Fredrick Töben: Reflecting on Matters
Usually the Winter months of June to August in the Southern hemisphere are slow months in the tourist industry. Temperatures are down and people complain about the cold weather. Likewise with us at Adelaide Institute where things are also slow during these months. The obvious lack of finance need not be mentioned because that affliction we have relegated to the too-hard basket, and more hard work effectively deflects from this pressing problem. For the sake of saving our limited resources, the August-September newsletters will be sent out towards the end of July as one posting.
Fortunately there is never a lack of information about the things that interest us, and this is reflected in the contents of the August-September newsletters. We feature material from Germar Rudolf’s The Revisionist, last year’s sensational claims by Fritjof Meier that the actual gas chambers at Auschwitz were situated outside of the concentration camp in two farm houses. This is the first time that the full Meyer article appears in English translation. Then there are two definitive articles by Carlo Mattogno that focus on the matters raised within the Meyer article and Meyer’s conflict with Piper of the Auschwitz Museum. The gassing libel is thereby settled in favour of the Revisionists, and the battle is essentially over because we have won the war on paper, but of course not ‘out there’ where billions of dollars has legally set the gassing libel in concrete. Still, those who still doubt the veracity of the Revisionist argument, i.e. that there were no gassings within the Auschwitz concentration camp, are wasting their intellectual energy by dabbling in what Faurisson calls ‘busy work’.
Inevitably, a glance through any copy of the weekly Australian Jewish News indicates that the gassing libel belief is still strong and much referenced, not only by Jews but also all those who revel in spreading and fuelling German hatred. There is no compassion and mercy shown towards any Germans who have had to endure the hurt and pain of this gassing libel. Sneering at and ridiculing those who are being hurt by the gassing libel is what I detect.
I am aware that years ago David Irving made a prediction he would single-handedly ‘sink the Auschwitz’. It sounded and possibly looked plausible. Germar Rudolf had just published his The Rudolf Report, Joel Hayward had just completed a Masters thesis that supported the Revisionist argument, David Cole managed to have F Piper declare that Krema I was not a homicidal gas chamber, something van Pelt/Dwork confirmed in their 1996 book Auschwitz: From 1270 to the Present. 1993 was full of Revisionist promise. Then the backlash began, and what followed for Irving was his 2000 legal challenge to have Deborah Lipstadt desist from labelling Irving a ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘a racist’, an ‘antisemite’, etc. Irving, never the fully-fledged Revisionist, wished to distance himself from Revisionists and join so-called mainstream historical discourse. He even made concessions in court that limited gassings occurred, something for which Robert Faurisson will never forgive him because Irving knows better. What followed was a devastating court challenge with the Auschwitz story still in-tact, the non-historian Lipstadt crowing about her victory.
My aim, since joining the fray in 1994, is far more modest and that is to have this gassing libel clarified for myself, which has happened over time, and events have helped me to firm my beliefs, especially the behaviour of individuals who wish to legally silence me from addressing this pressing issue, i.e. that the gassing libel is pure German hatred, and thus needs to be challenged.
If anyone asks me: “Do you believe in the ‘Holocaust’? I can respond: “Do you mean the gassing libel?” If the two are equated, then I would have to conclude that it is a lie, and that statement in itself is nothing new because Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, Ernst Zündel, Udo Walendy, Günter Deckert, Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Ahmed Rami, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Horst Mahler, Geoff Muirden, Olga Scully, Mohammed Hegazi, John Bennett, and many more Revisionists and non-Revisionists – the list is long - have made such public statements.
And yet, even in provincial Adelaide the belief in the gassing libel is to be found at all levels of society, from the most elementary mind that merely believes what the media/education systems are spreading into the community, to the most sophisticated and cultured minds where, I would expect, truth is a highly valued moral value. Not so. Here is something in a twisted logic from a culture vulture, Professor Brian Coghlan, former head of German at Adelaide University, now the leading light of South Australia’s Wagner Society, as quoted in July 2004 Newsletter, http//users.senet.com.au/~wagner, where he reminisces on Richard Wagner’s ‘Retro-Ring’:
“… So, with all this in mind, let’s make it as difficult for ourselves as we can. – it was in 1949, four years since the Nazi culture prophets – the German Reich’s ‘historic mission’ in the East and elsewhere – had been remorselessly revealed for what they were: at Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Natzweiler, Ravensbrück, Sobibor, Treblinka – and of course Auschwitz-Birkenau, which, whatever latter-day revisionists did and do assert, did and does exist.
Now what has all this to do with the Ring? Well, a good deal actually. For, as we Wagner people have been told at tedious length, Richard Wagner was Adolf Hitler’s high-priest and, for the ranks of the one-eyed, his prophet too.”
Which Revisionist asserts what? Of course, Coghlan’s commentary is at such an abstract level that there is nothing specific, nothing concrete and only allusions to what knowledge about the gassing libel is ‘out there’. Conversationally this mood is captured by the casual phrase often used by children who lack reasoning skills, “You know what I mean!” whereby massaged ‘common knowledge’ becomes the order. Woe be him who dares challenge any of the assumptions made by Coghlan within that first sentence quoted above, something that he concretises in the sentence following where Wagner is explicitly linked to Hitler.
But enough of such insidious nonsense. I refuse to accept it, and someone kindly advised me that Coghlan’s wife is Jewish and her parents either just survived Auschwitz or died there. That’s the usual blackmail technique used to sustain the gassing libel and silence anyone who disagrees to wear it. By refusing to accept it, one is thereby hurting those that believe in it. Unfortunately such an attitude is only a one way trip – the victim demands obedience. Where is truth? What about those that are libelled by the gassing story, those that are accused of having done something, then are not permitted to defend themselves against suc h assertions? How can you defend yourself against an assertion that didn’t happen? Have Revisionists no right to a defence? Not if you are a ‘denier’, and matters get worse if you are a German or anyone of German origin, or anyone whose grandparents had sided with the Axis powers.
While we are focusing on a historical perspective, it is worth while to recall that the 14th July marks the French Revolution where three concepts: Liberty, Fraternity and Equality are celebrated. By the way, unlike in Guantanamo Bay prison, the Bastille prison was almost empty of prisoners, something all too readily forgotten. Any country that needs to lock up its citizens, as does, for example the USA and its 2 million, approx. prisoners, there is something radically wrong with its culture. Of course, if that culture is based on a master-slave thought pattern, then it is understandable why individuals’ spirit is systematically broken by social structures that then invariably bolster the power of legal entities that are imbued with such negative and base motives as wishing to enslave individuals.
Personally I cannot see any value in upholding a slave-mentality society where individuals are not permitted to gear themselves up for developing into full-blown mature human beings. The Western world is certainly enslaved to debt finance, though I hasten to add often it is self-induced enslavement because it is too difficult for individuals to resist the temptation of acquiring consumer goods now, then pay them off on the never-never.
Years ago, after returning from overseas with wife and child, I applied for a job within our local community as a liaison person assisting the unemployed youth find a job, a similar job my father had done on a voluntary basis. My father solved the unemployment crisis within our shire by speaking firmly with the young, to either accept any kind of job going, or to get out of the shire and look further afield: travelling broadens your mind!
My interview before the committee members did not go well because I sensed that my view of things didn’t match the official view. When asked how I saw my job developing in the future, I replied that I would like to see my job being terminated over time. It would be my aim to ensure that the prevailing climate would be such that there would be no unemployed youngsters in our region. One committee lady was horrified to hear what I was saying. She asked me if I did not think that I would be better off now to go into the schools and teach the young how to survive on unemployment. I replied that this would be against everything I stood for: self reliance with ultimate autarky, where the creative spirit freely flows, and I would oppose the bondage, the dependency and slave mentality that youngsters on unemployment developed. Needless to state, I failed to get that job, perhaps because I failed to wish to develop a bureaucratic empire where the government grants going my way would be used to develop further dependencies – and employment for myself!
Once I began teaching I attempted to imbue the young with basic literacy skills, and more: spelling, dictation, précis, paragraph and essay writing, i.e. with basic thinking skills that enable individuals to develop their powers of expression, of reasoning, of solving problems. I did not realize then that the Jewish-dominated education system systematically dumbed down the Australian school population so that it was easier for them to introduce Jewish ‘Holocaust’ literature instead of the classic English literature texts.
My recent review of Professor Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Judaism clarifies this pattern used to undermine a core culture within which Jews have made a home. One of the mainstays of this Jewish watering down of Western culture is the French Revolution slogan of equality.
As an identical twin I can state that the idea of an aversion to cloning is misplaced because too many myths surround identical twins – naturally cloned individuals. I have made a joke out of this situation of being a twin. I say that my brother and I are identical but that we have never had the same taste in women, and I don’t think I am as ugly as he is. There is a deep truth in this because whenever I see my brother walking at a distance, I think what a funny little fellow he is, waddling along the road. And I then have to realize that I am actually looking at myself – and my personal self-image is not like that. It goes to show that individuality and non-equality is there, and if we go into further details of even our physical looks, there are differences, something that is borne out by friends who can easily tell the difference between the two of us.
Hence the truism that gives lie to the idea of equality: no two grains of sand are the same; no two physical objects are the same, just different. Our physical world does not know equality because physical things are different. The only equality we have is the abstract equality of numbers in our brain.
There are also differing levels of development, something teachers soon find out in the classroom when confronted by developing minds. Likewise, it is not possible to bring equality about between rich and poor people because we are here dealing with a universal aspect of human nature. Poverty and wealth are a reflection of a human difference that exists - and always will exist – between people. It is a matter of justice to get the difference sorted out, not a matter of equality. The sexual equality ideology remains what it is – a perversion in thought and against nature. No-one seriously considers the resultant androgynous person to be a viable option, though in the artistic/film world attempts have been made to anchor such individuals as a factuality of developing human nature. That there are occasional physical living examples of hermaphrodites, etc. merely indicates that human nature is not perfect.
The substance of the human being – the Mensch - is a mental and a physical essence where the aim is to gain harmony not only within the self but to be at one with the universe. The Biblical divide of God out there and humans here, for example, does serve a purpose for some individuals who fear to go that one step further – to find that divine spark within the self, not mediated by a guru/priest but alone by the self. That is what moral and intellectual maturity is all about.
Further, individuals have a will and understanding, whereby the willing gives life to an individual’s understanding; likewise, understanding gives shape to our willpower. Developing and understanding this relationship gives the individual a critical voice, independence and ultimately autarky.
Anyone who is imbued with the ideology of equality will invariably be filled with all sorts of expectations that will inevitably produce disappointments. The Marxist-feminist ideology wants to change people and mould them into a theoretical construct that is in their mind – Utopia - of what they think human beings ought to be. We have seen how this has led to bloody wars, much like what the Anglo-American-Zionists imposed on Iraq – a western-styled democracy that is foreign to the mentality of the Middle East peoples.
However, if an individual accepts as a basic universal law that we are all different, then disagreements on view-points are reduced, and that normal battle of the wills need not be a bloody affair. I attempt to live by such principles, and it enables me to be quite tolerant of those with whom I do not agree, whose world view I do not share. Hence my life-long attempt to reject the hatred-driven us:them divide and to embrace dialogue instead. How can I treat a person the way I wish them to be? This would mean that I am imposing my will on them – and I would find that sad. But the control-freak loves such a situation and sees the challenge therein – but at what cost! Literature teaches us that we are all different, and that is the essence of tolerance, and not the cant and hypocrisy that, for example, drove US president George W Bush to proclaim the war on terrorism and for freedom and democracy. Using deadly physical force to impose freedom and democracy is morally wrong and pure intellectual fraud that ultimately kills the spirit pursuing such a policy.
But that policy is the result, among other things, of attempting to impose the equality concept on the world. Bush wants the Iraq people to be what he has in mind they should be; he used brute force to liberate them. But enough of such musings. Next in this newsletter is Dr Claus Nordbruch’s article – machine translated -that contextualizes the failed Sacramento Revisionist conference. Dr Nordbruch’s view elevates the Sacramento event above the back-baiting that ensued immediately afterwards. The Camp of the Saints article, so ably translated from the French by one of our Sacramento speakers, Peter Wakefield Sault, is an eye opener. Jean Raspail raises uncomfortable matters that will have to be addressed, though currently the world multi-cultural policies, mainly driven by Jewish interests in order to undermine Western culture, prevent an open debate on issues raised in that article. The current list of persecuted Revisionists is growing: in France, Vincent Reynouard, and in Canada, Ernst Zündel, while Wolfgang Fröhlich is back home in Vienna after spending a year in prison for refusing to believe in the gas chamber libel.
The New Zealand spy matter is perhaps a payback for Jewish pressure on academia involving Joel Hayward! One senses that again the Jews are pushing their luck too far. But isn’t that such a human trait – hubris? The Germans call it Übermut and in a life situation, where nothing is permanent, it does not pay to express Schadenfreude.
In April 2004 the European-American Culture Council (EACC) had invited to a conference to occur in Sacramento, the capital city of California. It was supposed to become the most impressive and capricious conference for many years. The impressive gathering was sponsored by the Australian Adelaide Institute conducted by Dr Fredrick Töben. Aside some well-known historians, all of them representatives of historical revisionism, some notable figures from politics, justice, journalism and economy were announced. The courageous as well as pretentious assembling of speakers promised release from fixed and inflexible mental schemes and to set up new intonation of thinking. In total, no less than 16 orators from all over the world had been invited. Among them there were Dr. Fredrick Töben (Australia), attorney-at-law Horst Mahler (Germany), author Gerhoch Reisegger (Austria), historian Dr. Dariusz Ratajszak (Poland), leading German revisionist diploma chemist Germar Rudolf (USA), director of the Institute for Historical Review Mark Weber (USA), politician Dr. Tom Sunic (Croatia, author Barry Chamish (Israel) and the writer of this article from South Africa. 
The presentation’s bandwidth of the speeches was promising. The latest discoveries and developments in the research of the so-called Holocaust, in historiography of German colonial history, on the putative and factual global danger of terrorism, on the circumstances and matters of the attacks on the World Trade Centre in September 2001 as well as legal action against thought crimes in the alleged ›free world‹ stood on the agenda. Furthermore, also a charity auction was intended to take place in order to raise some funds for political prisoner Ernst Zundel detained in a Canadian prison for more than 15 months for the time being.
It was characteristic that from the very begin the responsible organisers did no not hide away, but indeed made their planning of this international scientific assembly public, above all via the internet. By doing so, they were, however, consequent to such an extent that by rigidly updating their webpage and uncompromising releasing newsletters they even announced some interna not genuinely meant for the eyes of the public in general. This fact delighted both the enviers within the own ›scene‹ and bitter opponents of the conference. Among the latter, above all, the infamous Jewish Defense League (JDL) needs to be included. This organisation leaves no doubt on her intention and methods of action. As early as 25 November 2003 the organizer informed their readership: »The JDL is considered a terrorist organization, after two of its leaders were arrested for conspiracy to bomb Muslim Mosques and the offices of California Congressman Darrell Issa.«
It should happen what one could have had expected in the Federal Republic of Germany, but definitely not in the ›country of unlimited opportunities‹, the ›haven of freedom of speech‹: Immediately before the conference could actually begin, it had to be rescinded! The organizers had had the sad obligation to inform incredibly fast the invited speakers and guests, many of them already on their way to Sacramento, that the lessor of the hall gave in to the demands of Jewish agitators unconditionally. She simply withdrew the rental contract on a short term, leaving the organizers without the necessary location to perform the conference. »The Sacramento Turnverein caved in to the massive pressure of the Jewish community and cancelled our facility. « 
The German Turnverein in Sacramento is one of the oldest historic buildings of the town. In press release signed by an Ira L. Jacobson on 19 April she claims politically correct and in a manner of supposedly civically couraged: »We are relieved that we were able to act in time to thwart this unseemly attempt to use our space as a platform for hate. Hate and historical ›revisionism‹ have no place in our community, our State, or our Country.« According to the press release, the reason for this strict decision was, the organizers would have hidden their ›genuine identity‹. This allegation, however, quickly proved to be just a cowardly protectional statement, since the organizers, in fact, did everything but to hide and pretend. They mentioned who they were, whom they invited and what the matters of their subjects were they were supposed to talk about. In fact, the organizers by the EACC were honest and frank from the very begin. In various announcements and interviews for papers and in radio stations they left no doubt about what they intended to put on. The American press was tremendously interested in the happening, a couple of forthcoming press conferences were also planned.
Furthermore, the pathetic statement by the Turnverein was also proven to be a lie by a ›confession‹ by the Jewish Defense League. On 20 April in a malicious letter to the organizer the chairman of the JDL, Bill Maniaci, acknowledged: »I cannot describe the joy that I felt in my heart when I read today’s press release from the Sacramento Turn Verein advising that they had canceled your meeting. […] Just to let you know, we had been diligently working behind the scenes to facilitate just such an event. Today has been a very good day for the Jewish Community of Sacramento who will not be forced to live with your insults during Yom Ha Shoah, and for the Jewish Defense League who can add another battle star to our banner. Once again, good has triumphed over evil.« Quod erat demonstrandum.
No doubt exists that the conference was to become a highly interesting mental contention led by international intellectuals. Barry Chamish, Israeli journalist and author of Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin and The Last Days Of Israel, for instance, admitted: »I was supposed to be flying in two days to the Sacramento Holocaust Deniers Conference. I was going to deny the deniers and maybe do my little part in stanching the phenomenon.« 
According to Chamish neither the financial lost nor the waste of time was the biggest tragic caused by the cancellation, but the terminated chance to argue intellectually with mental opponents. »But the biggest loss of all was the off chance that I could contribute to the diminishing of anti-semitism. It was a tricky act but it was worth trying.« Without considering here that it is questionable to assume, »anti-semitism« would have had a chance to sprout during the scientific gathering, it is a fact that the Adelaide Institute, which was sponsoring the conference, had been publishing Chamish’s contrary point of views on her internet presentation for many years. This especially worth to be mentioned, because Chamish represents a viewpoint »which totally undermines the beliefs of the deniers«. The institute’s head, Dr. Frederick Toben, considered Chamish’s findings challenging and, hence, invited the Israeli to speak at the conference in Sacramento. Dr. Toben insisted that dialogue was the only way to approach to truth and knowledge (Erkenntnis). It is hard to cast doubt on this perspective seriously, especially if one keeps in mind that Dr. Toben means what he stands for. Due to his intellectual consequence, Dr. Toben was persecuted by the Federal German authorities a couple of years ago.
He held, and still does, a different opinion towards the criminal-legally secured laws there claiming that certain ›historical facts‹ are considered to be obvious (offenkundig) and, thus, need not to be proven anymore. In fact, to achieve the elementary aim of truth and knowledge, the only way to practise is to follow the scholastic dogma of audiatur et altera pars. This is exactly what the conference was going to be about. To the advocators of censorship and the apologists of thought prohibition (Denkverbote) this intellectual dogma is obviously much too elaborate. Not so to the Israeli author Chamish, who clearly understood the profound meaning of this basic assumption and consequently admitted: »The organizers of the Sacramento conference, Frederick Toben and Walter Mueller were honest to me. They invited me because they believe in dialog. They invited a proud Jew and Israeli to address their people knowing I would be giving a message of opposition.« Therewith, this circumstance very nicely demonstrates that both the organizers and this respective orator gave evidence what courage of one’s convictions (Zivilcourage) really means. In times dominated by political correctness, however, this term is permanently misused and reversed in its contrary.
Finally, what is the effect of the conference’s cancellation, beside the tremendous financial loss emerged for guests and speakers, the sponsors and organizers? Well, at least one question, I may presume: What influence do Jewish organisations or rather organisations pretending to represent Jewish interests, actually enjoy? If it is possible for an organisation labelled with a questionable reputation, like the Jewish Defense League, to terminate a scholastic conference supposed to have had occurred in a sovereign state, and doing so just on the ground she does not like the participants or the presentation of speeches, what, one may ask, can achieve possessors of real power then? There are plenty organisations, falling within this powerful category. An imaginary list of such powerful organisations contains diverse central councils and committees, leagues, not to be forgotten B’nai B’rith, Shin Beth and Mossad, of course.
And still another question arises in one’s mind: How many people now reckon, to what extent the conference must have been threatening to the powers. What was wrong, i.e. dangerous, in the accomplishments and arguments of the – mainly scholastic! – speakers, who were placed under prohibition to speak? Factually, there is no doubt that under those constellations the prohibition of the conference only turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the opponents to freedom of speech and freedom of research. Just like the instigation on Mel Gibson’s movie opus The Passion, which, by the way, was also led by another influential Jewish organisation, the Anti-Defamation League, sooner or later their coercible actions and their methods of incapacitation will ultimately backfire on them. And this will be for freedom’s sake.
 To read the intended speech of Dr. Claus Nordbruch, please consult www.nordbruch.org/artikel/Sacramento.pdf
 Newsletter by the organizers 20 April 2004.
 Consider Claus Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland, Munich, 2nd ed. 2001, pp. 279.
© 6/2004 www.nordbruch.org
I circled around this topic like a dog handler in the presence of a parcel bomb. It is difficult to approach it directly without having it explode in one's face. There is danger of civilian death. It is, however, the main line of investigation. I hesitated. Especially as in 1973, by publishing The Camp of The Saints, I had already said it all. I do not have a great deal to add except to say that the deed is done.
Because I am convinced that the fate of France is sealed, because "My house is their house" (Mitterand), inside "Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian" (Chirac), because the situation is moving irreversibly towards the final swing in 2050 which will see French stock amounting to only half the population of the country, the remainder comprising Africans, Moors and Asians of all sorts from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third World, predominantly Islamic, understood to be fundamentalist Jihadists, this dance is only the beginning.
France is not the only concern. All of Europe marches to its death. The warnings are precise - the UN report (which delighted some), incontrovertible work by Jean-Claude Chesnais and Jaques Dupachier, in particular - yet they are systematically buried and the National Institute for Demographic Studies [INED] pushes disinformation. The almost sepulchral silence of the media, governments and community institutions on the demographic crash of the European Union is one of the more striking phenomena of our time. When there is a birth in my family or in the homes of my friends, I cannot look at this baby of our house without reflecting upon that which prepares itself for him in the negligent governments and what he must confront in his manhood...
Without taking into account that those of French stock, bludgeoned by the throbbing tom-tom of human rights, of "the welcome to the outsider", of the "sharing" dear to our bishops etc., framed by a whole repressive arsenal of laws known as "antiracist", conditioned from early childhood with cultural and behavioural "crossbreeding", with the requirements of "plural France" and with all the by-products of old Christian charity, will no longer have any other means but to lower their children and to merge without kids into the new mould French "citizen" of 2050. All the same let us not despair. Without doubt, there will remain what is called in ethnology some isolates, some powerful minorities, perhaps about 15 million French - and not necessarily all of the white race - who will still speak our language more or less unbroken and will insist on remaining impregnated with our culture and our history such as was transmitted to us from generation to generation. It will not be easy for them.
Facing the various "communities" which one sees being formed today on the ruins of integration (or rather on its progressive reversal: it is us whom one integrates into "the other", now, and more the opposite) and which in 2050 will be permanently and without doubt institutionally installed, it will be to some extent - I seek a suitable term - about a community of French continuity. This one will be based on its families, her birth-rate, its endogamy of survival, its schools, its parallel networks of solidarity, perhaps even its geographical areas, its portions of territory, its districts, even its places of safety and, why not, its Christian, and catholic faith with a small chance if this cement still holds.
That will not please. The clash will take place some time or another. Something like the elimination of the Kulaks by suitable legal means. And then?
Then France will no longer be peopled, all confused origins, except by hermit crabs who will live in shells left behind by the representatives of a species gone forever which was called the French species and unannounced, by one does not know which genetic metamorphosis, that which in second half of this century will have been clothed with this name. This process has already started.
There is one second hypothesis that I could not formulate otherwise than privately and which would require that I consulted my lawyer beforehand, it is that the last isolates resist until initiating a kind of reconquest undoubtedly different from the Spanish but taking as its starting point the same reasons. This will be a perilous story to write about. It is not me who will be charged with this, as I have already done my bit. Its author has probably not yet been born, but this book will see the light of day at the appointed time, I am sure...
What I cannot understand and which plunges me into an abyss of sorry perplexity, is why and how so many informed Frenchmen and so many French politicians contribute knowingly, methodically, I don't dare to say cynically, with the certain immolation of France (let us avoid the qualifier of eternal which disgusts the beautiful consciences) on the altar of an aggravated utopian humanism. I ask myself the same question in connection with all these omnipresent associations of rights to this, rights to that, and all these leagues, these societies of thought [think tanks? - PWS], these subsidized headquarters, these networks of manipulators insinuated into all the wheels of State (political education, judiciary, parties, trade unions, etc), these innumerable petitioners, these correctly consensual media and all these "clever" folks who day after day and with impunity inoculate their anaesthetic substance into the still healthy body of the French nation.
Even if I can, at a pinch, credit them on the one hand with sincerity, it sometimes saddens me to admit that they are my countrymen. I feel the sting of the renegade word, but there is another explanation: they confuse France with the Republic. "Republican values" have deteriorated ad infinitum, one knows it fully, but never with reference to France. However France is from the outset a country of [common] blood. On the other hand, the Republic, which is only one shape of government, is synonymous for them with ideology, ideology with a capital "I", the major ideology. It seems to me, to some extent, that they betray the first for the second.
Among the flood of references which I accumulate in thick files in support of this assessment, here is one which under the [deceptive] appearance of a good child illuminates the extent of the damage well. It is drawn from a speech by Laurent Fabius to the socialist congress of Dijon, 17th May 2003: "When the Marianne [statue of Liberty] on our town halls takes the beautiful face of a young immigrant Frenchwoman, this day France will have crossed a line while bringing alive fully the values of the Republic..."
Since we are [left] with quotations, here are two, to conclude: "No amount of atomic bombs will be able to dam up the tidal wave comprising human beings in their millions which one day will leave the southernmost and poor part of the world, to erupt the relatively open spaces of the wealthy northern hemisphere, in search of survival." (President Boumediene, March 1974.)
And this one, drawn from the 20th chapter of 'Revelations': "The thousand years is expired. Those are what departs the nations which are at the four corners of the Earth and which are equal in number to the sand of the sea. They will go forth in expedition across the surface the Earth, they will surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city." [This appears to be an inaccurate quotation - PWS]
* Writer, novelist.
(1) The delicate iman [faith and trust in Allah] [perhaps 'Imam' was intended - PWS] of Vénissieux, in accordance with the juice [power] of the earth, has engendered only sixteen small French citizens.
Translated for Adelaide Institute from the French by Peter Wakefield Sault, 23rd June 2004
A teacher, and family man, challenges a WWII dogma - Vincent Reynouard corrects world war propaganda The message this verdict sends into the French community is clear: Don't touch WWII propaganda stories that demonize Germans - keep the Germans on the run - make them feel guilty forever for the things they didn't do.
Teacher jailed for making revisionist Nazi film SUSAN BELL IN PARIS The Scotsman, 10 June 2004
A TEACHER banned from working in France for peddling revisionist views on the Holocaust has been sentenced to two years in prison by a French court after he made a film contesting a brutal Second World War massacre by Nazi SS storm-troopers. The conviction of Vincent Reynouard, 33, coincides with the 60th anniversary today of the slaughter of 642 villagers, including 245 women and 207 children, at Oradour-sur-Glane on 10 June, 1944, four days after the D-Day landings by Allied forces. In his film entitled The Tragedy of Oradour-sur-Glane: 50 Years of Official Lies, Reynouard blamed the inhabitants of the tiny Limousin village for their fate.
Disputing evidence of eyewitness survivors, the former teacher denied that the SS deliberately killed more than 350 women and children after rounding them up and ordering them into the village church, arguing that the deaths were due to explosives concealed in the church by members of the French Resistance active in Oradour. Reynouard had sent videos of his film, along with order forms for additional copies, to the last two living survivors of the massacre, the village memorial centre (now a national war memorial and museum) and to the mayor of Oradour and numerous villagers.
Reynouard was first convicted in 1991 of distributing revisionist literature when he was a student in Caen, in Normandy. Six years later he was sacked from his post as a maths teacher at a technical college in nearby Honfleur, after he set homework involving counting Dachau concentration-camp victims and was discovered to have stored revisionist documents denying the Holocaust on the school computer.
Reynouard was eventually banned from teaching anywhere in France. He also wrote a revisionist book questioning the Nazi slaughter entitled The Oradour Massacre: A Half-Century of Theatre. In 1998, some 500 French and German copies of the book were seized by police in Brussels and the Flemish port city of Antwerp at the request of French judicial authorities.
Reynouard’s sentence was handed down by the Limoges appeals court, which said that his film had insulted the memory of those who had been massacred. The court doubled his original prison sentence, but reduced his fine of 10,000 (£6,688), ordering him instead to pay 1,000 (£668) in damages to each of the three civil parties in the case, including Marcel Darthout, one of the last two survivors of the massacre still alive today. Today, only the stone skeleton of the original Oradour-sur-Glane remains. The late president Charles de Gaulle ordered that the charred ruins of the village should be left as a memorial to the suffering of France under the Nazi occupation and a new village was constructed nearby.
A rusting bicycle, a blackened iron bedstead and the charred wreckage of a baby carriage are still standing as a chilling reminder of the horrific events of that spring afternoon when Hitler’s troops razed the village to the ground and murdered its inhabitants. The massacre is believed to have been a reprisal for a French Resistance attack which killed 40 Germans following the D-Day invasion. The SS Das Reich storm-troopers were heading for Normandy when they were ordered to attack the village, a sleepy backwater near Limoges with little Resistance activity. Many historians have argued that the Nazis attacked Oradour-sur-Glane in error after mistaking it for nearby Oradour-sur-Vayres, a suspected Resistance stronghold about 15 miles away.
On their arrival, the SS rounded up children and women, many carrying babies in their arms, and marched them to the village church, where they locked them inside before throwing in grenades filled with poison gas, and opening fire. As those who survived screamed for mercy, the SS built a human bonfire by throwing wood on to their badly injured bodies and setting it alight. Only one woman escaped from the church, by throwing herself from a 12ft-high altar window. Among the 60 troops who perpetrated the massacre were 14 French nationals from the eastern region of Alsace, of whom all but one had been conscripted by force.
Zundel trial won't hear from judge By KIRK MAKIN Globe and Mail, Saturday, June 26, 2004
An Ontario judge will not have to testify at a special deportation hearing where Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel has been branded a risk to national security, the presiding judge has ruled. Mr. Justice Pierre Blais of the Federal Court of Canada concluded that in spite of Ontario Court Judge Lauren Marshall having acted as Mr. Zundel's lawyer 20 years ago, she can add little to his understanding of deportation proceedings. "I do not need to be reminded of the perils of ex parte proceedings, nor to be told how to carry out my judicial duties," Judge Blais said.
He also quashed defence subpoenas requiring a journalist and two prominent Jewish community leaders to be questioned at the hearing. Judge Blais said they would add little of relevance. Mr. Zundel's deportation was ordered under a rarely used security certificate, a process by which the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can provide information in secret sessions.
The Zundel defence team is not privy to the information, yet it must still convince Judge Blais that it is unreliable. Should Mr. Zundel fail, he will be deported to Germany to face a five-year prison term for the crime of denying the Holocaust. Judge Blais's ruling brought an angry response from Peter Lindsay, Mr. Zundel's lawyer. "Is it justice to deny someone even a chance to question the intent or motive of politicians?" he asked in an interview. "Is it justice to allow secret evidence and deny the person against whom the secret evidence is being used even an opportunity to challenge it in any real way?" Mr. Lindsay had been hoping the testimony would paint a picture of an unprecedented, 20-year campaign waged against his client by politicians, police and lobby groups. "It is already difficult enough to represent someone in a trial where the key evidence is kept secret," he said. "Regrettably, Justice Blais's decision makes it even more difficult. The court has thus left Mr. Zundel powerless against the secret evidence and effectively denied him any meaningful hearing."
According to Mr. Lindsay, Judge Marshall initially agreed to recount the extraordinary lengths to which authorities went in 1985 to deport her former client. But on the day she was expected to testify, she sent a lawyer to quash the subpoena. Judge Blais noted in his ruling that the onus is on the party who subpoenas a witness to show that he or she is likely to provide "material evidence."
Mr. Lindsay subpoenaed journalist Andrew Mitrovica in hopes of shaking the general credibility of CSIS. Mr. Mitrovica would have been questioned about a 1995 incident described in his book, Covert Entry, in which CSIS allegedly knew a pipe bomb was being sent to Mr. Zundel through the mail, yet failed to warn him.
Judge Blais said that to allow the subpoena would be to threaten press freedom."The benefits of having Mr. Mitrovica testify seem rather doubtful, as against certain harm to the freedom of the press," he said. "Compelling him to produce his notes and materials is unduly intrusive, and given the probative value that I could attach to such hearsay materials, I see no need to disturb the journalistic privilege that attaches to Mr. Mitrovica's evidence."
In quashing subpoenas against Keith Landy, president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'Nai Brith Canada, Judge Blais said it is no revelation that their organizations lobbied federal ministers to deport Mr. Zundel."The intent or motives of the ministers is of no interest to this court," he said. "The certification stands or falls on the strength of the evidence supporting it."
The story horrified a country already sensitive to the charge of growing anti-semitism. A young mother with a baby daughter described how she had been robbed and physically and verbally assaulted while on a Paris suburban train. As fellow passengers looked on passively, a gang of six supposedly chopped off her hair, slashed open her clothes with knives, knocked her child out of its pram, and shouted anti-semitic abuse, she alleged.
Coming 24 hours after Jacques Chirac launched a national campaign against the spread of anti-semitism, the president broke off his weekend to condemn the attack as "odious". The prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, called on France's citizens to be "courageous" in the face of such "intolerable" violence.
The woman's tale was headline news across Europe, but by yesterday it had taken a remarkable twist. It became clear that not only was the attack not anti-semitic in any traditional sense (the victim was not a Jew) but also it was not an attack at all. The young woman confessed to having made it all up, authorities said.
Conscious of the case's extreme sensitivity, police had previously mobilised every resource to hunt for the attackers - but with no success. A thorough study of CCTV footage at the stations where they allegedly got on and got off found no trace of the six north African teenagers. Nor did it find the alleged victim, identified only as Marie, or her pushchair. A well-publicised appeal for witnesses drew a blank. No station worker remembers seeing anyone in distress, and the ticket collector to whom the young mother says she first recounted her story has no memory of the occasion. Marie's mother then admitted her daughter had some mental health problems and a tendency to fantasise. Anonymous acquaintances told the media she often fabricated unlikely stories, and police sources yesterday revealed she had on six separate occasions between 1999 and 2002 alleged an assault; none of the six had been substantiated.
The story hit a nerve in France, coming just as the government published figures showing a surge in anti-Jewish attacks (510 acts or threats in the first six months of 2004, compared with 593 for the whole of 2003). The suburb of Sarcelles, scene of the supposed attack, is an emblem for France's fear of communautarisme - an impoverished community, often the scene of violence between its large Jewish and Muslim populations, on the fringes of mainstream French society.
This symbolism made the story irresistible. Le Monde dedicated much of its front page yesterday, as well as a page inside and two angry editorials; Le Figaro splashed a picture of a suburban station, under the headline Train of Hatred. International media (this paper included) reported the incident. On Monday night several hundred protesters demonstrated in Paris in support of the victim, bearing banners declaring Resistance to all Racism! and Fuck tous les Cisteras ! [word-play on "racistes" in verlan, a slang popular in Paris suburbs] Another march scheduled for last night had to be cancelled.
The government yesterday justified its precipitate response. A spokesman, Jean-François Copé, said that for all the credibility problems with the story, "the reality is that there has been an explosion of racist and anti-semitic acts which we need to combat".
Members of France's Jewish community said the familiarity of the claim had triggered the outrage. Menahem Gourary, director of the Jewish Agency in Europe, said: "The government had to speak out quickly, because they so often in the past they've made the mistake of trying to calm the situation by not reacting at all. They responded like this because the story was eminently plausible." He cited eight incidents on Paris public transport over 10 months. SOS Racisme said it was unfortunate north African youths had been scapegoated, but added: "The sad fact is that there have been a great many of these anti-semitic attacks in recent months."
Vegemite scrapped? It's just not kosher, By Milanda Rout, Herald Sun, July 2, 2004
MELBOURNE'S Jewish community are unhappy little Vegemites. After 20 years of producing it, Kraft has scrapped kosher Vegemite. Hundreds of families have been scouring supermarkets for the last kosher jars of the famous spread. One mum bought 75 jars in one shop. Jewish kosher certification group Kosher Australia has received at least five complaints a day since Kraft confirmed the end of production a few months ago.
KA general manager Yankel Wajsbort said Kraft had been producing kosher Vegemite for at least 20 years. Mr Wajsbort said batches of kosher Vegemitehad been made at Kraft after processing machines were cleaned, as meat products were also made on the machines. He said KA received a statement from Kraft saying the company had stopped production because of changes in its manufacturing processes.
The Chaskiel family are unhappy at the idea of life without Vegemite. All five members of the Caulfield North household had it for breakfast, lunch, and even dinner. Dad Mark Chaskiel said the family have run out of kosher Vegemite after panic-buying 35 jars. "I was brought up on Vegemite," Mr Chaskiel said. "I can sacrifice lobster and prawns for kosher but I can't give up Vegemite. It's an Australian birthright."
Mickey Chaskiel, 9, used to love thickly spreading the stuff on his toast in the morning. "I am a bit upset about it," he said. State Opposition spokesman for multicultural affairs Murray Thompson is organising a petition to Kraft. Kraft Foods Australia failed to respond to several phone calls from the Herald Sun yesterday.
Sixty-five years ago in May members of the Vienna Mozart Boys Choir sang to a packed audience in Sydney Town Hall,Australia
In the pre-television era, such a visit was a major event. People in cities and country towns swarmed to see the 20 good-looking lads, among whom was a slim, flaxen-haired Willy Siesz, 12 at the time of his arrival. The choir were scheduled to spend three months in Australia, starting mid-May 1939.
The tour also included the United States and New Zealand. On September 3, 1939, the day after their final concert in Perth, the 20 boys were no longer celebrities but - but in effect - Australia's youngest prisoners of war. Kapellmeister Dr Georg Gruber moved with the boys into the home of the sponsor, Henrietta Marsh.
Things abruptly changed on March 3, 1941, when military police went to the Henrietta's Brighton home and arrested Gruber and the boys for having Nazi links. The charge was fabricated by Buckingham Palace following the latest carpet bombing of London by German Luftwaffe. It was claimed that he and the 20 boys were groomed as a musical mastermind of Hitler's Third Reich,"...since the political will of a people can be expressed in ceremonial instructions, i.e in Nazi ritual." Having been found guilty by supposedly Australian paedophile lawyers, Dr Gruber was whisked-away from the 20 boys, off to Tatura internment camp in Victoria.
The 20 boys gradually accepted that their father figure and mentor was no longer with them. But, the nagging kids became a nuisance to authorities. Willy Siesz - the oldest - was the first to be removed and sent to Loveday Camp in South Australia, where he was imprisoned with older Australians. His security file says that the boy had "fair wavy hair and striking good looks" but was daily made to suffer numerous indignities from beatings "for the Nazi boy."
Whenever bombs were dropped near or on Buckingham Palace - which evoked a Jewish media outcry - "the Nazi boy" was seen with a black eye. At the end of the war, Willy was released. But he was not his old cheerful self anymore. The Australian convict-descendents had broken his spirits.
Some of the 20 boys were later found in nightclubs and even in a brothel. Dr Gruber was deported to Austria in November 1947 but the 20 boys had to remain in Australia. According to a former choir boy, Herbert Strommer: "Some of us went to see him off. But we were not allowed to approach him, but we saw him looking out of the ship's port window.
In Austria, Gruber was reunited with his wife and children, but subjected to a de-Nazification tribunal, ending with a 5 years jail term. The thanks of ze fatherland.
NZ imposes sanctions against Israel
July 15, 2004 - 7:05PM, AAP
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has delivered a verbal broadside and imposed diplomatic sanctions on Israel after two suspected Israeli spies were jailed for passport fraud. Clark said the actions of the Israeli intelligence agents were utterly unacceptable and had breached New Zealand sovereignty and international law. "New Zealand condemns without reservation these actions by agencies of the Israel government," Clark said.
Sydney-based Eli Cara, 50, and Uriel Zoshe Kelman, 31, were jailed for six months after admitting trying to unlawfully obtain a New Zealand passport. Clark said the government had "very strong reasons" to believe the two were acting on behalf of Israel's intelligence services.
She said their actions had seriously strained New Zealand's relationship with Israel.
Earlier this month, Cara and Kelman pleaded guilty to one charge of participating in an organised crime group by attempting to unlawfully obtain a New Zealand passport. A third man, Zev William Barkan, applied for a passport in the name of a wheelchair-bound cerebral palsy sufferer but escaped arrest by returning to Sydney three days before Cara and Kelman were picked up by police. A fourth man was also believed to be involved but has not been identified.
Clark said New Zealand had asked for an explanation and apology from the Israel government three months ago, but none had been forthcoming. New Zealand has now imposed a number of sanctions on Israel, including blocking any requests for Israeli President Moshe Katsov to visit the country after a proposed trip to Australia next month.
The government has suspended high-level visits and exchanges with Israel and cancelled planned foreign ministry talks due later this year. Approval for the appointment of a new Israeli ambassador has been delayed and Israelis visiting New Zealand on government business will now have to apply for a visa.
Israel's acting ambassador in Australia, Orma Sagiv, tonight said Israel would be working to rebuild relations with New Zealand. "Israel values its relations with New Zealand very much and we will do everything we can to return relations to their former situation," she said from Canberra. The allegations that Cara and Kelman were Israeli spies did not form part of the prosecution case. Their lawyers told the High Court in Auckland that the men's lives would now be at risk because of the Mossad allegations, as terrorist organisations frequently targeted people either known or believed to have connections to the Israeli secret service.
Justice Judith Potter said offences that threatened the integrity of the New Zealand passport system would be seriously viewed by the courts. "It's difficult to see why anyone would want a false New Zealand passport unless it was intended to be used in a way ancillary to some other offending," Justice Potter said. "That offending is likely to be serious or perhaps very serious."
Cara, 37, moved to Sydney with his family in August 2001, and had claimed to be a Sydney-based travel agent when arrested. His defence counsel, Stuart Grieve, QC, said there was no evidence to suggest that Cara was anything other than a genuine tour operator. Cara and Kelman, who had faced a maximum five years' jail, will pay a combined $NZ100,000 ($90,300) to a cerebral palsy charity.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute