ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                    No 404   

A Personal Message from Fredrick Töben

Dear Supporters

As the 5 August 2008 trial date at Adelaide Federal Court of Australia approaches I would like to thank a certain individual who has made it possible for me to hand over some financial consideration to a barrister who is willing to take on the task of mounting a legal defence against Mr Jeremy Jones and his Executive Council of Australian Jewry who, since 1996, began the saga of our legal persecution simply for daring to question aspects of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah narrative.

That this particular Jewish group of individuals is following a well-worn global conspiratorial path becomes clear when we recall how on 5 February 2003 – the day on which Colin Powell presented to the UN Security Council his fraudulent ‘evidence’ of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein - Ernst Zündel was arrested outside his home in Tennessee, USA.

It is now history that Zündel spent two years in a Toronto, Canada, prison before being deported to Mannheim, Germany, where he received a five-year sentence – for what? – for refusing to accept as true the massive slander against Germans that they during World War Two systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers. While Ernst was preparing his trial he was joined in 2005 in Mannheim by Germar Rudolf who, also from the USA, had been snatched from his family.

Then recently a Belgium court sentenced to prison Vincent Renouard and Siegfried Verbeke  for having committed the same crime of refusing to believe official historical accounts of what Germans are supposed to have done to Jews during World War Two. Likewise in France Georges Theil faces prison for similar reasons. Also, Wolfgang Fröhlich is again imprisoned in Wien, Austria, as was David Irving in 2005-6, for the same reasons, though a local variation of the law in Austria states that these men were trying to re-activate/rehabilitate National Socialism.

The most recent good news of sorts in all this has been the effect of direct legal agitation by, for example, Sylvia Stolz who received a 3-year prison sentence after she was physically removed from a Mannheim court because she refused to submit to a judge’s attempt to silence her while she was presenting legal argument. It was followed by Horst Mahler’s heroic stand against foreign judicial dominance of the German legal system, which earned him an 11-month prison sentence that is now subject to appeal. Interestingly, Cäcilia Cramer-Krahforst, the senior public prosecutor who only asked for a nine-month sentence for Mahler, has been temporarily suspended from her position because during her submissions she made a favourable remark about Mahler’s adopted stance in the proceedings. This recalls the 1994 Mannheim Günter Deckert case. Judge Rainer Orlet gave Deckert, then head of the NPD, a good character reference, that he was ‘highly intelligent’ and had a ‘responsible personality’ and was a good family man. A global uproar occurred and the judge was placed on stress leave, then retired – and a Karlsruhe court overturned Deckert’s two-year suspended sentence and implemented it.

Within the recent legal wranglings concerning Mahler and Stolz a legal bomb-shell exploded: two retiring judges of Germany’s highest court – Bundesverfassungsgericht – Germany’s constitutional court made a comment that upset the Holocaust believers: 


On 10 June 2008, Judge Winfried Hassemer, and on 9 July 2008, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, stated they opposed the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. Although these are mere words uttered by two retired judges, this is indeed a breakthrough. Still, since 1994 when I began full-time to look into matters Holocaust-Shoah, I have learned that in this business you never, never count your chickens before they hatch.

I still resist the legal games played by most barristers in order to win a case, and I still insist that truth is my defence in whatever I do. The usual legal dialectic employed in court is that if the law is against you, you argue the facts; when the facts are against you, you argue the law – and when both are against you, then you find a scapegoat and attack it, or just see yourself as a victim of legal persecution. But remember, if you pull the victim card when the battle-of-the-wills heats up, then my “don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure”, also kicks in.

An example of legal prosecution that is also legal persecution occurred two years ago, which involved Australian Dr Philip Nitzschke, the right-to-die campaigner. Some who disagree with his campaign have also pulled the German card on him. Though born in Australia, his German background is usually raised because his compassionate stance on dying with dignity can easily be brought into the euthanasia policies of the National Socialists, hence making him a ‘Nazi’. Fortunately for him, his politics embraces traditional left-wing ideologies, thereby protecting him from the slurs contained in the words: racist, antisemite, Nazi.

On 7-8 January, 2006, the following article appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, a Queensland paper that on account of the many Germans living in that state at regular intervals gives the Nazi card a good run. This has the effect that Australians of German background will immediately duck for cover and do everything they can to distance themselves from the defamatory imputations that on account of their German heritage they share in the guilt that the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah story-industry has become. Only a few still have the energy to stand up against the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah lies, of which there are many. Peter Rackemann  is just one of a few Queenslanders who firmly resists this constant pulling of the Holocaust-card that unjustly continues to defame Germans living in Australia and in the world.

Suicide website forced offshore, by Peter Williams

Australian legislation to curb free speech on suicide advice has sparked renewed interest in the voluntary euthanasia movement, right-to-die campaigner Phili Nitschke. A law banning discussion of how to end a life through telephone, e-mail, fax or the Internet took effect yesterday. Dr Nitschke has transferred the website operations of his Exit International organisation to New Zealand to avoid prosecution under the new law. “It marks a low point in the history of Australia (regarding) the important issue of free speech,” he told reporters in Auckland yesterday. “We’re seeing today the passing of legislation which now makes it a crime for adult Australians to talk to each other over the phone.” Dr Nitschke also rejected criticism of protest action being taken in Australia by activists e-mailing instructions to senior government members on how to commit suicide. “Of course it’s a stunt,” the Darwin GP said. “People are angry though and it’s a gesture of defiance, it’s a gesture of civil disobedience.”

To safeguard the organisation legally, Exit’s website has now become the property of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand. Australian users will see a warning on the site that accessing it may be illegal. Dr Nitschke said he would remain based in Darwin and could still hold public meetings in Australia and distribute printed material without breaking the law. “Organisation without using the telephone is quite difficult. It will make it more mechanically difficult but it won’t actually stop us running our workshops in Australia,” he said. “I don’t want to leave Darwin but I also feel Exit is being forced into exile.”

And now a brief USA update from Bradley Smith.


Professor Alan Dershowitz and the Name of One Child, with Proof

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard University, 19 June 2008

Dear Professor Dershowitz:

I watched you speak (thanks to YouTube) on 04 May at the Symposium titled “Defending Truth: Legal and Moral Imperatives of Holocaust Denial.”

I understand that the event was organized by the U. of Baltimore School of Law and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies.

I agree with you that questions about the Holocaust should be open to the “marketplace of ideas.” Since February I have been asking academics to provide me with the name of “one person, with proof, who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.” The first professor to whom I addressed the question was Deborah Lipstadt of Emory U., the lady whose virtues you speak of with such enthusiasm during your talk. In the event, Professor Lipstadt did not respond.

Since then I have asked hundreds of academics that one question. The question does [not] claim that the gas chambers did not exist, and does not make a claim that the “Holocaust” did not happen. It is a very simple, direct question. To date, not one academic has provided me with such a name, and none has attempted to do so.

For example, I have written the Director of one of the agencies that sponsored the symposium where you spoke, Dr. Paul Shapiro, director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Center for Advance Holocaust Studies. Could he provide me with the name of “one person, with proof …” He has maintained the same discreet silence in response to this simple inquiry that most all others have used to – how shall I put it – to perhaps evade the question.

 In your talk at the U. Baltimore symposium you suggest that Holocaust minimizers like Hilberg, Chomsky, and Finkelstein are more difficult to deal with because, unlike straight out “deniers,” their writings are not based on “the existence or non-existence of gas chambers.” You ask, “Why are gas chambers so important?” And you respond to your question by saying: “If there were gas chambers, everything else from the [Holocaust] narrative follows.” The implication is, if there were no gas chambers, everything else in the Holocaust narrative would “falter.” I think you are right about this.

In your talk you speak movingly, and I believe sincerely, about the “importance” of the mass murder of Jewish children in the genocide of the Jews. You argue that “the children had to be killed first” because they were “the genetic future of the Jewish people.” And: “They were the genes. That was the genocide.”

Professor Dershowitz: can you provide the name, with proof, of one Jewish child who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz?

Professor Dershowitz: do you believe it is morally right for academics to forward the charge against Germans of having murdered a million or so civilians in gas chambers at Auschwitz, and at the same time act out the role of “bystanders” by refusing to commit themselves to providing the name of one person – one child or one adult, with proof – who was murdered in one of those rooms?

Thank you for your time. Bradley R. Smith, Mexico.


Dr Gerard Henderson

Speech to the Holocaust Shoah Remembrance Day

15th April 2007


Many thanks to the Jewish Board of Deputies’ Holocaust Remembrance Committee for the invitation to address such a significant event. Alan Gold and Eva Gold are good friends of Anne and I – and they are well regarded members of The Sydney Institute which Anne and I run. Gerry and Eva Levy are also good friends and valued members of The Sydney Institute. It’s great to see them here along with Gus Lehrer, one of our key supporters. David Knoll is one of the Institute’s associate members – and Anne and I work well with Vic Alhadeff. Also a couple of our casual employees – Esti Regos and Raffe Gold – are here tonight.


I was born in September 1945 – shortly after the end of the Second World War in both Europe and the Pacific. What I know of the tragic events of 1939-1945 I have learnt from talking with people, by reading – and by watching, or listening to, documentaries.

I first learnt of what came to be called the Holocaust as a young boy – growing up in a Catholic household in suburban Melbourne. In those days, my father would take me to sporting events at the weekend – and my mother, or my aunts, would take me (along with my sister and brother) on school days to events in the city – sometimes a film or play but invariably a visit to the State Library of Victoria where, in the 1950s, the Museum and Art Gallery were also located.


On our family outings to the city, I remember noticing, on occasions, that some passengers on Melbourne’s trams and buses – due to our location we rarely travelled by train – had numbers marked on to their arms. In the manners of the 1950s, we were encouraged not to ask personal questions in public. In private my mother or my father and/or my aunts told us that these fellow passengers – due to the time of the day, they were usually female – had been imprisoned by the Nazis in Germany during the war which had recently ended and they had had identification numbers tattooed somewhere between the elbow and the wrist.


I also recall my mother telling me about the Nazi camps in Europe – and I knew of the word Belsen from a relatively early age. I learnt of Auschwitz-Birkenau some time later. As this audience well understands, while some murders occurred at Bergen-Belsen, it was primarily a concentration camp where many inmates died of maltreatment and disease. Whereas Auschwitz-Birkenau was primarily a death camp where around a million inmates were deliberately murdered. However, as you also know, Bergen-Belsen was located in West Europe and, consequently, was liberated by the British – whereas Auschwitz-Birkenau was located in Eastern Europe and, consequently, liberated by the Red Army.

The appalling photos and moving pictures of Bergen-Belsen – and of Nordhausen, which was liberated by the Americans on the same day – were circulated by the Western media shortly after these camps was liberated. The knowledge of the human tragedy that was Auschwitz-Birkenau reached the West somewhat later. The images of Bergen-Belsen had made a huge impact on my mother – and she told the story to me. So, when as a young boy I saw the numbered arms of fellow passengers I knew what their story was about – in a general kind of way – and quickly averted my eyes so as not to cause embarrassment by an unwanted stare.


It was only later that I learnt of the anti-semitism of parts of the Catholic Church in Europe – particularly in France and Poland. The Catholic Church in Australia, however, reflected the ethos of Catholicism in Ireland and Britain – from which it had been founded. Sure, there were a very small minority of anti-semites around – as there were in most organisations at the time. But the leadership of the Church – the archbishops, bishops, priests, nuns and leading laymen and women – were in no sense anti-semitic and nor were the overwhelming majority of the Catholic congregation.


Indeed the Irish-born Archbishop of Melbourne, Daniel Mannix, was a strong supporter of other religious minorities. He backed Australians of Lutheran German background during the First World War of 1914-1918 and he supported Australians of Jewish faith from the time of his arrival in Australia in 1913 until his death six decades later. I was educated at a school run by the Jesuit religious order – which also was bereft of anti-semitism, either in Australia or Ireland or Britain, and which was very much in line with Dr Mannix. The fact is that, in Australia in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, Catholics were a minority and we tended to understand the difficulties faced by other, smaller, minorities.


For those who studied history in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was not much emphasis on modern Europe in the Victorian school syllabus. Yet we did learn of World War I and World War II – and we did know about the Nazi dictatorship in Germany and the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. I learnt much more about totalitarianism when I arrived at Melbourne University in the mid 1960s – not so much during my arts and law studies but, rather, due to my involvement in debate and discussion on and off the campus.


Off campus, I was influenced by the Catholic political activist B.A. Santamaria – he was best known as an anti-communist but was, in fact, opposed to all totalitarian regimes, including German Nazism and Italian Fascism. During my association with the National Civic Council, from the mid 1960s until the mid 1970s, Bob Santamaria worked closely with Jewish leaders – in particular, Isi Leibler, who I first met as a young man.

But the main influences on my understanding of Europe in the 20th Century were two academics – Frank Knopfelmacher (who was born of Jewish parents in 1923 and brought up in Prague) and Hugo Wolfsohn (who was born of Jewish parents in 1918 in Berlin). For a period of our lives, both Frank (or, as we called him, Franta) and Hugo were close personal friends of Anne and myself.


Hugo Wolfsohn arrived in Australia in 1940 on the Dunera – along with two other men who later became my friends, Henry Mayer and Fred Gruen. Hugo told me how his father, who had been a medical officer during World War I, was shocked when fellow Germans turned on him after the Nazis came to power. Dr Wolfsohn died before the Holocaust commenced but Hugo’s mother perished in the death camps. Frank Knopfelmacher came to Australia in the mid 1950s after spending time in Britain, including a stint in the British Army. As I recall, Frank lost his entire family during the Holocaust. He returned to Czechoslovakia after the end of World War II – but soon fled again, this time from the communists.


What Hugo and Frank had in common was an opposition to totalitarianism of both the extreme left and the extreme right. At universities in the 1960s it was fashionable to be opposed to Nazism and fascism but it was distinctly unfashionable to be anti-communist – despite the killings and the persecutions in the Soviet Union and the rest of Eastern Europe as well as in China, North Korea, North Vietnam and elsewhere. It was probably due to the influence of both my European-born mentors that I commenced a life-time interest in the Nazi Soviet Pact of 1939-1941.


I note that Laurence Rees, in Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution (the 2005 book which accompanied the BBC TV documentary), wrote that: “As the war came to an end Stalin too committed crimes that, in part at least, are reminiscent of aspects of the Nazis’ ‘Final Solution’. Like Hitler, Stalin persecuted whole groups of people.” Four decades before reading Laurence Rees’ work, I was aware of this fact – due primarily to my reading supplemented by my discussions with Dr Knopfelmacher and Professor Wolfsohn. I also understood that a form of anti-semitism was also a reality in Joe Stalin’s tyranny and that this tradition has been continued by Stalin’s heirs.


By the time I reached my twenties, I had a good understanding of the Holocaust – although the term was not used at the time. In the second half of the 1960s, Holocaust Denial was all but non-existent. After all, those who had a vested interest in the lie had been totally discredited at the Nuremberg Trials and found guilty.


A young man called John Bennett was involved with the clubs and societies political life at Melbourne University in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was several years older than me and, as I recall, was a part-time law student. In those days John Bennett was loosely associated with the Knopfelmacher set – Hugo Wolfsohn had left Melbourne University in 1967 to become the inaugural Professor of Politics at La Trobe University.

At the time, the somewhat retiring John Bennett made little impact on campus life. Within a decade or so, however, his political attitudes changed dramatically and he became one of Australia’s leading Holocaust deniers – supporting the propaganda of the likes of David Irving and others. John Bennett is still at it today – his posted material has been replaced by an email distribution list – and he has been joined by others in Australia, including the Adelaide-based Fredrick Töben.


When David Irving visited Australia in 1987 – at the invitation of the anti-Semitic Lunar Right organisation, the Australian League of Rights – it was soon evident that there were few non-Jews in the public debate in Australia who were capable of taking him on in a robust exchange. The problem was that not enough Australian commentators knew enough about Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. In September 1987, I debated Irving on what is now the 7.30 Report and some years later, after he was barred from visiting Australia, by video link in the Channel 7 studios. It was evident – in discussions before and after the events – just what an unpleasant person David Irving is.


On both occasions, it was clear to me that I was not discussing facts with a historian but, rather, dealing with an ideologue whose speciality was propaganda. This became obvious in David Irving’s failed attempt to sue the American scholar Deborah Lipstadt for defamation. The definitive case against Irving the propagandist is documented in Richard J. Evans’ splendid study Lying About Hitler. I developed a similar aversion to Töben who wrote to me frequently in the 1990s – and refused to see him when he turned up unannounced at my Sydney office in 1998 – emphasis added by AI. Neither Irving nor Töben are in any sense scholars. It’s unfortunate that both propagandists have gained such attention merely on account of their lies and their denialism – this has something to do with the all-pervasive cult of celebrity.


As mentioned, I had a fortunate education – at home, at school, at university and beyond. I can understand why some who do not have a sound knowledge of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s can be influenced by the likes of Irving – if only because the Holocaust itself is such a shocking, almost unbelievable, event. That’s why it is so important that the survivors and their families continue to tell their individual stories. That’s why it is necessary that those who have a knowledge of history continue to talk about known facts. And that’s why functions like this one deserve support and attention.


There was a time when contemporary Holocaust Denial existed at the margins of the mainstream domestic and international debate. Not any more. As you know, in December 2006 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted what was in effect a Holocaust Denial conference – featuring, as the saying goes, many of the usual suspects including Frederick Töben. What is important about this event turned on the fact that, for the first time, a sovereign nation has publicly embraced Holocaust Denial. And Iran is not just any nation but, rather, a revolutionary Islamist regime which appears to be intent on developing its own nuclear weapons and advocates the destruction of the state of Israel.

According to Yehuda Bauer, as reported in the Australian Jewish News, Ahmadinejad’s conference was not aimed at the West. He maintains that Iran’s Holocaust denialism is an attempt by a Shi’te regime to seek the favour of radical Sunni Muslims, among whom Holocaust Denial has a particular appeal. Professor Bauer may be correct. But it does not matter much. The key point is that the ahistorical work of an Irving or a Töben has been embraced by a legal government, which is a member of the United Nations. Ahmadinejad’s denialism is both brazen and crude. Witness his decision – following the Danish cartoon controversy – to support a competition to find the cartoon which most mocked those Jews who died between 1933 and 1945 as a direct consequences of Adolf Hitler’s program of mass murder. The officially sanctioned Iranian cartoon competition was the first occasion in which a sovereign government has attempted to make fun of genocide.


Moreover, Ahmadinejad’s denialism should not be viewed in isolation. It takes place alongside an evident rise in anti-semitism in parts of Europe and elsewhere. Moreover, it is assisted – albeit unintentionally – by the West’s own home-grown alienated intelligentsia, who seem to believe that there would be nirvana on earth if only the United States was not a world power, if only it did not have alliances with such democracies as Britain and Australia and if only Israel was not obsessed with its own survival. This view is embodied in Australia by The Age’s in-house leftist Michael Leunig.

Michael Leunig’s cartoon – equating Auschwitz in 1942 with Israel in 2002 – was spiked in 2002 by The Age’s then editor Michael Gawenda. But it was run on the taypayer funded ABC TV Media Watch website – where it remains today – and it was purchased by the taxpayer funded Museum of Australia. Note that Media Watch supported the decision of ABC management not to show cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed which were originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten.


Mr Leunig became very upset when – without his knowledge or approval – his Auschwitz/Israel cartoon was entered in Iran’s competition for the cartoon of greatest offence to the memory of the Holocaust. To use a familiar saying, the Islamists in Iran may not know much about Western cartooning – but they know what they like. Michael Leunig’s alienated pen – which so impressed the mullahs in Teheran – now dominates The Age, so much so that, under new editor Andrew Jaspan, a leftist alienated culture prevails within “The Guardian on the Yarra”.


I do not favour making Holocaust Denial illegal in a country like Australia, which went to war against Nazism in 1939. However, I do understand why nations like Germany and Austria regard Holocaust Denial as a crime – because, in a sense, Holocaust Denial threatens the existence of post-Nazi democratic states. So I understand why Germany has recently imprisoned Ernst Zündel. I understand why, until his recent release, Irving was jailed in Austria. And I understand why, some years ago, Töben served time in Mannheim Prison for breaching Germany’s Holocaust law.

It is a known phenomenon that some people believe what they want to believe. Those addicted to Holocaust Denial fit into this category. However, some people come to believe in conspiracy theories of one kind or another because they do not have sufficient knowledge.

So what can those of us in the public debate do about Holocaust Denial? Well, we can tell history as it is – or, rather – as it was. And, beyond that, we can discourage hyperbole which often has the unintended consequence of diminishing the suffering of victims of genocide and crimes against humanity.


The David Hicks case illustrates the point. As his own personal correspondence – which was released by the Hicks family – demonstrates, Mr Hicks is not only profoundly anti-semitic but also is on record as having advocated beheadings for those who do not follow the decrees of radical Islamism. In view of the fact that he trained with al Qaeda and supported the Taliban regime, it is not surprising that, after pleading guilty to assisting terrorism, he received a term of six years in maximum security – backdated to December 2001 – currently at Guantanamo Bay in the United States and which will be concluded with a period of incarceration in an Australian prison. In passing I acknowledge that there was an unnecessary and unwanted delay in processing the Hicks case. However, I believe that a six year term in maximum security is compatible with the offence committed.


What was disturbing about the coverage of this matter turned on the ahistorical hyperbole engaged in by members of the civil liberties lobby in support of David Hicks. For example, Mr Hicks’ legal team announced earlier this year that his client regarded Guantanamo Bay as “like a Nazi concentration camp”. But, as my late mother and father well understood, the inmates of Belsen did not put on weight.

Recently Robert Richter QC, who should know better, asserted that David Hicks’ military commission at Guantanamo Bay “would have done Stalin’s show trials proud” and went on to claim that “in Stalin’s as well as the German show trials of the 1930s the essence of the display was the public confession”. So, according to Mr Richter writing The Sunday Age (or what some now term “The Sunday Hicks”), modern America’s judicial system is much the same as Stalin’s Soviet Union and/or Nazi Germany.


As Hugo Wolfsohn and Frank Knopfelmacher convinced me some four decades ago, nothing can properly be compared with a totalitarian regime – except another totalitarian regime. The fact is that someone like Major Michael Mori, David Hicks’ defence counsel, could never have existed in Hitler’s or Stalin’s time. Robert Richter does not want to acknowledge this because his prime focus is on criticising the handling of the Hicks case by democratically elected governments in the United States and Australia.


Historical hyperbole only encourages revisionism, even denialism. We should remember history as it was. And we should not attempt to score contemporary political points by distorting the plight of real victims of real mass murder in real totalitarian systems. Holocaust Memorial Day explains why.


Fredrick Töben comments: Dr Gerard Henderson forgets to mention Mr Rodney Adler as one of his main financiers of The Sydney Institute. Now that Mr Adler has done about two years time in prison, there has occurred a notable shift to Frank Lowy’s, The Lowy Institute, leaving Henderson somewhat in the cold as a public media commentator.

It was in early 1994 that I, together with David Brockschmidt and Christopher Steele, attended a discussion hosted by the Catholic Club at The University of Adelaide. Brockschmidt had initially been invited to address members on Steven Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List because his father’s trucking business had transported the Schindler Jews from Poland to Czechoslovakia, something that was not acknowledged by either the author of the book Schindler’s Ark, Thomas Keneally, or by Spielberg in his film. The club’s secretary advised Brockschmidt that a Holocaust survivor, Mr Fred Steiner, would augment the discussion panel – something he did not mind in the least because David knew Fred quite well. However, the next notice Brockschmidt received was an invitation to the meeting where Steiner and historian, Dr Paul Bartrop, were the panel members – Brockschmidt had been dis-invited!

Our aim at attending the meeting was realized and we then decided that we should upgrade our Truth Missions enterprise and form Adelaide Institute, meaning, if Henderson, et al, claimed to run an institute, then we could do likewise. So, what began as a kind of joke turned serious, and when on 1 May 1996 Adelaide Institute switched on its website, it was Rabbi Abraham Cooper, of the Los Angeles Simon Wiesenthal Centre who fed the world media with a newsflash: An anti-Semitic Holocaust-denial website had begun operating from Adelaide, Australia. Our local Advertiser newspaper gladly absorbed the slanderous rubbish that Cooper began to pump out against us – and the rest is now legal history.


Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea Football Club, has admitted agreeing to pay billions of dollars for political favours and protection fees to get his hands on the former Soviet Union's mineral wealth. July 5, 2008

The puzzle of how the penniless street trader Roman Abramovich rose to amass an £11.4 billion fortune is explained for the first time in his own words in court papers seen by The Times.

Mr Abramovich paid older oligarchs so that he could obtain a big share of Russia's oil and aluminium assets and to escape unscathed from the deadly post-communist carve-up. He famously emerged triumphant after the “aluminium wars”, in which more than 100 people believed to have been killed in gangland feuds over control of the lucrative smelters. He avoided the fate of a rival oligarch who annoyed the Kremlin and ended up being transported to jail in Siberia for ten years.

Mr Abramovich, 41, has been forced to tell his story because he is being sued for $4 billion by his mentor Boris Berezovsky, 62, a refugee in Britain, at the London Commercial Court. The exile claims that Mr Abramovich became an enforcer-type figure for Vladimir Putin, passing on alleged threats of confiscation - and the jailing of a friend - to pressure him into selling shares in former state assets cheaply. Mr Abramovich has retorted with a 53-page defence that accuses Mr Berezovsky and a Georgian oligarch of demanding huge sums for helping him to rise from obscurity.

The man from Georgia, Arkady “Badri” Patarkatsishvili, emerges as the key intermediary, passing messages between the former friends. Mr Patarkatsishvili was offered $500 million by Mr Abramovich, the defence papers admit, for protecting him in the aluminium wars.

The Georgian was found dead in the bedroom of his country house in Leatherhead, Surrey, five months ago. Tests showed that he had advanced heart disease. He was 52.

Mr Abramovich launches his defence with an icy riposte to his old pal. Mr Berezovsky's signed particulars of claim state that the football boss was formerly his “trusted friend and close business associate”. Mr Abramovich is loath to accept that there was any trust. “Save that it is admitted that the defendant and Mr Berezovsky were friends, no admissions are made,” he states.

Mr Abramovich's vast wealth is founded on the Siberian oil company Sibneft, which was privatised by President Yeltsin in 1995 in an auction that some experts suspect of having been rigged. The Chelsea owner now admits paying Mr Berezovsky, then nicknamed “Godfather of the Kremlin” because of his influence over President Yeltsin, to secure the oil business.

“Prior to the August 1995 decree, the defendant informed Mr Berezovsky that he wished to acquire a controlling interest in Sibneft on its creation,” the defence states. “In return for the defendant agreeing to provide Mr Berezovsky with funds he required in connection with the cash flow of [his TV company] ORT, Mr Berezovsky agreed he would use his personal and political influence to support the project and assist in the passage of the necessary legislative steps leading to the creation of Sibneft.”

The Chelsea owner's next target was the aluminium industry. After privatisation, smelter managers, metals traders and journalists were reported to have been killed as groups battled for control.

Mr Abramovich now admits that he owed his success to the late Georgian oligarch. “Mr Patarkatsishvili did ... provide assistance to the defendant in the defendant's acquisition of assets in the Russian aluminium industry,” he states.

The Georgian had a reputation as a go-between with organised crime. He was employed by a car business to ensure debt repayment and provide protection against gangsters, according to a former head of the Russian Presidential Security Service. Aleksandr Korzhakov is quoted in the book Godfather of the Kremlin saying: “Badri has an alias, like any gangster. In the criminal underworld he is known as "Badar".

Mr Berezovsky's legal action accuses Mr Abramovich of being “close to President Vladimir Putin”. In Mr Abramovich's first public declaration of his relationship with the former president, he states that he “has had, and continues to have, a good working relationship with Mr Putin”. He formally denies, however, that they were close.

Mr Berezovsky escaped Russia after criticising President Putin. Mr Abramovich says that Mr Berezovsky asked him to buy his interests in ORT for $150 million. “The defendant agreed to do so, although the amount increased to approximately $175 million, which was greater than the value of those interests.” No explanation is given why he paid so much over the odds.

Mr Abramovich discloses that there was a showdown at St Moritz airport in Switzerland in 2001 when Mr Patarkatsishvili asked him to pay $1.3 billion to Mr Berezovsky. “The defendant agreed to pay this amount on the basis that it would be the final request for payment by Mr Berezovsky and that he and Mr Patarkatsishvili would cease to associate themselves publicly with him and his business interests.” The payment was duly made.

Mr Abramovich was also willing to pay off Mr Patarkatsishvili. He states that he agreed to pay $585 million “by way of final payment”.

Mr Abramovich denies that he helped himself to Mr Berezovsky's interests in Sibneft and aluminium or that he threatened a friend of the exile. “It is denied that Mr Abramovich made or was party to the alleged explicit or implicit coercive threats or intimidation,” he states.


Dr Claus Nordbruch: Die »Kanzlerakte« - Agitation unter falscher Flagge

Seit etwa 10 Jahren geht insbesondere bei Menschen, die anfällig für einfache Lösungen und Verschwörungstheorien sind, das Gerücht um, jeder neu gewählte Bundeskanzler müsse vor Ablegung seines Amtseides in den Vereinigten Staaten vorstellig werden, um dort die sogenannte Kanzlerakte zu unterzeichnen. Diese »Akte« stelle eine Art Verpflichtungserklärung gegenüber den Alliierten dar und solle Teil eines geheimen Staatsvertrages aus dem Jahre 1949 sein, mit dem sich die Alliierten unter anderem die Medienhoheit in der BRD bis zum Jahre 2099 sicherten. Falls diese Umstände der Wahrheit entsprächen, würde diese Akte alle bisherigen Kanzler der BRD von Adenauer bis Merkel als Marionetten, als willige Handlanger der Alliierten ausweisen.

Im September 1999 erklärten die Unabhängigen Nachrichten, ihnen liege »eine Unterlage vor, nach der in Kürze im Hearst-Verlag, New York, ein Buch erscheinen soll, in dem Prof. Dr. Dr. James Shirley Belege über ein geheimes Zusatzabkommen zum Grundgesetz vorlegt. Deutsche Verlage waren angeblich nicht bereit, das Buch zu verlegen. Prof. Shirley erklärt, warum: Das geheime Zusatzabkommen zum Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland enthalte einen Passus, nach dem die Medienhoheit (Presse, Rundfunk, Verlagswesen) bis heute und noch weit ins nächste Jahrhundert bei den Alliierten verbleibe.«[1]

Nach dieser Sensationsmeldung wurde es überraschend still um die »Kanzlerakte«. Neu entfacht wurde die Debatte um die ominöse Akte, als 2007 Generalmajor a. D. Gerd-Helmut Komossa, früherer Chef des Militärischen Abschirmdienstes (MAD), in seinem Buch Die deutsche Karte das tatsächliche Vorliegen der »Kanzlerakte« zu bestätigen schien. Diejenigen, denen eine solche Existenz in die Weltsicht paßt und »die es ja schon immer gewußt haben«, jubilierten und kombinierten flugs, die Kanzlerakte sei eben doch kein Gerücht, sondern eine Tatsache. Zwar sei der genaue Wortlaut nicht bekannt, doch ergebe sich aus dem Zusammenhang mit dem Geheimvertrag die Ungeheuerlichkeit, daß die BRD das deutsche Volk über Jahrzehnte belogen habe.[2]

Tatsächlich behauptet General Komossa, ohne Gebrauch vom einschränkenden  Konjunktiv zu machen: »Der Geheime Staatsvertrag vom 21. Mai 1949 wurde vom Bundesnachrichtendienst unter ›Strengste Vertraulichkeit‹ eingestuft. In ihm wurden die grundlegenden Vorbehalte der Sieger für die Souveränität der Bundesrepublik bis zum Jahre 2099 festgeschrieben, was heute wohl kaum jemandem bewußt sein dürfte. Danach wurde einmal ›der Medienvorbehalt der alliierten Mächte über deutsche Zeitungs- und Rundfunkmedien‹ bis zum Jahr 2099 fixiert. Zum anderen wurde geregelt, daß jeder Bundeskanzler Deutschlands auf Anordnung der Alliierten vor Ablegung des Amtseides die sogenannte ›Kanzlerakte‹ zu unterzeichnen hatte. Darüber hinaus blieben die Goldreserven der Bundesrepublik durch die Alliierten gepfändet.«[3]

An letzterem besteht kein Zweifel: Tatsächlich werden die deutschen Goldreserven in den Kellern der Federal Reserve Bank (FED) in New York gelagert. Daß deutsche Beamte, diese Finanzreserven einsehen oder gar kontrollieren dürfen, ist bislang nicht bekannt geworden. Doch wie steht es um den Gehalt der besagten »Kanzlerakte«?

Der bis heute einzige Beleg für die Existenz des ominösen geheimen Staatsvertrages nebst Kanzlerakte ist das lediglich in Ablichtung vorliegende Schreiben 14. September 1996 eines in den Diensten des Bundesnachrichtendienstes stehenden »Staatsministers Dr. Rickermann« an einen namenlosen Minister, von dem es allerdings zwei Versionen gibt. Es bedarf keiner besonderen kriminologischen Vorkenntnisse, um eine Vielzahl von Merkwürdigkeiten in diesen Schriftstücken zu erkennen:

Obgleich der Nachname Rickermann gegenwärtig von über 500 Personen in Deutschland getragen wird,[4] hat es in der Politik der BRD niemals einen Staatsminister mit diesem Namen gegeben. Auf Bundesebene ist der Titel Staatsminister eine auf Vorschlag des Bundeskanzlers im Einvernehmen mit dem zuständigen Bundesminister vom Bundespräsidenten (gem. § 8 ParlStG) verliehene Bezeichnung an einen Parlamentarischen Staatssekretär des Bundes für die Dauer seines Amtsverhältnisses oder für die Wahrnehmung einer bestimmten Aufgabe, ohne daß damit eine größere Machtkompetenz verbunden wäre.[5] Staatsminister gibt es im Bundeskanzleramt und im Auswärtigen Amt. Besagter Dr. Rickermann soll aber gar nicht in einem Ministerium, sondern im Bundesnachrichtendienst tätig gewesen sein!

Wenn es einen Staatsminister im Bundesnachrichtendienst gäbe, würde dieser Politiker in der Rangordnung über dem Präsidenten des BND stehen. Wie aus dem »BND-Papier« zu entnehmen ist, ist besagter Rickermann jedoch der »Kontroll-Abt. II/OP« des BND zugeordnet. Damit wäre er aber lediglich ein Abteilungsleiter und kein Staatsminister. Darüber hinaus ist der Hinweis auf die »Kontrollabteilung II/OP« ominös. Der BND besteht aus 8 Abteilungen, eine eigene Kontrollabteilung ist in den offiziellen Dokumentationen nicht aufgeführt.[6]

Das Papier wurde ganz offensichtlich mit einer Schreibmaschine geschrieben. Stellt sich die Frage, ob die Beamten des Bundesnachrichtendienstes 1996 Dokumente wirklich noch mit einer Schreibmaschine unterfertigt haben. Vielleicht haben sie das! Gewiß verfügt der bundesdeutsche Auslandsgeheimdienst, wie alle bundesdeutschen Geheimdienste, Institutionen und Ämter, jedoch über einen ausgefeilten Briefkopf, aus dem zumindest die postalischen und elektronischen Anschriften, Telephonnummern und Faxnummern ersichtlich sind. Anzunehmen, der BND verwendet als Briefkopf eine zusammengeschusterte oberste Zeile, die dilettantisch mit einfachen Großbuchstaben aufgesetzt wurde, ist weltfremd. Ganz zu schweigen davon, daß der in offiziellen Schreiben übliche und im bürokratischen Beamtenleben unvermeidliche Eingangsstempel fehlt.

Warum erklärt »Dr. Rickermann« eigentlich die Kanzlerakte und den geheimen Staatsvertrag, wo doch davon auszugehen ist, daß der »sehr geehrte Herr Minister« über deren Existenz und Inhalt Bescheid weiß? Warum sollte »Dr. Rickermann« also den wesentlichen Inhalt der »Kanzlerakte« in einem Schreiben leichtsinnigerweise darlegen und dadurch das Risiko einer Indiskretion beträchtlich erhöhen? Daß »Rickermann« so freimütig aus der Mottenkisten plaudert, dient  offenbar nur dazu, uneingeweihte Leser, die den Inhalt der »Kanzlerakte« noch nicht kennen, in die Materie einzuführen.

Das Schreiben ist gespickt mit einer Vielzahl von Form- und Denkfehlern.

Auffällig ist, daß kein Minister direkt oder persönlich angesprochen wird, sondern das Schreiben, einem Serienbrief nicht unähnlich, mit der anonymen Grußformel »Sehr geehrter Herr Minister« beginnt. Es geht aus dem Schreiben folglich nicht hervor, an welchen Minister sich dieser Brief konkret richtet.

Eine wahre Diskrepanz stellt die Anmerkung »Original bitte vernichten!« dar. Abgesehen davon, daß sie von jemanden, der die Sütterlinschrift nicht beherrscht, sehr behäbig und ganz offenbar anhand einer Schreibvorlage mühsam einen Buchstaben an den anderen reihend verfaßt wurde, fügt »Dr. Rickermann« am Vermerk »z. d. A.« (zu den Akten) kaum leserlich einen Datumsvermerk an, mit dem er pikanterweise bestätigt, das »Original erhalten« zu haben.

Weder hat es am 21. Mai 1949 noch davor eine »provisorische Regierung Westdeutschlands« gegeben. Dieser Ausdruck war selbst in Zeiten der Zonenregierungen, schon gar nicht aber in bundesdeutschen Regierungskreisen üblich, sondern entspricht dem Wortgebrauch der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone. Ist dies vielleicht ein Hinweis darauf, wer der tatsächliche Urheber des Schriftstücks ist?

Ein besonderes Augenmerk ist auf die Geheimhaltungsstufe dieses Schreiben zu richten! Der Brief unterliegt dem Geheimhaltungsgrad »VS-Verschlußsache - Nur für den Dienstgebrauch«, gleichzeitig ist am oberen Rand aber der Hinweis »Amtlich geheimgehalten« angebracht. Aus § 11 der Allgemeinen Verwaltungsvorschrift zum materiellen und organisatorischen Schutz von Verschlußsachen (VS-Anweisung) ergibt sich jedoch, daß der Hinweis »Amtlich geheimgehalten« lediglich bei den Geheimhaltungsgraden »streng geheim«, »geheim« und »VS-vertraulich« verwendet wird. Der Vermerk »Amtlich geheimgehalten« wird am oberen und unteren Rand jeder beschriebenen Seite angebracht. Hingegen wird bei Dokumenten mit dem Geheimhaltungsgrad »VS-NfD« (»Nur für den Dienstgebrauch«) der Zusatz »Amtlich geheimgehalten« überhaupt nicht verwendet. Darüber hinaus ist derselben Vorschrift zu entnehmen, daß Dokumente mit dem Geheimhaltungsgrad VS-NfD mit Datum und Geschäftszeichen zu versehen sind, wobei das Geschäftszeichen am Schluß durch die Abkürzung »VS-NfD« zu ergänzen ist. Das Schreiben des »Staatsministers Dr. Rickermann« enthält weder Datum noch Geschäftszeichen.

Auffällig sind die vielen Rechtschreibfehler in dem einfachen Text, die nicht nur auf Schlampigkeit, sondern auch auf eine niedere Schulbildung schließen lassen, die man bei einem promovierten Staatsminister ausschließen darf.  »Staatsminister Dr. Rickermann« empfiehlt dringend, die Echtheit »des gehaimen Staatsvertrages zwischen den Allierten Mächten und der provisorischen Regierung Westdeutschlands (…) abzuleugen«, schreibt von der »Medienhoheit der allierten Mächten« und unterzeichnet den Brief mit »Hochachtugsvoll«. Zu allem Überfluß kursiert in den Medien und im Internet eine zweite Fassung des Schreibens, in dem dilettantisch versucht worden war, besagte Fehler auszubessern. Auffällig ist ferner, daß in der zweiten Version die Zeilenlängen unterschiedlich zur ersten sind, womit ohnehin erwiesen ist, daß zumindest eine Fassung gefälscht wurde.

Bekanntlich wurde die BRD am 23. Mai 1949 gegründet. Wie sollte es dann aber möglich sein, daß bereits am 21. Mai 1949 eine bis dahin noch nicht existente  »Bundesrepublik Deutschland« einen »Geheimen Staatsvertrag« schließen kann?

Die Frage ist, ob sich der ehemalige militärische Geheimdienstchef Komossa bei seinen Aussagen tatsächlich auf das »Rickermann-Papier« gestützt hat. Dies bestätigte General gegenüber der Jungen Freiheit im Dezember 2007. Ihm liege »das zitierte Papier des BND in Ablichtung« vor. Er habe es als »Zeitdokument des Jahres 1949« verstanden: »Hinsichtlich der Vorbehaltsrechte benutzte ich dabei das sogenannte ›BND-Papier‹, das mir dienstlich zugänglich war, was ich aber nicht bewerten wollte und konnte. Auch heute weiß ich nicht, ob es echt oder Fälschung ist. Letzteres ist zu vermuten. Dieses in dem Buch nicht zu vermerken, war sicherlich ein Fehler. (...) Es war nicht meine Absicht, mit diesem Hinweis auf die ›Rechte der Alliierten‹ den Eindruck zu vermitteln, als würden diese heute noch wirksam sein.«[7] Ergänzend meinte Komossa: »Leider ist das Ganze durch Kürzung des Manuskripts im Lektorat mißverständlich geworden. Das bedauere ich sehr.«[8] Diese Bemerkungen sind erstaunlich! Abgesehen davon, daß die Alliierten sehr wohl auch heute noch Sonderrechte in bzw. über Deutschland genießen oder ausüben (die Feindstaatenklausel der UN-Charta von 1945 gilt nach wie vor ebenso wie entsprechende Artikel des Überleitungsvertrages vom 1955,[9] der besatzungsrechtliche Fragen regelt, die auch nach Abschluß des Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrages im Jahre 1990 ausdrücklich weiter fortbestehen) kann das »zitierte Papier des BND« keinesfalls als »Zeitdokument« aus dem Jahr 1949 betrachtet werden: Abgesehen davon, daß es - wie aus »Rickermanns« Datumsvermerk »14.8.96« ersichtlich ist – daß das Schreiben erst in den 1990er-Jahren erstellt, und nicht bereits 1949 aufgesetzt worden ist, war der BND 1949 noch gar nicht gegründet worden. Reinhard Gehlen, dem damaligen Chef der Vorgängerorganisation des BND, zufolge, wurde die neue deutsche nachrichtendienstliche Organisation »von amerikanischer Seite finanziert, wobei vereinbart wird, daß die Mittel dafür nicht aus den Besatzungskosten genommen werden. Dafür liefert die Organisation alle Aufklärungsergebnisse an die Amerikaner«.[10] Der - grammatikalisch behäbig verfaßten - Eigendarstellung des BND ist zu entnehmen: »Am 1. April 1956 begann der Bundesnachrichtendienst als eine dem Bundeskanzleramt angegliederte Dienststelle seine Tätigkeit. Die Entscheidung der damaligen Bundesregierung lautete: ›Es wird eine Dienststelle Bundesnachrichtendienst eingerichtet. Sie ist dem Bundeskanzleramt angegliedert.‹«[11] Obendrein hat Komossa einer Leserin der Deutschen Stimme gegenüber behauptet, daß das Dokument ihm »›dienstlich zugänglich‹ gewesen [sei]. Das kann wohl kaum möglich sein, denn das Dokument, selbst wenn es echt wäre, soll erst aus dem Jahre 1996 stammen – als Komossa längst in Pension war. Viel wahrscheinlicher ist, daß er es zugeschickt bekam und ohne nähere Prüfung in sein Buch aufnahm, was für einen Fachmann wie ihn sehr bedenklich erscheint.«[12]

Um der gesamten Groteske die Krone aufzusetzen: Bereits im September 2006 erklärten die in der Vergangenheit schon öfter mit brisanten, aber meist nicht überprüfbaren Meldungen in Erscheinung getretenen Politischen intergrundinformationenHintergrundinformationen recht freimütig: »Diese Geschichte beruht auf einer reinen Fälschung eines Herrn M. aus München, der inzwischen verstorben ist und langjähriger Abonnent der PHI war und mit einem PHI-Redakteur persönlich befreundet. Dieser Mann war ein überzeugter Nationalist. Er zeigte unserem Redakteur das Original seiner Fälschung und die alte Schreibmaschine, mit der er sie angefertigt hatte und erklärte sinngemäß dazu, die Sieger und die Juden hätten so viele Dokumente zum Nachteil Deutschlands gefälscht, also habe er auch etwas gefälscht um die Autorität der, wie er es nannte, ›westdeutschen Marionettenregierung‹ zu untergraben und er dachte sich auch eine Geschichte dazu aus, nämlich daß man im Bundeskanzleramt nach einer Kopie oder Korrespondenz über diese Kanzlerakte suchen würde. Diese Korrespondenz erfand unser Herr M und sandte sie an verschiedene rechte Vereine, welche diese Kopie fleißig weiter kopierten, bis sogar ein amerikanischer Professor über die erfundene Geschichte ein Buch schrieb.«[13]

Da wäre es doch ein Leichtes, ein Exemplar dieses Buches in die Hände zu bekommen, sollte man meinen. Doch dies ist mitnichten der Fall! Ende 2007 erklärten die Unabhängigen Nachrichten: »Schon in der Ausgabe 1999 hatten wir mit allem Vorbehalt über eine solche ominöse ›Kanzlerakte‹ berichtet, weil wir die Echtheit der Informationen nicht belegen konnten. Alle Nachforschungen nach einem gewissen Prof. Dr. Dr. James Shirley, der darüber in einem Buch berichtet haben soll, blieben erfolglos, ebenso alle Recherchen nach dem Buchtitel bzw. bei dem angeblichen Verlag, der Hearst-Group in den USA.«[14] Dieses Ergebnis deckt sich mit den Untersuchungsergebnissen des Verfassers: Die Hearst Corporation, so der korrekte Name, ist ein gewaltiger US-amerikanischer Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag (Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Oprah Magazine) mit Sitz in New York, der sich auch auf dem Unterhaltungsprogramm im Fernsehen ausgebreitet hat. Es gibt in diesem Hause keine Buchveröffentlichung eines James Shirleys.

Auf der Internetseite Direkt zur Kanzlerin! können sich Bürger mit ihren Anliegen direkt an die Kanzlerin wenden. Diese Möglichkeit nutzte am 6. Oktober 2007 ein Bürger. Unter Bezugnahme auf Komossas Buch fragte dieser Merkel, ob die gemachten Angaben der Wahrheit entsprächen. Die Antwort des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung vom 19. November 2007: »Der ›geheime Staatsvertrag‹, den Sie erwähnen, ist dem Reich der Legenden zuzuordnen. Diesen Staatsvertrag gibt es nicht. Und die Bundeskanzlerin mußte selbstverständlich auch nicht auf Anordnung der Alliierten eine sogenannte ›Kanzlerakte‹ unterschreiben, bevor sie ihren Amtseid ablegte[15] Nun könnte man einwerfen, daß auch das Presse- und Informationsamt der  Bundesregierung lügen kann. Gewiß, nur kann man angesichts der erdrückenden Beweislage dieser Aussage des Amtes Glauben schenken.

Abgesehen davon: Vertritt man allen Ernstes die naive Auffassung, daß im politischen Hintergrund agierende Drahtzieher (Bilderberger, Trilaterale Kommission, CFR usw.) nicht in der Lage wären, jeden Kanzler und Präsidenten für das anglo-amerikanische Einflußgebiet durch Intrigen, Geheimdienstmachenschaften und Medienlenkung gefügig zu machen, ohne dafür vom ihm oder ihr eine Unterschrift auf einem abstrusen Papier einfordern zu müssen?! Es ist erfreulich zur Kenntnis nehmen zu können, daß sich führende Köpfe der Nationalen Opposition in Deutschland einen klaren Geist behalten haben und nicht den Verschwörungstheoretikern auf den Leim gegangen sind: »Doch was auf den ersten Blick wie eine Sensation aussah, erweist sich bei näherem Hinsehen als Totalfälschung«,[16] heißt es beispielsweise mit Recht in der Deutschen Stimme.

Gewiß, trotzdem spricht vieles dafür, daß die Regierungen der BRD nicht zum Wohle Deutschlands handeln. Die einseitige, vom Strafgesetzbuch geschützte Geschichtsschreibung gehört in diesem Zusammenhang ebenso erwähnt wie beispielsweise eine seit Jahrzehnten betriebene Einwanderungspolitik, die offenbar darauf ausgerichtet ist, Deutschland demographisch und kulturell zu verändern, die zunehmende Islamisierung des Herzens Europas bei einer gleichzeitiger Verstärkung prozionistischer Positionen, das stete Abwandern deutscher Eliten aus Deutschland, das Absinken großer Bevölkerungsschichten in die Armut oder der Einsatz deutscher Soldaten außerhalb deutscher Grenzen. Nur bedarf es keiner Flucht in abstruse Verschwörungstheorien, um die Gründe und Ursachen dieser verheerenden Entwicklungen zu erklären!

Eine Analyse des Fundaments, auf dem die BRD aufgebaut ist, führt zu den gesuchten Antworten.[17] Wir sprechen hier von der Akzeptanz und Verfechtung der Doktrin von der doppelten Kollektivschuld der Deutschen. Dies ist das Selbstverständnis der BRD! Der Politikwissenschaftler Theodor Eschenburg hat bereits vor vielen Jahrzehnten die Basis, auf welcher der westdeutsche Staat nach dem Krieg aufgebaut wurde, wie folgt formuliert: »Die Erkenntnis von der unbestrittenen und alleinigen Schuld Hitlers ist vielmehr eine Grundlage der Politik der Bundesrepublik.« Auch der 1938 nach Britannien emigrierte Publizist Sebastian Haffner (eigentlich Raimund Pretzel), der als eindringlicher Befürworter der deutschen Teilung maßgeblich an der Umerziehung des deutschen Volkes beteiligt gewesen ist, teilte diese Ansicht. Wer am heutigen Status quo (gemeint war das als volkspädagogisch wertvoll erachtete Geschichtsbild) rüttele, der bedrohe, Haffner zufolge, gar die Grundlagen des europäischen Friedens. In seiner Bundestagsrede vom 9. November 1988 bekannte Bundestagspräsident Philipp Jenninger, daß sich alle politischen Fragen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland »im vollen Bewußtsein um Auschwitz« drehten. Der ehemalige Landgerichtspräsident Rudolf Wassermann sekundierte 1994: »Wer die Wahrheit über die nationalsozialistischen Vernichtungslager leugnet, gibt die Grundlagen preis, auf denen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland errichtet worden ist. […] Wer Auschwitz leugnet, greift nicht nur die Menschenwürde der Juden an, der rüttelt auch an den Grundfesten des Selbstverständnisses dieser Gesellschaft.«[18] Joschka Fischer hatte bereits 1987 »Auschwitz als Staatsräson« bezeichnet. Als Außenminister bekräftigte er seine Ansicht in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung am 18. Februar 1999: »Alle Demokratien haben eine Basis, einen Boden. Für Frankreich ist das 1789. Für die USA die Unabhängigkeitserklärung. Für Spanien der Spanische Bürgerkrieg. Nun, für Deutschland ist das Auschwitz. Dann kann nur Auschwitz sein. Die Erinnerung an Auschwitz, das ›Nie-mehr Auschwitz‹, kann in meinen Augen das einzige Fundament der neuen Berliner Republik sein.« Entsprechende Erklärungen gibt es unzählige. Die Geisteshaltung der Repräsentanten dieses Systems und die Folgen ihrer Taten sind dementsprechend.

Am 20. Juni 2008 schrieb General Komossa dem Verfasser unter anderem: »Betroffen macht vor allem, daß nicht kritisiert wird, wenn in den Medien heute immer noch wahrheitswidrig die Behauptung verbreitet wird, daß die Deutsche Wehrmacht im Kriege im Gegensatz zu ihren Gegnern eine Unzahl von Verbrechen begangen hat, daß im Fernsehen im Jahre 2008 Filme gezeigt werden, die offensichtlich nicht frei von Manipulationen sind, in der Absicht, den deutschen Soldaten vor der Weltöffentlichkeit zu verunglimpfen. Eine Steigerung solcher ›Informationen‹ ist zu erwarten. Denn die Erlebnisgeneration stirbt aus! Auch ist nicht zu verstehen, daß Richter es heute immer noch zulassen, daß der deutsche Soldat –  natürlich ganz allgemein und nicht namentlich genannt – als Mörder bezeichnet werden kann. Lobenswert wäre es doch, wenn Kritiker sich doch besser gegen die Verunglimpfung des deutschen Soldaten einsetzen würden, der auf vielen Schauplätzen des Unfriedens in der Welt sein Leben einsetzt.  Täglich aufs Neue!  Die Verletzung der soldatischen Ehre der Väter, die - in gutem Glauben, für unser Land zu kämpfen - in sechs Jahren ihr Leben eingesetzt und so oft verloren haben, verletzt auch die Würde des deutschen Soldaten heute, in unserer Zeit. Die Bundeswehr wurde nicht von Mördern aufgebaut und geformt, sondern von verantwortungsbewußten Soldaten, die vorher für ihr Land kämpfen mußten, und die sich noch einmal in den Dienst des Landes stellten.«[19] Diese Einschätzung ist richtig – diese Fehlentwicklungen konnten aber nur auf dem Nährboden entstehen und gedeihen, der das Fundament der BRD genannt wird! Einer »Kanzlerakte« bedurfte es hierbei nicht.

Die Apologeten dieses Phantasieprodukts tragen in erheblichem Maße zur Lähmung des Denkens und zur Hinwendung an den Fatalismus und Nihilismus bei; beides Faktoren, die der politischen Passivität dienlich sind. Die Verbreiter der Kanzlerakte-Lüge dienen somit den Systemtragenden.


[2] Vgl. »Die Kanzler-Akte«, in: Der Reichsbote, Nr. 1/2008, S. 8.

[3] Gerd-Helmut Komossa, Die deutsche Karte. Das versteckte Spiel der geheimen Dienste, Graz  2007, Seite 21f.

[5] Vgl.

[6] Diese acht Abteilungen gliedern sich wie folgt auf:

- Abteilung 1 - Operative Aufklärung. Klassische nachrichtendienstliche Arbeit. Gewinnung und Steuerung geheim operierender Informanten. Pflege der Beziehungen zu Nachrichtendiensten anderer Staaten. Schlüsselstellung sog. Residenturen, d.h. Auslandsdienststellen des BND.

- Die Abteilung 2 - Technische Informationsgewinnung mit technischen Mitteln durch Filterung der internationalen Kommunikationsströme. Bearbeitung verschlüsselter Nachrichten.

- Abteilung 3 - Auswertung. Start- und Endpunkt der gesamten nachrichtendienstlichen Arbeitskette im BND. Die operativ und technisch beschafften Nachrichten werden zusammengeführt und analysiert. Über die Ergebnisse werden die Bundesregierung und andere Behörden informiert. Weiterhin ist hier das Lage- und Informationszentrum (LIZ) angesiedelt, in dem rund um die Uhr das aktuelle weltpolitische Geschehen beobachtet wird.

- Abteilung 4- Steuerung und Zentrale Dienstleistung. Verwaltung von Personal, Finanzen und Rechtwesen.

- Abteilung 5 - Operative Aufklärung / Auswertung. Operative Beschaffung und Auswertung von Informationen über „asymmetrische Bedrohungen“ (Internationaler Terrorismus und Drogenhandel, Geldwäsche, Terrorfinanzierung, illegale Migration)

- Abteilung 6 - Technische Unterstützung. Versorgt die anderen Abteilungen mit technischen Dienstleistungen. Wesentliche Arbeitsfelder: Forschung und Entwicklung von nachrichtendienstlichen Techniken, Signalverarbeitung aus Kommunikationssystemen, Softwareentwicklung, DV-Unterstützung bei der nachrichtendienstlichen Arbeit

- Abteilung 7 - Schule des Bundesnachrichtendienstes Laufbahnlehrgängen für den öffentlichen Dienst als auch Fortbildungen in den Bereichen nachrichtendienstliche Methodik und Technik sowie Sprachen.

- Abteilung 8 –Sicherheit, Geheimschutz und Spionageabwehr ist zuständig für den Schutz der Mitarbeiter und der nachrichtendienstlichen Verbindungen vor sicherheitsgefährdenden Angriffen als auch für den Schutz von Einrichtungen und Gegenständen sowie Arbeitsmethoden und Arbeitsergebnissen.

[7] Hans-Joachim von Leesen, »Ein Windei von Verschwörungstheoretikern«, in: Junge Freiheit v. 18.1.2008.

[8] Email von Gerd-Helmut Komossa an den Verfasser vom 20.6.2008.

[9] Korrekt lautet der Name dieses Dokuments ›Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen vom 26.5.1952‹. Dieser ist ein Zusatzvertrag zum Deutschlandvertrag zwischen der BRD, den USA, Großbritannien und Frankreich und Teil der ›Pariser Verträge‹, die am 23. Oktober 1954 in Paris unterzeichnet wurden und am 5. Mai 1955 in Kraft traten.

[10] Reinhard Gehlen, Der Dienst, Mainz-Wiesbaden 1971, S. 149.

[12] Holger Szymanski, »Die Kanzlerakte. Vermeintliche ›Enthüllungen‹ eines ehemaligen Bundeswehrgenerals«, in: Deutsche Stimme, Nr. 2/2008, zitiert nach

[13] Zitiert nach

[14] Ausgaben/2007/UN12-07/2007-12-1.htm

[17] Claus Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland, München 22001 sowie Claus Nordbruch, Der Angriff. Eine Staats- und Gesellschaftskritik an der Berliner Republik, Tübingen 2003 und Claus Nordbruch, Machtfaktor Zionismus. Israels aggressive Außenpolitik, Tübingen 2008.

[18] Alle Zitate in Claus Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland, München ²2001, S. 41f.

[19] Email von Gerd-Helmut Komossa an den Verfasser vom 20.6.2008. 

Dr. Claus Nordbruch – 


Amy Aremia

Sent: Sunday, 29 June 2008 5:10 AM

Subject: Re: Is the tide turning in Germany against the Ugliness that is the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah?

Is it because the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and all the other Jewish groups pushing their "anti-Semitism,"  have  spent  a constant battle to promote their Holocaust by using a war of words to completely brainwash the world with false and misleading propaganda pounded over and over for these 60 years?   The minds of the German people, and other nations, have been given that feeling of guilt which as served the injustice of the 'rule of law' enforced by the courts. This has only given the Jewish organizations more power to extract Billions of dollars from Germany and other nations who allegedly persecuted the Jews for centuries.

Because they have disobeyed their God so many times, he finally dispersed them from their "promised Land" to wander the world. Instead of assimilating into the countries which took them in, they, instead, infiltrated their religions to divide, and then to destroy. They have taken over the financial intuitions and major industries of the country they occupy to flaunt over them their control. Until the world begins to understand that they are the root cause responsible for making the world problems so complex, and mixed, that no country will be able to solve the great uncertainty until they gain back their wisdom which has been destroyed, and then gain the courage needed to reach out to do what is just and right in order to return to a peace-loving world. Hatred, and the desire for vengeance that has been instilled, offers no solution, but only serves their purpose.  

If we wish to choose the correct path, the energy spent on the animosity held by certain groups who will have to search for ways to readjust and fight the real source of evil to which they must open their eyes.  The human values, in the way we think of them, we must express, and stand together to overcome those whose value the rest of the human race is to be their slaves, a fact which is difficult for most humans to understand.


 ----- Original Message ----- From: Adelaide Institute

Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:36 AM

Subject: Is the tide turning in Germany against the Ugliness that is the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah?

Prominent hate centre, Simon Wiesenthal Centre,  and its head the pathological hater of things German, Dr Efraim Zuroff, is still at it – just like those who have accused Germans of the things they themselves have done – and deflecting from such crimes by scapegoating Germans – who let it happen because their minds are – are what? FT


From: Josef Schwanzer
28 June 2008 10:23 PM

Subject: The Associated Press:

Wiesenthal Center scolds Germans over Nazi hunt. By DAVID RISING – 22 hours ago

BERLIN (AP) — The Simon Wiesenthal Center criticized German judicial authorities in Baden-Baden on Friday, accusing them of obstructing the hunt for former Nazi SS doctor Aribert Heim.

Efraim Zuroff, the top Nazi hunter at the Jewish human rights organization, said the judge in charge of the case had disallowed German police requests on several occasions for telephone taps of Heim's relatives and an old friend who had been in contact with the fugitive.

"We only recently learned of the extent of the obstructionism," Zuroff said in a telephone interview from Israel, saying such taps in other cases were "routinely approved."

The spokesman for the Baden-Baden state court, where Heim was indicted in absentia on hundreds of counts of murder in 1979, did not immediately return phone calls for comment.

In the case of the old friend from school, the judge decided that the information about his contact with Heim was too old to warrant a telephone tap, according to documents supplied by the Wiesenthal Center.

The friend, a fellow doctor living in Vienna, Austria, told authorities in 1998 that he had received a letter from Heim in the early 1980s. Taps have been approved in other cases in the Heim investigation.

Zuroff said his office sent out a statement Friday — the day before what would be Heim's 94th birthday — to highlight the problems faced in tracking down the Nazi doctor.

"We hope to bring to the attention of the authorities that there are legal obstacles which are preventing the proper investigation of the case, and preventing steps which we feel would contribute significantly to finding doctor Heim," he said.

Heim was known for his sadism as a doctor at the Nazi's Mauthausen concentration camp. He was able to flee before authorities came to arrest him in the southern town of Baden-Baden in 1962, however, and his whereabouts today is unknown. Heim tops the Wiesenthal Center's list of most-wanted Nazi war criminals. 


A Pariah In Exile

He lost an epic tenure battle, then got barred from Israel.

Now, Norman Finkelstein is back in Brooklyn, with a provocation or two up his sleeve. By Stewart Ain, Staff Writer


It has come to this for Norman Finkelstein: Back home in the Brooklyn of his youth, living alone in his deceased father’s rent-stabilized apartment on Ocean Parkway, just a few blocks from where the white-hot controversial professor grew up.

No more loyal students, no more lectures to prepare, no more radio debates with his arch-enemy, Alan Dershowitz, no more national spotlight; Finkelstein is the man no one wants, and perhaps for good reason.

A year ago, DePaul University, where he taught political science for six years, denied Finkelstein tenure in one of the most bruising tenure battles in recent memory. The story made national headlines, fueled by Dershowitz’s crusade against Finkelstein’s scholarship.

 Finkelstein’s supporters painted the Harvard law professor as an outside agitator encroaching on an internal tenure process; some of his students went on a hunger strike in his support. No major university will touch him now.

“Who wants to go through what DePaul went through with a national hysteria,” Finkelstein says, shrugging. “To be told I was a Holocaust denier and a terrorist supporter — would you want me on your faculty?”

And Israel shut its doors on him in May, barring him from entering the country; it never gave him a reason, but news reports attributed it to his strong and highly vocal anti-Israel views, and for associating with elements hostile to the Jewish State. (Finkelstein says he met with leaders of the terrorist group Hezbollah during a trip to Beirut in January.) After 18 hours in detention at Ben-Gurion Airport, he was taken onto a plane and whisked out of the country.

It’s not hard to see why Finkelstein is anathema in most Jewish circles, simply beyond the pale. He has struck out — with a vengeance — at the twin pillars of postwar Jewish life: the Holocaust (which he calls “the Holocaust industry”) and Israel. The Jewish community, he argues, has exploited the Holocaust for financial gain, sullying the memory of the Six Million.

And he has cavorted with Israel’s enemies, meeting with and praising Hezbollah. During the height of Israel’s 2006 war with Lebanon, as Hezbollah was raining rockets down on northern Israel and Israel was bombing Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut and targets elsewhere in the country, Finkelstein took the stage at a rally in Brooklyn and intoned, “We are all Hezbollah.”

So the Pariah of Ocean Parkway is at the low point in his life, his academic career in shambles. (The only offer of a job has come from a two-year college he declined to identify that offered a paltry salary for many hours of work.) Here he sits, in his father’s old apartment, surrounded by framed family photographs. The photos, along with glowing pictures and notes from DePaul students that sit on his piano, may be his only comfort as he tries to pick up the pieces of his career.

Finkelstein may be down on his luck, but the provocateur still seems to have some fight in him. He spends hours at the computer on his combative, over-the-top Web site — a video of him debating Dershowitz in a radio studio is interspersed with clips of Bruce Lee-like martial arts warriors fighting to the death.

Finkelstein says he’s content with things, that he wants to avoid further controversy. “I’ve had 15 minutes of fame and then a half-hour and then 10 hours; I don’t need anymore. ... I’m not worried about being a pariah,” he says. Yet the title of the new book he’s working on — “A Farewell to Israel: The Coming Break-up of American Zionism” — suggests that controversy may yet find him again, that Finkelstein may be bowed but not broken.

On a muggy late spring day, Finkelstein is walking the old neighborhood around Ocean Parkway and Avenue W. He grew up here in what was an upper-middle-class neighborhood in the late-‘50s and early ‘60s, his parents survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto. He may have absorbed a body blow from DePaul, but at 54 he is lean and trim in a blue T-shirt and khaki shorts, his salt-and-pepper hair tousled. He maintains a disciplined exercise regimen, jogging and swimming regularly.

He spent his first eight years in Flatbush and then moved to Mill Basin with his parents and two brothers until he was 17.

“My parents were devout atheists,” Finkelstein says. (They also had  Communist leanings, according to Haaretz, as did many Polish Jews of their generation.) “You couldn’t discuss religion in my house even though my mother’s father was very Orthodox. She said he was like a rabbi. And my father’s, too.

“My parents were completely Jewish; that’s why they did not feel they needed to prove they were Jewish,” he says.

It was perhaps because of that that Finkelstein, who says he too is an atheist, said he never had a bar mitzvah.

“When I was 13, a bar mitzvah was like a coming-out party and to not have one was shameful,” he recalls. “It was terrible. People would ask me if I was having a bar mitzvah and I said I was having it in Israel. ... Not to have a bar mitzvah was a psychologically terrible ordeal, but it gave me character and taught me how to resist peer pressure.”

Both of his brothers — Henry worked for the city and Richard was a computer consultant — retired when they turned 50. “I used to joke that I am still waiting for my first job,” he says with smile.

His brothers are both married and Finkelstein has one nephew. “I don’t have any regrets not marrying,” he says as he walked by the bookshelves that line the entranceway to his apartment.

Among the books were several about Karl Marx, another about the Bolshevik Revolution called, “Ten Days that Shook the World” by John Reed, books about Hitler, and “Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s National Security and Foreign Policy.”

Finkelstein’s career, though it began with a doctorate in politics at Princeton University, has been checkered. His thesis sought to expose as a shoddy piece of research Joan Peters’ best-selling book, “From Time Immemorial,” which debunked the notion of a Palestinian population overwhelmed by Jewish immigrants in the Holy Land. His thesis, in turn, was criticized by many as politically driven, and was supported by few, including Noam Chomsky, the outspoken critic of Israel’s right to exist.

Finkelstein has had trouble holding a job, bouncing from Rutgers University to NYU to Brooklyn College and Hunter College.

Despite what he said were solid evaluations at DePaul — in formal public statements DePaul said Finkelstein is an outstanding teacher and a prolific scholar — Finkelstein says he saw the writing on the wall when he first accepted the position. It’s why, he says, he held onto his father’s apartment for the six years he was in Chicago so that he would not find himself out of work and out of a home.

“I had the best teaching record at DePaul University,” he insists, explaining that the evaluation is based upon student assessments and his writing. He even sailed through the early tenure committees, before the campaign against him was launched by Dershowitz. (In his book “Beyond Chutzpah,” Finkelstein had attacked Dershowitz’s “The Case for Israel” as a fraud.)

“Now I can’t even get an adjunct appointment for one semester,” he says matter-of-factly. “I lectured in the past year at 40 universities and I would ask the faculty there about a position and was told it was out of the question.”

Finkelstein rises from his living room chair and points to the picture of his mother on the wall above the piano, as if to take his mind off his dismal job prospects.

“My mother was in the Warsaw Ghetto from 1939 until 1943,” he says, strongly denying that his mother was a Nazi collaborator — a charge leveled by some of his detractors. “She was also in Majdanek and in two slave labor camps and every member of her family was exterminated – her two sisters, a brother and mother and father.”

A job as a high school teacher is also out of the question, Finkelstein says.

“The way they do background checks is to Google your name. With me, they would get 30,000 Web sites, one-third of them saying I am a Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorism, a crackpot and a lunatic. If 30,000 Web sites are saying that, the assumption is that where there is smoke, there must be fire. Would you take the time to look through 30,000 Web sites?”

“I save my complaints for my friends,” he says when asked his reaction to such Web sites.

“That’s why we have friends in the world — to chew their ears off.”
Peter Novick isn’t one of those friends. The author of “The Holocaust in American Life” has been critical of Finkelstein’s credibility and scholarship, saying that “a lot of [his writing] was pure invention” and that not all of his footnotes are accurate.

Novick said that in his own book he explored how “much of American Jewry has centered on the Holocaust ... for Finkelstein it’s a racket, with self-aggrandizing Jewish elites who use it to boost their own power; it is nasty and over-the-top stuff.”

He said he feels sorry that Finkelstein has been unable to secure another teaching job, but Novick said Finkelstein knowingly refused to do what it takes to get tenure: publish academically respectable material in academic journals.

“He was much more engaged in doing political rather than academic work, and that is not how you get a regular academic job,” Novick explains. “I’m not saying it in a way to blame him. He made his choice. ... He raises abrasiveness to a matter of principle.”

“On balance,” Novick continues, “would it be a good thing if he had a job? Yes. The idea of this guy in his 50s who has done this all his life now being cut off at the knees is sad.”
He may not have a job, but Finkelstein’s new book, yet to have a publisher, is certain to stir more controversy. Its premise is that American Jews who “embraced Israel [after the Six-Day War] in 1967 — seeing it as a liberal state — now are embarrassed by its use of cluster bombs [in Lebanon]. It’s no longer possible to justify support for Israel on conventional and elementary liberal principles — it’s impossible to justify the occupation.”

A number of surveys suggest that American Jews, especially 20- and 30-year olds, have grown increasingly distant from Israel, but not necessarily for the reasons Finkelstein offers.

“It’s claimed that Israel is searching for peace, yet it says to attack Iran, Syria and Iraq,” Finkelstein continues. “So it’s an embarrassment. Gradually, American Jewry will be bidding farewell to Israel, except in existential cases. And the under-40 generation is growing more and more indifferent” to Israel.

On a drive around his old neighborhood, the discussion turned to his book “The Holocaust Industry,” which claims Israel is an immoral power with a horrific human rights record that seeks to evoke sympathy for its position because of the Holocaust. Finkelstein spoke like a man whom time has vindicated.

“I don’t know if I’ve pushed the envelope,” he said of his claims about Jewish groups extorting money from European countries for Holocaust reparations. “[Famed Holocaust historian Raul] Hilberg supported me, so I’m not sure how much I’m pushing the envelope. Before I charged Jewish groups with a shakedown racket, Hilberg did interviews with the Swiss and German press and said that for the first time in history American Jews are making use of the blackmail weapon. So they were the ones who pushed the envelope by using the Holocaust as a blackmail weapon.”

As he reflected on the fate of some of the main figures in the effort to extract reparations for Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein smiled at the irony of recent events.

Israel Singer, the former secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, was fired after it “turned out he had a secret Swiss bank account he was funneling money to — unbeknownst to the World Jewish Congress — for what he called his pension,” says Finkelstein.

“Burt Neuborne, the lead counsel in the Swiss case, went around saying he was doing the work pro bono for his daughter who was studying to be a rabbi,” he continues. “But it turns out he got $5 million from the German settlement and was asking for $6 million in the Swiss case. Even the New York Times wrote an editorial denouncing him. And Mel Weiss [another lawyer in the case] was indicted [in an unrelated case] and pleaded guilty.”

“They’re all crooks,” Finkelstein says with obvious satisfaction. “The only one not in trouble is me. I’m unemployed, but at least I haven’t been indicted.”

Now, settled into his Brooklyn life, Finkelstein is preparing for what may be his biggest fight, albeit one he doesn’t relish. He plans to go to the Israeli Consulate in New York in September to seek an assurance that he will be admitted in December. Such assurance, he said, would allow all concerned to “avoid the spectacle of me applying under the Law of Return [which gives every Jew the automatic right to acquire Israeli citizenship]. ... It’s hard to see which side will find that more ridiculous.

“I don’t incite riots,” he continued. “I’m just going to see a friend in the occupied Palestinian territories. I’m not there to see Israel. I do not need for every facet of my life to be politicized. If Israeli authorities would just grant me a visa, I’ll move on.”

Finkelstein said he hopes to visit a Palestinian, Musa Abu Hashhash, who lives with his wife and children near Hebron. They first met in 1988 when Finkelstein went to Israel with a delegation from the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee and Finkelstein dedicated one of his books to the man, who works for B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.  He stressed that his visit to Israel would be a “private” affair and that he had “no interest in turning this into a political issue. ... I don’t think they can deny me, and I don’t want to turn it into a test case for the Israeli High Court.”

As things stand now, however, Norman Finkelstein, the grand provocateur, waits in limbo for a shot at returning to the Promised Land, a land he has made a career of reviling.


Canada to become member of Holocaust Task Force. By PAUL LUNGEN, Staff Reporter, 03 July 2008

Canada is one year away from full membership in an international group dedicated to commemorating the Holocaust. Canada was granted “liaison” status recently by the Task Force for International Co-operation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity. Canada had enjoyed “observer” status and Kenney expects that within a year, Canada will be granted full membership. The task force consists of 25 member countries, including France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Austria and Germany. The United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe are permanent observers. “We’re delighted to be at that table,” Kenney said in a telephone interview, adding membership underscores the government’s belief that it ought to take steps against Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.

Members are required to implement “national policies and programs in support of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research,” states the task force website. In addition, “the task force also encourages appropriate forms of Holocaust remembrance.” Kenney said Canada already has an educational program on tap – “the commemoration of the St. Louis incident.”

Announced only a few weeks ago, the commemoration is slated for Halifax’s Pier 21 where the passenger liner carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees docked in the summer of 1939, shortly before World War II broke out. The Canadian government refused to permit the ship’s Jewish passengers to disembark, as did the United States and Cuba, its original destination. The ship sailed back to Europe, where an estimated one-third of the passengers were killed in the Holocaust.

Kenney said the federal government would also work with the provinces, which possess jurisdiction over education, to develop curricula that address Holocaust education. 



Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute