ISSN 1440-9828
October 1999
98 and 99


The latest information from Dr Toben's letter is that Fred Toben is expected to stand trial starting November 8, 1999, and it could continue for up to four days. The trial will be held in Landgericht Mannheim (county Court, Mannheim). Many of the issues mentioned in the EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION, posted on our Website, may receive attention. If anyone wants to send Fred a message of support, they could write him, C/- JVC, Cell 1313, Mannheim Prison, PO Box 103254, d-68032, Mannheim, Germany. We have continued to receive many messages of support for Dr Toben, (along with some hostile ones, from the Enemies of Freedom, who continue to attribute hostile and evil motives to Fredrick and indeed to revisionists).

If these hostile motives do not exist, they must of course be invented, which is what happens.


One of the recommended methods for dealing with the detainment of Fredrick Tobin is use of economic sanctions against German companies, until he is released. But there must be enough sanctions to make the German Companies hurt. If people, en masse, were to refuse to buy BMWs, Mercedes Benzs, or to deny some deal in German trade that would cost millions, such a policy could be effective, but as yet this does not seem to have happened.

Commiserations are due to David Irving, whose elder daughter died in September 1999, and Adelaide Institute sent a message of condolence to him. Messages of support for David Irving in this tragic time have been received from around the world.

However, Adelaide Institute also wishes to commend David Irving for publishing serval items on Fredrick in his magazine, "Action Report", and on his Website, including the article headed "Fred Tobin writes from "Free Speech" Prison Cell, published in the Irving magazine dated #15, July 20, 1999.


Most readers are now familiar with the background to Frederick's arrest and detention, but I would like to cite from his comments, taken from a letter of his. He points out that he is, as Paul Keating might say, 'recalcitrant". Thus he comments that: "I am in my fourth month in a prison cell, and although I'm still here, I would do it all over again. Only now do I understand the true value of free speech - in the past having belonged to the talkers. But talk about free speech is cheap".

(as the old song had it: "you don't know what you've got till it's gone").

However, Fredrick adds: "Now the real fight is on and Adelaide Institute and its supporters are showing the way (a reference to AI's motto: via monstrare or "show the way") into the global village, lit up by the flame of truth.


"the evil forces of censorship may have succeeded in passing the Internet Censorship Bill (In Australia, to come into force from 1 January 2000, AD) and would be small time dictators may label us "racist" (meaningless term - ed) but we shall continue to provide uncensored historical material.


Our only criteria is truth-content and in the Internet library of the universe, we shall soon become irrelevant if we tell lies!


"Mature adults do not need to be told what they ought to see and read. The dictators who want to enslave our minds for the Internet because it gives us our humanity - the freedom to think and speak.


Those who say we indulge in "hate" talk by raising historical issues, ought to see and read. The dictators who want to enslave our minds fear the Internet b3ecause it gives us our humanity - the freedom to think and speak.

Those who say we indulge in "hate" talk by raising historical issues, ought to tell us where we are lying.


We maintain that there is no proof that Germany systematically exterminated German Hebrews in homicidal gas chambers during World War II. Why cannot Mr Jeremy Jones (of the Executive Council of Australian Hebrews) show us or draw us a homicidal gas chamber? Or show us the alleged four insertion holes in the alleged homicidal gas chamber in Auschwitz-Birkenau? (Which Dr Toben searched for in vain when he visited Auschwitz in person). Or just shut up and admit that there is no proof and he is either ignorant of historical facts or worse still, lying. (Well, let's charitably assume just that he is ignorant of historical facts - ed).


Thank God for the liberating forces of the Internet - and I thank all those individuals who have supported our battle financially and morally. On paper and on the Internet, we have won this war.


The real battleground is the law courts, the most difficult one - even in Germany, truth is no defence. (A reference to the fact that, after an appear to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Australia, evidence to prove that AI comments were based on hard historical evidence were rejected, implying that 'truth is no defence').


This makes my own case a joke and immoral. When truth is no defence, the lies flourish. When lies flourish, evil triumphs and good people begin to suffer real truth (The connection between lies and oppression was established by Jesus Christ, who said "the truth shall make you free", which means that lies enslave you, and so they do - editor). This is not in Australia's best interests" (no, nor in the best interests of Germany and Germans, either, who have been systematically vilified. - ed).


As mentioned in Newsletter #94, August 1999, Amnesty International has notified that it will not assist Dr Toben, or by implication, any other revisionist.


One Australia supporter of AI sent a protest to Amnesty International in London, dated September 3, 1999.

Re: Your refusal to support Dr Toben as a prisoner of conscience.
Dear Sirs/Madams,
As a life long vocal and financial support of Amnesty International, I am now ashamed of my previous support of your organisation.

Your failure to support Dr Toben, irrespective if you agree with his desire to investigate the Holocaust or not - he is still a classic case of a prisoner of conscience if there ever was one - shows your organisation to be one that blows with the political winds of the day.

Dr Toben's only crime is a desire to investigate the most widely reported historical event in the history of the human race. He has not physically injured any individual, stolen money from any organisation, or threatened the political stability of any government body - yet he remains in prison!

You and your organisation are a sham and appear to be just another "money making charity" masquerading under the guise of helping people oppressed by an unfair legal system.
An ex Amnesty International supporter.
Amnesty International,
Level 3, 250 Edward Street
Q, 4000
20 September 1999
Dear Mr Sebastian,

Your letter has been considered by the Queensland regional Executive Committee.

Because it does raise matters concerned with the freedom of speech of an individual who is not advocating violence, it was decided that the matter should be referred to the National Executive Committee for further consideration.

I must emphasis that this should not be constructed as support for your argument, rather for your right to present it.

Yours Sincerely
(signed) Michael Dale
Secretary - Amnesty International Queensland Region

To date, no further comment from them has been received by me. Am I being too cynical in not holding my breath about a favourable response?


The Australian Foreign Affairs Ministry has done nothing more than to extend normal consular services to Dr Toben and does not intent to press for his release as an Australia citizen. The German Embassy in Canberra has been less than tactful in dealing with any enquires into the matter of Dr Toben's arrest and detention. There is no prospect of "moving heaven and earth" for his release.


A letter addressed to the German Chancellor, Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schroder, Schlossplatz 1, 10178, Berlin, Germany, from Jack Young in South Australia, who has been a very active supporter of Dr Toben, calls on the Chancellor to release Fredrick who he says has been "goaled for rightfully defending the honour and reputation of Christian Germany" and suggests that "Dr Toben should be respected and honoured for his efforts to achieve justice for Germany and not incarcerated by the very people he is out to defend". He vigorously denounces the Zionist interests behind the arrest and detention of Fredrick Toben and other revisionists including David Iriving, who has been threatened with arrest if he enters Germany.


Adelaide Institute is grateful for support from David Irving, including publication of an article about Fredrick in the Irving Action Report, #15, July 20, 1999, p24, headed "Fred Toben writes from "Free Speech" Prison Cell", largely citing comments from Fredrick himself in a letter addressed to the Institute, which mentioned he is was Keating would call "recalcitrant", refusing to "recant" as mentioned on the front page of Newsletter #98-99.


Adelaide Institute has sent a condolence message to David Irving over the death, in September, 1999, of his eldest daughter, buried in London. He has received messages of condolence from around the world. One good news is that his young daughter, Jessica, is alive and well, but it is a trying time for him, not only because of the death of his elder daughter, but also preparing a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt in London in 2000.


One of the letters in Irving's Action Report, #15, contains a letter from a visitor to Germany, warning about possible arrest for holding revisionist literature.

In view of the way Fred was seized after a private discussion, without publicly challenging the law, it makes one wonder how safe other visitors to Germany may be.

The letter says:
"When K and I went to Salzburg in the fall of 1997, we had to fly to Munich and continue on by train, there being no direct flight from Seattle. At Munich airport they took us out of line and went over our baggage with a fine tooth comb. I had nothing in my luggage that hinted of 'holocaust denial.'
"This incident confirmed my suspicion that they are watching everyone. I am sure they were looking for something to put me in jail for.
"Just another incident to be aware of. All Revisionists on the Internet should be aware of this."


David Irving warns this kind of 'inspection' may not be confined to Germany. He relates how, when he entered Canada, he was detained and saw his car being literally taken apart, panel by panel, wheels taken off, spare wheel deflated, apparently in a attempt to find something "incriminating". They must have been disappointed to find nothing, but it shows how Canada is moving towards "1984" dictatorship.

Previous Newsletters have indicated the suspicion some of us have that the world is moving towards this scenario as we enter the 21st century.


One of Fredrick's staunchest allies and defenders has been AMJ Roehler of the Sleipnir organisation in Germany.

His press release dated 5 September 1999, is headed CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN JUDGE AND JUSTICE?
"The decision of the Landgericht (Mannheim Supreme Court) (or County Court - ed), is unfounded and the kind of reasoning is a matter of concern for the prejudice it exhibits. It is submitted to reject the decision and to grant participation at the proceedings according to section 138 (11) of the German order of Penal Court Procedure SIPO. This is also the desire of the accused, Dr Toben.

'The Supreme Court refers to information of the Berlin Police without comment and identifies itself with these without verification. These details are almost totally false, untruthful and were made in contradiction to the laws. Certainly this type of information would be unconstitutional as everybody has the right to be considered innocent unless proven guilty by a court of justice. I have always rejected any claims that a publishing house is Right-extremist. The contents of the published journals under my personal responsibility shows our attachment to human rights wherever they are threatened.


"The court endorses the claim of prosecution, that activities on the Internet are reason for rejection. It is a matter of concern that both prosecutor and court seem to believe that any participation on the Internet must be a criminal one. This gains credibility, as the prosecutor in the arrest warrant has avoided stating a criminal offence. It must therefore be concluded that the alleged criminal offence exists in any Internet activity as such.


"In the letter of rejection it becomes obvious that the Court, under Chief Judge Kern apparently despises the work of the Press and sees it as a misdemeanour. Kern Folkert/Kerbs-Durr quote Berlin police authorities who - whatever the reason - allege, I am a co-editor of the "Sleipnir" magazine. To be a co-editor or publications is, however, not a punishable offence and actually none of the police's business anyway. Any edition of printer material is here apparently seen in connection with criminal action, and such bias is endorsed by the Supreme Court. The anxiety of prejudice is here compounded, as Dr Toben has been incarcerated because of an alleged Press content offence.

"the anxiety of prejudice is further warranted by the reason, stated in the letter of rejection. It accepts the arguments of the prosecution, which point at two letters written to the Hebraic community at Mannheim. Again, it is not stated, what is in this letter - there is only one letter from my pen to the Hebraic community of Mannheim - is obnoxious, thus bias, and unjustified rejection of any person must be assumed. Here is the contents of the letter in question, Berlin, 30 June 1999:


"Dear Members of the Hebraic Community of Mannheim, I request your understanding that I turn to you in a matter which is not your direct concern. I refer to the incarceration of the Australian philosopher, historian and writer Dr Fredrick Toben at Mannheim. According to a press release by the state prosecutor of 9th April 1999, he has been charged with having disseminated, by the Internet, antisemitic and neo-Nazi propaganda. To my knowledge this is completely untrue. Attached please find various press reports in regard to this matter. Dr Toben works in a controversial field commonly known as revisionism. I have explained in a letter to the judge and state prosecutor that no dishonourable and improper motive should be suspected on their part. It is out of the question that Dr Toben occasionally did one time or another step a bit too hastily, too enthusiastically, for my taste, that it did not correspond to the situation and the political environment, in my opinion a serious and dangerous infringement by the German authorities. My plea and inquiry is this:


"Would a member of your community be willing to visit Dr Toben in prison to have a talk with him, to convince yourself of the groundlessness of the charges against him? From my knowledge about his person and character, I can assure you, he would be very happy about such a visit. If you require further information about Dr Toben, please let me know. Yours sincerely (signature).


"In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is apparently not permissible to write a letter to the Hebraic community of Mannheim. This emphasises the chain of prejudice, as Dr Toben, repeatedly has written to Hebraic institutions and authors and apparently a criminal offence of such letter writing.


Reason for complaint as well as anxiety of prejudice and the necessity to appeal the Court's decision of rejection is the claim, that there is a 'conflict of interest' between my work as a representative of the Press and my obligations to the defence. The opposite is true. My experience as Press representative would mean a necessary supplement for the efforts of the defence: the rejection, however, hinders the defence of the accused in an unacceptable manner, both professionally and, of course, also Press-orientated. The court endeavours to justify its claim 'collision of interest' by stating that I have requested a copy of the prosecution paper. What is despicable about the knowledge of a prosecution paper? When the court considers information about the accusation as illegal, it only exposes its contempt for the Press and thus the accused. Such contempt is an impediment to any fair trial. For this reason, the composition of the bench seems to be unsuitable for an unbiased hearing and especially Judge Kern should not be allowed to sit on the forthcoming trial.


Extracts from a letter, dated 13 August, 1999, written by Fred Toben to AMJ Roehler, included these comments:
"Truth is no defence in these proceedings, truth is a moral virtue and where truth is excluded, as it is in my case, lies flourish. Where lies prevail, immoral behaviour rules. I cannot participate in such immoral behaviour. Truth will not protect me from punishment (a reference to the fact that factual evidence to prove his views on the Holocaust is not acceptable to German authorities). Worse still, if I tell the truth in court at Mannheim, I make myself liable to more punishment. Also, I will most likely cause harm to my lawyer, Herr Bock.Stattsanwalt Klein, after all, extracted material from Bock's defence of Gunter Beckert, and had him before the court in March of this year (1999). Bock was convicted because he shared revisionist theses, which is a criminal matter in Germany. This is all witch-trials stuff, the inquisition at its worst.


"The judges at Mannheim cannot do otherwise but find me guilty, otherwise they will be subjected to the trauma which Judge Oriet had to endure. Is there a judge at Mannheim who is prepared to risk his well being if his family and career, for the sake of such principles as "truth" and "justice"?


"it is far easier to continue a self made conceptual prison where words such as the following prevent one from finding personal freedom: "Right-extremist", "Holocaust Denier" etc. Doubt is only found where it assist in getting a conviction


"I had a visit from the Australian Embassy last Wednesday, and advised Mr Edwards of my intentions and gave him my reason why. He cannot believe that I . am in such a predicament, that truth is no defence."


"So I submit to what is already a foregone conclusion - the fact that I placed material on Adelaide Institute's Website in Australia is the abstract delikt-offence (ie, criminial offence or delinquency - ed). And it does not need a concrete delikt-offence for someone to download it at Mannheim. My thinking activity is thus being punished. This is massive and will make world history.


I already hear that Nizkor's Mcvey will not travel to Germany because he fears punishment (a reference to a report that commentator McVey, of the Nizkor Exterminationist website, is wary of entering Germany because he deals with revisionist material, even though wants to refute it, but is still afraid of being arrested).


"The attempt will be made to label me "antisemite" - interestingly, in the New York Times, of 26 June, 1999, David Irving is quoted as saying that homicidal gassings occurred at Auschwitz - and there was no storm of protest. Why not? Are the opinion makers repairing the ground for now giving up the Auschwitz claim? All very interesting. It shows that Holocaust research is alive and well and I will have contributed towards its advancement by attempting to establish a dialogue between feuding parties."


The Australian Jewish News, Melbourne Edition, 1st October 1999, has an article by Grahame Leonard, of the B'nai B'ani Anti Defamation Commission, titled "Hating Hate and Teaching Tolerance".

It includes this comment under "Holocaust Denial":
"Identified by the ADC as a primary form of anti-Semitism for the next century, denial is a unifying belief shared by almost all far-right groups in Australia. The two main organisations which promote denial of the Shoah operate under the intentionally misleading titles, The Adelaide Institute and Australian Civil Liberties Union.

"A major challenge is to educate all Australians that Holocaust denial in not only about anti-Semitism but is aimed at rehabilitating Nazi ideology and its white supremacy philosophy."

(From other sources, I have heard the claim that AI is one of the five main "hate sites" in the world).


It's remarkable the way Hate only afflicts the world in the shape of such outfits as revisionists and refreshing to know that Zionists are always pure as the driven snow. Does this mean Exterminationist websites are all "love Sites"?

Are Exterminationist comments always loveable? Was it loveable to receive an email, on one occasion as Jules Streicher was?

Is it loveable to engage in denigration of Adelaide Institute and the ACLU by the internationally misleading term "Holocaust denial", when both organisations concede that Hebrews (and "goyism", incidentally), suffered during WWII, and only question some aspects of the Holocaust?

Why would it be hateful if we supported white supremacists when it is fashionable to support the "supremacism" of other races, while vilifying the whites for politically correct causes? Wouldn't that be racial vilification of whites? Any denunciation of the Aboriginals by whites would have to be "racist", whereas the whites can be denounced for their treatment of Aboriginals, without screams of 'racism'. As Black Pride is becoming fashionable, isn't it one-sided bigotry to oppose "White Pride"?

If revisionism shows that some aspects of the Holocaust are exaggerated, how does this rehabilitate Nazi ideology?

If the ADC is "anti-defamation", why does it defame revisionism? Please explain!

Would this be some kind of selective reasoning?


Would it be selective to pay so little attention to the holocaust of the "goyism"? One such is the Waco Massacre, details of which are coming to light, showing it to be premeditated murder.


While we are told it is 'insensitive' and 'antisemitic' to question 'survivor testimony' to verify details of the Holocaust, how is it that querying some aspects of the Waco Massacre has not been denounced as WACO DENIAL, ANTI-GOYISM, ANTI DAVIDIANISM or ANTI CHRISTIAN?

This has not happened in the case of an article by Carol A Valentine who runs a website analysing the Waco Massacre.

An email from her, dated 16 September, 1999, headed "Waco Survivor's story: True or False?". Has not yet, as far as I know, earned her the epithet of WACO DENIER or the like, even though she subjects survivor testimony to rigorous questioning, without being denounced as "hateful". A strange contrast. Please explain!

Her story reads:
The "The September 9, 1999, edition of Salon magazine carried a story written by Branch Davidian David Thibodeau, whom, (we are told), survived the April 19, 1993, inferno at the Mt Carmel centre in Waco. Among other things, David T. discusses that fateful day.

"Can we rely on David Thibodeau's account of the events of April 19, 1993?

"Please read the following and come to your own conclusions.

"I see two main problems with Mr Thobodeau's accounts, (a) important elements in his accounts keep changing and (b) none of the accounts are credible.

"Some history. By the summer of 1995, the news of how mothers and children died in the Mt Carmel Centre had made the rounds in the Waco protest movement. The moms and kids had hidden from the CS in an old concrete record storage room that was being used as a pantry in 1993. Instead of protecting the moms and kids, the concrete room became their tomb.

(Editor's note: it should be noted here that CS is a chemical powder, which at WACO was dissolved in Methylene chloride, a volatile chemical used for stripping paint, which produced a kind of aerosol spray. In closed spaces, CS alone can cause unconsciousness, death and can be ignited to produce a fireball. When CS burns it produces hydrogen cyanide, the same gas used in prison gas chambers - so here we have some REAL "gas chambers" - flaming gas chambers! But the victims were "goyism" - ed).

"The story worried me from the beginning. Mothers are practical people. When the air is poisoned, the practical solution is to 'get away" away from it. But the concrete room was a catch basin for poisoned air. It was windowless. It had a doorway, but no door. Why would the moms take their babies to a catch basins to "escape" the CS?

(Editor's Note: Is it WACO DENIAL to ask these sceptical questions, which are comparable to certain questions querying aspects of the Holocaust "gas chambers", which may have to go by the intentionally misleading phrase HOLOCAUST DENIAL? After all, Carol Valentien is acting as an historical revisionist regarding Waco details.)

"I wanted to know more. So, in July 1995, I interviewed David Thibodeau on the telephone.

"I asked David T. whether he had seen the mothers and children on April 19? First he said no. Then I asked who told the mothers and children to go to the concrete room. He said he did not know. However, he confirmed that the mothers had gas masks and the children had no gas masks, so to protect the children the mothers had buckets of water and clothes and with them, the mothers dunked the clothes into the buckets of water and covered the children's faces with wet clothes.

"But how did David Thibodeau know what was happening in the concrete room if he had not seen the mothers and kids that day?" I asked him.

"Now he said that one of the mothers came out of the concrete room and told him what they were doing. I asked which mother came out. He said he did not remember which mother.

"It is curious. First David Thibodeau had not seen any of the mothers, then he had, but couldn't remember which. How likely is that? There were a limited number of mothers-friends and co-religionist with whom he lived with for years.

"One of the mothers inside that room was Michelle Jones, David Keresh's sister, the woman David Thibodeau says was his wife. With Michelle were her three children - two year old girls and five year old Serenity Sea Jones. Since he remembered the incident and given personal interest, we might except David would remember which mother he had spoken to.

"And what of the buckets and gas masks that David Thibodeau said the mothers were using? The Texas rangers in charge of collecting evidence in the concrete room, Sgt. Raymond Coffman, did not report finding any buckets or gas masks when he testified at the 1994 San Antonio trial of the Branch Davidians. Nor do the Autopsy Reports indicate any buckets or gas masks were found in the concrete room near the bodies and they not mention any traces of gas masks on or near the bodies.

"Some time after my telephone interview, I cam across a copy of an October 14, 1994, article "Marked for Death", published in the Jerusalem Post, Reporter Haim Shapiro interviewed David Thibodeau who was visiting Israel at the time.

According to the Jerusalem Post, when David Thibodeau heard the CS attack begin, he donned his gas mask. Later a tank crashed through the front doors and, according to Shapiro, "he tried to reach the children - whom he believes were in a "buried bus" (emphasis added), which the group had prepared as a shelter - but with stairways wrecked and sheets of flames all around him - it was impossible". Says the Jerusalem Post article. He staggered out the door and looked back to see Mt Carmel totally ablaze.

"I knew my friends were dying and I only hoped the kids were safe in the bus", David Thibodeau told the Jerusalem Post.

(Carol A Valentine shows a diagram of the Mt Carmel Centre and points to the locations of the buried school bus and the concrete room - called "cinder block" in the diagram - as being very different and separate places, not contiguous).

There's more, but I want to stop here and point out some things.

It is a relatively short time since the Waco Massacre and the present day, yet already many discrepancies and inconsistencies in survivor testimony are being pointed out. It is more than 50 years that alleged events in the Holocaust supposedly happened and the odds of even greater survivor testimonies are greater.

Carol A Valentine paints a "revisionist" version of events, but she has not, as far as I know, been accused of WACO DENIAL, ANTI DAVIDIANISM, ANTI-GOYISM OR ANTI CHIRSTIAN, nor as far as I know, been accused of being a neo BATF, neo CIA, or neo FBI agent trying to rehabilitate the BATF, CIA or FBI. Yet, anyone who questions survivor Holocaust testimony is likely to be tagged as "neo-Nazi" and accused of trying to rehabilitate Nazism! Could there be some in consistency here?

She is talking about a form of "gas chambers" but she is asking practical questions as to how it could have operated and how victims would try to escape it, much as revisionists have asked comparable questions about supposed Nazi "gas chambers" asking why they would have windows that could be smashed, or queries as to why gas would not escape, since the rooms were not hermetically sealed. Yet, she has not been accused of FBI, BATF or CIA rehabilitation. Please explain! Could there be inconsistency here? IS there one rule for goyism Holocausts and another for Hebraic Holocausts?


From Auschwitz 1270 to The Present, by Deborah Dwork and Robert Han Van Pelt, W.W. Norton, New York, 1996, pp 363-4:


"There have been additions to the camp the Russians found in 1945 as well as deletions, and the suppression of the prisoner reception site is matched by the reconstruction of crematorium1 just outside the northeast perimeter of the present museum camp. With its chimney and its gas chamber, the crematorium functions as the solemn conclusion for tours through the camp. Visitors are not told the crematorium they see is largely a postwar construction.

"When Auschwitz was transformed into a museum after war, the decision was taken to concentrate the history of the whole complex into one of its component parts. The infamous crematoria where the mass murders had taken place lay in ruins at Birkenau, two miles away. The committee felt that a crematorium was required at the end of the memorial journey, and crematorium I was reconstructed to speak for the history of the incinerators at Birkenau. This program of usurpation was never detailed. A chimney, the ultimate symbol of Birkenau was recreated: four hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouring Zyklon B into the gas chambers below, were installed and two of the three furnaces were rebuilt using the original parts. There are no signs to explain these restitution's, they were not marked at the time, and the guides remain silent about it when they take visitors through this building that is presumed by the tourist to be the place where it happened.

Will these details of "reconstruction" mark the authors as "racist anti-Semites"? Maybe not, because they accept the "gassings", but it would be hard to know what degree of legitimate comment can be accepted before the accusations begin.


It is fitting, with mention of "gas chambers", to refer to a film, "Mr Death: The Rise And Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr" as mentioned by George Jonas in National Post, Sept 27, 1999 e-mailed from Orest Slepokuo ( titled "Holocaust denial versus Gulag-dismissal".

Fred Leuchter, of course, became well known because of his report on the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, Burkenau and Majdanek, Poland, in which he is affirmed that they could not have functioned as a gas chambers. Here is the subject of a documentary.

While being politically correct enough to insist that "The Nazi Holocause claimed about six million victims", Mr Jonas is politically incorrect enough to add that "the number of communist victims is about 12 times greater."

He adds "according to the Black Book of Communism, an 846 page study published in Paris by a group of French historians in 1997, Marxist holocausts claimed 20 million victims in the former Soviet Union, and between 45 million and 72 million in China. The global tally adds to these figures between 4.3 million and 5.3 million in Cambodia, Vietnam and North Korea, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America.

"These were not casualties of war or civil war. These human beings were murdered by communists, or perished in gulag type camps in various communist regimes, or in the cellars of secret police. The total, taking the lower figures, is more than 70 million people. But while Holocaust denial is rightly condemned," he decides, "engaging in gulag denial (or perhaps gulag denigration) remains respectable, if not de rigueur, in Western intellectual circles.


Mr Jones mentions the comment of someone who thought it was unnecessary to have an expose on Communism, and then draws an interesting parallel: if someone said "50 years after the fall of the Third Reich, do we really need an expose on Nazism?". He concludes that "there's a fair chance that it would be all he wrote for that (or maybe any) newspaper". (I wonder what he meant by that!?)


He then goes on to comment that whereas "Holocaust denial" is counted as a "crime" in many countries, "in contrast, we maintain such a discreet silence about the victims of communism that gulag denial isn't even necessary. It's generally replaced by gulag dismissal.


He concludes that: "There's no easy answer to why Mr Cole (a film reviewer) seems to believe that some holocausts are worth continual discussion, while others, notably Soviet Holocausts, are only worth sweeping under the rug. I find this a fascinating question. Perhaps Mr Morris (the maker of the documentary) can tackle it in his next documentary."


Even more curious is the fact that, as mentioned in AI Newsletter #96/97, there is a well documented connection between Hebrews and Bolshevism, attested not only by "goyism", but by some Hebrews as well. Yet, modern Hebrews seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge it. Is this BOLSHEVISM-DENIAL OR BOLSHEVIST DENIAL?


In the WWII furor, Australian Prisoners of War seem to receive little attention.

Alex Mc Clelland, an Australian Prisoner of War, who wrote of his experiences in the Small Fortress, Terezin Concentration Camp, in 1945, and author of an autobiography titled The Answer - Justice, who wrote his own appeal for recognition, now has his own website URL: and his e-mail address is for possible contact.


In a letter sent to the Sydney Morning Herald GPO Box 506, Sydney, NSW 2001, on 13 September 1999, meant for publication, Dr Arthur Butz writes.

Dear Sirs,
In connection with the arrest of Dr Fredrick Toben in Germany, George Ryba of Sydney, authorised an article (SMH, 5 May) reporting that at the Nurember trials he gave evidence of mass exterminations at Auschwitz and that his "testimony withstood long and forceful cross-examination" by defence lawyers.
"As author of a book (Hoax of the Twentieth Century), that denies that such exterminations took place there, I was interested in Ryba's testimony. My reaction was delayed by the end of the academic year at Northwestern University, where I teach electrical engineering, by my summer vacation and by delays in getting a copy of Ryba's testimony.

"I contacted Ryba by telephone in August he told me that his name was then Jerry Bielsky and thus I was able to find the testimony he gave in 1947 at the trial of concentration camp chief Oswald Pohl (he told me that the testimony he gave at the trial of Ernest Kaltenbrunner was in closed session only.)

"The letters column of a daily paper is not the place to thrash out historical issues, so I will confine my comments to one point. There was indeed long cross examination of Bielski by the defence lawyers, but their questions had to only do with his identification of defendants. In proceeding thus, the lawyers were only doing what, in their view, they wre hired to do.

"It never occurred to these lawyers to probe Bielski on things, that for us, cry out for elaboration. For example, Bielski testified that "we could always speak with the people who were going to be gassed". No lawyer asked Bielski the obvious question: Did he tell these Hebrews what was supposedly going to happen to them? Nor were there any other questions aimed at elaborations this amazing scenario.

"There exists an inescapable handicap when trying to draw historical inferences from trials of individuals: the people running such affairs are not, and are not suppose to be, interested in history." (signed Arthur Butz)

Arthur Butz also wrote of his telephone calls to George Ryba, 36 Milroy ave, Wollstonecracft NSW 2065, (02) 9434-1394.

I spoke to Ryba 7:25 - 7:40pm (10:30am his time). He says his name when he gave testimony against Kaltenbrunner and Pohl was jerry Bielski or Jerzy Bielski. His defence against Kaltenbrunner was on closed session because there was a fear that the "Werewolf" organisation would assassinate witnesses. As far as he knows, it was never published. I confirmed that I have found his earlier name in the list of witnesses in Case 4. He says he was arrested later by the Americans for refusing to testify in the Krupp case. I told him I was a friend of Fred Toben and that I was particularly interested to read of aggressive cross examination by defence lawyers. I told him that if I could find his testimony in the Kaltenbrunner case, I will him know where.

TELEPHONE CALL 11 August 1999, to George Ryba.
I spoke to Ryba, 7:27 - 7:58pm. I asked him for his date of birth and registration number tattooed on his arm, telling him only that there may have been two people with his name. At first, I did not explain that my problem was (10 in his Polh testimony, Jerzy Bielski said he was born in April 1941 and had registration number 66423 and (2) the Auschwitz Chronicle says (p 668) that Jerzy Bielski, born 28 March 1921 and arrived at Auschwitz 14 July 1940 and escaped 21 July 1944. I did not mention that the trial testimony was that he was transferred to Sachsenhausen in November 1944.
Ryba replied that he was born Jerzy Bielski on 14 April 1921. He had a police registration number 19808 for a while after his arrest in 1941, but received number 66423 when he later arrived at Auschwitz. Bielski (pronounced by-el-ET-sky) was another person, involved in the resistance, whom he knew. The name Jerzy Bielski does not come up very often because he was with Jan Mosdorf (Polish fascist) political faction in the resistance. The major resistance group involved Polish Army officers, who had the support of London. The communist had the support of the Soviets. Nobody outside supported Mosdorf. After the war, he was a political orphan, since he was to some extent a leader of the Mosdorf faction after Mosdorf's execution in 1943, and thus suspected of being a fascist. (he wasn't). He visited the Auschwitz museum once and Kazimierz Smloen told him his name was not to be found in the museum records that Smolen admitted were incomplete. However the ITS has his file.

Ryba's recollection is that all of his testimony on gas chambers was in the unpublished Kaltenbrunner proceedings and that gas chambers did not come up in the Pohl testimony (that is not true, but I chose not to correct him at the time.)

Ryba says he never testified to mass murder (that doesn't appear to be true). Neither he nor anyone else saw anyone gassed: they weren't allowed near enough to look through the 'windows'. However, on occasion, he 'entered when bodies were still around.'

He hopes I don't attack him personally and he wants Fred Toben freed. He said none of Toben's Australian friends has spoken to him. He says "I don't believe in history".

11 September I send Ryba a copy of his Pohl trial testimony as Jerzy Bielski. 12 Sept 1999, I write him a letter, telling him I have also sent a copy of his testimony to Faurisson.

It remains to be seen if Robert Faurisson will take the Ryba testimony any further. As more than 50 years has passed since the Ryba testimony, it would be hard to check many of the details. What sort of testimony will be used in Fred Toben's trial?


The answer to the above conundrum appears to be: if its done against whites, implied by an e-mail from Deon Masker ( dated Wednesday 6 October, 1999. Headed "David Duke Demands Hate Crime Investigation in Kileen, Texas Killings" and the issue is not whether or not to support David Duke, but why other politicians have not jumped on this as an anti-white "Hate crime" and why there is this selective treatment, at a time when we are regularly being lectured on the terrible "Hate". Could this be anti-white racist vilification and a move towards Black Supremacism?

"New Orleans, Louisiana, October 4, 1999. National white civil rights activist David Duke is condemning Kileen, Texas prosecutors for refusing to label the grisly execution style murder of Todd and Stacie Bagley by four black youths as a Hate Crime.

"Christopher Andre Vialva, 19, Brandon Bernard 18, and two juveniles, 17 and 16, were arrested shortly after they kidnapped the Bagleys, were forced into the truck of their car, after they were approached for a ride, and later driven to a remote location from Fort Hood, where they were both shot in the head and set on fire."

"Duke described the crime as 'one of the most horrific acts of hatred I have ever heard'.

"No one could commit such an act of violence against two defenceless white Christians without harbouring the most vicious hatred in their Hearts" said Duke, in a letter to federal prosecutors.

"This horrible inter-racial crime has gone completely unmentioned by the national Media and is yet another example of the Media's bias against reporting black on white crime" says Duke. Though 90% of interracial crimes is black on white (Italics mine - I wonder why this is not generally reported - ed).The national medial fosters the impression that hate crimes, like the nationally known Jasper cases, are exclusively white on black. By promoting racial hatred against whites, the media is creating what Duke calls "a climate of hatred" against whites, which leads to these killings."

(Italics mine - now I wonder why it keeps escaping attention, while we are agonising about emphasis about Hate crimes, that most are committed by blacks against whites, and the emphasis on whites against blacks promotes that Race Hate that we must condemn? How curious that this contribution to bigotry and prejudice keeps being ignored -ed)


This denigration of the white man, amid screams of "white supremacism" which could not possibly (of course) be racial vilification of the whites, is seen also in the attempt of suppression of evidence that could prove that whites were the first race in America, preceding the Indians, Eskimos, etc.

There are several excellent articles on Kennewick Man in The Barnes Review, Vlo V, #5, May-June 1999, including Who Were the Original Native Americans? By John Nugent and Steve McNallen's Indian Folklore Revels Evidence of A Vanished Tribe of Caucasoids In North America.


The latter article makes it clear that myths and legends spoke of a white race preceding the Indians, known as the Sitecah (Si-Ti-Cah), some of whose relics have been found. His article presciently makes the observation , before the Kennewick remains were found, that the "existence of an early, previously unknown Caucasian tribe in the Nevada-California region indicates that white roots there may be deeper than suspected", (TBR, Vol # 5, May-June, 1999).

The discovery of the remains of a Caucasoid skeleton near Kennewick in Washington, and dubbed "Kennewick Man" created a furore because it was dated over 9,000 years old, "one of the oldest skeletons ever found in North America", and it's build was white, not Indian. This spoiled the theory that Indians and Eskimos were the oldest inhabitants of American, and because it was "politically incorrect", attempts were made to suppress the information, culminating in the forced burial of it under 2,000 tons of dirt and gravel, making it virtually impossible to retrieve. The forced disposal of the remains is a political cover up to conceal historic white settlement in America is thousands of years old. This is ant-white bigotry and attempted destruction of "white Pride" while pandering to anti- White Pride.

Stephen Mc Nellen with Wayne Lutton, in the article "Kennewick Man Discovered: Just Who Is 'Indigenous Anyway?", in the journal Social Contract, Vol VIII, #4, Summer 1998, (Social Contract Press, 316 East Mitchell St, Petosky, MI, 49770, USA) puts the issue very clearly:


"Practitioners of "Identity Politics" charges that the descendants of the Founders of the American Republic have no right to be here, based on the assertion that Europeans are "settlers" who invaded the Western Hemisphere and took it away from "Native Americans". In their view, the US is illegitimate and whites should not complain when others move in. Some advocates of this position have come right out and said that whites should pack their bags and go right back to Europe.


"recent discoveries in the field of archaeology have raised solid suspicions that Euro-Americans ought to be just as "indigenous" to North America as are the Indians" (p319). The author, Stephen McNullen, can be contacted at PO Box 445, Nevada City, 95959, USA or by e-mail at the Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Centre is at


This same issue of the Social Contract have several excellent articles on Europhobia, which takes the form of hatred and contempt against the white race. The introduction by guest editor, John Vinson, aptly heads an article: "Europhobia the racism of Anti-Racists" , dealing with the paradox that those who scream "racism" are "racist" enough to denounce whites if they were the embodiment of evil. Since this amounts to trying to squeeze whites out of the country they did so much to build, it is hardly surprising that some whites protest against this usurpation, just as in Australia, where the white population is being undermined by Asian and other immigration. The catastrophic effect of this on whites is being ignored and anyone who objects cops a scream of "racism". The writer puts it well: "genuine concern for self-preservation hardly adds up to prejudice" (p289, ibid). The idea that self preservation cannot be granted to whites, but must be granted to all non whites, is so obviously racial discrimination that it should require no further demonstration.

The "Social Contract" URL is and it's e-mail is

Those who want further evidence on the destructive effect of immigration into the United States, should read Alien Nation, by Peter Brimlow, New York, Random House, 1995.


The attempt to boost the importance of blacks and put down of the whites is on again, seen in an article by R.W. Johnson (from Johannesburg) in The Australian 11 October, 1999, p9, headed "Boer War Began Commemoration A Black and White Issue."

"South Africa began commemorating the centenary of the Boer War on the weekend amid accusations the (ANC) Government began rewriting history to enhance the role of black Africans in the conflict.

"President Thabo Mbeki, accompanied by the Duke of Kent, launched the celebrations on Saturday in the town of Brandfort, in the Orange Free State, laying wreaths on the graves of Britons, Boers and blacks who died in the 1899-1902 war.

"The Deputy Minister of Arts and Culture, Brigitte Mabandla, said commemoration was nation building through inclusively, promoting reconciliation, presenting a balanced picture of the War".

"Yet the manner in which the ruling African National Congress is handling the centenary has raised fears among some white academics that historical truth is falling victim to political correctness. (emphasis mine - ed).

"For years, the ANC resisted any idea of commemorating the war, seeing it as a bitter reminder of an era when white man fought one another for control of the country, secure in the knowledge that whoever won would rule over blacks.

"It was hardly surprising South Africa's post apartheid Government had little sympathy with British Imperialists. The ANC had no liking for the Boers either, or all their anti-colonial defiance and the tragedy of the 25,000 Boer women and children in who died in British Concentration camps.

"Only in 1997, did the ANC relent, after realising that the centenary celebrations could become a big international event.

"In a address to Afrikaner rulers this year, Mr Mbeki emphasised the Government's reassessment of the conflict as one that affected all South Africans. "We know about 20,000 blacks died, together with 28,000 whites, while 115,000 blacks and 136,000 Afrikaners were held in concentration camps" he said.

"The Ministry of Culture (should that be Ministry of Brainwashing?-ed) has set up a panel to correct the errors of "previous governments who tried to suppress the role and suffering of blacks in the war." Although not disputing the suffering of the blacks, historian Charles van Onselen, believes the Government has gone too far.

"It's a classic nationalist rewrite of history" he said. (emphasis mine - ed).

"For other critics, the problem is not just that in military terms, the conflict was a white man's war. They say the government is merely aping the Afrikaner emphasis on concentration camp vicitms.

"The awkward truth is that most of the black victims were initially on the Boer side. By the end of the war, about 30,000 had enrolled with the British. "Why not focus on them? Asked Irma Filatova, a respected historian of the war. (emphasis mine - ed)


The evidence cited here, in response to outcries of the intentionally misleading phase of "Holocaust Denial", suggest that there could be traces in other places of other forms of Denial, as mentioned in places other than Adelaide Institute, of such phenomena as Gulag denial, or Gulag Dismissal, Bolshevik Denial, denial of equal opportunity to whites and other traces of ant-white bias, and formulation of politically correct version of history, that exclude white involvement in history, including Kennewick Man and the new version of the Boer War, that intents to down play white involvement and build up black involvement.


Anti German racism is seen in such books as Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners, which tries to defame the entire German race as being intentionally out to destroy all Hebrews they could get their hands on, even without Hitler's "assistance".

If this were true, all Hebrews would have been wiped out in Germany before Hitler ever game to power!


Anti-whitism is just as active in Australia, in terms of denigration of the whites by some Aboriginal activists, National "Sorry day", denigration of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic heritage of the whites and the attempted destruction of the constitutional monarchy. So maybe things are not quite as one sided as the ANC suggest! Think about it!

Top of Page | Home Page

1999 Adelaide Institute