Revisionismo

[Harm Wulf]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA REGISTRY
NSD 327 of 2001
On appeal from The Honourable Justice Lander

BETWEEN
GERALD FREDRICK TÖBEN
Appellant
JEREMY JONES
Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF APPELLANT

On 25 May 2008 I, Gerald Fredrick Töben, retired teacher and pensioner, .... in the State of South Australia, MAKE OATH AND SAY -

1. I am the Appellant in these proceedings. I desire to refer to my previous Affidavits sworn 27 and 28 April 2009.

2. Since I and a group of individuals in 1994 began this non-profitable enterprise, Adelaide Institute, I have always been ready to augment, correct and delete material and offer an apology, especially if any of it in tone is jarring, rude and crude. But if material is factually correct, then there is no reason for being apologetic because this would compromise my moral and intellectual integrity.

3. I believe that it is my God-given right and duty to pursue the truth of a matter and to think about contentious versions of history.

4. When on 26 November 2007 at around 7 pm I received per email the draft of the Consent Orders, my focus on the actual Apology - as discussed with my then court-appointed barrister - rested on C of the Branson J Orders of 27 September 2002. I agreed that an article, under Order C, requested to be removed was indeed somewhat rude and crude, but I had prepared myself to defend the Allegation that I was in breach of Order A, B and D, which the barrister had accepted. The next morning at the FCA Adelaide, before signing the Consent Orders, my barrister and I again canvassed the matter and I understood that a blanket general apology would settle the matter, and at a later stage in future proceedings the specific orders could be challenged and varied. Hence my initial hesitation, as indicated at Line 30 of the Transcript of Proceedings of 27 November 2007, when offering the Apology to His Honour, Justice Michael Moore, who then demanded I give an unqualified apology to the court.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Filed by Dr G F Töben
fredricktoben@y7mail.com

Wattle Park 5066
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

5. On 21 December 2007 I completed the deletion of all the material complained of, except for that mentioned in 1. of the Consent Orders of 27 November 2007 because I realized that under 1. of the Consent Orders the Applicant was granted leave to rely on the Second Further Amendment Statement of Charge filed on 3 November 2007. Therein the material listed for deletion is a LINK on our Internet website. I considered the removal of links from Adelaide Institute’s website not part of the Consent Order, and hence did not delete the link – all material on Adelaide Institute’s website was removed by me at midnight on 16 April 2009, the day on which Lander J handed down his judgment.

6. At the 19 December 2007 hearing His Honour, Michael Moore, stated that my belief/world view was not in question, but that the apology focused on specific material deemed to be offensive and published on Adelaide Institute’s. At his hearings, Justice Lander insisted that ‘whether the Holocaust happened or not’ was not for him to find out.

7. I am aware that the views which I hold are contrary to those held by the majority of people in Australia, and by those who adhere to mainstream views in Australia. Further, I am aware that my views are those of a heretic and a dissident: for some time the website included in its home page -
"This is a REVISIONIST - DISSIDENT - HERETIC -WEBSITE"
I believe that it was appropriate so to descibe my views. There is no reason to suppose that my views are based, in any way, on hate: they are not. The notion that my views are based on hate, or that I hate the applicant or those he represents, is false: it appears that that notion is based on stereotyping.
I maintain that a democratic society necessarily involves the right to express views which are unpopular, and that it should not follow that because I may have views considered heretical to existing authority, that I should be placed, effectively, outside the polity.

8. Throughout my life I have maintained diaries, and on historical matters relating to the Holocaust, I have always attempted to present a rational and open argument as would suit a global civilized debate. I have always attempted to express and present my views in a manner which is consistent with my life as a teacher, and with my own philosophical and academic background. On some occasions I have employed the language of persuasion [rhetoric] those occasions have been entirely within an academic/didactic context.

9. Bearing in mind the comments made by His Honour, Justice Moore, at the 19 December 2007 hearing as regards my beliefs/world view not being subject of the Consent Orders, I am still having considerable difficulties deciding what is permitted and what is not permitted to be published on Adelaide Institute’s Internet website. If my belief, which His Honour labelled ‘Holocaust denial’, is not in contention then surely I am able to state: “I would rather be a Holocaust denier than a Holocaust liar!” My whole belief system is inadequately attended to and inadequately defined in the Orders of the Honourable Justice Branson of 17 September 2002.

10. The Respondent, Mr. Jones, from the outset of these proceedings - first before HREOC in 1996 and subsequently in the FCA, until to date - has never shown any preparedness to conciliate.

11. The conceptual confusion flowing from Branson J’s Orders and from the Consent Orders is designed to neutralize my mind and “to stop it from functioning”. I do not wish to be in breach of any Court Orders but I resist such an act of mental rape, and submitted for His Honour’s consideration, as an example of my attempt to escape this act of mental rape, the following newsletters wherein the essence of my belief system/world view is clearly articulated and vigorously canvassed by experts in the field of historical research: No 368, 369, 370, 371.


12. The matter before the Federal Court involves creating a legal orthodoxy out of holocaust history. The created orthodoxy is that against which I am a heretic. I maintain that the creation of such orthodoxy is contrary to my right to hold opinions and express them, and is contrary to the right to communicate concerning political matters. The relevant political matters include matters of external affairs and foreign affairs [international politics in which Australia is involved]. I do not now approve of, espouse, or incite, nor have I ever approved of, espoused, or incited, violence or hatred.

13. The following is a list of organisations with which I have had dealings:

13.1 Adam Internet – Adelaide-based Internet service provider, has since 1 May 1996 hosted Adelaide Institute’s website – without complaint. The provider has received death threats for refusing to disconnect Adelaide Institute’s website, and management continues to host the website because it considers the material on Adelaide Institute’s website to be covered by the democratic principles of free expression. Were Adelaide Institute to dabble in pornography, the site would have been pulled a long time ago.

13.2 South Australia Police – has not complained and does not regard Adelaide Institute’s activities as being detrimental to the community.

13.3 Australian Federal Police – has not complained and does not regard Adelaide Institute’s activities to be a national community threat – had there been weapons and drug involvement, then criminal proceedings would have been initiated a long time ago.

13.4 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - ASIO – has not complained and does not regard Adelaide Institute’s activities to be an Australian national security threat.

13.5 Australia’s education institutions – I opposed the introduction of ideological concepts such as ‘value-free’ and ‘non-judgmental’ because they signified intellectual fraud: I believe it is impossible for education and society generally to function in the absence of value judgments. These concepts, among others, were then coupled to the anti-discrimination industry’s attempt to neutralise thinking processes, thereby suppressing within individuals a healthy development of a normative value system. Truth, honour, justice – are concepts that have no home within the discrimination industry’s value system.

13.6 The Australian Print Media – initially the local, state and national print media outlets supported Töben’s educational endeavours, but not the substantive issue surrounding the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. In fact, the media hate incitement against Fredrick Töben and Adelaide Institute was not absolute and there were instances of fair reporting. The Murdoch press unashamedly used one or more of the following concepts to whip up hatred against Adelaide Institute or Fredrick Töben: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi, etc. A ban imposed on Töben to a right-of-reply exists to this day at The Australian and The Advertiser newspapers. The Internet, however, offers Töben Natural Justice by enabling him to respond to any such attacks by placing material on Adelaide Institute’s website. It would be an injustice were this avenue of a right-of-reply taken from Töben.

14. The legal system - The initiating complaint came from Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in Los Angeles, USA. The respondent, Jeremy Jones, informed the HREOC and the Federal Court that the material “hurt” his feelings.

14.1 The Honourable Justice Lander at 24 of his 13 May 2009 Reasons for Judgment designates Jews as a race. This characterisation aligns with that of German National Socialist thinking, which determined that being Jewish was a matter of race. I contend that in fact being Jewish is a matter of religion.

14.2 The Honourable Justice Lander, at 28, 53 and 54 of his 13 May 2009 Reasons for Judgment takes issue with my statement “Do I Tell the Truth or Do I Obey the Law” as elicited under cross examination. I did try to explain to the court that my position is [both] to tell the truth and to obey the law because this is based on the life-giving Hegelian dialectic process, while the ‘only Obey the law’ process is based on the death-bringing/killing of the soul Talmudic/Marxist dialectic process. The analysis of these dialectics and my views about them are part of my strongly held personal philosophy.

14.3 The Honourable Justice Lander, at 64.ff of his 13 May 2009 Reasons for Judgment states that for him an important consideration was “whether the contemnor has purged his contempt and is truly contrite.” He does not acknowledge the fact that I deleted more material than I had to – wiping the whole content of the website – in 2000 after the HREOC decision and in 2002 after the FCA judgment, and that I deleted all material agreed upon in November 2007 – but not the link because this was not part of the agreement made before Justice Moore.
I respectfully say that I believe that it was unreasonable that the Honourable Justice Lander characterised my actions as having been done only under legal advice when I went to some length to explain to His Honour that I do not operate under such a dialectic process.

14.4 At p23 of the Transcript of Proceedings, 28 April 2009, the matter of truth-telling continues where His Honour attempts to re-question Töben on matters canvassed earlier by Margo:

HIS HONOUR: Well, I’ll put the - I think I can remember the question.
Is it not the case, Dr Töben, that if you are obliged to comply with the order of Branson J and honour the undertaking you gave to Moore J, you would not be able to tell the truth, as you understand the truth?
Töben: I have problems understanding what that question actually implies or even if it states that if I follow the orders

His Honour: Are you saying you can’t understand the question?
Töben: I’m having problems

His Honour: Are you saying you can’t understand the question?
Töben: Because what I

His Honour: No, is that what you’re saying? You can’t understand it?
Töben: I’m trying to follow what you’re saying.

His Honour: No, no, I’m just asking you. Can you not understand the question? You can say yes or no to that?
Töben: I would like to hear it again. I can’t

His Honour: Well, I’ll ask the question again, but if you can’t understand, say so. The question that Mr Margo asked, and I’m paraphrasing, is that if you complied with the order that Branson J made on 22 September 2007, and honour the undertaking you gave to Moore J on 27 November 2007, you would thereby be debarred from telling the truth, as you understand it. Do you accept that proposition? Now, if you don’t understand the question, say so?

Töben: It’s raising so many issues. I’m just thinking that to obey – I’ve tried to. For example, I’m locked in to tell the truth and obey the law and therefore I’m trying to.

His Honour: It’s not – the question - the question is not about whether you are complying with the orders. The question is if you do comply with the orders you are not able to tell the truth as you understand it. Do you accept the proposition?

Töben: Are you saying – using the quotation marks Holocaust, I would be in the situation where I would be in Germany. Are you saying that? Where the legal system prevents me from doubting, from expressing public doubt, from asking questions? Are you – in what you’ve just said, are you implying that this is the effect of Branson Js order?

His Honour: No. I think that implicit in Mr Margo’s question is this, that if you have to comply with her Honour’s orders, and the undertaking you gave to Moore J, you are thereby prevented from telling the truth about the Holocaust. That is your position, is it not?

Töben: This – I can’t see that it’s an either/or case.

His Honour: Very well?

Töben: I follow the orders and I must not tell the truth. I see that our justice system – we have moral, legal and social duties, your Honour, and I am

His Honour: I’m just doing my best to put Mr Margo’s question, but I’m not doing it so well, apparently, but I’ll try it once more. Mr Margo’s question is, if you are obliged to comply with Branson Js orders and honour the undertaking given to Moore J, you are thereby prevented from telling the truth about the Holocaust, as you understand the truth. Isn’t that your position?

Töben: I don’t think it is

His Honour: Okay. That’s fine, thank you?

Töben: because, if I may add?

His Honour: Yes?

Töben: Because the way I understand the law. As I said, we have moral, legal and social duties, basic citizen rights and so on, and therefore it is my duty to tell the truth as it is, within the law, within legal constraints, and I’ve tried that for these last seven years or whatever. I’ve tried that to the best of my ability.

His Honour: Yes. Yes, I’m sorry, Mr Margo.

Margo: Thank you for that, sir.
Dr Töben, you say you’ve been trying for the last seven years, but the court has found that you’ve failed. And you said in you most recent affidavit that you accepted that you had brought the administration of justice into disrepute, or words to that effect, or undermined its standing. How do you reconcile the findings of ?

Töben: Mr Margo, I will

Margo: How do you reconcile those findings with your intention, as I understand it, to continue telling the truth, despite the orders?

Töben: Very easy, Mr Margo. I have not had any legal counsel, as you know, throughout these years, and I’ve now had Mr Perkins’ legal advice and I’m being guided by Mr Perkins. I - as you know, I enrolled in the University of Adelaide law course and I failed Commissioner McEvoy’s subject and all that. Law is not easy for me. My discipline is philosophy, asking questions, difficult questions, and therefore, I have now, without hesitation, signed this affidavit, which Mr Perkins and I formulated which, on his advice, I’ve accepted.

Margo: Well, do you accept now that if you obey the orders of Branson J and honour your undertakings to Moore J, you may not publish on your web site what you regard as the truth about the Holocaust, namely that it didn’t happen?

Töben: Mr Margo, in the affidavit I ask that I be supervised by the court or by you or the executive of Australian Jewry



15. The above matter indicates there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole legal proceedings against me. It cannot be in any way the intention of the court to deny an Australian citizen to right to free expression, to have and express an opinion about any matter.








Sworn by Deponent

at Adelaide

on the 25th day of May 2009


…………………………..
Deponent’s Signature





Before me:……………………………

[Harm Wulf]

Andrea Carancini

domenica 24 maggio 2009
La proposta di Fritz Berg



Invece di definirci come “negazionisti dell’Olocausto” o come “revisionisti dell’Olocausto”, suggerirei di definirci “negazionisti della MISTIFICAZIONE dell’Olocausto”.

Io sono un negazionista della MISTIFICAZIONE dell’Olocausto perché non c’è uno straccio di prova che anche una sola persona sia mai stata uccisa dai nazisti in camere a gas o in camion a gas. Le dicerie sulle gasazioni sono spazzatura bella e buona – e le persone che difendono una tale spazzatura non sanno di cosa stanno parlando. Costoro non sono in grado di fornire teorie scientificamente valide su come le mitiche camere a gas potessero funzionare.

Se qualcuno riesce a trovare un’immagine di un cadavere qualsiasi trovato in un posto qualsiasi dei territori occupati dai tedeschi, con le prove forensi che la persona in questione è stata uccisa mediante gas tossico o mediante veleno, chiuderò il mio sito web. Se qualcuno riesce a identificare anche un solo ebreo, per nome e cognome, con la prova documentaria di un qualunque documento tedesco, che l’ebreo in questione è stato ucciso mediante gas tossico o mediante veleno, chiuderò il mio sito web.

Friedrich Paul Berg

Il sito di F. Berg: Friedrich Paul Berg's "NaziGassings.com"

[Harm Wulf]

Andrea Carancini

Le sorti di Fredrick Töben e dell'Adelaide Institute





Il revisionista australiano Fredrick Töben, recentemente condannato a tre mesi di carcere, comparirà davanti alla Corte Federale di Adelaide il prossimo 27 Maggio per un ultimo ricorso (che sembra destinato a fallire). E’ molto probabile, in effetti, che verrà imprigionato alla fine della detta udienza. Ma durante i tre mesi di carcere, l’Adelaide Institute (Australia's Democracy put to the test ) non cesserà le sue attività.

A partire dal 13 Maggio il nuovo direttore, Peter Hartung, continuerà l’opera revisionista di Töben e avrà cura di trasmettere al prigioniero la corrispondenza a lui inviata. Sulla decisione del giudice contro l’imputato, ecco il comunicato inviato alla stampa da Peter Hartung lo scorso 13 Maggio:

“La condanna di oggi alla prigione è una grande vittoria per la verità. Essa dimostra che un normale dibattito accademico sulle ricerche del dr. Töben, riguardanti le presunte camere a gas di Auschwitz, è impossibile. Il signor Jeremy Jones, sedicente rappresentante della comunità ebraica australiana, ha speso più di 220.000 dollari [australiani] per danneggiarlo, utilizzando in maniera abusiva e scandalosa il sistema giudiziario. Il dr. Töben ha dimostrato di essere un uomo di grande integrità: non si piegherà e neanche la prigione lo farà ritrattare. Il sito dell’Adelaide Institute continuerà a funzionare normalmente nel corso della sua assenza”.

Peter Hartung
Direttore ad interim
Adelaide Institute

[Harm Wulf]

Cultrura - Rubrica delle Edizioni di Ar | Murray Rothbard sul revisionismo

Murray Rothbard sul revisionismo
“[...] Tutto questo deve insegnarci il revisionismo. Poiché esso si fonda su verità e lucidità. Sempre, verità e lucidità sono le prime vittime di ogni agitazione bellica; e sono pure, perciò, una merce eccezionalmente rara nello ’spaccio’ attuale. Il revisionismo introduce nell’agitarsi della quotidianità e della propaganda effimera, la fredda, ma pure gloriosa, luce della verità della storia. E il mondo di oggi ne ha un bisogno quasi disperato.”

Chi ‘ingenuamente’ ragiona, qui, non è il professor Mattogno, né uno sfegatato propugnatore dell’innocenza ariana. E’ un economista ebreo, cresciuto nel Bronx e noto al mondo per la sua teoria dell’anarco-capitalismo: Murray Rothbard. Severo analista dell’arroganza statunitense e diagnostico attento del “totalitarismo democratico”, Rothbard non tollera l’ipocrisia della versione ufficiale dei casi del Novecento. Non ammette che il gran parlare di un crimine dei crimini, l’Olocausto, possa in realtà servire da cortina di fumo per coprire le fregole attuali di possesso planetario. La sua utopia di una tenzone economica completamente libera, e limpida come un “gioco di signori”, non può che inorridire al solo figurarsi velleità di concorrenza sleale. L’invito allora è: ci si batta - anzi, forse è più proprio dire: ci si misuri - schiettamente. Rothbard lo rivolge a chi abbia ancora un po’ di buon gusto da portare almeno nell’arena del mercato. Il suo naso di razza non ha mancato di suggerirgli che pure il liberismo è nulla senza la libertà, come nulla è l’uomo se disonorato.

[Harm Wulf]

Graf Il gigante con i piedi di argilla

Civium Libertas: Graf: “Il gigante dai piedi di argilla” - Mattogno: “Raul Hilberg e i «centri di sterminio» nazionalsocialisti”

[Harm Wulf]

ROBERT FAURISSON: Lettre de François Brigneau à Robert Faurisson au sujet d’"En confidence / Entretien avec l’Inconnue"

[Harm Wulf]

Points of Law – Adelaide Institute comments



Dr Töben’s endeavour of telling the truth about the so-called ‘Holocaust’, among other things, and the consequences he took into account for insisting that it is his moral duty to tell the truth, have been variously interpreted – often revealing more about the writers’ state of mind than about what Töben’s world view is all about.

One such article appeared in Adelaide’s The Advertiser on 26 May 2009. Written by a John Goldberg, president of the Law Society of South Australia, it clearly illustrates a mind that finds itself in a conceptual prison, and is not comfortable with itself. It is the soul destroying Talmudic-Marxist mindset that cannot imagine anything outside of its own dialectic process, and hence any kind of idealism is interpreted through the infantile eyes of Freudian psychology. In Töben’s case, so Goldberg contends, the matter is simple – he wants to be a martyr. But this is an easy way out of a huge moral dilemma, which the following fact: the truth concept is the foundation on which civilisations rest because without it we have no trust, and without trust relationships break down, and a one-dimensional world appears in the form of the legal conceptual prison.

For example if a dialectic is set that states the following moral dilemma: ‘Do I tell the truth or do I obey the law’, the Talmudist would fall into a frenzy and ramble on: “…obey the law, obey the law, obey the law…”.

The life-giving dialectic process of German philosopher Hegel would state the following: “I tell the truth AND obey the law’.

All this is nothing new for civilized individuals. Was it not Christ who rebelled against the Talmudic mindset by bringing in the truth-telling moral dimension, thereby eliminating an absolutist/unbalanced and materialistic-only world view?

Here is John Goldberg’s article:





Going to jail the hard way

By Guest Columnist John Goldberg, May 24, 2009 110pm



ONE of the great privileges we enjoy in Australia is freedom of speech. We are able to speak and write publicly and freely on almost any topic. No rights, however, come without restriction, and freedom of speech is no exception.

Apart from defamation laws that protect damage to reputation, there are other things that you cannot do in the name of free speech. An often-quoted example is falsely calling out "fire" in a crowded cinema or nightclub. Australia, in common with many countries, has an additional restraint on free speech.

Under the Racial Discrimination Act, it is unlawful to communicate words, sounds, images or writing to the public if they are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group and it is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or people.

This is described as racial vilification. Although racial vilification is unlawful, it is not a criminal offence. I now turn to the curious case of Dr Fredrick Töben. He is, or was, a director of the so-called Adelaide Institute and is a German-born Australian and a serial Holocaust denier. He has just been sentenced to three months' imprisonment by the Australian Federal Court in circumstances which he describes as being for the sake of his right of free expression.

In Germany, unlike in Australia, Holocaust denial is a crime. Töben knows that only too well. The challenge for Töben was to achieve martyrdom in Australia on the altar of freedom of speech by being imprisoned for Holocaust denial. As it is not a crime in Australia, how could he get himself locked up? The answer is: With great difficulty, unless you are as persistent and resourceful as Töben. To start with, you have to engage in racial vilification and have a determination made against you under the Racial Discrimination Act. Töben managed to achieve that in October, 2000.

You then have to refuse to comply with that determination until the Federal Court orders you to comply.

That happened in 2002 when he was ordered to remove material from his Adelaide Institute website where he denied the Holocaust and suggested, among other things, that Jewish people who were offended were of limited intelligence and that Jews exaggerated the number of people slaughtered for ulterior purposes.

The next step is to ignore the Federal Court orders but when you are finally charged with contempt of court, unreservedly apologise and undertake to comply with the orders. That happened in November, 2007.

You then have to immediately change your mind and continue to maintain the offending material on your website for a further 18 months until you are again charged and ultimately found guilty of 24 counts of contempt of court. That happened in April this year.

Then when it comes to sentencing submissions, you suggest to the court that in the Australian justice system, Jewish people get preferred treatment. That was in May this year.

Well, it was a long and difficult path but Frederick Töben finally got there; three months' jail for contempt of court.

Not quite as easy as going to jail for Holocaust denial in Germany, but undoubtedly well worth the effort if martyrdom is your objective.

John Goldberg is president of the Law Society of SA.

AdelaideNow... Going to jail the hard way

[Harm Wulf]

Andrea Carancini: Papa Ratzinger e la teologia della Shoah

mercoledì 27 maggio 2009
Papa Ratzinger e la teologia della Shoah



LA MOSSA MEDIORIENTALE DI PAPA BENEDETTO

Di Michael Hoffman, 15 Maggio 2009[1]

Papa Benedetto ha concluso il suo pellegrinaggio in “Terra Santa”, in quel recinto sabbioso dimenticato da Dio che è una calamita di massacri e di misfatti, da quando il Salvatore del Mondo venne assasinato lì nell’Anno Domini 33.

La Criptocrazia dispone ora di un pontefice diverso da Giovanni Paolo II, il polacco i cui atti di omaggio alle costumanze talmudiche e rabbiniche hanno battuto tutti i record negli annali del servilismo.

Con questo non voglio dire che Benedetto XVI sia fondamentalmente differente; che rappresenti una rottura nel processo di controllo alchemico da parte della Criptocrazia, ma piuttosto che è il nuovo volto di quel processo: apparentemente meno servile verso i rabbini e gli israeliani, e più “imparziale”, avendo teso la mano all’”ala destra” della Chiesa, alla Fraternità San Pio X, il cui vescovo Richard Williamson ha resistito alle richieste di pentimento per i suoi dubbi sulle camere a gas omicide.

Ma Benedetto non rappresenta una rottura, rispetto alla Criptocrazia, più di quanto non la rappresenti Barack Obama. Obama è il volto più “buono”, più gentile, del male orribile che domina segretamente il governo americano. George W. Bush era il volto conservatore dello stesso male e Benedetto assolve un’analoga funzione cosmetica per la Chiesa romana.

Quando si ha a che fare con i dialettici hegeliani, c’è sempre qualcosa per la Sinistra e per la Destra da ammirare e da disprezzare. La Destra troverà nell’atteggiamento quasi deferente del papa al Museo Yad Vashem dell’”Olocausto” una posa da ammirare. La Sinistra apprezzerà i suoi commenti, rivolti ai palestinesi, con cui ha biasimato la “barriera di separazione” (il muro dell’apartheid) che gli israeliani hanno eretto intorno a quel gigantesco campo di concentramento che è oggi la Palestina.

In questo modo il Vaticano si assicura la devozione permanente dei cattolici di sinistra e di destra, come pure della massa che sta nel mezzo, sempre soddisfatta dal potere, dalla pompa e dallo spettacolo. Ma la verità che sta al centro del soggiorno del pontefice in Palestina è qualcosa di molto differente da quello che i sostenitori della Sinistra e della Destra, e la gran folla che sta in mezzo, percepiscono.

Durante la sua visita israeliana, il papa ha stabilito una falsa equivalenza tra i sionisti e i palestinesi – tra gli spogliatori israeliani e i palestinesi che sono stati spogliati: “Nessun amico può evitare di compiangere le sofferenze e la perdita di vite umane che entrambi i popoli hanno sopportato negli ultimi sessant’anni. Permettetemi di fare questo appello a tutti i popoli di queste terre: non più spargimenti di sangue! Non più combattimenti! Non più terrorismo! Non più guerre! Rompiamo invece il circolo vizioso della violenza”.

Questo genere di esclamazione è inutile, se non è attinente alla giustizia e a ciò che è giusto e sbagliato, invece che alle sfumature grige del moralismo, a cui si ricorre sempre ogni volta che un esponente dell’Establishment ha il compito di giustificare la cruda realtà del ladrocinio di terre e dei crimini di guerra israeliani.

Esaminiamo la dichiarazione di Benedetto sulle “sofferenze e la perdita di vite umane che entrambi i popoli hanno sopportato”. A Gaza, in Dicembre e in Gennaio, sono stati massacrati 1.400 palestinesi. Al contrario, la cifra delle vittime israeliane, che include i soldati uccisi dal fuoco amico durante l’invasione, ammonta a 14. Per il papa non è per nulla osceno creare un’equivalenza tra i palestinesi, alla mercè della quinta macchina militare più potente del mondo, e la relativa manciata di israeliani morti a causa della politica ininterrotta, da parte del loro governo, di ladrocinio delle terre, di segregazione razziale e di esecuzione degli ordini rabbinici di distruggere “Amalek” e i “gentili” messa in pratica durante gli ultimi bombardamenti – e relativa invasione – di Gaza.

Per papa Benedetto, il giudaismo talmudico e il sionismo israeliano non rappresentano una categoria speciale di malvagità. Egli considera invece tali forze semplicemente come una delle parti in causa della tragedia del Medio Oriente, a cui tutte le fazioni hanno contribuito e per la quale sono ugualmente biasimevoli. Per la denuncia di una categoria speciale di malvagità dobbiamo invece, come al solito, guardare ai tedeschi della seconda guerra mondiale:

“…E’ ricorso al suo eloquio più diretto e personale quando ha ricordato uno dei suoi primi atti dopo il suo arrivo qui, quando ha visitato il monumento all’Olocausto dello Yad Vashem e ha incontrato i sopravvissuti che hanno subìto i mali della Shoah. “Questi incontri profondamenti commoventi mi hanno riportato alla memoria la mia visita di tre anni fa al campo della morte di Auschwitz, dove così tanti ebrei…vennero brutalmente sterminati sotto un regime senza dio che propagava un’ideologia di antisemitismo e di odio”, ha detto. “Al contrario, queste memorie fosche devono rafforzare la nostra determinazione ad avvicinarci gli uni agli altri come rami dello stesso albero di olivo, nutriti dalle stesse radici e uniti dall’amore fraterno”.[2]

Non vi sono sfumature grige nelle dette affermazioni. E’ un tonante anatema papale pronunciato in termini inequivocabili, senza nessun tentativo di stabilire un’equivalenza tra le sofferenze dei tedeschi durante la seconda guerra mondiale e le sofferenze dei giudei di quell’epoca. Uno dei due lati era totalmente malvagio e sbagliato, l’altro era la personificazione del bene.

Il papa ha concluso le sue osservazioni con un’allusione a uno dei caposaldi centrali della nuova teologia della Shoah escogitata dal suo predecessore: il giudaismo ortodosso (talmudico), che è la religione dello stato ebraico, lungi dall’essere un “regime” malvagio che “propaga un’ideologia di odio e di razzismo”, è invece uno dei “rami” dell’”albero di olivo” che nutre le “radici” dell’”amore fraterno”. Questa è una menzogna così spudorata da far ridere, e così perniciosa da garantire un flusso continuo alla teologia della Shoah, da cui promana.

Papa Benedetto XVI ha ammantato l’ideologia sterminatrice del giudaismo talmudico con i paramenti dell’amore fraterno, solo quattro mesi dopo che un tale “amore” aveva inondato Gaza sotto forma del gas ustionante conosciuto come fosforo bianco, trasformando la stessa Palestina in una camera a gas. Ma Benedetto non se ne cura. Si accontenta, come valvola di sicurezza, di criticare un muro. La sua cinica indifferenza verso un olocausto che sta accadendo proprio ora è una spia significativa della sua sottaciuta convinzione dell’intrinseca superiorità, razziale e spirituale, degli israeliani sui palestinesi.

Il mito della sostanziale benevolenza del sionismo e del giudaismo rabbinico non è negoziabile, agli occhi della Criptocrazia. Le critiche che non contestano questo mito vengono tollerate, persino incoraggiate, come segno di “dialogo” e di “equità”. Mentre la Destra e la Sinistra discutono i pro e i contro del viaggio papale, l’assioma centrale riguardante il falso Israele e la religione talmudica sfugge al biasimo e alle analisi, e viene ulteriormente rafforzato e ingigantito da quest’ultimo atto della diplomazia vaticana in Medio Oriente, che acconsente che un numero sempre maggiore di palestinesi perderanno la casa e la vita negli anni a venire perché il papa, come tutti gli altri leader ecclesiastici, si rifiuta di riconoscere nel dominio israeliano i tratti inconfondibili del colonialismo, del razzismo e dell’occupazione, resi anche più iniqui dall’ideologia religiosa suprematista che li alimenta.

[1] Traduzione di Andrea Carancini. Il testo originale è disponibile all’indirizzo: On the Contrary: Pope Benedict's Middle East Gambit
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/wo...16pope.html?hp

[Harm Wulf]

Dear correspondents,

Here, below in this message and in attached Word file, is the authorised translation of Professor Robert Faurisson's article on Alain Besançon and “the religion of the Shoah”; it can also be found at ROBERT FAURISSON.

A previous translation, made and put onto the Internet by Mr Andrew Winkler without consulting the author, may have been seen by some of you: it should be discarded.

Best regards,
GN

-----------------------------

Robert FAURISSON

May 12, 2009


Famous French sociologist Alain Besançon discovers “the religion of the Shoah”



Already in the late 1970s, at the first heavy blow I struck against them, the historians of “the Holocaust” (which today is often called “Shoah”) had shown their disarray. Whereas I had placed myself on scientific ground to demonstrate, in a way that admitted of no rebuttal, that their alleged homicidal gas chambers were technically inconceivable, they were reduced, abandoning reason for faith, to replying pitifully: “It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible; it was technically possible, since it happened” (“La politique hitlérienne d’extermination: une déclaration d’historiens”, Le Monde, 21 Febuary 1979, p. 23; for further details on that controversy of 1978-1979 see my book Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire, La Vieille Taupe, 1980, p. 69-101). Consequently, as early as May 3, 1980, in a letter to Jean Daniel [real name Jean-Daniel Bensaïd, founder and executive editor of the weekly Nouvel Observateur] I spoke of “the new religion” or “the upholders of the Holocaust religion”, and concluded: “No sudden change will arise when it becomes apparent that ‘the Holocaust’ is a historical lie. Besides, religions disappear only very slowly, to make way for other religions. As it happens, I myself prefer to go on from faith towards reason” (ibid., p. 261-263). I had perceived that, for want of any ability to resort to technical, scientific or historical argument, the other side was bound to seek a way out in religious-style invention, along with conducting witchcraft trials. The result is that these days, in 2009, the existence of a “Shoah religion” has become an obvious fact. Recently, an article in Le Monde dealt with “the Shoah’s” being “built up into a ‘State religion’ by Nicolas Sarkozy”. (Gérard Courtois reviewing a book by Guy Konopnicki, April 4, 2009, p. 26). And now, in a study on “Benedict XVI and the fundamentalists” (“Benoît XVI et les intégristes”, Commentaire n° 125, Spring 2009, p. 5-11) from the pen of sociologist Alain Besançon, the following remarks are to be found:

On the scale of sacred things, there is nothing today that can challenge the Shoah for first place (p. 9 A);

At the top of scale, we thus have the Shoah. It may be assigned, going by external criteria, a near-religious rank (p. 10 A);

Having become universal [this religion] maintains the Jewish people’s standing as chosen, with the choosing done by the diabolical will of Hitler and not by the benevolent decision of God. It offers them up to the sympathy, in the strongest sense, of the Christian world. — Ensuing from all this are changes in the scale of dignity, in the list of objects that can be touched only with trembling hands, in the hierarchy of values and in the prestige of those who defend them. Thus, ranking first, undeniably, is the Shoah (p. 10 B).

One is tempted to put it that the religion of the Shoah and the humanitarian religion, in their various combinations, form the civil religion of the Western democracies [...] The heroes of the Shoah religion, followed by those of the humanitarian religion [abbé Pierre, sister Emmanuelle,...], find themselves at the top of the scale (p. 11 B).

In the last two pages of his study (10-11) the author uses the expression “religion of the Shoah” seven times.
Born in 1932, having belonged to the Communist Party from 1951 to 1956, A. Besançon is a member of the Institut de France and director of studies both at the Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales and the Institut d’histoire sociale. Raymond Aron, who founded the journal Commentaire in 1978, was — he tells us — his “teacher”. On December 13, 2004, Besançon paid a vibrant tribute to the memory of the late chief rabbi Jacob Kaplan at an exceptional gathering of the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques. He is author of a number of books or studies where, in particular, he deals first with the “woe of the century”, caused — according to him — by Communism and Nazism, and then with “the uniqueness of the Shoah”. He is a Roman Catholic. Condemning the “négationniste fantasies”, he attacks “those who deny the Shoah and reject the overwhelming mass of positive evidence of its reality” (p. 6 A and 7 B) but does not describe a single one of those fantasies, or provide a single bit of that evidence. Not for an instant does he explain how and why, in such a short span of time, the Jewish version of Second World War history has become a religion and, better still, the religion of the whole Western world. He does not tell us how it is that in the 21st century the sensitive elements of that triumphant and domineering religion “can be touched only with trembling hands”.

Why did a sociologist of the calibre of Alain Besançon remain mute for so long on the existence of an extraordinary social phenomenon whose birth, in the late 1970s, he had been unable to discern at the time? And why does he persist, now in 2009, in holding back from explaining its prodigious growth in these past 30 years?

Jean-Marie Le Pen remarks, and not wrongly, that today we have got to the point where the Second World War has, in a way, become a detail of… “the Shoah”. Why and how did such an aberration ever come about? How is it possible that the zany, hair-raising stories of Father Patrick Desbois of “the Shoah by bullets” or “the Shoah by suffocation [under eiderdowns or cushions]” have in 2009 become, with the unction of Nicolas Sarkozy, Simone Veil and the bishops of France, material for catechism in our middle and secondary schools, both state-run and private? Any being endowed with reason can only blush on reading the phantasmagoria spouted by this devil of a prankster Father Desbois in his book The Holocaust by bullets: a priest’s journey to uncover the truth behind the murder of 1.5 million Jews (New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 233 p.). Martin Gray and his ghostwriter, Max Gallo, authors of For those I loved, have been outdone.

On August 7, 2008, I devoted an essay to the phenomenon of Shoatic fraud and gullibility entitled “The secular religion of the Holocaust, a tainted product of consumer society” (see attachment). In it I suggested a rational explanation for the mounting success enjoyed, especially since 1980, by the new “Holocaust” or “Shoah” religion. Now that, in his turn, he is finally discovering this religion, will Alain Besançon decide to explain its mystery to us rationally? If he did so, he would discover that the revisionists, far from engaging in “fantasies”, have accumulated “an overwhelming mass of positive evidence” to support their findings. But in order to become aware of this he would at least have to start reading their work. Having awoken in 1956 from the effects of the Communist opium, might Besançon also rise one day from the torpor into which the “Shoah religion” has sunk our world’s thinking faculties, this religion he is discovering now, nearly 30 years after the revisionists?

“The religion of the Shoah” tolerates other religions, particularly the Roman Catholic religion, only insofar as they accept subordination. Benedict XVI knows this, as he prostrates and humiliates himself before it. Especially lie-ridden, the “Shoah religion” calls for hatred and crusades. In this respect, repeating the image used by Jean Jaurès regarding capitalism, it can be said of the new religion that it “bears war within it just as thick clouds bear a storm.”

[Harm Wulf]

Andrea Carancini: Kevin Käther e i reati d'opinione in Germania

martedì 26 maggio 2009
Kevin Käther e i reati d'opinione in Germania



Kevin Käther è uno di quei patrioti tedeschi che si sono recentemente autodenunciati per il reato di “dubitare dell’Olocausto”. Ecco una traduzione del suo ultimo testo:

IL SENTIMENTO NAZIONALISTA STA CRESCENDO NON SOLO IN GERMANIA MA IN TUTTA EUROPA

Di Kevin Käther, 25.05.2009

Ai miei cari camerati in lotta per una libera Germania in una libera Europa.

Il processo di appello per la mia auto-denuncia inizia il 26 Maggio.

Il corpus delicti del mio primo processo-show era costituito dal fatto di aver spedito per lettera alcune copie del libro di Germar Rudolf Lectures on the Holocaust [Conferenze sull'Olocausto].

Alla fine di quel processo sono stato condannato a otto mesi di prigione, anche se avevo fornito le prove che i contenuti del libro di Rudolf rispondono a dati di fatto.

Tutte le mie mozioni probatorie sono state respinte in modo sommario, com’è inevitabile nei processi di stampo inquisitoriale.

In Germania, non riusciamo più ad avere dei processi condotti in base alle norme di uno stato di diritto.

Oggi, abbiamo dei tribunali che seguono i princìpi della “Santa Inquisizione” o dei processi-show di Norimberga.

In risposta alle condanne comminate a combattenti per la libertà quali Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz e Horst Mahler, avevo spedito, nel Novembre del 2007, alcune copie del libro di Rudolf a Lea Rosh, Wolfgang Benz e Ernst Nolte, e mi ero autodenunciato per il “reato” di “dubitare dell’Olocausto”.

Questo è stato il mio primo contributo allo sforzo nazionale di demolizione delle menzogne storiche che devastano il nostro paese da tre generazioni.

Da vero tedesco, mi sento obbligato ad assistere e a proteggere la mia patria, e ad aiutarla a tornare sul sentiero dell’integrità.

Horst Mahler, che ha 73 anni, è stato condannato a 13 anni di prigione per il reato – non-violento – di aver diffuso degli ideali politicamente scorretti.

Questo equivale a una condanna a vita, per un reato di stampo orwelliano.

La condanna di Mahler evidenzia meglio di ogni altra cosa l’esigenza – imperativa – di combattere contro le menzogne dei malvagi nemici della Germania.

Quello che è in gioco qui, non è solo una lotta astratta per i diritti umani, ma la stessa sopravvivenza della nostra nazione.

Al nostro popolo sono stati inculcati dei fasulli sensi di colpa, e l’anima del popolo tedesco viene uccisa da menzogne vergognose.

Come tedesco, sono ricorso al nostro diritto inalienabile all’auto-difesa per oppormi alle menzogne devastanti dei nostri nemici giurati.

E’ un onore, per me e per i miei camerati, dire la verità a beneficio della nostra nazione e, nel caso, andare in prigione per essa.

I nostri discendenti ci ringrazieranno per quello che stiamo facendo.

Per il mio imminente processo di appello sono state fissate le seguenti date:

prima data: 26 Maggio 2009, ore 13, aula 820, distretto di Tiergarten;

seconda data: 9 Giugno 2009, ore 9, stessa aula.

Lasciatemi aggiungere che nessun atto di intimidazione è troppo perfido per il Procuratore di Berlino.

Durante il mio primo processo, sono stato incriminato con ulteriori accuse per aver incluso dei fatti empirici nelle mie mozioni probatorie, la cui mera citazione costituisce reato.

Difendersi in tribunale ora è un crimine!

Tutto ciò dà un’idea del carattere illimitato della repressione e dell’ingiustizia, qui in Germania!

E’ un’ulteriore prova, se ve ne fosse bisogno, che la giurisprudenza dell’”Olocausto” è la più pura delle tirannie.

All’imputato non è permessa nessuna difesa – ogni tentativo in tal senso viene convertito in’ulteriori imputazioni!

Il nostro sistema giudiziario ha abolito sé stesso ed è diventato un’enorme impresa criminale.

Prego che Dio abbia pietà di questi arroganti despoti in toga.

Ne avranno bisogno!

Mi aspetto un martedì molto animato!

Saluti camerateschi,
Kevin Käther
Berlino, 24.5.2009