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.
see:
www.adelaideinstitute.org/Australia/025.htm
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.
Fredrick
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.
1.6.2.1
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.
2.1
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.
________________________
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.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/toben-flees-uk-afterwinningextraditionfight/2008/11/25/1227491494765.html
___________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________
Bild ZEIGT
DOKUMENTE DES GRAUENS, DIE JETZT IN BERLIN GEFUNDEN WURDEN
Die Baupläne
von Auschwitz
Von RALF GEORG
REUTH
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.
REICHSFÜHRER SS HEINRICH HIMMLER – HITLERS VOLLSTRECKER
Hitler’s executioner
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 http://www.campus-watch.org/.
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 AxisofLogic.com
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
j.r.gair@adm.leeds.ac.uk
University
Vice-Chancellor Michael Arthur
m.j.p.arthur@adm.leeds.ac.uk
Chief
Executive of Leeds University Union Lesley Dixon
l.dixon@luu.leeds.ac.uk
*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 www.danielpipes.org/
and Campus Watch
http://www.campus-watch.org/
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, www.campus-watch.org
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 www.campus-watch.org,
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 (www.danielipes.org,
www.campus-watch.org),
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 http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_27003.shtml
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
http://axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=164&num=25776
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
Editor
_____________________
PLEASE
FREE DR. TOBEN---HE IS NO CRIMINAL, BUT ONLY SEEKING TRUTH
From:
Amy Aremia AAREMIA@nc.rr.com To:
lordspeaker@parliament.uk
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?
_________________________________
