the UK. My barrister, David Perkins fought the case on a purely legal basis because Justice Landau stated that Holocaust matters were irrelevant.

2.4 At no stage did I state on 1 October 2008 to Judge Evans  - “kick me out I promise never to return”, just as I never stated to the police, “You can’t arrest me on British soil”. When Judge Evans asked me when I would like to have the matter listed again – during the following week or in two days’ time on Friday, 3 October 2008 – I stated that the matter was a ‘done deal between Britain and Germany’ and we need not waste any time by adjourning the extradition hearing any longer.

2.4.1 After bail had been refused Nina Baba visited me in the court holding cell and I accepted her as my solicitor. On the Friday morning I was called out of the same court holding cell to attend to LEGAL, and a Mr Kevin Lowry-Mullins appeared, enthusiastically conveying greetings from family and friends: Serge, Art, Christian, Siegfried, Dagmar, Lady Renouf, and Kevin B who advised me ‘not yet Thoreau and Emerson’. He informed me that he would be delighted to represent me. I liked his fighting spirit, as I liked counsel, Mr Ben Watson’s reasoned approach and I agreed to change solicitors. Later, before the hearing, I was again called out for LEGAL and it was Nina Baba and I had to advise her that I had changed my mind. She gave me the outline of a defence that was to have been used that day and I am happy to say that relevant references used by Mr Watson in his defence were also listed by Nina’s defence counsel. Upon reflection I concluded that my case stood on its own account and that this made it such a media sensation, as Lady Michele Renouf pointed out in her various publications. At issue was British Common Law versus Talmudic/Civil/Napoleonic/Roman Law – the former protecting the individual, the latter protecting the group. Further, as the European Arrest Warrant, EAW, had only this year been adopted by the UK, my case activated the exceptions canvassed by Baroness Scotland, et al, while promoting the EAW for adoption. I was the right man at the right time to test such exceptions.

2.4.2 It all tied in nicely with Horst Mahler almost simultaneously fighting his battle in two German courts. But his battle was much, much more than what I faced. My matter was a matter of law while his was a matter of Weltanschauung/world-view for Germans who wish to liberate themselves from foreign domination and cultural genocide through the official legally sanctioned Holocaust-Shoah lies/dogma. See Newsletter 422 for more details.

2.4.3 At the very beginning Kevin Lowry-Mullins kept me informed about matters that mattered – and more. I was fortunate to have been advised at each step what faced me and what could possibly face me in the immediate future. I prepared myself for a long stay in prison, and then even for possible extradition to Germany. On 17 November, two days before my release, I wrote letters to Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel stating that were I to be extradited, then the circle of injustice would have closed on the British people as well. While the Germans were suffering this Holocaust-Shoah legal oppression, and other countries looked on in wry amusement as German judges imposed heavy prison sentences on anyone who refused to believe in this new dogma/religion that meant the death of German cultural identity, suddenly my case would activate the same mental perversions through the legal back door into their lives and stifle free expression in the country that gave the world parliamentary democracy!

2.5 Once I returned from court and another prisoner had just been re-imprisoned. The High Court had dismissed the European Arrest Warrant issued by France and so the man left prison, but was then re-arrested as he stepped outside prison. The French had ‘perfected the arrest warrant’. When I was released I asked about this at prison reception and was advised that prison officers would have been advised were such to occur, but that in my case there was nothing to impede my permanent prison release.

3. In matters of Bail to be paid in cash and not in surety as is the usual practice


3.1 Various media outlets reported that I could not come up with £100,000, AU$250,000 bail. This is not true. I was certainly surprised that I was worth that much money and it is certainly the first time a Revisionist has been valued, though the cost of transporting Rudolf and Zündel to Germany and Hondsik to Austria cost a lot more.  A generous person in Australia was prepared to put up the full amount, but the solicitor didn’t want to complicate matters unnecessarily by receiving money from overseas. And then there was Lady Renouf who had a gentleman organising the collection of the sum, which was reached. The conditions, however, made bail to be a hazardous affair. Anyone could be set up to be in breach of bail. I had two cases inside Wandsworth where two men had breeched their bail conditions, admittedly trivial – 3 weeks and 6 weeks prison for the offence. To lose £100,000 on a possible trumped-up charge was not to be scoffed at. Professor Arthur Butz could clearly see the dangers of, for example, the police losing any record of my daily reporting to them. We are all aware how bureaucracitc behaviour is often not conspiracy-directed but rather marked by bungling and incompetence. Reports in the London newspapers abound where some bureaucrat carelessly leaves in a bus or train classified material or even laptops!

4. A thank you to those who crossed my path while I was a POM – prisoner of Her Majesty, for 50 Days

4.1 There is uppermost the legal team, and many other individuals around the world, who assisted in preparing my ‘high profile’ case by writing letters of support to various public figures, from the Australian High Commissioner in the UK to the Governor-General of Australia, from politicians in Australia and the UK to noted media commentators. To these people I extend my gratitude. A thank you to Frank, Anna, Barry and Bert and George who visited me in prison and comforted my frayed nerves by purchasing for me a cup of coffee and a mars bar – at one stage George bought me two more, which I then had to eat because I was not permitted to take them with me to my cell. Then the numerous individuals who wrote me letters of encouragement after the media highlighted my case, and to those in the Internet community who spread the word of my time-down in the UK.

4.2 I thank the prison Governors Mulholland and McIver and their officers who are doing everything possible in maintaining a clean environment where the food is exceptionally varied and of the highest quality. These officers are at the forefront in securing the homeland, and all too often, like the teaching industry, it is a thankless job. The Prison Visitor, John Cockram, from the Home Office also does his best to report on matters that may be of concern to the government of the day. I regret that I did not stay long enough in prison to participate in the Radio Wanno activity where I offered to present a one-hour classical music program. I am certain that out of 1600+ prisoners there are a few who are sick and tired of listening to this hip-hop modern stuff and who would find listening to selected opera and symphonic highlights a delight. I must also not forget to thank the prisoners, especially with whom I shared a cell, for example Ernest from Nigeria, all of whom stated I do not belong in prison and I don’t look like a prisoner – whatever that means. The Serco staff in charge of court prison cells and transportation were all courteous to me and tried their best to give comfort in a situation that is extremely stressful.

4.3 Chief Immigration officer G Gilbert is to be thanked for being a gentleman, as were his two officers who ensured I made it to the plane on time. Fleeing the country, as was reported by some media outlets intent on smearing my character, was just not an option for me!

4.4 To the media commentators and anonymous scribes who wrote supportingly about my case a big thank you for attempting to remain objective and to present a balanced view of things. A special thank you to those who revealed their failure of moral nerve when they supported me but then labelled me ‘odious’ and engaged in other such name-calling exercises. For example some individuals supported ‘hate laws’ without realizing that they, themselves, were the haters who shied away from meaningful dialogue, for civilized debate.

4.5 A million thanks to the team back home who looked after my personal affairs and who kept the doors of Adelaide Institute open. Some reporters camped for a while outside and asked neighbours what Töben was like. I suppose they were dreaming of witnessing a march-by or perhaps to see individuals giving the ‘Hitler salute’. One media person wrote that during my second court appearance a supporter gave the ‘Hitler salute’, to which I replied that I didn’t know the man but all he said was ‘Good luck’ and gave me a wave with an outstretched arm. Of course, what the media should then also point out is that every month Freemasons around the world salute their Worshipful Masters in exactly the same way!

5. The following two books highlight what Revisionists have pointed out for many decades – the demise of the Zionist entity called Israel within Palestine:

Avram Burg: The Holocaust is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes.

Shlomo Sand: When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?

6.  Someone stated to me that I should now sue the UK government for false imprisonment. My response is that I don’t sue because I’m not a Jew! Apparently local Adelaide Jew Norman Schueler was offended by this remark when Channel 7 broadcast it as part of its coverage of my arrival back at Adelaide on 3 December 2008.

7. Holocaust Töben returns after release

The Advertiser

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Holocaust denier Fredrick Töben arrived back in Adelaide last night after charges against him were dropped in London.

German prosecutors failed in their bid to extradite Dr Töben for publishing views on the internet about the Holocaust that were illegal in much of Europe, but not in Britain and Australia.

He was arrested on October 1 on a European arrest warrant accusing him of publishing anti-Semitic views. A planned protest at Adelaide Airport failed to draw demonstrators.


GOING HOME – sweet home!

On Wednesday, 19 November 2008, the day after the 18 November dateline had been set for the prosecution to come up with further particulars in support of its appeal to the High Court, at around 3.45 pm I had just returned to my Cell 9 on Landing 4 in Wing C, from the hour-long brisk walk in the exercise yard. Usually at this time the showers are crowded and I decided to have my top and tail refresher wash in the prison basin. My cell mate was still at work. I heard a voice outside my open cell door:

Prison Officer: Töben?   

FT: Yes!

PO: What’s your number?

FT: Tripple nine three.

PO: You’re going home. Pack your things.

T: What’s going on?

PO: You’re going home – executive order.

FT: Wait a minute, I’m just washing myself – is this a joke?

PO: No, it’s not – you’re going home. I’m waiting for you downstairs.


Töben flees UK after winning extradition fight 

November 25, 2008-6:56AM, Sydney Morning Herald & AAP

Fled ... Australian revisionist historian Fredrick Töben. Photo: Peter Mathew  

 Fredrick Töben collecting his passport

Australian revisionist historian Fredrick Töben has fled Britain fearing German authorities might launch fresh attempts to extradite him. Töben’s solicitor, Kevin Lowry-Mullins said his client left the UK on Saturday as a precautionary measure.  

[Fredrick Töben comments: What a lot of nonsense. I have no fear! Public Prosecutor Andreas Grossman gloated he would have me in Mannheim at the beginning of 2009 - let him bring it on because I can then reveal to the world his moral and intellectual bankruptcy, someone who is a legend in his own mind, a bureaucrat who dines on mere puffery - crudely, an underachiever who is able to exercise some power that is at the pinnacle of moral decline, life-denying, full of self-deception/false consciousness. Herr Grossmann, strengen Sie sich an, werden Sie ein Mann!]  

Töben was arrested at Heathrow Airport last month on a European arrest warrant accusing him of racism and publishing anti-Semitic views. But a British court ruled that the warrant was invalid because it did not provide enough detail. Töben remained in Wandsworth Prison while supporters tried to raise a £100,000 ($234,000) cash security to post bail when German prosecutors dropped their appeal to the High Court. Töben was subsequently released.

Lowry-Mullins refused to divulge where Mr Töben had gone, but said he was taking a holiday before returning to Australia.

"When he was arrested at Heathrow, it was a valid European arrest warrant but it was vague and imprecise," Lowry-Mullins said. "The German prosecutors could have then perfected their arrest warrant and made it more precise.

"They would have then re-issued proceedings and Freddy Töben would have been arrested because the warrant would be a better warrant, for want of a better word. That was the reason why Freddy decided to leave."

Lowry-Mullins said if Töben had been re-arrested on a perfected warrant, he would not have been able to post bail and he would have wound up back in prison.

Supporter Lady Michele Renouf held a bizarre press conference in Töben’s absence, where speakers explained revisionist theories. "Our man, Dr Töben, has flown," Lady Renouf told a tiny gathering at a West London hotel. "He's gone on holiday before returning to Australia. He is not here because there was a possibility of a fresh arrest warrant being issued. They could issue a new one, that is why he couldn't possibly have tried to speak today."

Lawyers acting for the German government had argued that Töben, the 64-year-old founder of the revisionist Adelaide Institute, should be extradited to face trial for posting claims on its website that there was no mass murder of Jews by the Nazis.

Unlike in Britain, Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and offenders can face up to five years in jail.


The following article is more nonsense from the Holocaust-Shoah Media in the wake of Horst Mahler’s 2008 Berlin trial and Kevin Käther’ Berlin Self-accusation trial December 2008, and perhaps in small measure Fredrick Töben’s UK imprisonment – all in the wake of the October 2008 world financial meltdown/collapse.


Auschwitz Blueprint found in apartment, The Australian, 10 November 2008

Berlin: Original plans for the construction of the Nazi extermination camp of Auschwitz including a gas chamber and crematorium have been found in a Berlin apartment, a newspaper reported yesterday. The daily BILD published some of the 28 plans, which the head of Germany’s Federal Archives, Hans-Dieter Kreikamp, called “authentic proof of the systematically planned genocide of the Jews of Europe”. Bild gave no indication of where, when or by whom the plans were found.

It said they were dated between 1941 and 1943 and stamped, ‘Waffen-SS and Police Construction Directorate’. Some were signed by senior SS officials and one initialled by the Head of the Nazi ideological corps Heinrich Himmler.

Mr Kreikamp told the newspaper the documents were “extraordinary important”. One plan drawn by a detainee as early as November 1941, when experiments in eliminating prisoners were already under way, had a gas chamber clearly labelled, Bild said. Another showed a crematorium with places for ovens marked, and storage space for bodies.

The ‘final solution to the Jewish question’, namely the extermination of Jews living in Nazi-occupied Europe in what became known as the Holocaust, was decided by officials of Adolf Hitler’s regime in January 1942 at a conference in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee.

More than one million Jews, Gypsies and others deemed ‘sub-humans’ by the Nazis were killed at Auschwitz, near the Polish city of Krakow, out of a total six million slaughtered up to the fall of the regime of 1945.

Advancing Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz in January 1945, but camp authorities had blown up the gas chambers and Holocaust deniers have claimed there was no proof of the camp’s purpose.




Die Baupläne von Auschwitz


Es sind Dokumente des Grauens. Akkurat gezeichnet. Lagepläne, Grundrisse und Seitenansichten von Gebäuden, alles auf vergilbtem Papier, meist im Maßstab 1:100. Es sind Pläne des nationalsozialistischen Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz.

Hitlers Vollstrecker: Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler


Die Original-Unterlagen, die BILD zum 70. Jahrestag der Reichspogromnacht vom 9. November 1938 veröffentlicht, wurden angeblich bei der Entrümpelung einer Berliner Wohnung gefunden. Sie stammen aus den Jahren 1941 bis 1943 und wurden BILD jetzt zugänglich gemacht. Bei den Unterlagen handelt es sich um 28 großformatige Pläne auf Papier. Sie zeigen u.a. das berüchtigte Eingangstor am Ende der Eisenbahnrampe.

Häftlingsbaracken. Eine „Entlausungsanlage“ mit „Gaskammer“. Ein Krematorium und Übersichtspläne des „Interessengebietes“ der SS. Einen der Lagepläne hat der damalige „Reichsführer SS“ und Chef-Organisator des Völkermords, Heinrich Himmler, persönlich abgezeichnet – mit grünem Stift.

Der Leitende Archivdirektor des Bundesarchivs in Berlin, Dr. Hans-Dieter Kreikamp, misst dem Dokumenten-Fund eine „außerordentliche Bedeutung“ bei. Kreikamp zu

BILD: „Die Pläne sind die authentischen Zeugnisse des systematisch geplanten Völkermordes an den europäischen Juden.“

Die Dokumente enthüllen aber auch: Jeder, der mit Planung und Bau des Konzentrationslagers im Entferntesten befasst war, wusste, dass hier Menschen fabrikmäßig vergast werden sollten. Die Unterlagen widerlegen darüber hinaus auch die allerletzten Holocaust-Leugner.

Das erschütterndste Dokument des Grauens: der Plan einer „Entlausungsanlage“. Von einem „Auskleideraum“ führen Türen in einen „Wasch- und Brauseraum“ und von dort in einen „Ankleideraum“. Vom Ankleideraum gehen aber auch Türen in zwei „Vorräume“ und von dort durch „Schleusen“ in eine „Gaskammer“.

Schwarz auf weiß steht es auf dem Plan: „GASKAMMER“.

Dass in der 11,66 mal 11,20 Meter großen „Gaskammer“ nicht Kleidungsstücke mit dem bei der SS üblichen Blausäure-Mittel entlaust, sondern Menschen vergast werden sollten, muss als sehr wahrscheinlich angenommen werden. Denn der Plan, der von einem „Häftling Nr. 127“ in Auschwitz gezeichnet wurde, stammt vom 8. November 1941. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt experimentierte Lagerkommandant Rudolf Höß bereits mit dem Blausäuremittel „Zyklon B“, mit dem er im Stammlager Auschwitz kranke Häftlinge und russische Kriegsgefangene ermorden ließ.

Bemerkenswert an dem Plan, der von der „Bauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei“ in Auftrag gegeben wurde, ist noch etwas anderes: Er belegt einmal mehr, dass der fabrikmäßige Massenmord an den europäischen Judennicht erst mit der sogenannten Wannsee-Konferenz im Januar 1942 beschlossen wurde, sondern weitaus früher.

Ob die „Entlausungsanlage“ in Auschwitz-Birkenau genau so wie in den Plänen aufgezeichnet gebaut wurde, ist nicht bekannt. Sicher ist: Die Massenvergasungen von europäischen Juden in Auschwitz begannen im Frühjahr 1942 in einem ehemaligen Bauernhaus, dem sogenannten „Roten Haus“.

Der 1947 in Auschwitz hingerichtete Lagerkommandant Höß sagte dazu während seines Prozesses aus: „Die Ankommenden mussten sich ausziehen: Sie gingen auch zuerst ganz ruhig in die Räume ... Bis dann einige doch stutzig wurden und von Ersticken, von Vernichtung sprachen: Es entstand dann sofort eine Art Panik. Doch schnell wurden die noch draußen Stehenden in die Kammern hineingetrieben und (die Türen) zugeschraubt.“

Höß weiter: „Bei den nächsten Transporten wurde von vornherein nach den unruhigen Geistern gefahndet und diese nicht aus den Augen gelassen. Machte sich Unruhe bemerkbar, so wurden die Unruheverbreiter unauffällig hinter das Haus geführt und dort mit einem Kleinkalibergewehr getötet, das war von den anderen nicht zu vernehmen.“

Die ermordeten Juden wurden 1942 zunächst in Erdgruben verbrannt. Bereits im Oktober des Vorjahres wurde der Bau eines großen Krematoriums erwogen. Im November entstanden dann die ersten Zeichnungen. Der BILD vorliegende Plan zeigt einen ersten Entwurf mit Seitenansichten und Grundrissen, wiederum im Maßstab 1:100.

Besonders aufschlussreich: die Zeichnung des Kellergeschosses. Sie zeigt die Sockel für die Verbrennungsöfen, die später von der Erfurter Firma „Topf und Söhne“ geliefert wurden.

Auf dem Plan ist auch der „L.Keller“ (Leichenkeller) skizziert. Er misst eine Breite von acht Metern. Auf seine Länge hatten sich die Planer der Waffen-SS nicht festgelegt. „Länge nach anfallendem Bedarf“, ist dort zu lesen.

Insgesamt entstanden in dem Vernichtungslager vier Groß-Krematorien. Die überwiegende Zahl der in Auschwitz Ermordeten – es handelt sich um etwa eine Million Menschen – wurden hier eingeäschert, nachdem den Leichen Haare abgeschnitten und Goldzähne ausgebrochen wurden.

Geblieben von ihnen sind nur Namen in den Totenbüchern und die mahnende Erinnerung.


On 5 December 2008 I placed a telephone call to the head of the German Federal Archives, Dr. Hans-Dieter Kreikamp, 1800 hours Adelaide time: 49+30-187770, but was unable to speak with him.


Open letter to the Leeds University Union and Attacks on Academic Freedom

Robert Thompson and Les Blough. Axis of Logic

November 30, 2008

Editor's Note: Robert Thompson's definitive response (below) to the resolution proposed by the Leeds University Union addresses the strategic infiltration of the Zionists into another western university, manipulating the youth with their racist propaganda. In cases like this, Zionism goes beyond their expert use of the corporate media and creates structual positions in the administrations and student bodies of institutions of higher learning in Europe and the United States. The Leeds University Union resolution bears some fingerprints of Campus Watch Campus Watch is a US-based, Zionist organisation developed in 2002 for this very purpose - to eliminate any intellectual debate in the world of higher education over the political, legal and moral status of the State of Israel. Their objectives amount to no less than a broad attack on academic freedom. (Additional information about Campus Watch and Daniel Pipes follows Robert Thompson's letter).

- Les Blough, Editor

Open letter to the Leeds University Union

By Robert Thompson, Axis of Logic

November 29, 2008

Dear Students at Leeds University,

The world is informed that the Leeds University Union has proposed a resolution which defines anti-Zionism as a form of anti-semitism. This shows a lamentable lack of education on the part of the undergraduates of what ought to be a place where the entrants have at least some basic educational standard.

The purported defnition of anti-semitism as "Denying the Jewish people their right of self-determination" shows that those who have so defined the expression follow a slavish belief in the idea of a Jewish people, invented by Wilhelm Marr and then adopted by Theodor Herzl and Adolf Hitler, among others. The recent work by Professor Shlomo Sand shows how ridiculous this racist idea is, I believe that it is to be published shortly in English under the title of "How the Jewish people was invented" or something similar.

Even a slight knowledge of history shows clearly that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, since most present-day Jews are not in any way descended from the twelve tribes of the ancient Jews, but are Askenazim, whose Caucasian tribes converted to Judaism in about the eighth century of our era, to avoid being subject to either the Muslim Caliphate in Baghdad or the Christian Byzantine Empire. They spread across Eastern Europe and later moved even further westwards (including the United Kingdom) and went on as far as the Americas.

In any case, the expression "anti-semitic" is stupid, since it appears to accept that the semites are a race, when in fact they are of all races and skin-colourings, who use a semitic language as their normal means of communication. In their vast majority, semites speak and use Arabic, certainly not Hebrew, Aramaic or Maltese. Marr's 19th century description of the Ashkenazi Jews as "semites" was, in any case, based on a falsehood, since the language used by them was Yiddish, a non-semitic language into which came many words from Hebrew (a semitic language), just like the aryan Spanish language has absorbed many words from the semitic Arabic. Please forget your silly resolution, which merely shows a deplorable lack of knowledge on the part of your Student body. Yours sincerely,

Robert Thompson, Avocat Honoraire au Barreau de Boulogne-sur-Mer, Retired Solicitor (Honours), England and Wales, 22 rue de l'Eglise, 62990 RIMBOVAL, FRANCE

© Copyright 2008 by  

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you! READ BIO AND MORE ESSAYS BY ROBERT THOMPSON IN HIS COLUMN, "LETTERS FROM FRANCE".

Background to Robert Thompson's Letter to the

Leeds University Union and action you can take

Leeds University referendum threatens to silence Palestinian activists, Release, Palestine Solidarity Group(PSG*), 24 November 2008

Leeds University Union agreed last week, by a vote of 12 to 11, to send a motion to referendum which will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus.

A representative of the Leeds Student Palestine Solidarity Group (PSG) commented that "Under current Union policy we are well within our rights to express our opposition to Zionism and defend the rights of Palestinians who suffer discrimination and human rights abuses on the basis of their race, within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The passing of this motion would mean, however, a serious curtailment of the activities of the PSG on campus simply to satisfy the political views of another section of the student body. We believe that people should be allowed to hear both sides of the debate and make up their own minds."

To register your opposition to the motion contact:

University Secretary Roger Gair

University Vice-Chancellor Michael Arthur

Chief Executive of Leeds University Union Lesley Dixon

*The PSG website has been hacked, but not before the text provided above was copied and posted on Electronic Intifada.


Our purpose in profiling Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch  as a followup to Robert Thompson's letter to the Leeds University Union is not to impute a direct connection to the resolution cited. Rather it is to demonstrate the ongoing, systematic attack by Zionists on academic freedom throughout the United States and Europe. The Leeds University resolution which defines anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism, is a typical objective of Campus Watch. Their primary mission is to target university professors who speak out against Israel. One of their methods is to recruit university students to spy on their professors, identify those who oppose the State of Israel and to report to Campus Watch on their curriculum and lectures that are critical of Israel.

President Bush nominated Pipes to one of eight seats on the U.S. Institute of Peace. When Senate confirmation was delayed to investigate Pipes' racism against Muslims, Bush used his presidential power to appoint Pipes without Senate confirmation during the August recess.

On his own website, Daniel Pipes threatens university professors who speak out against Israel, first published in the Jerusalem Post:

"We hover over their shoulders and remind them that their egregious statements might well end up ridiculed as our 'quote of the month,'" or even cause them trouble when they try to win tenure or get a new job."

Campus Watch is a project of the "Middle East Forum" which was founded by Daniel Pipes. Middle East Forum describes itself thus:

"The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America."

Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah wrote about the founding of Campus Watch in their September, 2002 IE article:

Campus Watch: Middle East McCarthyism?:

"A pro-Israel think tank plans to start an Internet site," according to a September 18 article in The Wall Street Journal, "to monitor the attitudes of American professors and universities toward Islamic fundamentalism and the Arab-Israeli conflict."

"To be launched by the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, the article continued, will maintain what it calls 'dossiers on professors and academic institutions and collect information from students regarding their teachers' political opinions'.

"The introduction concludes with this determined text:

'Campus Watch will henceforth monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance. Campus Watch will critique these specialists, and make available its findings on the internet and in the media. Our main goals are to:

1.'Identify key faculty who teach and write about contemporary affairs at university Middle East Studies departments in

2.order to analyze and critique the work of these specialists for errors or biases.

3.'develop a network of concerned students and faculty members interested in promoting American interests on campus.

4.'Keep the public apprised of course syllabi, memos, debates over appointments and funding, etc.

5.'Keep the public informed of relevant university events.

6.'Continuously post the results of our project on, including articles, reports from campus and other

7.relevant information'."

Professor Douglas Card, a University of Oregon sociology professor sued Daniel Pipes for defamation in a $1.35 million law suit when Pipes and his research assistant labled Card as an "anti-semitic" and "left wing extremist" who "indoctrinated students" through their teaching. Pipes and Schanzer tried to force him to provide names of his students and contents of his class examinations in violation of UO policy. Ultimately the law suit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Looking at the Bigotry and Racism of Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch Against Muslims

A 3 minute look at the article titles on their websites (,, is all that is needed to understand their views of Islam and Muslims. The "Hate Laws" pushed through legislatures of the U.S. and European countries by Zionists apparently apply only to non-Zionists.

Daniel Pipes' article, After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists?, is one of his numerous anti-Islam articles that reveals his bigotry and one of his readers reponds below:

Pipes: "The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine imbues many Westerners, especially on the left, with a feeling of disdain. Whereas conventional war – with its men in uniform, its ships, tanks, and planes, and its bloody battles for land and resources – is simple to comprehend, the asymmetric war with radical Islam is elusive. Box cutters and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent."

Pipes then features this comment by one of his readers to the article cited above:

"I read and view with concern the news that the University of Leeds has cancelled a lecture to be delivered by German academic Matthias Kuntzel on the subject of Islamic anti-Semitism after complaints by Muslim students. Any attempt to suppress intellectual debate is to be strongly deplored, particularly when I suspect that the objections emanate from foreign students whose academic tuition and privileges are probably funded by the British taxpayer."

Pipes has always scorned Britain, accusing the country for being too soft on Islam and Muslims. He had this published on the Israel-first website, "Front Page":

"The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs; even as the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embraced multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Great Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has retained a sense of self that may yet see it through."

Pipes' stereotyping, racist article, The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming! - concludes ...

"Should Muslims fail to modernize, their stubborn record of illiteracy, poverty, intolerance, and autocracy will continue, and perhaps worsen. The sort of military crisis that Saddam Husayn provoked might well become yet more acute. But if Muslims do modernize, there is a reason to hope. In this case, they will have a good chance to become literate, affluent, and politically stable. They will no longer need to train terrorists or target missiles against the West; to emigrate to Europe and America; or to resist integration within Western societies."

Daniel Pipes has even led a racist campaign against Barack Obama, a sworn supporter of Israel, in a series of extensive articles in which he attempts to prove that Obama is in truth a Muslim. A similar examination of a Jewish politician in the United States would be met with cries of "anti-semitism" by Daniel Pipes.

Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch are everywhere.

Axis of Logic Columnist Ghali Hassan wrote  from Australia about Daniel Pipes' visit to his country in June of this year:

"the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the three main Australian newspapers, sponsored a visit to Australia by Daniel Pipes, the Zion-fascist Islamophobe. The aim of the visit according to the Herald is to educate Australians about the place of Western "democracy" in Islam, and I might add, to build walls between Muslims and all non-Muslims Australians. Because of his propaganda to incite racial hatred against Muslims and Islam, Pipes has become a household name among Australia’s racist elites and the inherently racist media."

In 2006, James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya noted Daniel Pipes' promotional interview of Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten in Denmark who solicited and published the inflammatory, racist anti-Muslim cartoons which exploded upon Muslim cultural and religion. Petras and Eastman-Abaya correctly described Pipes as a "notorious Arab-hating Zionist ideologue".

In January, 2008, speaking with Amy Goodman, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos described Daniel Pipes  and Campus Watch thus:

"Daniel Pipes, who has been leading the charge against 'Islamofascism' on college campuses, has put out his Campus Watch, in terms of going after professors that he deems are not pro-Israel enough."

The Leeds University Union resolution is just one example of attacks against academic freedom in the United States and Europe. Campus Watch, Middle East Forum and similar organisations represent a very real danger to the independence and academic integrity at the University of Leeds and other institutions of higher learning throughout the U.S., Canada and Europe.

- Les Blough




From: Amy Aremia To:

Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008  Subject: RE: Judicial fiat?

To the Honorable Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman:

More than 4000 years of recorded history have passed since the Middle East gave us our first written languages, great cities and courts of law, and in that long span of time, the historian can point to various peoples’ unique contributions, which stand as major milestones on man's upward journey toward a more humane, more perfect civilization.  Scholars tell us about Hindu mathematics, Chinese ethical systems, Greek philosophy, the Roman law code and English representative government. Protected by these principles, no greater bulwark against political tyranny ever existed.

This has produced political freedom,  and free enterprise to create the richest and most humane culture our troubled, imperfect world ever saw.  Protected by these principles, the creative genius nurtured by these freedoms produced material comfort and wealth far beyond the wildest dreams of ancient empires and emperors.  If we keep to the standards set by our given freedoms, the world would be that beacon light for all of mankind. Yet, we are in the twilight of political liberty as the political pendulum begins to swing back to the emergence of a master class, where only a few rule, the intellects are imprisoned, and the masses serve. 

In America, civil rights legislation has opened the floodgates to increasingly repressive legislation. Already, in many less fortunate countries, and 17 out of the 27-EURO members, have repressive laws; the most repressive is the Hate Crimes Laws instituted by Israel and aimed mainly at the Holocaust historians who have questioned, and seeked answers. Through this most unfair law, they have  stretched their iron grip around the world to muzzle free speech and to reduce individual freedom to where no segment of society will be immune to the inexorable degradation of political traditions, or to be free to quest  historical facts for truth, or to seek knowledge of still hidden secrets of the universe.

Are we witnessing revolution by Judicial fiat? As the power of centralism grows, no one will be truly free but victimized by a vast complex of restraining laws unless the courts, lawyers and judges, members of Parliaments, and other forms of governments, serve justly for the benefit of  the people of the world, of which the vast majority presently is unable to realize how much the fight is really theirs. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.

Amelia P. Aremia, Raleigh, USA

PS: Is it true that as of 2009 the European Union will impose a death sentence on anyone found guilty of REBELLION? What does this tell us about the EU bureaucrats’ faith in their political union – capital punishment for those who refuse to believe in the EU?                                     _________________________________



Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute