March 2009 No 434
Think on these things
Pope Benedict's brother attacks Angela Merkel over Holocaust denier row
Last Updated: 10:21AM GMT 05 Feb 2009
The brother of Pope Benedict XVI ridiculed the German chancellor as "irrational" after she criticised the Vatican for welcoming a Holocaust denier back into the church. Georg Ratzinger, a Roman Catholic priest, said his brother's critics were "ill-informed" for suggesting that the pontiff was wrong to rehabilitate the British Bishop Richard Williamson, who has claimed that the Nazis did not use gas chambers and that they killed at most 300,000 Jews, rather than the six million accepted by most historians.
"He doesn't need me to defend him. But it does annoy me how stupid and ill-informed several people are that are attacking him," Mr Ratzinger, 85, said in an interview to appear in Thursday's edition of the Leipziger Volkszeitung. Chancellor Angela Merkel's attack on her compatriot Pope Benedict for welcoming back into the Catholic Church the Holocaust-denying bishop won widespread praise in Germany on Wednesday.
Speaking Tuesday, Mrs Merkel said the pope's move could not be allowed to pass "without consequences" and called on the Vatican to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial" that the Nazis killed six million Jews.
"I always saw her as a rational woman. But perhaps at the moment she is under pressure to say something irrational," Mr Ratzinger said.
Following Mrs Merkel's statement, the Vatican said the cleric must "in an absolutely unequivocal and public way" renounce his denial of the Nazi death toll and use of gas chambers, in a humiliating display of damage control.
The church has been trying to draw a line under the affair since the Pope announced late last month that he had decided to rehabilitate Bishop Williamson, a Cambridge-educated maverick who runs a church in Argentina.
But the 81-year-old German Pontiff had declined to refer to Williamson by name and critics said his denunciation of Holocaust deniers was too vague. In its statement on Wednesday, the Vatican said that when Benedict lifted the excommunication on Bishop Williamson on Jan 24, he was not aware of the British bishop's denial of the Holocaust.
Colin Fraser, Sheidow Park
Letters, The Advertiser, 29 December 2008
Is Alexander Downer admitting that the Dr Mohamed Haneef Affair was entirely Government driven? That is certainly what it looks like. No wonder the whole thing is a mess.
However, he should not feel too bad, this sort of thing happens all the time in Australia. It seems that as we are so far away from whatever is happening elsewhere, we have to manufacture something to feel "involved“.
In 1914, the office of the South Australian Attorney-General was raided by soldiers with fixed bayonets demanding the attorney-genral resign. His brother, also an elected MP, resigned from Parliament as well.
The reason for this was their names were Herman and Robert Homburg. Both were born in South Australia, but of German parentage. Similar stories abound through World War I and World War II. I have no doubt the same need to feel "involved“ is at play here. You would think that after 90 years we might have learned something, though.
I saw it on TV – I saw the film – so it must be true!
A sinister hatred kept alive when we turn a blind eye
Frank Devine | February 06, 2009, The Australian
IT is improbable that I could bring myself to stay for long, if at all, in the same room with somebody who had described Jews as "real motherf--king bastards." Apart from this piece of abuse, Maqsood Alsham, an asylum seeker from Bangladesh, has described the Gaza invasion by Israel as a worse atrocity than the Holocaust.
Yet three universities - Sydney, Macquarie and the Sydney University of Technology - continued their support of a conference organised by Maqsood to debate whether Israel should be tried by the International Court of Justice for the invasion. In an early defence, Maqsood ingenuously whinged: "Is it anything wrong to have a private conversation? This is not my public view." But to hold and express such views privately or publicy is to put oneself beyond the pale.
The English Catholic schismatic "bishop" Richard Williamson has done that with his dogmatic assertions that "only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews" died under Nazi persecution and none in gas chambers.
Only 200,000 or 300,000 men, women and children murdered for the crime of being Jews! How trivial a transgression!
Williamson reiterated this view on Swedish TV just prior to Pope Benedict's lifting last week the excommunication orders imposed on Williamson and three other "bishops" of the breakaway Society of Pius IX, founded by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in rebellion against some of the conclusions of Vatican Council II.
Not being skilled at reading the minds of popes, I'm inclined to accept the official explanation that Benedict, having responsibility for preserving church unity, seeks to draw the Society of Pius IX back into the Catholic communion. The Pope's personality also makes it plausible that he cancelled the excommunication order, imposed on the four bishops by Paul VI in 1988, out of compassion for the individuals.
But Williamson! Great fools have achieved episcopal rank before, and you don't have to search widely to suspect their contemporary presence. Williamson is a special case, however.
Apart from his attempted trivialisation of the Holocaust, he has called Jews "the enemies of Christ" and claimed that they "aim at world dominion". (He also believes the US government engineered John F. Kennedy's assassination and that women shouldn't attend universities.)
The Pius IX Society superior, "bishop" Bernard Fellay, has told the Pope he has forbidden Williamson to speak out publicly about any historical or political question.
But who would want to listen to such a man speaking out in any circumstances on any subject? Unless, of course, he was able to pass himself off as a bishop and a man now in good standing with the Catholic Church.
At least, living in Sydney, where The Age does not home deliver, I am spared the temptation to provide the hospitality of my doorstep to a newspaper that publishes a column (by one David Backman) blaming Israel's "utter inability to transform the Palestinians from enemies into friends" for "the bombs on London's public transport, bombs in bars in Bali and even the loss of the World Trade Centre in New York".
Backman tosses in a loonily non sequitur anecdote about how unpopular young Israeli backpackers are in Nepal because of being "rude, arrogant and arguing over trifling sums of money".
The allegation of arguing over trifling sums of money was, for me, the killer strike: the hate-filled stereotype of the avaricious, grasping Jew.
It brought back an imbedded memory of a long-ago poker game, during which a friend called John, whose surname doesn't matter, and a friend called Wally, whose surname does, battled it out for a pot of about 50 quid: double a journalist's weekly wage at the time. Wally had the cards and, with a joyful whoop, reached out to gather in the pile of coins and notes.
"You bloody Jew Ginsberg sorry Wally," John blurted. It came out in a single sentence. John's face turned scarlet with shame.
The poker game finished after a few desultory hands. It couldn't continue. Though, happily, no friendships were lost, we were all aware of having approached the brink of something unspeakable.
When I was 14, my father took me, to further my education, to a newsreel about Belsen concentration camp. The scenes of bulldozers pushing emaciated bodies into mass graves horrified me but the greatest horror was in the eyes and faces of the survivors, who had been to a place beyond nightmare and hell.
Given to adolescent self-romanticising, I felt, as a non-Jew, guilty about these sights. The guilt has not vanished. Whenever I read, reluctantly, about the Holocaust, I ask myself if I would be brave enough to resist officially sanctioned persecution of my neighbours because of their race.
Not being sure, I feel pain and shame when people such as Maqsood Alsham, David Backman and Richard Williamson get away with their sinister calumnies.
The Pope and the Holocaust denier
by Rocky Mountain Jew, February 5th, 2009
Today, the Vatican called on Bishop Richard Williamson to recant his statements of Holocaust denial. While Israel’s foreign ministry may think this is a step in the right direction, we’re left feeling utterly confused. If you don’t think the bishop should be out and about, claiming no gas chambers existed, why let him back into the fold?
It’s illogical. First, he and his kind are excommunicated as their beliefs do not fit in with those of the Church. Makes sense - going on the Willliamson quotes we’ve been reading. Then, in a fit of so-called charity and unity, Benedict invites him back, but, as it turns out, pressuring him to renounce his views. Huh? You’re sending mixed messages, dear Benedict.
We are glad that in his interview with the IJN’s Chris Leppek, Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke out clearly against Williamson and against Holocaust denial in general.
But we feel more heartened by statements made by German-speaking Jewish communities, making it clear in no uncertain terms that the Vatican’s behavior is intolerable.
On Monday, Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, highlighted the Pope’s national origin, saying that it was particularly shocking that a German pope would rehabilitate Williamson.
And just today, after a two-day conference earlier this week, the Jewish communities of Germany, Switzerland and Austria released a statement of topics discussed, choosing to conclude with the issue of Williamson’s rehabilitation. In times like these, where anti-Semitic incidents are once again on the rise, it’s vital to fight against what Benedict has done, against the message he’s sent by opening the Church’s doors to a Holocaust denier.
Revisionist historian to challenge German law
January 25, 2009
SYDNEY, Australia (JTA) -- A revisionist historian living in Australia has vowed to travel to Germany to test whether his Holocaust denial views are criminal. Dr. Fredrick Töben, the founder of the notorious Adelaide Institute, was imprisoned in London for more than one month last year before a British judge ruled invalid the arrest warrant from German prosecutors who wanted to charge him with Holocaust denial.
In a video posted on YouTube, Töben stood in front of Parliament House in Canberra and promised to challenge in court Andreas Grossman, the Mannheim prosecutor who brought the case against him last year.
“In the near future I shall be traveling to Germany,” he said. “We shall see whether truth will prevail … whether we can in fact get some justice or whether you are simply going to criminalize my thoughts and therefore further kill the German soul.”
Töben, 64, also hinted that he would again participate in an upcoming Holocaust denial conference in Iran, which he said would help “liberate people who are oppressed by the Holocaust ideology."
In 1999, Töben was imprisoned for seven months in Germany, where Holocaust denial is punishable by up to five years in jail. He is still awaiting the verdict of a contempt-of-court case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which accuses Töben of continuing to publish anti-Semitic material on his Web site. In 2002, a federal court judge ordered Töben to remove all anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial material.
The Panzer Pope and Holocaust Heresy
Captain Eric H. May, February 3, 2009
My health being none the best, I am indebted to Pope Benedict XVI for his recent rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson, which allows me to offer a few simple comments and reading links to further the discussion that has already attracted widespread attention.
Bishop Williamson had been excommunicated — along with all other members of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X — by Pope John Paul II in a dispute over the ordination of bishops (Williamson, for one) in 1988. He holds and expresses "heretical" views about the historicity of the Holocaust. He believes that unscrupulous Zionist elements have grossly exaggerated the number of dead Jews, and altogether invented the proverbial gas chambers/mass crematoria to support the "big lie."
An article posted at the website “unattributable.com” is quite hostile to Bishop Richardson and the Pope. Still, it provides all that my regular readers might want to know about the bishop's opinions that the Holocaust is largely a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job intended to facilitate a New World Order:
I heartily recommend that all take a look at the article, if only to watch the two short YouTube clips about these two "heretical" notions of Holocaust denial and "9/11 denial" — both of which are becoming quite prevalent in certain freethinking circles. On the particular matter of Bishop Richardson's believing that The Protocols of Zion2 may provide a good model for understanding Zionism in its methods and objectives, I exhort each independent reader to read The Protocols — whoever wrote it — and draw his or her own conclusions.
It seems to me that there is very little in The Protocols that Jewish LA Times writer Joel Stein left unsaid in his recent column, How Jewish is Hollywood? 3 Many will remember his candid and often quoted line from that revealing essay:
"I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."
* * * * * * * *
Captain Eric H. May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His essays have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine. For the past five years, he has been commander of Ghost Troop, a patriotic cyber-intelligence unit. For his most recent articles and upcoming interviews, refer to his America First Books author archive site at this web site and his Ghost Troop author archive site4 managed by Patti Woodard.
20081024 Orwellian Alert! British Crackdown Threatens Us All coauthored with Maj. William B. Fox and Dr. James Fetzer. This is another effort to defend the right of free speech of one who would dare to question irresponsible mythologies wrapped up in the Zionist religion of "Holocaustianity."
19971107 Bishop Williamson's criticism of The Sound of Music. This is a sermon cited by Williamson's enemies to suggest that he is a crank for daring to criticize a movie viewed as the epitome of wholesome family entertainment by most Americans. Interestingly enough, if one bothers to read what Williamson actually says, one discovers that he is perfectly sane and makes some interesting points.
The short URL for this article: http://tinyurl.com/d7otp2
A Holocaust-Shoah Controversy: Fatal Flaw in Holocaust Denial
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: Fatal Flaw in Holocaust Denial
There's a lot of low-quality, undocumented, anti-Israeli material going 'round the internet, in the wake of the Gaza war. Let's keep our standards high - avoid poorly documented material.
(1) Across West Bank, villages are hit with confiscation orders
(2) Talk to Hamas: Blair
(3) South African Dock Workers Won't Unload Israeli Goods
(4) International court investigating war crimes in Gaza
(5) Israeli colonel leaves speaking tour of UK for fear of arrest
(6) Fatal Flaw in Holocaust Denial - Peter Myers, February 6, 2009
6. Fatal Flaw in Holocaust Denial - Peter Myers, February 6, 2009
Over the years, I have put out material by Deniers from time to time, especially given the anti-Zionist position common to both Far Left and Far Right.
In balance, I put out large chunks of The Black Book of Communism, and the complete text of Otto Strasser's books exposing Hitler.
That does not mean that I support the status quo; far from it. It means that both of these two alternatives (Soviet & Nazi)were totalitarian.
The anti-Zionist movement seems to be drifing towards Holocaust-Denial, in the sense that I get quite a few emails from a Denialist perspective, and relatively few the other way. Barring the Zionists, of course - but they're not on my mailing list, and anyway I get few emails from them.
For years I was too busy, or perhaps just not interested enough, to tackle this issue. The constant media bombardment about "The Holocaust" bored me to tears; it would put anybody off the topic, just as one avoids nagging if one can.
Some Deniers had been urging me to get into it, but I kept postponing my reading of their material.
In the last month, that's all changed; I can hardly remember how I got started, but I've become an avid reader. However, I've spotted a fatal flaw in the Denier material; and since that realization, I've been tracking down quality material on the anti-Denier position.
In the next few weeks, I will make this a major theme of these bulletins.
The fatal flaw of the Deniers concerns the "Final Solution" to the Jewish Problem. The Deniers say that, instead of this meaning Extermination, it meant Resettlement in the East. That is, east of Poland. Not in the Ukraine, because that was for German settlement(and colonisation of the natives as peasant farmers). The main candidate was Belarus (White Russia, Ruthenia, White Ruthenia).
The Deniers have written reams on Gas Chambers - denying them - but next to nothing of where those millions of Jews evacuated from the West, actually went to.
At this point a distinction must be made. The Nazis imposed a Selection system, dividing Jews into those to be put to work as labourers, and the rest. Old men, old women, and children were routinely put into the second group. It's these people who were either killed or resettled.
Some German train schedules (timetables for the transposts to the concentration camps) still survive, and show that there were quite a lot of trains to Auschwitz, some from Western Europe, but especially from Poland.
There were far fewer trains to Minsk and other parts of Belarus, and they look like regular passenger trains.
Bialystok is in the north-east of Poland. Trainloads of Jews from Bialystok were sent to Auschwitz and Treblinka, both to the south-west. Yet Belarus is to the EAST of Bialystok. If you wanted to resettle these Jews in the East, you wouldn't send them West.
Witnesses say that at Auschwitz, Jews faced Selection - some as Labourers, the rest for Extermination. At Treblinka, there was no Selection because there were no Labour Camps there. It was just Extermination.
If you wanted to resettle Bialystok's Jews in the East, but first select some for labour at Auschwitz' work camps, you would do the selecting at Bialystok itself, sending some West (to work) and the others East (for resettlement). Yet we never hear of selections in that way. Instead, they are always reported at concentration camps.
To move millions of people from West to East, for peaceful resettlement, would entail the building of new cities, consuming scarce resources during wartime.
The clincher is the case of Hungary's Jews, which were not sent to Auschwitz until mid 1944, when the Russians were closing in.
Have a look at this map of the eastern front, noting the dates at which the Russians retook various lands:
By mid 1944, there was no possibility of resettling Jews in Belarus - White Russia, Ruthenia, White Ruthenia. Yet this is when Hungary's Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
The Deniers have no answer to this. This is End-Game for Holocaust Denial.
Over the following 2 weeks, I will put out substantial material on this topic. I invite Deniers to reply - but please stick to this topic. This particular topic is your weakness; I will not allow you to talk your way around it on this forum.
Does this mean that I'm becoming a stooge of the Zionists? No more than Norman Finkelstein - look at how they hate him. Less than Finkelstein, because I think that the Deniers have validly pointed out ways that Holocaust Orthodoxy has overstated its case, eg by not telling tourists at Auschwitz that Krema I is a Reconstruction, not Original.
So, the Deniers have performed a service. But it's wrong to make a religion out of Denial, just as it is to make a religion out of "The" Holocaust.
I will follow Finkelstein's use, in calling it "the Nazi Holocaust" (as it used to be called), not "The Holocaust".
I admire Bishop Williamson, and I would not like him to retract when he does not believe in the Extermination; but I think he's wrong, and I'd like to send him my material. If anyone knows an address I can send it to, please let me know.
There are few if any extremists on this mailing list, so I do not expect to lose many or any participants; but I'm prepared to lose them, if so they choose.
My new perspective enables me to better understand the "never again" siege mentality of Zionism. Yet, the Zionists are treating the Palestinians and Arabs in much the same way the Nazis treated Jews.
Peter Myers, February 6, 2009
From: Peter Wakefield Sault email@example.com
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009
My position on the so-called 'Holocaust' is what it has always been. If you, or anyone else, wants me to believe in it then I want to see some evidence. Please don't play the zionist lawyer by trying to make those who QUESTION, not deny, responsible for proving their non-existent position. That is as ludicrous as asking an indigenous Amazonian native for proof that the Tooth Fairy does not exist and leads to the absurd conclusion that the Tooth Fairy must exist unless it can be proved not to exist by people who never even heard of it before.
You say you want to know where all those Jews went. I ask - all WHAT Jews? YOU, not me, FIRSTLY have to show that they existed since YOU are the one asserting that their existence was terminated in gas chambers on the direct orders of Adolph Hitler.
By dividing the world into Holocaust worshippers on the one hand and Holocaust deniers on the other you are playing the zionist game.
I am neither. Nevertheless, until and unless I see some evidence to support the stories then in my view they will remain a matter of FAITH.
All the best Peter Wakefield Sault
From: Ardeshir Mehta firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009
Exactly so. There is NO justifiable reason for believing in that for which no irrefutable evidence exists. This principle doesn't just apply to the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. It applies to historical "facts" too.
In fact the Tooth Fairy and "The Holocaust" - by which is meant here the mass murder of six million Jews and an unspecified number of others by the use of homicidal gas chambers constructed for that purpose - have quite a few characteristics in common. For example:
1. Millions of gullible children believe the Tooth Fairy exists. Millions of gullible adults believe "The Holocaust" took place.
2. The ONLY physical "evidence" for the Tooth Fairy are the coins under the pillow, which were actually put there by the parents during the night.
The ONLY physical "evidence" for "The Holocaust" are the reconstructed "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, which were actually put there by the Soviets and/or their stooges in the wake of WW-II.
3. As time goes by, many parents do admit to their children that they made the Tooth Fairy up.
As time has gone by, many Holocaust(TM) eyewitnesses have admitted that they made their stories up.
4. Re. the Tooth Fairy, many parents justify making it all up by saying, "It's all in a good cause".
Re. "The Holocaust", many zionists justify making their stories up by saying, "It's all in a good cause".
5. The Tooth Fairy: it's mostly about the money.
The Holocaust(TM): it's mostly about the money.
From: Peter Wakefield Sault email@example.com
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009 7:50 AM
Quite so, Ardeshir.
Moreover, one must accept, on faith, *both* Holocausts of Jews if one does not wish to be stigmatized as a "Denier". Never mind about anyone else's genocides. Six million Jews were exterminated in WWII. It's documented - so it must be true!. Anyone who says otherwise is an "Antisemite" whose opinions on everything else too count for nothing.
ANOTHER CONTROVERSY – INTERNECINE STRIFE: Mark Weber and IHR Are Not Relevant to Revisionism
By Arthur R. Butz - Jan. 11, 2009, The Smith Report Issue #158 | February 2009
Last August, in postings that related to a conference he had recently attended, Mark Weber made it clear that he was not a revisionist.* However one had to read, rather than just skim, Weber's August articles to see this. In particular, his article "A Zionist Smear: The ADL Attacks an Islamic Peace Conference" –
endorsed, by implication but clearly, a remark in a speech by Malaysia president Mahathir Mohammed: "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million." Though Robert Faurisson and I, and a few others, immediately saw the point, the article had little impact on the community of revisionists, perhaps because its title related to a commonplace ADL activity that the author was protesting.
In September there was activity directed to bringing this important matter to the revisionist community generally, but I suppose that activity was suspended on account of the pressure of other matters, e.g. the Fredrick Töben affair. Incidentally, on Sept. 30 I drove Töben to the airport for that ill-fated flight to London, and I mentioned Mark Weber's revealing article to him.
On Dec. 2 Faurisson directed the following two questions to Weber:
1. Do you believe that the Germans decided on and planned a physical destruction of the European Jews? - “the specific crime”.
2. Do you believe in the existence and the use by the Germans of homicidal gas chambers or gas vans? - the specific weapons of the specific crime.
As I write this Faurisson has gotten no reply. Those two questions relate fundamentally to the historic mission of IHR and were asked of the Director of IHR by a key former associate of the IHR, under circumstances wherein the Director's adherence to the mission was obviously in question. Weber was ethically obligated to answer.
I suspect that Mark Weber's new article "How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?" was Weber's way of responding to the pressures being brought by Faurisson. To those of us who have been concerned with this problem since this past summer, the new article reveals perhaps only one new thing that I shall explain below. To others, it reveals that Mark Weber is not a revisionist. Only because the title of the new article is provocative is it now widely recognized by the revisionist community that Mark Weber is not one of us.
The fact that Weber is not a revisionist is important, and its treatment here required only a few words. Mark Weber's thoughts on the question that the title of his new article raises are less important but require more words. I shall comment on those thoughts anyway.
Weber's title commits a common sin, namely, challenging or asserting the relevance of something without specifying what the relevance is supposed to apply to. It is obvious nonsense to ask "When will the train reach?" It has to be something like "When will the train reach Detroit?" Therefore I shall try to determine what Mark Weber thinks revisionism is irrelevant to, and frankly the answer is unimportant. If revisionism's central claims are wrong then it ought to be abandoned. Why wonder about its relevance to anything? For example, I concede that revisionism is irrelevant to baking pies, but that doesn't make me a non-revisionist. What, then, does Mark Weber think revisionism is irrelevant to?
About half-way through his paper he seems to answer the question begged by his title, by making a curious assumption. He writes "But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power."
His relevance, then, would appear to be in terms of fighting Israel. I doubt that I know even one revisionist whose revisionism is so motivated. On the other hand, we tend to note that implication as an observation. I suppose all of us agree that the success of revisionism would be bad for Israel, and we understand that much of the persecution we suffer is based on that fact. We do not wish Israel well.
I wrote many years ago, in the Foreword to my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, that my historical investigations were motivated by my "Noting the obvious ways in which this legend is exploited in contemporary politics, notably in connection with the completely illogical support that the U.S. extends to Israel". That political judgment of mine didn't make me a revisionist; the investigations that were thereby motivated made me a revisionist. I found rubbish.
Serious revisionists promote revisionism because it is historically correct, not because it's bad for Israel. I would be a revisionist even if it were good for Israel. I suppose one could find people who think we help Israel in some devious or backhanded way.
Mark Weber's presumption, that we should be motivated to harm Israel, says more about his motivations than ours, and something about his concept of IHR's mission.
However that is not the worst of it. After seeming to have explained, mid-way through the article, what revisionism is allegedly not relevant to, Weber upsets the whole cart. He notes that in recent years "the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe," but he also claims that in today's political context the "Holocaust imagery [is] less relevant."
It is difficult for me to deal with these less important aspects of Mark Weber's recent article because of this confusion regarding what revisionism is supposedly irrelevant to and the nature of the current political-cultural scene. The last is, we are asked to believe, characterized by both Holocaust obsession and an irrelevance of the Holocaust legend to contemporary problems.
That is confusing, but unimportant. I think the Holocaust obsession is a contemporary problem, and a big one that sheds light on many other problems.
Others may wish to parse Mark Weber's thoughts more carefully, but I have no patience for that. It is a waste of time. As I noted earlier, I would be a revisionist even if it were helpful to Israel. Mark Weber is not a revisionist, evidently because he no longer sees revisionism as an effective weapon against Israel. That suggests that in the past his adherence to revisionism was to gain a propaganda tool against Israel. That evaluation of him is new, at least for me.
A BACK LOOK AT HISTORY YALTA: PRE-WAR EUROPE
On Saturday, March 12, 1938 papers carried reports of German invasion of Austria. Headlines: GERMAN TROOPS ENTER AUSTRIA. Stories were too mixed to permit any accurate conclusions. Will there be a war in Europe? If there is, will America become involved? What were the trends in England?
Will Franco’s probable victory prevent a revolution in France?
How can France get out of the mess they were in? By mid April anti-German feeling was increasing. The only hope for Europe is an understanding between England and Germany. England was hopelessly behind in military strength in comparison to Germany. The Germans could produce more military aircraft than the British and the United States combined.
The years between World Wars II and I were a struggle for world peace, which resulted in failure. Those who had the power to enforce peace failed to act, encouraged by this failure, the aggressors pushed for war and oppression as a means of accomplishing their objectives-mainly to defeat Hitler’s Germany. Many high-principled leaders (American patriots) tried to keep security and peace, but the country was under the grip of the destructive power of war.
The great allied powers, including the USSR, collectively, were the aggressors, began their exploitation of Allied disunity during the Yalta conference in February 1945.
Yalta---A fancy party, and Stalin stole all the goodies….
February 2009 is the 65th anniversary of the signing of the Yalta agreement that supposedly set forth global “peace” procedures following World War II. This article intends to recall that fateful meeting on the Black Sea, which an interpreter called: “one of the biggest drunken brawls I ever saw.” The big three toasted each other in long, glowing speeches. Winston Churchill, Britain’s Prime Minister was eloquent. President Franklin Roosevelt rambling in a breezy mood, and in praise of Josef Stalin, the Soviet Premier.
Much has been written about that fateful week of February 4th to 11th when the three leaders of the Allied powers met to shape the postwar world. Many historians say Yalta is where Russia got its go-ahead for Communist expansion throughout the world. The world’s press and political leadership hailed the brilliant document that was to set the way for lasting peace.
A few, reading the document’s grandiose language, were critical; they saw portents, which made them fearful of the future. Churchill and Roosevelt were unable to see that the West was falling into a Soviet trap. Although Roosevelt suspected Russian motives less than he mistrusted British colonialism.
US Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, who was there, called Yalta a diplomatic triumph for the United States and Britain.
The few who were skeptical, described it as a “stupefying blunder,” a “symbol of international immorality,” a “moral debacle of unimaginable evil to the world.”
One of the three Yalta decisions directly relevant to Eastern Europe, The Declaration of Liberated Europe, affirmed “the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live.” It also called for “restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those who have been forcibly deprived of them. (A phrase taken from the Atlantic Charter.) After further consultation, “nations” was included to the phrase (sovereign nations). Although Stalin had deprived the Latvians, Lithuanians, and the Estonians of their sovereign rights, he was looking next to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Hungry, which were already under the Red army occupation, and Germany under the allied army occupation.
Former US Ambassador W. Averell Harriman, a principal at Yalta, disclaimed any naiveté on the part of the Western negotiators, saying “there was even fear at the time that Stalin was planning to incorporate the countries of Eastern Europe into states within the Soviet federation.”
The Yalta agreement, Harriman pointed out, was that we would work together to assure relief measures and conditions of internal peace.” He blamed, not the Yalta agreement for the Sovietization of Eastern Europe, but the Russians for breaking the agreement. Many other “loopholes” nullified the whole declaration. In effect, the Western Powers were agreeing not to lift a finger for freedom in Eastern Europe without the consent of the Soviet Union. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, another participant at Yalta, saw through the sham of the Polish. He told Roosevelt, “it was so elastic that the Russians can stretch it al the way from Yalta to Washington without ever technically breaking it.”
The Yalta agreement also called for “complete disarmament, demilitarization and dismemberment of Germany,” as well as reparations “in kind.” The uprooting of millions of Germans and other Europeans as a result of Yalta decisions shocked many people, calling it “tragedy on a prodigious scale.”
Europe was only part of the stakes Stalin played at Yalta for furthering Soviet aims----the United Nations. What power the new organization might have had to check Communist malpractice in the post war world was rendered ineffective in advance by the Yalta decision to allow a veto in the UN Security Council voting. Stalin won getting the Soviets three votes in the General Assembly to one for the United States and England.
Those who view Yalta, as a disaster for the West was Roosevelt’s agreement when Stalin stated his price for entering the war against Japan.
a. Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands to be given to Stalin.
b. Darien was to be “Internationalized,” the interest of the Soviet Union in this port being safeguarded and the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base restored.
c. The Manchurian railroads providing an outlet to Darien were to be put under a joint Soviet-Chinese company. The status quo in Outer Mongolia, a Communist puppet state, was to be preserved.
Roosevelt’s wartime ambassador to China, Gen. Patrick Hurley, called the agreement a “blueprint for Communist conquest of China.” Joseph Crew, prewar ambassador to Japan, predicted that once Russia came into the Japanese war, “Mongolia, Manchuria, and Korea will gradually slip into Russia’s orbit, to be followed in due course by China and eventually Japan.”
Yalta critics contend these agreements were not necessary for two reasons:
1. Russia had previously promised to enter the Japanese war after Germany was defeated.
2. Russia’s help was not needed to defeat Japan.
Australian historian Chester Wilmot commented: “The real issue for the world and for the future was not what Stalin would or could have taken but what he was given the right to take. This agreement provided Stalin a moral cloak for his aggressive designs in Asia, and more important, with almost a legal title enforceable at the peace conference to the territories and privileges which he demanded.”
President Roosevelt lived only two months after the Yalta conference, but five subsequent Presidents for 25 years, wrestled with the realities of the agreements he had signed. That fateful conference turned out to be the blackest period of US diplomacy. Some had even thought that Roosevelt was too ill to comprehend Russian ambitions, and there were hints that pro-Soviet US advisers swayed the President’s thinking, and deepened the blame on Alger Hiss, who was a member of the US delegation and his subsequent conviction of perjury. Whether it was Yalta that set the events that still rock the world, or whether those events would have transpired anyway, is something that can never be known. But it is vividly clear that the United States paid too little attention to what would follow.
Yalta Summit 1945 Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin
Also present are Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andres Cunningham, RN, Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal RAF (both standing behind Churchill); and Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy USN (standing behind Roosevelt)
The US remained mostly in isolation as far as foreign policy was concerned, for more than a century--until World War I. Washington was hardly prepared for the decisions of Yalta, or for future global policies, as the country was concentrating on winning the war. Germany was defeated, France and England were virtually bankrupt, and the United States was making plans to “go home.”
The emerging super powers, England, the United States and Russia met between February 4th and 11th. Agreements made led to the Communist conquest of China, Manchuria and North Korea. Which reestablished Russia as a Far East power and a naval force in the North Pacific.
Poland, isolated from the Allies in West Europe, declared war on Hitler in 1939 to save herself, committed Warsaw to become a Moscow satellite, and therefore was cut off from the free world by more than 200 miles of Russian-occupied Germany territory that became known as East Germany, which sealed the division of Germany.
Other agreements made recognized Soviet preeminence in Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, and cleared the way for a Yugoslav government headed by Marshall Josip Broz Tito, who at that time was a loyal Moscow confederate.
The conference also handed Russia its veto powers in the United Nations by giving it three votes. For Stalin the prizes spread before him exceeded his fondest dreams. He realized the centuries-old Muscovite ambition of a series of vassal buffer states between the Russian Heartland, and the industrialized nations of Western Europe.
In return for a promise to enter the war against Japan after the German surrender, Stalin laid claim to Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, the ports of Port Arthur and Dairen and control of the Chinese eastern and south Manchurian railroad, which was to become the key to Mao Tse-tung’s conquest of Mainland China. Over this railroad Mao and his Russian allies moved the Japanese stockpile of Manchurian arms, bringing them to bear against Chiang Kai-sheck who by 1946 had been virtually deserted by the United States. In the Yalta agreements Stalin pledged Russia’s friendship to Chiang. Before FDR went to Yalta, a study was circulated among the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington on how to keep Russia out of the war.
Their conclusion was ignored, and Roosevelt, with thoughts that he needed Russia, went to Yalta preoccupied with the war against Japan, believed it could be long, hard, and quite expensive in American lives. The men, aware of the Manhattan atomic bomb project were deeply worried about the invasion of Japan. Orders already had been issued to prepare for landings in Japan in October 1945. Okinawa still lay ahead.
How much this concern--- FDR’s illness, Stalin’s relentless pressure, the isolationist history of the United States--- weighed on Yalta can only be conjectured. Many historians believe that Roosevelt was willing to make concessions to Stalin in the belief that he could later deal with any Russian crisis. Churchill obviously regarded Roosevelt’s health and personality as crucial factors in his decisions, but FDR did not live to test his skill.
Lord Moran, Churchill’s personal physician, in his diary wrote of a July 24, 1945 meeting at Potsdam between the British prime minister, Stalin, and now President Harry Truman recalled a sharp exchange between Stalin and Truman who flatly rejected Stalin’s demands for a colony in North Africa and joint control of the Dardanelle’s with Turkey. Moran had written: Tonight, when he was full of Truman praises, the P.M said: “If only this had happened at Yalta. It’s too late now.”
The next day British voters put the Laborite Party into power and Clement Attlee took Churchill’s place at Potsdam.
In 1970, looking back over the past 25 years, the problems of the post-war crisis that can be traced directly or indirectly to the Yalta conference were many:
- the Trieste tug-of-war,
- the many Berlin confrontations,
- the Greek civil war that brought the Truman Doctrine,
- the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia that made the North Atlantic Treaty Organization a necessity,
- the rebellion in Hungary, the radical communist sore caked Albania,
- the loss of China,
- the Korean conflict,
- the war in Vietnam, the long civil war in Malaysia,
- the rape of Tibet,
- the 10-year occupation of Austria,
- the threats to India, Burma, Thailand, and Indonesia;
- and the Soviet penetration of the Mediterranean and the Middle East can be traced directly back to that meeting in the Black Sea.
Would history have been different if Yalta never happened? No one will ever know because Yalta did happen!
Adapted by AA from Robert Betts’ articles written for Copley News Service, which appeared in the Shelby Daily Star during February 1970.
Dr A Ramin: With Reference to Töben’s 50 Days Jail October-November 2008
IRNA, Iran, October 29, 2008
"West's Treatment with Critics of Holocaust is Shameful."
"Those Who Claim There Was Mass Killing and Slaughter of Six Million Jews by Germans During WWII in Europe - Should Have At Least Appropriate Documents to Prove It"
"[The] persecution, conviction, and imprisonment of scientists and independent intellectuals [is] prevalent in the West, Secretary of World Foundation on Reviewing Holocaust Mohammad Ali Ramin said on Wednesday.
"Ramin said [that the] arrest of Fredrick Gerald Töben, in early October 2008 in London airport for criticizing the nature and effects of [the] Holocaust has worried the world['s] independent scholars and intellectuals.
"Dr. Töben is an independent researcher and thinker in the field of 'Contemporary History of Europe,' and also is the member of the International Fact-Finding Committee of Holocaust, and is the founder of 'World Foundation for Reviewing Holocaust' who believes just like others that Holocaust dossier should be re-examined and re-surveyed.
"Who should be condemned? Don't you think that those who claim there has been mass killing and slaughter of six million Jews by Germans during the Second World War in Europe should have at least appropriate documents to prove it? Or perhaps that the researchers and those who make interrogation and inquiries should be condemned or punished?
"Indeed, what was the crime of scholars and scientists such as Ernst Zuendel, David Irving, Prof. Robert Fourisson, Prof. Roger Garaudy, George Theil, Wolfgand Fröhlich, Gerald Hornish, Siegfried Verbeke, Horst Mahler, Vincent Reymouard, Juergen Graf, Fredrick Töben, Sylvia Stolz, Pedro Varela, Germar Rudolf, and... or other scholars, scientists, lawyers, people's representatives, and Western citizens? What exactly are the European politicians doing by expanding unfounded allegations and falsified and unsubstantiated ideas or preventing the expansion of any liberal ideas of researchers for finding the truths - except trying to encourage people to accept what they have quoted in the press and mass media regarding [the] Holocaust."
"Psychological War Against Those Who Seek [T]he Truths Regarding [The] Holocaust... Will Lead To Further Problems For Zionism?"
"Is it possible that by suppression of independent researchers and intellectuals, they try to pursue Western societies to accept the arbitrary and despotic claims concerning [the] Holocaust? Does this mean that by the dismissal of critic scientists and scholars from scientific centers or by discharge of liberal intellectuals from European judicial, executive and legislative powers who protest against Holocaust, all the claims concerning Holocaust could be true? Or will [this] create further stability for these countries?
"Don't you think that psychological war against those who seek [t]he truths regarding [the] Holocaust, or persecution, torture and trial of intellectuals, or arrest and imprisonment of political activists, and negation of those who protest against foreign domination over Europeans' destiny, will lead to further problems for Zionism? What is going on today in Germany, Austria, France, Belgium and Switzerland against truth-seeking individuals and people who fight 'Zionist Domination?' Nothing rather than creating fear. But this trend would further divert the 'detest against Israel Zionism dominating over Europe and America' towards 'detest against Jewish and Judaism.'"
"Is It Possible to Construct Prisons Worse than Guantanamo All Over Europe for Capturing Those Who Are Against [the] Domination of Israel and [the] U.S.?"
"According to the experiences of the last 3,000 years, these kinds of unpleasant acts will lead to further reactions of people against arrogant domineers and tyrannizes.
"Today, Fredrick Töben, who is Australian, would be arrested in London Airport and imprisoned for expressing his views about [the] Holocaust. So what would be the next reaction of liberal Europeans who are against [the] domination of America (the U.S) and Israel?
"Is it possible to construct prisons worse than Guantanamo all over Europe for capturing those who are against [the] domination of Israel and [the] U.S.?
"Is it possible to continue the political serial killings and massacre against opponents of American, Israeli and British domination? Particularly after [the] brutal assassination of Uwe Barschel (prime minister of the province of Schleswig Holstein), Petra Kelly, and General Gerd Bastain (founder of Germany's Green Party), Edwardo Aniely (Muslim martyr intellectual and son of an Italian capitalist), David Kelly (senior expert in the U.K.'s Ministry of War) and, recently, Joerg Haider (the national politician elected by the people of Austria).
"The silence of the press vis-à-vis the imprisonment of significant European scholars and intellectuals who are indeed trying to find the facts, such as Töben, Stols, Hornsik, Rudolf, Forehlich, [and] Zuendel, and [the] conviction of Garaudy, Faurisson, Verbeke, and Reynouard, and others, have made all the knowledgeable people worried regarding the continuation of these cruel acts."
"European Countries... Should Not Sacrifice Their Valuable Ideas Only for [the] Ill-Intended and Unreasonable Demands of the Zionists"
"The question is, if the European intellectuals are arrested and condemned only for expressing their ideas and thoughts, then what would be the conduct of European citizens in the future?
"Don't you think that as a result of these [instances of] suppression, severe punishment, despotism, oppression and assassination, there will be uprising and broad-based violations?
"The World Foundation on Reviewing Holocaust, while expressing its concern vis-à-vis all these events, recommends that all states, parliaments and judicial powers of European countries make their best efforts in order to preserve 'the main European values after medieval ages,' which are: 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of thought' and 'respect for human rights' and 'democracy.' They should not sacrifice their valuable ideas only for [the] ill-intended and unreasonable demands of the Zionists.
"The World Foundation requests all the politicians, judges, writers, intellectuals and European press to support the independent researchers and critics who follow the dossier of [the] Holocaust, vis-à-vis the accusations of the Zionists and their followers, and to help the International Fact Finding Committee find the truth."
Fredrick Töben: Holocaust Revisionism and 27 January 2009 Memorial Celebrations
On 1 November 2005 the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/7 established the 27 January Holocaust Memorial Day. It was on this day in 1945 that the Soviet Union's armed forces 'liberated' Auschwitz where alleged mass gassing of Jews took place.
We now know from Revisionist research that any gassing claims at the Auschwitz concentration camp is pure fiction, pure war-time propaganda. And yet the United Nations as a world body proclaimed that this day needs to be celebrated in order that future genocides do not occur.
In an interview in The Times, London, on August 29, 2001, it was eminent Jewish holocaust scholar and Albert Speer biographer, Gitta Sereny, who stated that Auschwitz 'was a terrible place but it was not an extermination camp'.
A year later, former Der Spiegel editor, Fritjof Meyer, in May 2002 stated in an eminent historical journal, Osteuropa, that there were no gassings at the Auschwitz concentration camps but that such gassings occurred outside the camp in two farmhouses referred to by Revisionists as Bunker I and Bunker II. Again, research has indicated that the existence of these two bunkers is pure fiction.
Then if we go back to 1996 and refer to Robert Jan van Pelt's and Deborah Dwork's work, Auschwitz: From 1270 to the present, we note at pp 363-64 a comment that states the alleged homicidal gas chambers shown to tourists at Auschwitz-Stammlager, or Auschwitz I, is actually a symbolic representation of the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Auschwitz II.
Add to that the Revisionist research about the numbers of alleged Auschwitz victims and we bump into the 1988 Zündel Toronto trial where information emerged that the to-date figure of four million on the twenty plaques at Auschwitz-Birkenau cannot be correct. The plaques were subsequently removed and then around 1993 replaced with a new figure: 1.-1.5 million.
One would have thought that such a significant reduction would also lead to a reduction in the total of alleged six million Jews killed during the Holocaust-Shoah. Not so! Why not?
Then add another fact, which emerged from the 1985 Zündel Toronto trial, at which Professor Raul Hilberg had to admit he had no proof that there were two written Hitler orders that began the extermination process, as he had written in his book, The Destruction of European Jews. Now these two orders referred to by all leading so-called Holocaust-Shoah scholars suddenly didn't exist. So much for rigorous cross-examination in court.
Professor Hilberg went on to explain to the court that the orders weren't really needed because the German people knew what their Führer, Adolf Hitler, wanted them to do - Hitler hated the Jews so much that all Germans knew his wishes, and so an incredible meeting of minds occurred and the bureaucratic machinery of extermination began to activate itself without an order.
Anyone familiar with any bureaucratic processes knows that this notion is pure fantasy, an outright lie!
UN Holocaust Memorial Day
Zündel, Rudolf, Stolz, Fröhlich, Honsik, among others who are currently in prison because they refuse to believe in the homicidal gassing story, are not helped when the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, proclaimed in his message for the second observance of the International Day in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust:
"The Holocaust was a unique and undeniable tragedy. Decades later, the systematic murder of millions of Jews and others retains its power to shock. The ability of the Nazis to command a following, despite their utter depravity, still strikes fear. And above all, the pain remains: for ageing survivors, and for all of us as a human family that witnessed a descent into barbarism.
The work of remembrance pays tribute to those who perished. But it also plays a vital role in our efforts to stem the tide of human cruelty. It keeps us vigilant for new outbreaks of anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. And it is an essential response to those misguided individuals who claim that the Holocaust never happened, or has been exaggerated.
The International Day in memory of the victims of the Holocaust is thus a day on which we must reassert our commitment to human rights. That cause was brutally desecrated at Auschwitz, and by genocides and atrocities since.
We must also go beyond remembrance, and make sure that new generations know this history. We must apply the lessons of the Holocaust to today's world. And we must do our utmost so that all peoples must enjoy the protections and rights for which the United Nations stands.
On this International Day, I reiterate my strong commitment to that mission, and call on all to join in our common quest for human dignity."
A Critical Look at the Holocaust
What's this about 'our common quest for human dignity'? Tell that to those languishing in prisons for refusing to believe without proof - those horrible claims that Germans systematically exterminated six million Jews.
And so it was with much delight and welcomed relief from this pure UN-sanctioned Holocaust puffery that I travelled to Teheran where this so-called 27 January liberation day was turned into a real remembrance event - the celebration of the Palestinian struggle for the liberation of Al Quds - or also known as Jerusalem.
The Association for Liberation of Holy Quds
http://www.hamyanequds.ir/indexen.html and NEDA Institute for Scientific-Political Research
http://www.nedains.com/index.php combined to host an event at the Sharif University of Technology in Tehran called:
'Holocaust? A Sacred Lie by the West'.
The conference was introduced by a reading of a message from the Iranian President, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who made the following important points:
1. "A glance at the events following World War II shows that the issue of the Holocaust and the exaggerated way in which it was recounted was a pretext to continue and expand the domination of the victors, particularly the U.S. and Britain, in the international arena."
2. "The illegitimate Zionist regime is an outcome of the Holocaust. While many people from the nations died in World War II - and it has been mentioned that 65 million people were killed - a political and power-seeking network claimed to be the advocate for one group of the victims, and sought reparations for their blood. [This network] ruled that the survivors of this particular group of victims must receive compensation - and part of this compensation was to establish the Zionist regime in the land of Palestine."
3. "It is the very advocates of liberal democracy who defend the Holocaust, who have sanctified it to the point where none may enter. Breaking the padlock of the Holocaust and re-examining it will be tantamount to cutting the vital arteries of the Zionist regime. It will destroy the philosophical foundation and raison d'être of this regime."
4. "The consequences and repercussions of the Holocaust are, in fact, far greater than this. Today the Zionists dominate many of the world's centers of power, wealth, and media. Unfortunately, they have ensnared many politicians and parties, and they are plundering the wealth and assets of nations in this way, depriving peoples of their freedoms and destroying their cultures and human values by spreading their nexus of corruption."
5. "I invite the dear researchers, intellectuals, young people and students, who are the trailblazers, to re-examine not only the Holocaust, but also its consequences and aftermath and inform others of their studies and research. Let us not forget that more than ever before, the Zionist network, which came up with the issue of the Holocaust, must be exposed, and be presented to the peoples as it really is."
6. "I express my gratitude to all the organizers of this conference and thank all the researchers and authors who have worked in this field and are publishing their valuable works on this topic. Be victorious."
This kind of historical thinking by the Iranian president is heavy and powerful, and so I had no problem in supporting him in my talk to a number of groups that I addressed. I stressed that those who believe in the Holocaust-Shoah are directly responsible for what, in particular, happened over the Christmas-New Year 22-day period in Palestine when the Talmudic-Zionist forces of the Jewish State of Israel massacred defenceless Palestinians.
The English edition of a Holocaust cartoons book was launched and both the student artist, who created the cartoons, and I were presented with certificates of appreciation.
The various speakers then addressed the gathering and I essentially repeated what I had said at the early morning press conference.
During my press conference held at 8:30 am at NEDA Institute, the foremost Iranian Holocaust research centre, I pointed out that the upcoming Durban II conference in Switzerland in April 2009 aims to enshrine in the final protocol a firm reference about the Holocaust-Shoah being an historical event that is not to be questioned or doubted in any way.
This was the thrust at the January 2009 Geneva, Switzerland, meeting of the UN 'Durban II Planning Committee', of which Syria and Iran are members, where the following ensued:
The European Union, speaking as one voice, wished to have an additional paragraph entered:
"Recalls and urges states to implement UN General Assembly Resolution 60/7 and 61/255 which observe that remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide; condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust; and urge all member states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event either in full or in part, or in any activities."
To this Iran objected in the following terms:
"There is a notion inside this paragraph where there is talk about condemning without reservation any denial of holocaust. This entails with it explicit restriction on elaboration and review, or critical examination and review and study of holocaust - which is a very clear example of a violation of freedom of expression, a fundamental principle right for a democratic society. We suggest the deletion of his paragraph."
I mentioned that after Durban I concluded on 7 September 2001 Israel stood condemned as a European colonial, apartheid, Zionist, racist and terrorist entity. It was four days later that 911 occurred and Israel was rehabilitated and the Muslim world, Islam stood condemned as a terrorist religion. We now know that 911 was an insider job designed to set up a new dialectic process that aims to establish a New World Order.
It seems obvious that the Holocaust-Shoah is designed to serve as a unifying principle for this new world order, which appears to be not coming together as smoothly as the Anglo-American-Zionist forces had expected it would. After all, it was the Iranian president who pointed out the fact that in many western democracies anything may be questioned, even the existence of God, but nothing must be questioned about the Holocaust.
I pointed out it is specifically from Iran that we have these definitive impulses of free expression concerning historical debates and that this for me is a good sign. After all, I concluded, where a host in his introduction of a guest insults the guest before that guest has an opportunity to addresses the meeting, then that is a true sign of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. This is what happened to President Ahmadinejad when he accepted an invitation to address Columbia University and its president, Bollinger, insulted him in no uncertain terms.
It was good again to meet up with the Director of NEDA, Dr Amad Soroush Nejad, whom I have known for many years. His emphasis on pure research has given him a deep understanding of the political implications the Holocaust-Shoah has for the Middle East as a whole.
Interestingly, two hours after we ended the conference it was Israel Radio that mentioned my attendance at the Teheran conference. On the same day it was also reported that a government spokesman, Gholam Hossein Elham, told a conference in the Holy City of Qom, “The Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world”.
Vatican: Bishop must recant Holocaust denial, Wed February 4, 2009
ROME, Italy — The Vatican says it has ordered a controversial bishop who denies The Holocaust to "distance himself" from his views "in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner."
In the interview, Bishop Williamson denied the Nazis had used gas chambers at concentration camps.
The Vatican has been under fire since Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson almost two weeks ago, days after Swedish Public Television broadcast an interview in which Williamson said the Nazis had not systematically murdered 6 million Jews during World War II.
Israel Wednesday blasted the rehabilitation of Williamson.
"The reinstatement of a Holocaust denier by the Holy See offends every Jew, in Israel and around the world, and humiliates the memory of all Holocaust victims and survivors," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
It said the Church's distancing itself from Williamson's position was "the first step in the right direction" and said it expected "more explicit and unequivocal decisions and statements on this issue."
Israel's statement appears to have been made before the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said Williamson would not be allowed to perform priestly functions if he did not recant.
Williamson's position on The Holocaust is "absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the pope," Bertone said.
He added that Williamson's views on the Holocaust "were unknown to the Holy Father at the time of the excommunication's remission."
Williamson was rehabilitated on January 21 along with three other members of the ultra-conservative Society of Saint Pius X. The move was announced three days later. Bertone's order comes only two days after he declared the matter "closed."
"The Society of Saint Pius X has distanced itself from its bishop and apologized to the pope for this embarrassing incident. The pope spoke clearly on Wednesday (January 28). I think the question can be considered closed," Bertone, said, according the Catholic daily Avvenire Tuesday.
But on Tuesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel demanded that the pope firmly reject denial of The Holocaust.
Earlier on Wednesday, a German district attorney said he had launched a criminal investigation into Williamson's remarks.
"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against — is hugely against — 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," Williamson said in the Swedish interview, which also appeared on various Web sites after broadcast. "I believe there were no gas chambers."
Regensburg District Attorney Guenther Ruckdaeschel said authorities were investigating whether the remarks can be considered "inciting racial hatred." Denying The Holocaust is a crime in Germany, punishable by up to five years in prison.
American Jewish leaders have also expressed outrage that Williamson, who was excommunicated in 1988, was welcomed back to the church days after the interview.
Williamson and three other bishops who belong to the Society of Saint Pius X were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988. The society was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve, who rebelled against the Vatican's modernizing reforms in the 1960s, and who consecrated the men in unsanctioned ceremonies.
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said when the controversy erupted that the Vatican's decision to accept Williamson was part of its desire to normalize relations with the ultra-conservative group, and had nothing to do with the bishop's personal views.
Ruckdaeschel decided to launch his investigation in Regensburg because the Williamson interview was conducted at a seminar of the Society of Saint Pius X, of which Williamson is a member, in the nearby town of Zaitzkofen.
Ruckdaeschel told CNN that a legal representative for Williamson contacted him and said the bishop denied the allegations.
Williamson apologized last week for the "distress" his remarks caused the pope, but did not retract them.
According to the legal representative's account, Williamson had told the Swedish reporters he did not want the interview aired outside Sweden — and therefore, the remarks would not fall under German criminal law.
According to the German criminal code, comments glorifying or denying crimes committed by the Nazis, or National Socialists, are a crime only if they are made publicly.
Ruckdaeschel says he will attempt to question the two Swedish reporters who conducted the interview. He said it was unlikely Williamson would have to appear in court because he is currently in Argentina, but the bishop may be required to submit a written statement in the case.
The pope — who was born in Germany and was a child during the Nazi period — rejected Holocaust denial in public statements on January 28.
After his 14th birthday in 1941, Benedict — then called Joseph Ratzinger — was forced along with the rest of his class in Bavaria, southern Germany, to join the Hitler Youth. However his biographer John Allen Jr., said Ratzinger's family was strongly anti-Nazi.
Wiesenthal Center skeptical Nazi doctor is dead
February 5, 2009, JERUSALEM (JTA)
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has doubts about reports that a wanted Nazi doctor is dead, according to reports.The New York Times and German television station ZDF reported Wednesday that Aribert Heim, known by the moniker "Dr. Death," hid for 30 years in Cairo using the name Tarek Hussein Farid and died there of cancer in 1992.
Heim is said to have killed hundreds of concentration camp inmates by injecting gasoline into their hearts. He also documented surgeries performed without anesthesia. Efraim Zuroff, director of the Wiesenthal Center's Israel office, told several news outlets Thursday that the human rights and Nazi-hunting organization is skeptical that the Nazi criminal is dead, since no body or gravesite have been produced and because the family has expressed a desire to put the case to rest.
From: Steven Vetter firstname.lastname@example.org, Sent: Monday, 26 January 2009 3:01 PM
My hat is off to you, Mr. Töben!
You've freed yourself from the clutches of U.K. zionists and their colluders, and for that fact all of us owe a toast to you and Revisionism! While I'm not a religious man, I see reasons to hope, knowing full well how right you are when you say that we just ain't got the political clout. I've not read Zündel, but I'm familiar with his plight. I know you still face whatever charges, but you have escaped his lengthy ordeal. May we see Ernst home here soon.
The US patriot Ben Franklin supposedly once said something to the effect that "if we don't all hang together we shall all hang separately."
While we might not all believe in precisely the same thing, it would do us well to heed this message.
If you are ever around Boise, Idaho, U.S.A., I'd be happy to offer you any help you might need. Thanks so much for the Hello! Most Sincerely, Steve Vetter
From: "Adelaide Institute"
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:58 PM
What you, Mr Vetter, write makes sense - the problem may be solved when Germar Rudolf emerges from prison in another 6-7 months. He was the powerhouse of Revisionism, living on a shoestring and publishing books, etc. – though now he is a family man. His 'Lectures on the Holocaust' says it all. Revisionists have won the argument on paper but we just ain't got the political clout.
Cheers, Fredrick Töben
From: Joseph Garrick email@example.com
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2009 7:22 AM
Subject: Dr Tobin's proposed visit to Germany
Dr Tobin has no chance of receiving anything remotely resembling justice if he voluntarily returns to Germany in the unrealistic expectation that he will be afforded a "fair" trial!!!!
If he sets foot in Germany he will be facing a show trial that has already decided on his sentence and "proved" his "guilt"!
Stay away from Germany, you will lose and the universal effort to alert the world to the fact that Israel dictates what the world is allowed to believe, see, hear and say will be weakened!!! You can do more outside of prison than you can accomplish incarcerated. Swallow your pride and seek refuge in another country, consider for example, Iran.
This is no longer about freedom of speech but about being able to exercise the intellectual right to freely subject anything purported to be an historical event to critical analysis and examination!
One by one the lights of freedom of thought is going out country by country! Australia was also a free country in the early seventies. Do not go to Germany!!!!!!!!!!!
Landgericht [Regional State Court] Mannheim
Landgericht Mannheim * A1* 68159 Mannheim
Mr. Dr. Gerald Fredrick Toben Date 27 January 2009
23 Caloroga Street Reference number 6 Kls 503 Js 9551/99
Adelaide (Always mention please)
Australia Your reference
Telephone (direct) 0049621 2922668
RE: Criminal matter against you
on account of suspicion of incitement to hatred and violence against segments of the
population or publishing insults against them in such a manner as to endanger the
peace or to expose them to scorn or contempt (Volksverhetzung) and other charges
Reference: Your e-mail message dated 13 January 2009 to the Prosecutor's Office in
Mannheim to Mr. Grossmann and judges Adam und Schmetzer
Dear Mr. Toben:
Your letter dated 13 January 2009 has been forwarded to me in a German translation. Although the letter was not addressed to me personally, I am responding to you, since I am the presiding judge of the criminal division in charge of the criminal matter against you.
The subject of your letter deals primarily with the proceeding on account of which the European arrest warrant was issued, resulting in your temporary arrest in Great Britain.
In the proceeding pending against you before the Grand Criminal Division (Große Strafkammer) - court file number 6 KLs 503 Js 9551/99 - the execution of the arrest warrant issued by the Amtsgericht flocal state court] Mannheim dated 3 May 1999 (42 Gs 1020/99) was reinstated by order of the criminal division dated 20 January 2006.
This arrest warrant is the basis upon which you are wanted. However, this search is conducted on a national level only. A European arest warrant has not been issued against you in this matter.
A motion for suspending the execution of this arrest warrant was not filed by you in your letter dated 13 January 2009.
ln my opinion, there are no circumstances evident, which might permit the suspension of the arrest warrant in favour of less severe measures.
Your announcement that you would possibly travel to Mannheim, surrender and stand trial does not provide sufficient reason for such less severe measures.
The current state of affairs does not offer a sufficient guarantee that you, having absconded from German justice thus far, would keep yourself at this court's disposal for the criminal proceeding and possible execution of a sentence against you in the event of your voluntary entry into the Federal Republic of Germany - after lifting or suspending the arrest warrant.
ln view of the prison sentence imposed in the Zündel case - which sanction you would also be facing in the event of your sentencing, based upon the current state of this matter - there is a risk that you will attempt to flee from the current criminal proceeding against you.
Therefore, I will intensify all measures to have you searched for throughout Europe and to have you apprehended. Upon your entry into the Federal Republic of Germany, you can expect to be arrested.
The Presiding Judge: Certified
Dr. Meinezhagen Sosgornik, Employee of the Court
Presiding Judge at the Landgericht As registrar of the administrative offices
[Regional State Court] of the court
Dienstgebäude: A1, Telefon: ((06 21 ))292-0, Telefax: (06 21)292-131 4
Bankverbindung: Landesoberkasse Baden-Württemberg, Baden-Württembergische Bank Karlsruhe (BLZ 600 501 01) Konto Nr. 749 553 0504
Bei Überweisungen bitte obiges Aktenzeichen und Dienststellen-Nr. 607 501 angeben.
Top | Home
©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute