1

ADELAIDE INSTITUTE PO Box 3300 Adelaide 5067 Online

Australia ISSN 1440-9828

Mob: 61+401692057

Email: info@adelaideinstitute.org

Web: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org

September 2016 No 992

_____________________________________________________________________

Genocide Role-Call of Dishonour Mike Walsh September 8, 2016

Those hooked on mainstream media firmly believe that the Germans were the worst mass killers in history; indeed the only genocidal psychopaths set on exterminating entire peoples. The dreadful irony is that such propaganda is now conclusively proven to be untrue. The alleged holocaust is today so convincingly debunked that its only protection is the imprisonment of

investigators who challenge the official narrative. When the prison cell replaces debate you can be certain that the case made is full of holes.

Most damning of all are the many holocausts that are never mentioned. The worst crimes in human history are air-brushed out of the media by pay-rolled journalists and palace publishers. A recent report discloses that

genocide and mass murder during the 20th Century has claimed the lives of 170,000,000 (170 million) people. Even if the ludicrous claim of 6 million victims of Nazism was to pass muster, who then was responsible for the other 164 million deaths?

Bolshevik Occupied Russia (BOR) accounted for

62,000,000 dead; this figure is likely to be a gross underestimate. Russia is the world’s largest country; it crosses eight different time zones. Until Alaska was sold to Americans, Russia was the only country to straddle three continents. Yet, Russia’s post-Bolshevik population is less than that of Bangladesh, one of the world’s tiniest countries. Any media mention of the Soviet holocaust is

as rare as rocking horse shit.

Communist China comes in as an also-ran with 35,000,000 deaths by extermination. Again, one looks in vain for any mention of such unfortunates who are air-

brushed out of mainstream media and the abundant output of palace publishers.

Any amateur writer who pulls together ludicrous claims

to Nazi persecution can be assured of publishers’ agents clamouring for the publishing rights. However, any professional writer-researcher who submits a solid account of any program of genocide other than that alleged against the Workers Reich will find himself airily

dismissed. Mass extermination committed by the Allies suggests that Britain and the United States may take up third place after the USSR and Communist China. We can say with great degree of certainty that 13,000,000 Germans disappeared from 1945 onwards. To these victims can be included millions of refugees caught up in the advance of

the Red Army during 1944 ~ 1945. The scale of Allied genocide was put into perspective by Senator Homer Capehart. Taking the floor in the U.S Senate on February 5, 1946: Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and children and over-aged men, have been killed in Eastern Germany and south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported or had to flee their homesteads and are on the road. About 25% of these people, over 3,000,000 have perished. About 4,000,000 men and women have been deported to Eastern Europe as slaves. It seems that the elimination of the German population of Eastern Europe, at least 15,000,000 people, was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta.

Churchill had said to Mikolakczyk when the latter

protested during the negotiations to Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany; Don’t mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them; they will

cease to exist. r more mil

2

Today, it is generally accepted that deaths caused by America’s wars of aggression since 1945 can be

calculated at 20,000,000. If so then this puts the U.S and its Allies not in third, but second place. Communist China is therefore relegated to third place.

It is thought that as many as 20,000,000 ~ 30,000,000 Africans died in conflict or of famine since European nations transferred their colonies to America’s banking and corporate dynasties. Comparatively speaking, the

massacres of the Khmer Rouge, which does occasionally get media mention, were sideshows. If you don’t recall reading real history in mainstream media or publishers’ pap then you might consider if media and bookshop-bought books are worth the paper they are printed on. It might be worthwhile reflecting on the Report’s finding: This concludes: The best predictor of this killing is regime power. The more arbitrary power a regime has, the less democratic it is, and the more likely it will kill its subjects or foreigners. The conclusion is that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely.

This conclusion more or less sums up U.S and EU government today. This should give everyone pause for thought. Comment: Fredrick Toben And of interest is the emerging of Donald Trump in the USA who is proud to embody German values https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IfEoQvAoYk – yet just today on our ABC Radio National breakfast program someone was talking about the Trump-Clinton presidency battle and that he would not even entertain the hypothetical question of a Trump victory: ‘He won’t win!’ That kind of absolutist statement made me think of those who, like Prof Deborah Lipstadt, have for decades claimed: “There is no debate about the Holocaust’. Thanks to the Internet Mike Walsh has in the above article concisely contextualized the Holocaust-Shoah. The flow of information by the haters of debates is still

significant and today – on 9/11 – they are releasing the “Denier” film and as can be expected from those who hate debates that, too, rests on false premises, and which a discerning mind can easily spot as being full of rubbish.

*** Mike Walsh was a freelance media writer and columnist for thirty-years. The Irish journalist now writes and broadcasts solely for independent alternative media. History Without the Spin | Buy the Books http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocide-role-call-

dishonour/

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

3

http://www.all-in.de/nachrichten/rundschau/Volksverhetzende-CDs-verkauft-Betreiber-eines-rechten-Online-

Versands-aus-Wolfertschwenden-vor-Gericht;art2757,2348028

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

One of the first LIES told in the film: DENIAL

David Irving is not the Embodiment of Holocaust Revisionism A crucial misrepresentation in the trailer for the upcoming film "Denial"

By Hadding Scott, 24 August 2016 The ultimate purpose of the film Denial, about David

Irving's failed libel-suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt in 2000, is not to pound David Irving even farther into the dust – although it may do that – but to discredit Holocaust Revisionism: hence the film's title is not Irving, but Denial. To attack Holocaust Revisionism through the person of David Irving, however, requires portraying him as the

quintessential Holocaust Revisionist or "Denier," which he

never was. The purpose of the film thus requires

misrepresentation. There is a crucial misrepresentation at 0:42 in the trailer, where David Irving is represented as saying: ... I've got a thousand dollars to give anyone who can show me a document that proves the Holocaust. In fact, David Irving never offered $1000 for any document that could "prove the Holocaust." In 1977 David Irving issued the challenge that he would pay $US1000 to anyone who would bring forth a document proving "that Adolf Hitler knew about the

4

mass-liquidation of Western Europe's Jews." Irving's contention was not that there was no Holocaust, but only that Hitler did not know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7ktvUWaYo

David Irving has declared many times (for example during his libel-suit in 2000) that he is "not a Holocaust historian." As an expert on documents relating to Adolf

Hitler, however, Irving noticed that there was no documentation that Hitler had ordered or knew about

gassings of Jews. Irving's conclusion that Hitler did not know of such doings was thus commensurate with his expertise, while the contention that such doings were never done was beyond his scope, and he thus avoided making that claim.

David Irving trusted postwar testimonies like that of Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski at the 1964 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, to the effect that it was Himmler who had undertaken the destruction of the Jews, without Hitler's knowledge (Irving, Hitler's War, 1977, p. 858, cited by the crown during Irving's 1988 testimony for Ernst Zündel).

People other than David Irving investigated whether the gas-chamber story was true. In 1983 Professor Robert Faurisson issued his "Challenge to David Irving" wherein he argued that it was not credible to say that mass-

gassings had happened in spite of Hitler's not knowing. Irving was unpersuaded.

It was only in 1988, after reading the Leuchter Report, that Irving embraced the conclusion that some of the claims of gassings were false – at least in regard to the Kremas at Auschwitz, which Leuchter had examined. Even after he embraced Leuchter's findings, however, Irving avoided saying that there was no Holocaust. At times he casually implied that the entire gas-chamber

story might be false, but that would not be a disproof of the Holocaust for David Irving. During a 1995 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, Irving said about the Holocaust: Bits of the story are undoubtedly true. Let me say this right from the start. There's no doubt at all ... that the Nazis in their twelve-year rule inflicted nameless horrors on large segments of the population, including the Jews and other people whom they disliked.... What I do question are the methods. Irving thus avoided saying that the Holocaust per se was or might be categorically false. Irving really never gave himself the possibility to conclude that the Holocast per

se was false, because, unlike the much more rigorous and courageous Robert Faurisson (a genuine Holocaust Revisionist), Irving never specified what "the Holocaust" meant. He never affirmed that gassings were the essence, the sine qua non of the Holocaust. This

identification of what distinguishes "the Holocaust" as the unique event that it is supposed to be is the prerequisite

for concluding, upon the disproof of gassings, that the Holocaust itself is a lie. Instead, Irving allows the Holocaust to include "nameless horrors" that may have

been accomplished through "methods" other than gassing. Therefore, since Irving has never disputed that some nebulous and undefined event called "the Holocaust" happened, it would be very unlike him to say

that "the Holocaust" requires proof. In Atlanta on 11 November 1994 Deborah Lipstadt gave a presentation wherein, in addition to making derogatory statements about Mr. Irving without realizing that he was present, she claimed that she knew of "a blueprint of a gas chamber complete with the openings through which the S.S. tipped the pellets of cyanide." Mr. Irving stood

up and issued to Professor Lipstadt the following challenge: I have here a thousand dollars for you if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them. (D. Irving, A Radical's Diary, 11 November 1994)

By his own account, then, David Irving dared Deborah Lipstadt not to prove the Holocaust, but only to show a particular document of which she had claimed knowledge -- which he knew she had misrepresented. Irving on this

occasion was relying on the work of Professor Faurisson, who eighteen years earlier had acquired copies of the blueprints of what are supposed to be gas-chambers at Auschwitz, noting that they were in fact blueprints for mortuaries. It is, thus, quite clear that David Irving has been

misquoted in that trailer, in a way that facilitates calling him a Denier. It is contradicted by Irving's own contemporary record, and, furthermore, it is simply not the kind of statement that David Irving has been known to make.

The trailer also calls Irving a liar and a falsifier of history, which – as I demonstrated a few months ago – is

unfortunately true, but Irving's falsifications are in the direction of creating an interesting story, not exculpating the Germans – other than Hitler himself. In fact the drama that Irving has constructed in some of his "histories" requires that Himmler and Goebbels continue to be villains who deceive and betray a well-intentioned Hitler by doing bad things to the Jews behind

Hitler's back. Obviously the makers of Denial want the public to believe that falsifications by David Irving underpin the anti-Holocaust argument, but this is far from true. All the essential work was done by people other than David Irving.

Again, David Irving is not an expert on the Holocaust. He

has never written a book on the subject. Irving's role in Holocaust Revisionism, to the extent that it has been a positive role, has been mostly that he used his eloquence and pre-existing notoriety to call attention to the findings of others. Consequently, any criticism of the methods or trustworthiness of David Irving as an

historian should have little bearing on the credibility of Holocaust Revisionism. http://codoh.com/library/document/4105/

________________________________________________________________________

Nothing but the truth about a Holocaust denier David Hare

Saturday 3 September 2016 17.00 AEST Last modified on Sunday 4 September 201600.39 AEST

5

In 2000 historian David Irving sued author Deborah Lipstadt for her description of him as a Holocaust denier.

As his screen version comes to the cinema, David Hare explains why the trial was a triumph of free speech

Timothy Spall as David Irving in Denial. Photograph: Film

Handout

In 2010 I was first approached by the BBC and by Participant Media to adapt Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial for the screen. My first reaction was

one of extreme reluctance. I have no taste for Holocaust movies. It seems both offensive and clumsy to add an extra layer of fiction to suffering which demands no gratuitous intervention. It jars. Faced with the immensity

of what happened, sober reportage and direct testimony have nearly always been the most powerful approach. In the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, I had noticed that

all the photography, however marginal and inevitably however incomplete, had a shock and impact lacking in the rather contrived and uninteresting art.

* Certain things are true. Elvis is dead. The icecaps are melting. And the Holocaust did happen

*

It was a considerable relief on reading the book to find that although the Holocaust was its governing subject, there was no need for it to be visually recreated. In 2000

the British historian David Irving, whose writing had frequently offered a sympathetic account of the second world war from the Nazi point of view, had sued Lipstadt in the high court in London, claiming that her description

of him as a denier in her previous book Denying the Holocaust had done damage to his reputation. In English courts at the time, the burden of proof in any libel case

lay not with the accuser but with the defendant. In the United States it was the litigant’s job to prove the untruth of the alleged libel. But in the United Kingdom it was up to the defendant to prove its truth. It was in that context that London was Irving’s chosen venue. He no doubt thought it would make his legal action easier. All at

once, an Atlanta academic was to find herself with the unenviable task of marshalling conclusive scientific proof for the attempted extermination of the European Jews over 50 years earlier.

Deborah Lipstadt outside the high court, London, in 2000.

Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian

There were many interesting features to the case – not least the condescension of some dubious parts of the British academic community to an upstart American – but three aspects appealed to me above all. First, there was a technical script-writing challenge. In conventional American pictures, the role of the individual is wholeheartedly celebrated. In a typical studio film, even

one as good as Erin Brockovich, there is always an obvious injustice which is corrected by an inarticulate

person suddenly being given the chance to find their voice. The tradition goes back to Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda and beyond. But what was unusual about

Lipstadt’s experience was that she was an already articulate and powerfully intelligent woman who was ordered by her own defence team not to give evidence. The decision was made that her testimony would give

Irving, conducting his own case, the opportunity to switch the focus of the trial from what it should properly be about – the examination of how his antisemitism infected his honesty – to an attack on something entirely irrelevant: the reliability in the witness box of Lipstadt’s instant capacity to command every scattergun detail of history.

It was quite a professional undertaking to make drama out of such a complete and painful act of self-denial. One thing for sure: we would not be offering a boilerplate Hollywood narrative. At great expense to her own peace of mind, Lipstadt had agreed to be silenced. The

fascination of the film would lie with the personal cost of

that choice. What were the implications for someone who, having been brought up to believe in the unique power of the individual, discovered instead the far subtler joys of teamwork? The book she had written turned out to be her complete defence, and the verdict vindicated that book in almost every detail. But in order to effect that defence she had to trust the judgment of two other

people from a country and a bizarre legal system different from her own – her Scottish barrister Richard Rampton and her English solicitor Anthony Julius. Rampton arrived fresh from defending McDonald’s in the McLibel case, the longest trial in English legal history. Julius had handled Princess Diana’s divorce.

David Irving. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

Second, it was clear from the start that this film would be a defence of historical truth. It would be arguing that although historians have the right to interpret facts differently, they do not have the right knowingly to

misrepresent those facts. But if such integrity was necessary for historians, then it surely had to apply to screenwriters too. If I planned to offer an account of the trial and of Irving’s behaviour, I would enjoy none of the

film writer’s usual licence to speculate or invent. From the trial itself there were 32 days of transcript, which took me weeks to read thoroughly. Not only would I

refuse to write scenes which offered any hokey psychological explanation for Irving’s character outside the court, I would also be bound to stick rigidly to the exact words used inside it. I could not allow any neo-fascist critic later to claim that I had re-written the testimony. Nor did I want to. The trial scenes are verbatim. To say that such fidelity represented an almost

impossible dramatic difficulty – this trial, like any other, was often extremely boring – would be to understate. At times, I would beat my head, wondering why real-life characters couldn’t put things in ways which more pithily expressed their purposes.

6

But it was for a third overriding reason that I came to feel that a film of Lipstadt’s fascinating book cried out to

be made. In an internet age it is, at first glance, democratic to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That is surely true. It is however a fatal step to

then claim that all opinions are equal. Some opinions are backed by fact. Others are not. And those that are not backed by fact are worth considerably less than those that are. A few clubby English historians had always

indulged Irving on the grounds that although he was evidently soft on Hitler, he was nevertheless a master of his documents. These admirers were ready to step forward and attack Lipstadt’s character and her success in the courts on the grounds that it was likely to make others historians more cautious, and thereby to inhibit freedom of speech. But far from being an attack on

freedom of speech, Lipstadt’s defence turned out to be its powerful triumph. Freedom of speech may include freedom deliberately to lie. But it also includes the right to be called out on your lying. During the early days of the Renaissance, Copernicus

and Galileo would have scoffed at the idea that there was

any such thing as authority. A sceptical approach to life is a fine thing and one which has powered revolutionary change and high ideals. But a sceptical approach to scientific fact is rather less admirable. It is dangerous. As Lipstadt says in my screenplay, certain things are true. Elvis is dead. The icecaps are melting. And the Holocaust did happen. Millions of Jews went to their deaths in

camps and open pits in a brutal genocide which was sanctioned and operated by the leaders of the Third Reich. There are some subjects about which two points of view are not equally valid. We are entering, in politics especially, a post-factual era in which it is apparently permissible for public figures to assert things without evidence, and then to justify their assertions by adding

“Well, that’s my opinion” – as though that in itself was

some kind of justification. It isn’t. And such charlatans need to learn it isn’t. Contemplating the Lipstadt/Irving trial may help them to that end. Denial premieres at the Toronto film festival on 11 September. It will be released in the US on 30 September, and in the UK in early 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/03/david-hare-nothing-but-the-truth-about-a-holocaust-denial

***

‘Denial’: Rachel Weisz and Timothy

Spall Put the Holocaust on Trial A real-life, highly public court case about Holocaust

denial, also with Tom Wilkinson By TOBIAS GREY

Updated Sept. 8, 2016 11:34 p.m. ET

“History has had its day in court and scored a crushing victory,” declared the Times of London after the American academic Deborah E. Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin won a landmark libel case brought by the British Holocaust denier David Irving. “Denial” is based on Ms. Lipstadt’s 2006 book “History on

Trial,” about her five-year legal battle with Mr. Irving, whom she characterized in an earlier book as “one of the most dangerous spokesmen for Holocaust denial.” The movie, directed by Mick Jackson with a script by playwright David Hare, begins in 1996 when Mr. Irving

turns up to a talk of Ms. Lipstadt’s offering $1,000 to

anyone who can produce a document showing that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. In the movie, most of which takes place in London where the trial was held, Ms. Lipstadt ( Rachel Weisz) says that

Holocaust deniers always have a hidden agenda and in

Mr. Irving’s case it is all about his determination to exculpate Hitler: If the Holocaust hadn’t happened, how could Hitler have known about it or ordered it? During the movie’s trial Mr. Irving ( Timothy Spall), who acted as his own counsel, accuses Ms. Lipstadt of destroying his career as a respected historian by labeling

him a “denier” which he says is equivalent to “a moral yellow star.” In a recent article he wrote for the Guardian newspaper, “Denial’s” screenwriter Mr. Hare, whose credits include World War II movies like “The Reader” (2008) and “Plenty” (1995), said he spent weeks reading through the

32 days of transcript made during the trial. Mr. Hare says he challenged himself to stick rigidly to the exact words used in the courtroom. “At times, I would beat my head, wondering why real-life characters

couldn’t put things in ways which more pithily expressed their purposes,” wrote Mr. Hare. http://www.wsj.com/articles/denial-rachel-weisz-and-

timothy-spall-put-the-holocaust-on-trial-1473345223

*** Lipstadt lauds Shoah teachers for ‘holy work’

Leon Cohen | March 31, 2008 The great medieval rabbi-physician-philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that the human mind is too limited to comprehend and express what God is; but it can make an approach to understanding by saying what God is not. Scholar of Holocaust denial Deborah E. Lipstadt said Sunday that this via negativa (negative road) is how she would approach the question of how dangerous the Holocaust denial movement is at the beginning of the 21st century. Lipstadt was the keynote speaker at the Ateret Cohn Holocaust Educators Symposium, held March 2-3 at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The symposium’s theme was “Teaching the Holocaust: Lessons for the Future.” Speaking to an audience of about 300 — the some 70 teachers and education students who participated in the symposium plus a general audience, Lipstadt said she can’t say how threatening Holocaust denial will be. But she lauded the efforts of the symposium and the participants. “If not for these efforts, Holocaust denial will have an easier path” in the coming years, Lipstadt said. “Your work is avodat kodesh, holy work,” Lipstadt said to the symposium participants.

Hard core, soft core Lipstadt has become especially famous for having been sued in a British court for libel by Holocaust denying British historian David Irving. Her triumph in the case, which began in 1996 and concluded in 2000, decisively discredited Irving. Lipstadt spent most of her presentation talking about the trial, showing how her advocates demonstrated that Irving in his works lied about events, distorted the evidence of documents, tried to “whitewash Hitler” by falsifying his statements; and proved that he himself is a white supremacist and racist. She also called attention to the Web site “Holocaust Denial on Trial” (www.hdot.org) that contains full information about the trial, including the full text of the judge’s decision and transcripts of the testimony. But while what Lipstadt calls “hard core denial” — the anti-Semitic claims that Jews have lied about the Holocaust to get money — in the West suffered a major setback from Irving v. Lipstadt, it remains “a growth industry” in the Arab-Muslim world, Lipstadt said. To help counter this, Lipstadt said a project is underway to translate the “Holocaust Denial on Trial” site into Arabic and

Farsi (the language of Iran).

7

Moreover, what she calls “soft core denial” — comparing Israel to the Nazis — “goes on” in the West. In response to questions, Lipstadt said that there can be no doubt that the Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey endured a genocide during the World War I period. But she also said she could understand how some Jews are trying to downplay this, given that the Turkish government has made some subtle and not-subtle threats about Turkey-Israel relations and the safety of Turkey’s Jewish community. “The Turks are playing with the lives of people,” she said. She also said that “there’s nothing we can do about” Iran’s Holocaust denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But she

said that friends of hers who have authoritative knowledge of Iran have told her that “he is not long for the political world.” Lipstadt also sharply criticized Norman Finkelstein, a son of Holocaust survivors and an anti-Israel political scientist recently denied tenure at DePaul University in Chicago. He is the author of “The Holocaust Industry,” a purported critique of Jewish attempts to exploit the Holocaust for gain. While Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier, Lipstadt said that his book is “completely wrong,” and “filled with mistakes and misstatements,” including assertions about Lipstadt herself that “are not true.” Lipstadt is director of the Rabbi Donald A. Tam Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University in Atlanta. She is author of “Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust” (1993), “Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory” (1994 and the book for which Irving sued her), and her account of the case “History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” (2005). The symposium, named for Milwaukee educator Ateret Cohn (1922-2005), was sponsored by the Nathan and Esther Pelz Holocaust Education Resource Center of the Coalition for Jewish Learning, the education program of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, in collaboration with the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations, the Wisconsin Society for Jewish Learning, the UWM Center for Jewish Studies, the UWM Cultures and Communities Program and the Hillel/Jewish Student Union at UWM. It received support from the Jewish Community Foundation, the endowment development program of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, the Helen Bader Foundation and the Lucy and Jack Rosenberg Philanthropic Fund. http://www.jewishchronicle.org/2008/03/31/lipstadt-lauds-shoah-teachers-for-holy-work/

*** Truth is best weapon against Shoah denial

Deborah Lipstadt | March 31, 2008 Rome (JTA) – David Irving’s arrest and three-year jail sentence for having denied the Holocaust has been met with a chorus of cheers in the Jewish community. At long last, justice seemed to prevail. This notorious liar was once considered a prominent historian. Many people were delighted that prison would now house a man who has called Jews cockroaches, believes black newscasters should be relegated to reading news of criminals and drug busts, and asked a survivor how much money she had made from having a number tattooed on her arm. After the verdict, my blog (Lipstadt.blogspot.com ) was flooded with expressions of delight. Most people assumed I was dancing the hora. I fought this man’s libel charge against me for six years. For over three months, I had to sit silently in court in London listening to him say the most horrible things about Jews, people of color and survivors. Quietly and meticulously, relying on a dream team of historians, we showed that all — not many, not most, but all — of Irving’s

claims were based on distortions and fabrications. They were, as the prominent historian Richard Evans and the leader of our research team, said, “A tissue of lies.” In no way, Evans continued, could this man even be thought of as a historian. During my trial, Irving kept trying to introduce evidence of a world Jewish cabal or global conspiracy against him. He

described me as “the gold-tipped spearhead of the enemies of truth,” his euphemism for the Jews. He laughed at survivors, declaring them liars or psychopaths. And he called the judge — in a very telling slip — “Mein Fuhrer.”

Not delighted Irving suffered an overwhelming loss. When the judge, in a 350-page judgment, said he “perverts,” “distorts,” “lies,” and that his conclusions are a “travesty,” his reputation was left in tatters. When two courts of appeal concurred, he faced financial ruin. Why then was I not delighted with the court sentence handed down in Vienna on Feb. 20?

I am writing this in Rome, where I am preparing to teach a course on the Holocaust at the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Jesuit university affiliated with the Vatican. For centuries the church censored Jewish books, forcing Jews to remove anything the church authorities deemed objectionable to Christianity. Even prayers were censored. We Jews, who have suffered from censorship, should not be supporting it. Moreover, I don’t believe censorship is efficacious. It renders the censored item into forbidden fruit, making it more appealing, not less so. Here in Europe, as in many quarters in the United States, this discussion has been joined with the debate over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Various Jewish organizations have pointed out — rightly — that the Muslims so vigorously protesting the insult they perceive in these cartoons have lived comfortably for many years with anti-Semitic cartoons. Some are worthy of what one found in Der Sturmer, the Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper. While it is legitimate to argue that there is a difference between cartoons and the murder of millions of people, it is hard to argue for laws against Holocaust denial but demand that the Danish cartoonists’ freedom of speech be protected. It suggests a double standard. More importantly, there is a far better way to fight Holocaust denial than to rely on the transitory force of law. When Irving forced me to go to court to defend my freedom of expression, my most important weapon was the historical truth. We have truth and history on our side. From both an ideological and strategic perspective, those are far more powerful weapons than laws, especially laws that seem to counter the ideal of freedom of expression. The best way to counter Holocaust deniers is to teach as many people as possible this history. That is why courses on history of the Holocaust have proven so popular and important. Students who take those courses will never fall prey to such distortions. Jewish tradition teaches that the Hebrew word emet, truth, composed as it is from the first, middle and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, encompasses everything. The truth of the Holocaust is terrible and painful, but it is the truth and that is the most potent weapon anyone could want. Deborah Lipstadt teaches at Emory University and is the author of “History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” (Ecco, 2005) which won a National Jewish Book Award. http://www.jewishchronicle.org/2008/03/31/truth-is-

best-weapon-against-shoah-denial/

*** Aussie kid awarded for Hitler costume in front of

Jewish students

Published time: 9 Sep, 2016 06:47

© John Macdougall / AFP

A private school in Australia apologized for an incident in which a kid was allowed to dress as Nazi leader Adolf Hitler for book

8

week, and was even awarded a prize for the costume in front of some Jewish exchange students. The boy at the center of the gaffe, which happened on Wednesday in St. Philip’s College in Alice Springs, Northern Territory, asked permission from a teacher to dress as one of history’s most notorious figures. The costume “should not have been approved,” but was, according to school principal Roger Herbert. The costume was apparently so good that the kid won one of the “best dressed” awards and was praised in front of a group of Jewish exchange students from Bialik College in Melbourne. Herbert later offered an apology for the incident, which they

accepted, he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “We got them together and apologized and they were fantastic, absolutely fantastic, and accepting,” he said. “We also contacted the school to say look, this had happened, please understand.” Bialik College principal Jeremy Stowe-Lindner said St Philip's had taken the right action following the incident.

“I understand that no malice was intended and I guess the coincidence of Jewish children visiting from Melbourne is a learning opportunity for the community, and that the principal assures me this is number one priority,” he said. Stowe-Lindner said the two schools have had a six-year relationship and the exchange would continue. Herbert said the teacher who granted permission for the Hitler costume made a bad call and was “shattered” by it. The boy was most likely a minor aged between 7 and 12, given the profile of the school. “The teacher involved is a respected member of staff who is deeply apologetic for her error in judgement, and the student

has an interest in history and politics and did the right thing by getting permission for his ‘book week’ costume,” the school said in a statement. https://www.rt.com/viral/358746-hitler-costume-school-australia/

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

Trivial Pursuit- for those who believe and don’t want to know the

physical facts

'Swastika crop circle' appears in British countryside

(VIDEO)

*** Ex-pope Benedict was in love as a student

Tom Kington, Rome September 9 2016, 12:01am, The Times

The decision to choose celibacy was not easy, the former pontiff revealedGRZEGORZ GALAZKA/GETTY IMAGES The former Pope, whose resignation shocked the world in 2013, has revealed that he fell in love during his student days in Germany and struggled with the concept of celibacy. Before the publication today of a candid book-length interview, the former pontiff has also revealed how he crushed a cabal of homosexual prelates at the Vatican.

Peter Seewald, a German journalist who interviewed the Pope Emeritus for the book, told Germany’s Die Welt that Benedict, 89, told him he “fell in love . . . in a very serious way” as a student, adding, “he struggled with it very much”. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/ex-pope-benedict-was-in-love-as-a-student-005wf7mhq

***

8 September 2016

Walmart, Florida, takes down Twin Towers Coke display - http://www.tmj4.com/news/national/twin-towers-

soda-display-removed-from-florida-walmart ***

_____________________________________________________________ A serious matter

Henry Williamson: Nature’s Visionary

By Mark Deavin

Originally published in National Vanguard magazine, Issue No. 117, 1997.

9

The fact that the name of Henry Williamson is today so little known across the White world is a sad reflection of the extent to which Western man has allowed himself to be deprived of his culture and identity over the last 50 years. Until the Second World War Williamson was generally regarded as one of the great English Nature writers, possessing a unique ability to capture the essential essence and meaning of the natural world in all its variety and forms. His most famous Nature book, Tarka the Otter, was published in 1927 and became one of the best-loved children’s books of all time, with its vivid descriptions of animal and woodland life in the English countryside. It was publicly praised by leading English literary figures such as Thomas Hardy, Arnold Bennett, and John Galsworthy. Hardy called Tarka a “remarkable book,” while Bennett declared it to be “marvelous.” Even T.E. Lawrence, also known as Lawrence of Arabia, admitted that “the book did move me and gratify me profoundly.” Tarka was awarded the coveted Hawthornden Prize for literature in 1928 and eventually attracted the interest of Walt Disney, who offered a small fortune for the film rights. Williamson, however, was concerned that such an arrangement might compromise his artistic integrity, and he rejected the offer. Seventy years later, however, Tarka, like the majority of Williamson’s books, is relatively unknown and has only just become available in print again. The reason: Like several other leading European authors, Williamson was a victim of the Second World War. Not only did his naturalistic message conflict with the materialistic culture that has pervaded the Western world since 1945, but he himself was a political fighter who actively opposed the war on ideological grounds. Born in Brockley, southeast London, in December 1895, Williamson was educated at Colfe’s Grammar School, Lewisham. He spent much of his early life exploring the nearby Kent countryside, where his love of Nature and animals and his artistic awareness and sensitivity were first stimulated. Never satisfied unless he had seen things for himself, he always made sure that he studied things closely enough to get the letter as well as the spirit of reality. This enabled him to develop a microscopic observational ability which came to dominate his

life. Williamson joined the British Army at the outbreak of war in 1914 and fought at the Battle of the Somme and at Passchendaele, where he was seriously wounded. It was this experience as a frontline soldier which was the redefining moment in his life and artistic development, stimulating in him a lifelong Faustian striving to experience and comprehend the “life flow” permeating his own, and all, existence. His spiritual development continued after the war. In 1919 he read for the first time the visionary The Story of My Heart, which was written by the English Nature writer Richard Jefferies and published in 1893. For Williamson, discovering Jefferies acted as a liberation of his consciousness, stimulating all the stored impressions of his life to return and reveal a previously smothered and overlaid self. It was not just an individual self that he discovered, however, but a racial self in which he began to recognize his existence as but a link in an eternal chain that reached back into the mists of time, and which — if it were permitted — would carry on forever.

Williamson sensed this truth in his own feeling of oneness with Nature and the ancient, living, breathing Universe as represented by the life-giving sun. It also was reflected in his idea of mystical union between the eternal sunlight and the long history of the earth. For Williamson the ancient light of the sun was something “born in me” and represented the real meaning of his own existence by illuminating his ancestral past and revealing the truth of redemption through Nature. Like Jefferies before him, Williamson “came to feel the long life of the earth back in the dimmest past while the sun of the moment was warm on me … This sunlight linked me through the ages to that past consciousness. From all the ages my soul desired to take that soul-life which had flowed through them as the sunbeams had continually found an earth.” [1] After the war Williamson became a journalist for a time while beginning work on his first novel, The Beautiful Years (1922). Finally he decided to break all contact with London and in 1922 moved to an ancient cottage in Georgham, North Devon, which had been built in the days of King John. Living alone and in hermit fashion at first, Williamson disciplined himself to study Nature with the same meticulous observations as Jefferies,

tramping about the countryside and often sleeping out. The door and windows of the cottage were never closed, and his strange family of dogs and cats, gulls, buzzards, magpies, and one otter cub were free to come and go as they chose. It was his experiences with the otter cub which stimulated Williamson to write Tarka. He had rescued it after its mother had been shot by a farmer, and he saved its life by persuading his cat to suckle it along with her kitten. Eventually the otter cub was domesticated and became Williamson’s constant companion, following him around like a dog. On one walk, however, it walked into a rabbit trap, panicked, and ran off. Williamson spent years following otters’ haunts in the rivers Taw and Torridge, hunting for his lost pet. The search was in vain, but his intimate contact with the animal world gave him the inspiration for Tarka: “The eldest and biggest of the litter was a dog cub, and when he drew his first breath he was less than five inches long from his nose to where his tail joined his back-bone. His fur was soft and grey as the buds of the willow before they open up at Eastertide. He was called Tarka, which was the name given to the otters many years ago by men dwelling in hut circles on the moor. It means Little Water Wanderer, or Wandering as Water.” Williamson never attempted to pass any kind of moral judgment on Nature and described its evolutionary realities in a manner reminiscent of Jack London: “Long ago, when moose roamed in the forest at the mountain of the Two Rivers, otters had followed eels migrating from ponds and swamps to the seas. They had followed them into shallow waters; and one fierce old dog had run through the water so often that he swam, and later, in his great hunger, had put under his head to seize them so often that he dived. Other otters had imitated him. The moose are gone, and their bones lie under the sand in the soft coal which was the forest by the estuary, thousands of years ago. Yet otters have not been hunters in water long enough for the habit to become an instinct.” Williamson actually rewrote Tarka 17 times, “always and only for the sake of a greater truth.” [2] Mere polishing for grace and expression or literary style did not interest him, and he strove

10

always to illuminate a scene or incident with what he considered was authentic sunlight. He also believed that European man could be spiritually healthy and alive to his destiny only by living in close accord with Nature. Near the end of Tarka, for instance, he delightfully describes how “a scarlet dragonfly whirred and darted over the willow snag, watched by a girl sitting on the bank … Glancing round, she realized that she alone had seen the otter. She flushed, and hid her grey eyes with her lashes. Since childhood she had walked the Devon rivers with her father looking for flowers and the nests of birds, passing some rocks and trees as old friends, seeing a Spirit everywhere, gentle in thought to all

her eyes beheld.” Williamson’s sequel to Tarka was Salar the Salmon, which was also the result of many months of intimate research and observation of Nature in the English countryside. Then came The Lone Swallow, The Peregrine’s Saga, Life in a Devon Village, and A Clear Water Stream, all of which, in the eyes of the English writer Naomi Lewis, displayed “a crystal intensity of observation and a compelling use of words, which exactly match the movement and life that he describes.” To Williamson himself, however, his Nature stories were not the most important part of his literary output. His greatest effort went into his two semi-autobiographical novel groups, the tetralogy collected as The Flax of Dreams, which occupied him for most of the 1920’s, and the 15-volume A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight, which began with The Dark Lantern in 1951 and ended with The Gale of the World in 1969. Williamson’s experiences during the First World War had politicized him for life. A significant catalyst in this development was the Christmas truce of 1914, when British and German frontline soldiers spontaneously left their trenches, abandoned the fighting, and openly greeted each other as brothers. Williamson later spoke of an “incoherent sudden realization, after the fraternization of Christmas Day, that the whole war was based on lies.” Another experience that consolidated this belief was when a German officer helped him remove a wounded British soldier who was draped over barbed wire on the front line. He was thus able to contrast his own wartime experiences with the vicious anti-German propaganda orchestrated by the British political establishment both during and after the war, and he was able to recognize the increasing moral bankruptcy of that establishment. In Williamson’s view the fact that over half of the 338 Conservative Members of Parliament who dominated the 1918 governing coalition were company directors and financiers who had grown rich from war profits was morally wrong and detestable. This recognition, in itself a reflection of an already highly developed sense of altruism, meant that Williamson could never be content with just isolating himself in the countryside. He had to act to try to change the world for the better. Perhaps not surprisingly he came to see in the idea of National Socialism a creed which not only represented his own philosophy of life, but which offered the chance of practical salvation for Western Civilization. He saw it as evolving directly from the almost religious transcendence which he, and thousands of soldiers of both sides, had experienced in the trenches of the First World

War. This transcendence resulted in a determination that the “White Giants” of Britain and Germany would never go to war against each other again, and it rekindled a sense of racial kinship and unity of the Nordic peoples over and above separate class and national loyalties. [3] Consequently, not only was Williamson one of the first of the “phoenix generation” to swear allegiance to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists, but he quickly came to believe that National Socialist Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, pointed the way forward for European man. Williamson identified closely with Hitler — “the great man across the Rhine whose life symbol is the happy child,” seeing him as a light-bringing phoenix risen from the chaos of European civilization in order to bring a millennium of youth to the dying Western world. [4] Williamson visited Germany in 1935 to attend the National Socialist Congress at Nuremberg and saw there the beginnings of the “land fit for heroes” which had been falsely promised the young men of Britain during the First World War by the

government’s war propagandists. He was very impressed by the fact that, while the British people continued to languish in poverty and mass unemployment, National Socialism had created work for seven million unemployed, abolished begging, freed the farmers from the mortgages which had strangled production, developed laws on conservation, and, most importantly, had developed in a short period of time a deep sense of racial community. [5] Inspired to base their lives on a religious idea, Williamson believed that the German people had been reborn with a spiritual awareness and physical quality that he himself had long sought. Everywhere he saw “faces that looked to be breathing

extra oxygen; people free from mental fear.” [6] Through the Hitler Youth movement, which brought back fond memories of his own time as a Boy Scout, he recognized “the former pallid leer of hopeless slum youth transformed into the suntan, the clear eye, the broad and easy rhythm of the poised young human being.”

In Hitler’s movement Williamson identified not only an idea consistent with Nature’s higher purpose to create order out of chaos, but the physical encapsulation of a striving toward

Godhood. Influenced by his own lifelong striving for perfection, Williamson believed that the National Socialists represented “a race that moves on the poles of mystic, sensual delight. Every gesture is a gesture from the blood, every expression a symbolic utterance … Everything is of the blood, of the senses.” [7] Williamson always believed that any spiritual improvement could only take place as a result of a physical improvement, and, like his mentor Richard Jefferies, he was a firm advocate of race improvement through eugenics. He himself was eventually to father seven children, and he decried the increasing lack of racial quality in the mass of the White population. He urged that “the physical ideal must be kept steadily in view” and called for the enforcement of a discipline and system along the lines of ancient Sparta in order to realize it. [8] In 1936 Williamson and his family moved to Norfolk, where he threw himself into a new life as a farmer, the first three years of which are described in The Story of a Norfolk Farm (1941). But with the Jews increasingly using England as a base from which to agitate for war against Germany, Williamson remained very active through his membership in the British Union of Fascists in promoting the idea of Anglo-German friendship. Until it was banned in 1940, Williamson wrote eight articles for the party newspaper Action and had 13 extracts reprinted from his book The Patriot’s Progress. He called consistently for Hitler to be given “that amity he so deserved from England,” so as to prevent another brothers’ war that would see the victory only of Asiatic Bolshevism and the enslavement of Europe. On September 24, 1939, for instance, he wrote of his continuing conviction that Hitler was “determined to do and create what is right. He is fighting evil. He is fighting for the future.” Williamson viewed the declaration of war on Germany by Britain and France as a spiteful act of an alien system that was determined to destroy the prospect of a reborn and regenerated European youth. And his continued opposition to it led to his arrest and internment in June 1940, along with Mosley and hundreds of others. His subsequent release on parole was conditional upon his taking no further action to oppose the war. Silently, however, Williamson remained true to his convictions.

11

Visiting London in January 1944, he observed with satisfaction that the ugliness and immorality represented by its financial and banking sector had been “relieved a little by a catharsis of high explosive” and somewhat “purified by fire.” National Socialism’s wartime defeat, however, dealt Williamson a heavy blow. Decrying the death struggle of “the European cousin nations” he lamented that “the hopes that have animated or agitated my living during the past thirty years and four months are dead.” [9] Consequently, his first marriage broke up in 1947, and he returned to North Devon to live in the hilltop hut which he had bought in 1928 with the prize money from Tarka.

But it was not in Williamson’s character to give up on what he knew to be true and right, and, as his most recent biographer makes clear, he never recanted his ideas about Hitler. [10] On the contrary, he continued to publicly espouse what he believed, and he fervently contested the postwar historical record distorted by false Jewish propaganda — even though his effort resulted, as he realized it would, in his continued literary ostracism. In The Gale of the World, the last book of his Chronicle, published in 1969, Williamson has his main character Phillip Maddison question the moral and legal validity of the Nuremberg Trials. Among other things, he muses why the Allied officers who ordered the mass fire bombing of Germany, and the Soviet generals who ordered the mass rape and mass murder during the battle for Berlin, were not on trial; and whether it would ever be learned that the art treasures found in German salt mines were put there purely to be out of the way of the Allied bombing. He also questions the official view of the so called “Holocaust,” stating his belief that rather than being the result of a mass extermination plan, the deaths in German concentration camps were actually caused by typhus brought about by the destruction of all public utility systems by Allied bombing. In the book Williamson also reiterates his belief that Adolf Hitler was never the real enemy of Britain. And in one scene Phillip Maddison, in conversation with his girl friend Laura, questions whether it was Hitler’s essential goodness and righteousness that was responsible for his downfall in the midst of evil and barbarity: Laura: I have a photograph of Hitler with the last of his faithful boys outside the bunker in Berlin. He looks worn out, but he is so gentle and kind to those twelve- and thirteen-year-old boys. Phillip: Too gentle and kind Laura … Now the faithful will be hanged. Williamson also remained loyal in the realm of political ideas and action. When Oswald Mosley had returned to public life in Britain in 1948 by launching the Union Movement, Williamson was one of the first to give his support for an idea which he had long espoused: the unity of Western man. Contributing an article to the first issue of the movement’s magazine, The European, he called for the development of a new type of European man with a set of spiritual values that were in tune with himself and Nature.

Such positive and life-promoting thinking did not endear Williamson to the powers that be in the grey and increasingly decadent cultural climate of post-Second World War Britain. His books were ignored, and his artistic achievement remained unrecognized, with even the degrees committee at the university to which he was a benefactor twice vetoing a proposal to award him an honorary doctorate. The evidence suggests, in fact, that Williamson was subject to a prolonged campaign of literary ostracism by people inside the British establishment who believed he should be punished for his political opinions. For Williamson, however, the machinations of trivial people in a trivial age were irrelevant; what was important was that he

remained true in the eyes of posterity to himself, his ancestors, and the eternal truth which he recognized and lived by. In fact, as one observer described him during these later years, he remained a “lean, vibrant, almost quivering man with … blazing eyes, possessing an exceptional presence [and a] … continued outspoken admiration for Hitler … as a ‘great and good man.’” [11] Certainly, Williamson knew himself, and he knew what was necessary for Western man to find himself again and to fulfill his destiny. In The Gale of the World he cited Richard Jefferies to emphasize that higher knowledge by which he led his life and by which he was convinced future generations would have to lead their lives in order to attain the heights that Nature demanded of them: “All the experience of the greatest city in the world could not withhold me. I rejected it wholly. I stood bare-headed in the sun, in the presence of earth and air, in the presence of the immense forces of the Universe. I demand that which will make me more perfect now this hour.” Henry Williamson’s artistic legacy must endure because, as one admirer pondered in his final years, his visionary spirit and striving “came close to holding the key to life itself.” He died on August 13, 1977, aged 81.

Notes 1. Ann Williamson, Henry Williamson: Tarka and the Last Romantic, (London, 1995), 65. 2. Eleanor Graham, “Introduction” to the Penguin edition of Tarka the Otter (1985). 3. Higginbottom, Intellectuals and British Fascism , (London, 1992), 10. 4. Henry Williamson, The Flax of Dreams (London, 1936) and The Phoenix Generation (London, 1961). 5. Henry Williamson, A Solitary War (London, 1966). 6. Higginbotham, op. cit., 41-42. 7. J. W. Blench, Henry Williamson and the Romantic Appeal of Fascism , (Durham, 1988). 8. Henry Williamson, The Children of Shallow Ford, (London, 1939).

9. Higginbotham, op. cit., 49. 10. Ann Williamson, op. cit., 195. 11. Higginbotham, op. cit., 53.

_________________________________________________ [ Whether you love him or loathe him, when you read the following you will understand why David Cole, Fritz Berg, et

al, with a vengeance hate what Ernst Zündel achieved in his legal battle.- ed. AI]

***

The Zündel Trials - 1985 and 1988 By Dr Robert Faurisson

[Editor's Note: The text of this article was first published by Robert Faurisson in the Journal of Historical Review in 1988. I added the emphasis of bold, italics, and underlined words to his text. The photos and embedded videos were also added to the text to augment the information being presented. We've all been misled to believe, through intentional propagation of a deception by organized World Jewry, that millions of Jewish people were gassed to death during World War II and their bodies burned to ashes in crematoriums in Nazi concentration camps. It's simply not true. There were no homocidal gas chambers in any of the Nazi concentration camps, including Auschwitz and Treblinka. The notorious Zyklon B pellets were used to disinfect clothing of the prisoners to rid the clothing of lice which carried the deadly

Typhus disease organisms. The piles of bodies seen in photographs are people who had died of typhus infection and/or starvation in the final months of the war, and not from being gassed to death. There was no order from Himmler or Hitler or any other top Nazi to exterminate Jews in Nazi concentration camps. The use of the term "Final Solution" referred to the Third Reich's intention to remove Jews from German soil by expulsion, not for their genocidal extermination, as claimed by Holocaust promoters. Recognizing that we've been duped by a massive Zionist propaganda hoax does not automatically make one pro-Nazi or apologists for the misery and destruction wrought by Nazis during World War II.]

12

On May 13, 1988, Ernst Zündel was sentenced by Judge Ronald Thomas of the District Court of Ontario, in Toronto, to nine months in prison for having distributed a Revisionist booklet that is now 14 years old: Did Six Million Really Die? Ernst Zündel lives in Toronto where,

up until a few years ago, he worked

as a graphic artist and advertising

man. He isnow 49 years old. A

native of Germany, he has kept his

German citizenship. His life has

known serious upsets from the day

when, in about 1981, he began to

distribute Did Six Million Really Die?,

a

Revisionist booklet by Richard

Harwood. The booklet was first

published in 1974 in Great Britain

where, a year later, it was the focus

of a lengthy controversy in the

literary journal Books and Bookmen.

At the instigation of the Jewish

community of South Africa, it was

later banned in that country.

In Canada, during an earlier trial in

1985, Zündel had been sentenced to

15 months in prison. That sentence

was thrown out in 1987. A new trial began on January 18, 1988.

I participated in the preparations for it and in the unfolding of

those judicial proceedings. I devoted thousands of hours to the

defense of Ernst Zündel.

François Duprat: A Precursor

On 1967, François Duprat

[right] published an article on

"The Mystery of the Gas

Chambers" (Défense de

l'Occident, June 1967, pp. 30-

33). He later became interested

in the Harwood booklet and

became actively involved in its

distribution.

On March 18, 1978, Duprat

[38 years old] was killed by

assassins armed with weapons

too complex not to belong to an

intelligence service

[car bomb exploded while driving with his wife, Jeanine, who survived the blast but was paralyzed from the waist down. Duprat was the number 2 man in Jean-Marie Le Pen's FN nationalist party at the time of his murder and was alone among France's nationalists in 1967 in defending the Palestinians against Israeli aggression...Ed.]. Responsibility for the assassination was claimed by a "Remembrance Commando" and by a "Jewish Revolutionary Group" (Le Monde, March 23, 1978, p. 7). Patrice Chairoff had published Duprat's home address in the Dossier Néo-Nazisme. He justified the assassination in the pages of Le Monde (April 26, 1978, p. 9) by citing the victim's Revisionism: "François Duprat is responsible. There are some responsibilities that kill." In Le Droit de vivre, the publication of the LICRA (International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism), Jean Pierre-Bloch

expressed an ambiguous position: he criticized the crime but, at the same time, he let it be understood that he had no pity for those who, inspired by the victim, would start out on the Revisionist path (Le Monde, May 7-8, 1978).

Pierre Viansson-Ponté Eight months before Duprat's assassination, journalist Pierre

Viansson-Ponté had launched a virulent attack against the

Harwood pamphlet. His chronicle was entitled: "Le Mensonge"

(The Lie), (Le Monde, July 17-18, 1978, p. 13). It was reprinted

with an approving commentary in Le Droit de vivre. Six months

after the assassination, Viansson-Ponté took up the attack once

more in "Le Mensonge" (suite) (The Lie-Continued) (Le Monde,

September 34, 1978, p.9). He passed over the assassination of

Duprat in silence, made public the names and home towns of

three Revisionist readers, and called for legal repression against

Revisionism.

Sabina Citron Versus Ernst Zündel

In 1984, Sabina Citron, head of

the Holocaust Remembrance

Association, stirred up violent

demonstrations against Ernst Zündel in

Canada. An attack was made on

Zündel's home. The Canadian postal

service, treating Revisionism the way

it treats pornography, refused him all

service and all right to receive mail.

Zündel only recovered his postal

rights after a year of judicial

procedures. In the meantime, his business has failed. At the

instigation of Sabina Citron, the Attorney General of Ontario

filed a complaint against Zündel for publishing a "false

statement, tale or news." The charge was based on the following

reasoning: the defendant had abused his right to freedom

of expression; by distributing the Harwood pamphlet, he was

spreading information that he knew was false; in fact, he could

not fail to be aware that the "genocide of the Jews" and the "gas

chambers" were an established fact. Zündel was also charged

with publishing an allegedly "false" letter, which he had

written himself.

The First Trial – 1985 The first trial lasted seven weeks. The jury found Zündel not guilty regarding the letter he had himself written but guilty of distributing the Harwood booklet. He was sentenced by Judge Hugh Locke [right] to 15 months in

prison. The German consulate in Toronto confiscated his passport and the West German government prepared a deportation action against him. In Germany itself, West German authorities had already carried out a series of large-scale police raids on the houses of all his German correspondents [mail order customers who bought his books...Ed.]. In 1987, the United States forbade him entry to its territory. But in spite of all that, Zündel had won a media victory: day after day, for seven weeks, the entire English- speaking Canadian

media covered the trial, with its spectacular revelations. The public learned that the Revisionists had first class documentation and arguments, while the Exterminationists were in desperate straits. Their Expert: Raul Hilberg [left] The prosecution expert in the first trial was Raul Hilberg, an American professor of Jewish descent and author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews(1961),

13

which Paul Rassinier discussed in Le Drame des Juifs européens (The Drama of the European Jews). Hilberg began his testimony by explaining, without interruption, his theory about the extermination of the Jews. He was then cross-examined by Zündel's lawyer, Douglas Christie [right], who was assisted by Keltie Zubko and myself. Right from the start it was clear that Hilberg, who was the world's leading authority on the Holocaust, had never examined a single concentration camp, not even Auschwitz. He had still not

examined any camp in 1985 when he announced the imminent appearance of a new edition of his main work in three volumes, revised, corrected and augmented. Although he did visit Auschwitz in 1979 for a single day as part of a ceremonial appearance, he did not bother to examine either the buildings or the archives. In his entire life he has never seen a "gas chamber," either in its original condition or in ruins. (For a historian, even ruins can tell tales). On the stand he was forced to admit that there had never been a plan, a central organization, a budget or supervision for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He also had to admit that since 1945 the Allies have never carried out an expert study of "the weapon of the crime," that is to say of a homicidal gas chamber. No autopsy eport has established that even one inmate was ever killed by poison gas. Hilberg said that Hitler gave orders for the extermination of the Jews, and that Himmler gave an order to halt the extermination on November 25, 1944 (such detail!). But Hilberg could not produce these orders. The defense asked him if he still maintained the existence of the Hitler orders in the new edition of his book. He dared to answer "yes." He thereby lied and even committed perjury. In the new edition of his work (with a preface dated September 1984), Hilberg systematically deleted any mention of an order by Hitler. (In this regard, see the review by Christopher Browning, "The Revised Hilberg," Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294). When he was asked by the defense to explain how the Germans had been able to carry out an undertaking as enormous as the extermination of millions of Jews without any kind of plan, without any central agency, without any blueprint or budget, Hilberg replied that in the various Nazi agencies there had been "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."

Witness Arnold Friedman The prosecution counted on the testimony of "survivors." These

"survivors" were chosen with care.

They were supposed to testify that

they had seen, with their own eyes,

preparations for and the carrying out

of homicidal gassings. Since the war,

in a series of trials like those at

Nuremberg (1945-46), Jerusalem

(1961), or Frankfurt (1963-65), such

witnesses have never been lacking.

However, as I have often noted, no

lawyer for the defense had ever had

the courage or the competence

necessary to cross-examine these

witnesses on the gassings

themselves.

For the first time, in Toronto in 1985, one lawyer, Douglas

Christie, dared to ask for explanations. He did it with the help of

topographical maps and building plans as well as scholarly

documentation on both the properties of the gases supposedly

used and also on the capacities for cremation, whether carried

out in crematory ovens or on pyres. Not one of these witnesses

stood the test, and especially not Arnold Friedman. Despairing

of his case, he ended by confessing that he had indeed been at

Auschwitz-Birkenau (where he never had to work except once,

unloading potatoes), but that, as regards gassings, he had

relied on what others had told him.

Witness Rudolf Vrba Witness Rudolf Vrba [left] was

internationally known. A Slovak

Jew imprisoned at Auschwitz and

at Birkenau, he said that he had

escaped from the camp in April

1944 with Fred Wetzler. After

getting back to Slovakia, he

dictated a report about Auschwitz

and Birkenau, and on their

crematories and "gas chambers."

With help from Jewish

organizations in Slovakia,

Hungary and Switzerland, his

report reached Washington, where it served as the basis for the

U.S. Government's famous "War Refugee Board Report,"

published in November 1944. Since then, every Allied

organization charged with the prosecution of "war crimes" and

every Allied prosecutor in a trial of "war criminals" has had

available this official version of the history of those camps.

Vrba later became a British citizen and published his

autobiography under the title of I Cannot Forgive. This book

published in 1964, was actually written by Alan Bestic, who, in

his preface, testified to the "considerable care [by Rudolf Vrba]

for each detail" and to the "meticulous and almost fanatic

respect he revealed for accuracy." On November 30, 1964, Vrba

testified at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. Then he settled in

Canada and became a Canadian citizen. He has been featured in

various films about Auschwitz, particularly Shoah by Claude

Lanzmann. Everything went well for him until the day at the

Zündel trial in 1985 when he was cross-examined mercilessly.

He was then shown to be an impostor. It was revealed that he

had completely made up the number and location of the "gas

chambers" and the crematories in his famous 1944 report. His

1964 book opened with a purported January 1943 visit by

Himmler to Birkenau to inaugurate a new crematorium with "gas

chamber."

Actually, the last visit by Himmler to Auschwitz took place

in July of 1942, and in January 1943 the first of the new

crematories was still far from finished.

Thanks, apparently, to some special

gift of memory (that he called "special

mnemonic principles" or "special

mnemonical method") and to a real

talent for being everywhere at once,

Vrba had calculated that in the space of

25 months (April 1942 to April 1944)

the Germans had

"gassed" 1,765,000 [one million,

seven hundred and sixty five thousand]

Jews at Birkenau

alone, including 150,000 Jews from

France. But in 1978, Serge Klarsfeld [above], in his Memorial

to the Deportation of the Jews from France, had been forced

to conclude that, for the entire length of the war, the

Germans had deported a total of 75,721 Jews from France

to all their concentration camps.

The gravest aspect of this is that the figure of 1,765,000 Jews

"gassed" at Birkenau had also been used in a document (L-022)

at the main Nuremberg trial. Attacked on all sides by Zündel's

14

lawyer, the impostor had no other recourse than to invoke, in

Latin, the "licentia poetarum," or "poetic license," in other

words, the right to engage in fiction. His book has just been

published in France (1987); this edition is presented as a book

by "Rudolf Vrba with Alan Bestic." It no longer includes the

enthusiastic preface by Alan Bestic, and the short introduction

by Emile Copfermann notes that "with the approval of Rudolf

Vrba, the two appendices from the English edition have been

removed." Nothing is said about the fact that those two

appendices had also caused Vrba serious problems in 1985 at

the Toronto trial.

The Second Zündel Trial - 1988

In January 1987, a five-judge

appeals court decided to throw out

the 1985 verdict against Ernst

Zündel for some very basic

reasons: Judge Hugh

Locke [right] had not allowed the

defense any influence in the jury

selection process and the jury had

been misled by the judge on the

very meaning of the trial. As for

me, I have attended many trials in

my life, including some carried out

in France during the period of the

"Purge" at the end and after World War II. Never have I

encountered a judge

so partial, autocratic and violent as

Judge Hugh Locke. Anglo-Saxon law

offers many more guarantees than

French law, but it only takes one man to

pervert the best of systems. Judge Locke

was such a man.

The second trial began on January 18,

1988, under the direction of Judge

Ronald Thomas [right], who is a friend,

it seems, of Judge Locke. Judge Thomas

was often angry and was frankly hostile

to the defense, but he had more finesse

than his predecessor.

The ruling by the five-judge appeal court also inhibited him

somewhat. Judge Hugh Locke had imposed numerous

restrictions on free expression by the witnesses and experts for

the defense. For example, he forbade me to use any of the

photos I had taken at Auschwitz. I had no right to use

arguments of a chemical, cartographical, or architectural nature

(even though I had been the first person in the world to publish

the plans for the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematories). I was

not allowed to talk about either the American gas chambers or

the aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz and Birkenau.

Even the testimony of the eminent chemist William Lindsey was

cut short. Judge Ronald Thomas did allow the defense more

freedom, but at the outset of the trial, he made a decision, at

the request of the prosecution, that would tie the hands of the

jury.

Judge Thomas'Judicial Notice In Anglo-Saxon law, everything must be

proved except for certain absolutely

indisputable evidence ("The capital of Great

Britain is London," "day follows night"... )

The judge can take "judicial notice" of that

kind of evidence at the request of one or the

other of the contending

parties; Prosecuting Attorney John

Pearson [right] asked the judge to take

judicial notice of the Holocaust. That term

then has to be defined. It is likely that, had it not been for the

intervention of the defense, the judge could have defined the

Holocaust as it might have been defined in 1945-46. At that

time, the "genocide of the Jews" (the word "Holocaust" was not

used) could have been defined as "the ordered and planned

destruction of six million Jews, in particular by the use of gas

chambers."

The problem for the prosecution was that the defense advised

the judge that, since 1945-46, there have been profound

changes in the understanding of

Exterminationist historians about the

extermination of the Jews. First of all,

they no longer talk about an

extermination, but about an

attempted extermination. They have also

finally admitted that "in spite of the most

scholarly research" (Raymond

Aron [left], Sorbonne Convention, 2 July

1982), no one has found any trace of

an order to exterminate the Jews.

More recently, there has been a dispute between the

"intentionalists" and the "functionalists." Both agree that they

have no proof of any intent to exterminate, but "intentionalist"

historians nevertheless believe that one must assume the

existence of that intent, while "functionalist" historians believe

that the extermination was the result of individual initiatives,

localized and anarchic: in a sense, the activity created the

organization! Finally, the figure of six million was declared to be

"symbolic" and there have been many disagreements about the

"problem of the gas chambers."

Obviously surprised by this flood of information, Judge Ronald

Thomas decided to be prudent and, after a delay for reflection,

decided on the following definition; the Holocaust, he said, was

"the extermination and/or mass-murder of Jews" by National

Socialism. His definition is remarkable for more than one

reason. We no longer find any trace of an extermination

order, or a plan, or "gas chambers," or six million

Jews or even millions of Jews. This definition is so void of all

substance that it no longer corresponds to anything real. One

cannot understand the meaning of "mass-murder of Jews." (The

judge carefully avoided saying "of the Jews".) This strange

definition is itself a sign of the progress achieved by Historical

Revisionism since 1945.

Raul Hilberg Refuses to Appear Again One misfortune awaited Prosecutor

John Pearson: Raul Hilberg, in spite

of repeated requests, refused to

appear again. The defense, having

heard rumors of an exchange of

correspondence between Pearson

and Hilberg, demanded and got the

publication of the letters they

exchanged and in particular of a

"confidential" letter by Hilberg

which did not hide the fact that he

had some bitter memories of his

cross-examination in 1985. He

feared being questioned again by Douglas Christie on the same

points. To quote the exact words of his confidential letter,

Hilberg wrote that he feared "every attempt to entrap me by

pointing out any seeming contradiction, however trivial the

subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer

that I might give in 1988." In fact as I have already mentioned,

Hilberg had committed perjury and he may have feared

being charged with that crime.

15

Christopher Browning, Prosecution Witness

In place of Hilberg there came his friend Christopher Browning [right], an American professor who specializes in the Holocaust. Admitted as an expert

witness (and paid for several days at the rate of $150 per hour by the Canadian taxpayer), Browning tried to prove that the Harwood pamphlet was a tissue of lies and that the attempt to exterminate the Jews was a scientifically established fact. He had cause to regret the experience. During cross-examination, the defense used his own arguments to destroy him. In the course of those days, people saw the tall and naive professor, who had strutted while he stood testifying, seated, shrunken in size, behind the witness stand like a schoolboy caught in a mistake. With a faint and submissive voice, he ended up acknowledging that the trial had definitely taught him something about historical research. Following the example of Raul Hilberg, Browning had not

examined any concentration camps. He had not visited any

facility with "gas chambers." He had never thought of asking for

an expert study of the "weapon of the crime." In his writings he

had made much of homicidal "gas vans," but he was not able to

refer to any authentic photograph, any plan, any technical

study, or any expert study. He was not aware that German

words like "Gaswagen," "Spezialwagen," "Entlausungswagen"

(delousing van) could have perfectly innocent meanings. His

technical understanding was nil. He had never examined the

wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz. He was

unaware of all the tortures undergone by Germans, such as

Rudolf Hoss, who had spoken of gassings. He knew nothing of

the doubts expressed about some of Himmler's speeches or

about the Goebbels diary.

A great follower of the trials of war criminals, Browning had only

questioned the prosecutors, never the defense lawyers. His

ignorance of the transcript of the Nuremberg trial was

disconcerting. He had not even read what Hans Frank, former

Governor General of Poland, had said before the Nuremberg

tribunal about his "diary" and about "the extermination of the

Jews." That was inexcusable! As a matter of fact, Browning

claimed to have found irrefutable proof of the existence of a

policy of exterminating the Jews in the Frank diary. He had

discovered one incriminating sentence. He did not know that

Frank had given the Tribunal an explanation of that kind of

sentence, chosen beforehand from the hundreds of thousands of

sentences in a personnel and administrative journal of 11,560

pages. Furthermore, Frank had spontaneously turned over his

"diary" to the Americans when they came to arrest him. The

sincerity of the former Governor General is so obvious to anyone

who reads his deposition that Christopher Browning, invited to

hear the content, did not raise the least objection. One last

humiliation awaited him.

For the sake of his thesis, he invoked a passage from the well-

known "protocol" of the Wannsee conference (20 January 1942).

He had made his own translation of the passage, a translation

that was seriously in error. At that point, his thesis collapsed.

Finally, his own personal explanation of a "policy of the

extermination of the Jews" was the same as Hilberg's.

Everything was explained by the "nod" of Adolf Hitler. In

other words, the Fuhrer of the German people did not need to

give any written or even spoken order for the extermination of

the Jews. It was enough for him to give a "nod" at the beginning

of the operation and, for the rest, a series of "signals." And that

was understood!

Charles Biedermann

The other expert called by the prosecution (who had taken the stand before Browning) was Charles Biedermann [right], a Swiss citizen,

a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, most importantly, the director of the International Tracing Service (ITS) in Arolsen, West Germany. The ITS has an unbelievable wealth of information about the fate of individual victims of National Socialism and, in particular, of former concentration camp inmates. I believe that it is at Arolsen that one could determine the real number of Jews who died during the war. The prosecution did not benefit from this expert's testimony. On the contrary, the defense scored numerous points on cross-examination. Biedermann recognized that the ICRC had never found any proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the German camps. The visit by one of its delegates to Auschwitz in September 1944 had done no more than conclude the existence of a rumor on that subject. To his embarrassment, the expert was obliged to admit that he was wrong in attributing to the National Socialists the expression "extermination camps." He had not noticed that this was a term coined by the Allies. Biedermann said that he was not familiar with the ICRC reports on the atrocities undergone by the Germans just before and just after the end of the war. In particular, he knew nothing about the terrible treatment of many German prisoners. It would seem that the ICRC had nothing about the massive deportations of German minorities from the east, nothing on the horrors of the total collapse of Germany at the very end of the war, nothing about summary executions and, in particular, the massacre by rifle, machine gun, shovels and pickaxes, of 520 German soldiers and officers who had surrendered to the Americans at Dachau on April 29, 1945 (even though Victor Maurer, ICRC delegate, was apparently there). The International Tracing Service included among those "persecuted" by the Nazis even indisputably criminal prisoners in the concentration camps. He relied on the information supplied by a Communist organization, the "Auschwitz State Museum." Beginning in 1978, in order to prevent all Revisionist research, the International Tracing Service closed its doors to historians and researchers, except for those bearing a special authorization from one of the ten governments (including that of Israel) which oversee the activity of the International Tracing Service. Henceforth the Tracing Service was forbidden to calculate and

publish, as it had done until then, statistical evaluations of the number of dead in the various camps. The annual activity reports could no longer be made available to the public, except for their first third, which had been of no interest to researchers.

Biedermann confirmed a news story that had filtered out in 1964 at the Frankfurt trial: at the time of liberation of Auschwitz, the Soviets and the Poles had discovered the death register of that complex of 39 camps and sub-camps. The register consisted of 38 or 39 volumes. The Soviets keep 36 or 37 of those volumes in Moscow while the Poles keep two or three other volumes at the "Auschwitz State Museum," a copy of which they have furnished to the International Tracing Service in Arolsen. But neither the Soviets nor the Poles nor the International Tracing Service authorize research in these volumes. Biedermann did not even want to reveal the number of dead counted in the two or three volumes of which the ITS has a copy. It is clear that, if the content of the death register of

16

Auschwitz were made public, it would be the end of the myth of the millions of deaths in the camp.

No 'Survivor' Witnesses for the Prosecution The judge asked the prosecutor if he would call any "survivors"

to the witness stand. The prosecutor answered "no." The

experience of 1985 had been too embarrassing. The cross

examination had been devastating. It is regrettable that at the

trial of Klaus Barbie in France in 1987 and at the trial of John

Demjanjuk in Israel in 1987-1988, no defense lawyer has

followed Douglas Christie's example in the first Zündel trial

(1985): Christie had shown that by carefully questioning

witnesses about the gassing process itself, one could

destroy the very foundation of the "extermination camp" myth.

The Witnesses and Experts for the Defense

Most of the witnesses and experts for the defense were as

precise and concrete as people like Hilberg or Browning had

been imprecise and metaphysical. The Swede Ditlieb

Felderer showed about 380 slides of Auschwitz and of the other

camps in Poland. The American, Mark Weber, whose

knowledge of the documents is impressive, engaged in

clarifications of several aspects of the Holocaust, in particular

the Einsatzgruppen.* The German Tjudar Rudolph dealt with

the Lodz ghetto and visits by the ICRC delegates at the end of

1941 to Auschwitz, Majdanek and other camps.

Thies Christophersen had been in charge of an agricultural

research enterprise in the Auschwitz region in 1944. He visited

the Birkenau camp several times to requisition personnel there

and never noticed the horrors usually described. On the witness

stand he repeated point by point what he had written about the

camp, starting in 1973 with a 19-page report (Kritik, Nr. 23, pp.

14-32). The Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van

Herwaarden was interned at Birkenau starting in 1942. She

saw nothing, either close up or from a distance, that resembled

mass murder, although she confirmed that many of the inmates

had died of typhus. The American Bradley Smith, a member of

a "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust," spoke about

his experience in more than 100 question-and-answer

interviews on American radio and television on the Holocaust

issue.

The Austrian Emil Lachout commented on the famous "Muller

Document," which, since December 1987, has thrown the

Austrian authorities into disarray. The document,

dated October 1, 1948, revealed that even then, Allied

commissions of inquiry had already rejected the stories of

homicidal "gassings" in a whole series of camps, including

Dachau, Ravensbrück, Struthof (Natzweiler), Stutthof (Danzig),

Sachsenhausen, and Mauthausen (Austria).

The document specifically confirms that confessions of Germans had been extorted by torture and that testimonies by former inmates were false. Dr. Russell Barton [right] recounted his horrified discovery of the camp at Bergen-Belsen at the time of liberation. Until that moment he had believed in a deliberate program of extermination. Then he noted the fact that, in an apocalyptic Germany, the piles of corpses and the walking skeletons were the result of the frightful conditions of an overcrowded camp, ravaged by epidemics, and almost entirely deprived of medicine, food, and water because of Allied bombings. The German Udo Walendy outlined the many forgeries he had discovered, in wartime atrocity photographs and other documents, either altered or forged by a team headed by a British

propagandist called Sefton Delmer.

J.G. Burg, a Jew who lives in Munich, told of his experiences in the war and confirmed that there had never been any policy for the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Academics like the Chinese professor Dr. K.T. Fann, a Marxist, and Dr. Gary Botting, who lost his teaching position at Red Deer College (Alberta) as a result of testifying at the Zündel trial in 1985, testified that the Harwood booklet was essentially a work of opinion, and hence not subject to legal prohibition. Jürgen Neumann, a close associate and friend of Zündel, testified as to Zündel's state of minds when the booklet first was published. Ernst Neilsen testified on the obstacles he encountered at the University of Toronto to open research on

the Holocaust. Ivan Lagacé, director of the crematory at Calgary, demonstrated the practical impossibility of the numbers alleged by Hilberg to have been cremated at Auschwitz. For my part, I appeared as an expert witness for nearly six days. I concentrated particularly on my investigations of the American gas chambers. I recalled that Zyklon B is essentially hydrocyanic acid and that it is with this gas that certain American penitentiaries execute those who have been condemned to death. In 1945 the Allies should have asked specialists on American gas chambers to examine the buildings, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, which were supposed to have been used to gas millions of people. Since 1977, I have had the following idea: when one deals with a vast historical problem like that of the reality or the legend of the Holocaust, one must strive to get to the core of the problem; in this case the central problem is Auschwitz and the core of that problem is a space of 275 square meters: the 65 square meters of the "gas chamber" of crematorium I at Auschwitz and, at Birkenau, the 210 square meters of the "gas chamber" of crematorium II. In 1988, my idea remained the same: let us have expert studies of those 275 square meters and we will have an answer to the vast problem of the Holocaust! I showed the jury my photos of the gas chamber at the Maryland State Penitentiary in Baltimore as well as my plans for the Auschwitz gas chambers and I underlined the physical and chemical impossibilities of the latter ones.

A Sensational Turn of Events: The Leuchter Report Ernst Zündel, in possession of the correspondence I had exchanged in 1977-78 with the six American penitentiaries outfitted with gas chambers, gave attorney Barbara Kulaszka the job of getting in touch with the chief wardens of those penitentiaries in order to see if one of them would agree to

appear in court to explain how a real gas chamber operates. Bill Armontrout [left], chief warden of the penitentiary at Jefferson City (Missouri), agreed to testify and in doing so pointed out that no one in the USA was more knowledgeable about the functioning of gas chambers than Fred A. Leuchter, an engineer from Boston. I went to visit Leuchter on February 3 and 4, 1988. I found that he had never asked himself any questions about the "gas chambers" in the German camps. He had

simply believed in their existence. After I began to show him my files, he became

aware of the chemical and physical impossibility of the German "gassings" and he agreed to examine our documents in Toronto. After that, at Zündel's expense, he left for Poland with a secretary (his wife), a draftsman, a video-cameraman and an interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192-page report (including appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the one hand, from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the homicidal "gassings" and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas chamber at Birkenau. His conclusion was simple: there had never been any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek. On April 20 and 21, 1988, Fred Leuchter [right, in 1988] appeared on the witness stand in the Toronto courtroom. He

17

told the story of his investigation and presented his conclusions. I am convinced that during those two days I was an eyewitness to the death of the gas chamber myth, a myth which, in my opinion, had entered its dead throes at the Sorbonne colloquium on "Nazi Germany and the Extermination of the Jews" (June 29 to July 2, 1982), where the organizers themselves began to grasp that there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF7Y7pAMtFk [Editor's Note: Fred Leuchter talks at the Ninth International Revisionist Conference which took place in 1989 in Costa Mesa, California, under the auspices of the Institute of Historical

Review. Other conference speakers included David Irving, Victor Marchetti, Robert Faurisson, and Anthony Kubek.] Fred Leuchter interview with Jim Rizoli in September 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_EMnWi38JA [Editor's Note: This is an amazing and riveting interview which explains what happened to Fred Leuchter in the wake of his 1988 Leuchter Report. I was surprised to see only 5,865 views of a Youtube video that contains such important and historically relevant information considering the enormity and dogmatic allegiance to the Zionist-created Holocaust deception. As is the case with all truth-driven individuals who attempt to step forward and express their conclusions, opinions, and research on the facts surrounding the alleged homicidal gassing of Jews in Nazi concentration camps, the Organized Jewish Mafia wastes no time in threatening and jeopardizing their freedom, their means of livelihood, and even their life for having the temerity to rock the boat of Holocaust Certitude and the millions doled out to "survivors" routinely by German, American, and other nation's taxpayers.] In the Toronto courtroom emotions were intense, in particular among the friends of Sabina Citron. Ernst Zündel's friends were also moved, but for a different reason: they were witnessing the veil of the great swindle being torn away. As for me, I felt both relief and melancholy: relief because a thesis that I had defended for so many years was at last fully confirmed, and melancholy because I had fathered the idea in the first place. I had even, with the clumsiness of a man of letters, presented physical, chemical, topographical and architectural arguments which I now saw summed up by a scientist who was astonishingly precise and thorough. Would people one day remember the skepticism I had encountered, even from other Revisionists? Just before Fred Leuchter, Bill Armontrout had been on the witness stand, where he confirmed, in every detail, what I had said to the jury about the extreme difficulties of a homicidal gassing (not to be confused with a suicidal or accidental gassing). Ken Wilson, a specialist in aerial photographs, had shown that the homicidal "gas chambers" of Auschwitz and Birkenau did not have gas evacuation chimneys, which would have been indispensible. He

also showed that I had been right in accusing Serge Klarsfeld and Jean-Claude Pressac [left] of falsifying the map of Birkenau in the Auschwitz Album (Seuil Publishers, 1983, p. 42). Those authors, in order

to make the reader believe that groups of Jewish women and children surprised by the photographer between crematories II and III could not go any farther and were thus going to end up in the "gas chambers" and those crematories, had simply

eliminated from the map the path which. in reality. let up to the "Zentralsauna," a large shower facility (located beyond the zone of the crematories), where those women and children were actually going. James Roth [right], director of a laboratory in Massachusetts, then testified on the analysis of the 32 samples, the origin of which he was unaware of: all the samples taken in the homicidal "gas chambers" contained a quantity of cyanide which was either unmeasurable or infinitesimal, while the sample from the

disinfection gas chamber, taken for comparison's sake, contained an enormous amount of cyanide (the infinitesimal quantity detected in the former case can be explained by the fact that the supposed homicidal gas chambers were in fact morgues for preserving bodies; such morgues could have been occasionally disinfected with Zyklon B).

David Irving The British historian David Irving enjoys great prestige. Zündel thought of asking him to testify, but there was a problem: Irving was only partly a Revisionist. The thesis that he defended, for example, in Hitler's

War (New York, The Viking Press, 1977) can be summed up as follows: Hitler never gave an order for the extermination of the Jews; at least up to the end of 1943 he was kept in ignorance of that extermination; only Himmler and a group of about 70 or so persons were aware of it; in October 1944 Himmler, who wanted to get into the good graces of the Allies, gave an order to cease the extermination of the Jews. I had met Irving in Los Angeles in September of 1983 at the annual convention of the Institute for Historical Review, where I challenged him by asking several questions about proof to support his thesis. Then I published an article entitled "A Challenge to David Irving" in The Journal of Historical Review (Winter 1984, pp. 289-305) and Spring 1985, p. 8 and 122). I tried to convince this brilliant historian that logically he could no longer be satisfied with a semi-Revisionist position. To begin with, I challenged him to produce Himmler's order to stop the extermination, an order which never actually existed. Later on, I learned from various sources that Irving was undergoing a change that moved him in the direction of Revisionism. In 1988, Zündel became convinced that the British historian was only waiting for a decisive event to take a final step in our direction. After arriving in Toronto, David Irving discovered in rapid succession the Leuchter report and an impressive number of documents that Zündel, his friends and I had accumulated over the course of several years. The last reservations or the last misunderstandings melted away in the course of a meeting. He agreed to testify on the stand. In the opinion of those who were present at the two trials (1985 and 1988), no single testimony, except that of Fred Leuchter, caused such a sensation. For more than three days, David Irving, engaging in a sort of public confession, took back all that he had said about the extermination of the Jews and without reservation adopted the Revisionist position. With courage and honesty, he showed how an historian can be brought to revise profoundly his views on the history of the Second World War.

The Zündel Story Ernst Zündel had promised that his trial would be "the trial of

the " or "the Stalingrad of the "exterminationists." The unfolding

of those two long trials proved him right, even though the jury,

"instructed" by the judge to consider the Holocaust as an

established fact "which no reasonable person can doubt," finally

found him guilty. Zündel has already won. It remains for him to

make it known to Canada and to the entire world. The media

black-out of the 1988 trial was almost complete. Jewish

organizations campaigned vigorously for such a blackout, and

even went so far as to say that they did not want an impartial

account of the trial. They did not want any account of it at all.

The paradox is that the only publication which reported

relatively honestly about the trial wasThe Canadian Jewish

News. Ernst Zündel and the Leuchter report have left a profound

mark on history; both will be remembered for many years to

come.

*Weber also clarified the meaning of the term "Final Solution"

(emigration or deportation, but never extermination of Jews):

the testimony of Judge Konrad Morgen; the tortures of Rudolf

Hoss and Oswald Pohl; the true history of Revisionism; and the

18

concessions made year after year by the Exterminationists to

the Revisionist viewpoint.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pages 417-431.

About the Author Robert Faurisson is Europe's leading Holocaust revisionist scholar. He was born in January 1929 in Shepperton, England. In 1982 he received a "State Doctorate" in letters and the humanities from the Sorbonne, were he also taught from 1969 to 1974. From 1974 until 1990, he served as an associate professor and, from August 9, 1979, as full professor of French literature at the University of Lyon-II in France. Dr. Faurisson is a recognized specialist of text and document analysis, and is the author of four books on French literature. He was an important witness in both the 1985 and 1988 “Holocaust trials” in Toronto of Ernst Zündel. A book series collection of his revisionist writings, Écrits Révisionnistes (1974-1998), has now extended to seven volumes, with more forthcoming.

Debunking The Holocaust Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRxCuujxJSY Debunking The Holocaust Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fi6dM-jByI Related *'The Holocaust Deception and The Railroading of Ernst Zündel (May 14, 2016) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/The-Railroading-of-Ernst-Zundel14may16.shtml#top *Germany's 87 Year Old Ursula Haverbeck Is Sentenced to 10 Months in Prison for Doubting the "Facts" of the Holocaust Myth (April 5, 2016). http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Ursula-

Haverbeck-Is-Sentenced-to-10-Months-in-Prison-for-Doubting-the-Facts-of-the-Holocaust-Myth15nov15.shtml#top *Jewish Historian Describes Holocaust as Improvised (April 9, 2016) http://henrymakow.com/2016/04/Jewish-Historian-Says-Holocaust-Improvised.html *The Persecution & Imprisonment of German Lawyer Sylvia Stolz for the Zionist-Created Thought "Crime" of Holocaust Denial (May 13, 2013) http://educateyourself.org/cn/sylviastolzpersecution13may13.shtml *Pounding the Holocaust Drum by Henry Makow (April 7, 2013) http://educateyourself.org/cn/makowholocaustdrum07apr13.shtml *Holocaust as Mental Paradigm by Henry Makow (January 27, 2003 ) http://www.savethemales.ca/270103.html http://educate-yourself.org/cn/The-Zundel-Trials-1985-and-1988.shtml#top

______________________________________________________________ ***One of those Hillary Clinton Emails***

>>Let me know what penance I owe you<<

____________________________________________________________

Police investigating posters calling

Holocaust ‘the greatest swindle of all time’ Students reported about 100 leaflets stuck to walls and cars with the hashtag #Holohoax.

BY STEPHEN ORYSZCZUK April 26, 2016, 6:27 am Police Scotland was this week investigating reports of leaflets

distributed around university campuses in Edinburgh and Glasgow which referred to the Holocaust as “the greatest swindle of all time”. Officers said enquiries were “ongoing” after students reported about 100 leaflets stuck to walls and cars with the hashtag #Holohoax.

Bosses at the Community Security Trust said they were looking

into the matter, with suggestions that they leaflets may have originated abroad, and no suggestion they were part of a pro-Palestinian campus campaign. The material quoted Jewish-American academic Prof. Norman Finkelstein, a known critic of Israel, describing the “Holocaust

19

industry,” adding: “The wonder is that there are so few sceptics.” A spokeswoman for Police Scotland said: “We can confirm a complaint was made to police regarding the content of leaflets placed on noticeboards around the campus of Glasgow University. Enquires are continuing.” A statement from Edinburgh University Jewish Society (J-Soc) said: “We greatly appreciate Edinburgh University Students Association and fellow students for their swift action in helping to remove these anti-Semitic flyers and for notifying security. The person(s) who dispersed these flyers will be held accountable for their shameful actions if/when caught.

http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/policeinvestigating-posters-calling-holocaust-the-greatest-swindle-of-all-time/

____________________________________________________________

War of Words:

Israel and the Semantics of Oppression By Mohamed Mohamed

Hasbara The Hebrew word “hasbara” translates to “explaining,” but it is a euphemism for the propaganda that endorses the state of Israel and its actions. In its efforts to influence world opinion and

promote itself on the international stage, Israel’s hasbara campaign has relied on misdirection, careful selection of words, empty semantic arguments, and the omission of crucial facts. These tactics are part of a deliberate strategy by Israel and its supporters; one example is The Israel Project’s 2009 “Global Language Dictionary,” which is a propaganda booklet that instructs its readers on the “words that work” and “words that don’t work” when fighting the media war for Israel.

The Concept of Palestine and Palestinian Identity Supporters of Israel frequently note that a state of Palestine never existed prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948. This implies that Israel was founded on uninhabited territory and that Palestinians have no basis for claiming their own land. It also ignores a historic Palestinian national identity. Similarly, a state called “Native America” never existed, but this certainly does not justify the displacement and atrocities committed against millions of Native Americans. Along similar lines, supporters of Israel also deny the existence of a Palestinian national identity prior to 1948. In 1969 Golda Meir, one of the founders and prime-ministers of Israel, said that “there were no such thing as Palestinians” and that “they did not exist.” Today, this attitude persists among hardline supporters of Israel. In a 2013 op-ed for Arutz Sheva (Israel National News), Palestinians are described as “the counterfeit Arabs.” Even Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have parroted this claim as a tactic to draw pro-Israel voters, which suggests that this mindset is still quite popular in pro-Israel circles.

Ironically, Israel is the primary reason behind the reinforcement of the Palestinian identity that many of its supporters wish to deny, as it is logically inevitable that a stronger identity would emerge to distinguish the Arab inhabitants uprooted from their land in 1948. Over the last 67 years, Israel’s continued belligerence and discriminatory policies toward the Palestinians has only served to solidify this identity. The bottom line is that Israel was established at the expense of an existing native population. The argument that no Palestinian state or national identity existed before Israel is a tool of misdirection that completely ignores the expulsion of hundreds

of thousands of people from their homes and the denial of their right to return. This misdirection becomes apparent with Israel’s use of the word “absentee” when referring to the Palestinian residents who were expelled or forced to flee their homes. Such

euphemisms are common in Israeli doublespeak. Israel as an Occupier of Gaza

As part of its propaganda efforts, Israel emphasizes that it “disengaged” from Gaza in 2005. In a 2004 general outline of “The Disengagement Plan,” the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs explicitly states that “there will be no basis for claiming that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory” once Israeli forces and settlers withdraw. This is an attempt to dilute the perception of Israel as an occupying power and to avoid responsibility for Gaza’s population. Despite physically pulling out of Gaza, Israel maintains“effective control” over the territory. Specifically, it continues to uphold a relentless siege of Gaza’s land, airspace, and territorial waters, which translates into severe limitations on Palestinian economic activity, mobility, and self-determination. Israeli naval ships frequently open fire on Gaza fishermen who are within the six nautical mile limit imposed by Israel (although 20 miles were allocated in the Oslo Accords). With this limitation, Gaza fishermen are only capable of supplying about 20 percent of the needs of 1.8 million people. Additionally, about 35 percent of Gaza’s agricultural land lies within the Israeli buffer zone, a “no-go” area where Palestinians, including farmers, are at great risk of being shot and killed. This chokehold also allows Israel to attack and invade Gaza at any moment with relative ease. In fact, over a six-year span, from 2008 to 2014, the number of Israeli wars on Gaza (three) was greater than the number of Knesset elections held (two). Within the scope of international law, a number of arguments exist as to whether or not Israel can be classified as an occupier of Gaza. Under the Geneva Conventions, some argue that Gaza is occupied territory as long as it remains non-sovereign, while others argue that this only applies to the invasion of sovereign states, a designation Palestinians never had. These arguments are essentially questions of terminology and hinge on technicalities. Furthermore, international law itself does not guarantee that sovereign states such as Israel will comply, as there is no formal mechanism to enforce these principles. Dozens of ignored UN resolutions condemning Israel are a testament to this reality.

20

From an economic and humanitarian standpoint, the average Palestinian civilian does not care about how Israel’s treatment of Gaza is labelled. In any case, Israel’s actions are certainly hostile. Even if the crippling siege and other belligerent policies do not formally qualify as acts of war under international law, in practice they devastate the livelihood and well-being of 1.8 million people. Semantic arguments about the word “occupation” are a distraction from tangible consequences of Israeli aggression toward Gaza and the denial of basic freedoms and rights to its people.

Israel as a “Beacon of Democracy” in the Middle East When appealing to Americans and others on the international

stage, Israel is quick to peddle the claim that it is a liberal democracy and shares many of the same core values cherished by modern societies. Recently, this argument has been exploited to counter the apartheid metaphor that is used to describe Israel. For example, AIPAC describes Israel as a “unique sanctuary of democracy, freedom and pluralism in the Middle East, protecting its citizens’ rights while upholding the progressive values it shares with America.” This statement is highly misleading, if not outright deceptive, as it applies only to Israel’s eight million citizens. It takes advantage of the concept of statelessness, which is a legal status that is unfamiliar to many American spectators, but applies to millions of Palestinians. Using the word “citizens” implies that this includes all members of the population under Israel’s authority. However, an additional four and a half million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem are effectively under Israeli control, but as stateless people, they are neither citizens of Israel nor of any other state. This means that a third of the people living in territories that Israel “administers” are not entitled to many of the same fundamental rights and protections that it claims to respect. These people are routinely subjected to restrictions on their movement, unequal access to basic services such as water and electricity, imprisonment without charges, collective punishment, and many other unacceptable violations. Unsurprisingly, AIPAC and other blind supporters of Israel neglect to mention these facts, because doing so would severely undermine Israel’s self-proclaimed status as a liberal democracy. To make matters worse, the roughly 1.5 million Palestinians who do hold Israeli citizenship face “institutional, legal, and societal discrimination,” as noted in a 2010 US State Department report on human rights. One example of this is the Admissions Committees Law passed in 2011, which allows residents of small towns to prevent individuals “who do not suit the lifestyle and social fabric of the community” from residing in these towns. In practice, this law primarily targets Palestinian citizens of Israel but it can also be used to exclude other marginalized groups such as homosexuals and persons with disabilities. Another example is the “Nakba Law” of 2011, which punishes those who commemorate the Nakba or undermine the “Jewish character” of the state. Promoting laws that essentially entrench ethnic or national segregation and restrict freedom of speech goes directly against the so-called common values that Israel claims to share with liberal democracies.

When trying to legitimize its image as a democratic and inclusive state, Israel also points to the fact that its Arab citizens (again, avoiding use of the term “Palestinian”) are elected as Members of Knesset (MK) and appointed to the country’s highest courts. However, important details about this participation are left out. One MK described Arabs as “worms,” while another referred to them as “invaders” and “new crusaders.” When voicing opposition to discriminatory policies or condemning Israeli military forces, Palestinian MKs have been branded as traitors and terrorists by their fellow MKs. MK Avigdor Lieberman has even called for the trial and execution of MKs (and Arab citizens) who he feels have shown disloyalty to the state by commemorating the Nakba, for example. He questioned why “no Arab MK sings the national anthem or raises the flag on Independence Day,” yet failed to acknowledge that the anthem

itself focuses on Jews, thereby excluding Arabs and other non-Jewish citizens. A deputy interior minister labelled Palestinian opposition MKs as terrorists and called on them to give up their citizenship. Ironically, he added that they are in a “democratic state,” and that they should respect it. Outspoken Palestinian MK Haneen Zoabi faces frequent verbal abuse by other Israeli MKs, and she was also physically attacked while participating in an election panel. Such incidents clearly indicate that discrimination and racism reach substantial levels within Israeli institutions as well as the public.

The Apartheid Connection

In light of these facts, defending the democratic character of Israel becomes very difficult. Yet, many argue that the apartheid analogy does not apply to Israel, since the South African apartheid model was fully intended to be a framework of racial segregation and was enforced through formal legislation. They say that Israel does not have such openly racist laws, therefore apartheid does not apply. Again, this is an empty, semantical argument. Even if “apartheid” is an imprecise term to describe the Israeli system, the system is undoubtedly an oppressive one. The fact that the Israeli structure even raises such comparisons should be a concern for anyone serious about issues of human rights. Does it matter that Israel holds free elections, has an independent judiciary, and provides a range of civil and political rights to its citizens, when it simultaneously oppresses and rules over four and a half million people who do not enjoy these rights? Is a system of discrimination acceptable as long as it remains implicitly, rather than explicitly, racist? Supporters of Israel and others interested in the conflict must ask themselves whether Israel’s behavior is acceptable in today’s world, particularly in the democratic “Western” societies. Would the population of Chicago agree to live under military occupation? Would the citizens of Phoenix endure a total siege? Would it be acceptable for local communities to exclude black residents based on their race, or for 50 priests to issue a ruling forbidding the renting of homes to blacks? Would it be normal for a US congressman/woman to refer to Latinos as invaders or worms? The bottom line is that these things would not be tolerated, and Israel should not be an exception.

Policy vs. Image However, Israel’s hasbara campaigns have been effective in “explaining” its actions to the world and reinforcing the fallacies behind its positive image. Israeli journalist Gideon Levy comments that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is not “hasbarable” because ultimately its policies are unjust and unacceptable. This explains why Israel’s propaganda efforts rely heavily on obscuring key facts, presenting misleading information, and misdirecting audiences away from core issues. By resorting to such deceitful tactics, Israel indirectly recognizes that its policies are too difficult to justify in reality. Logically, why else would it choose a strategy of deception? In fact, the truths of Israel’s establishment and continued existence are so inconvenient that they are also concealed from its own public. This is clear with the depopulated P alestinian villages of 1948, which were physically destroyed and erased from Israeli

consciousness, despite being one of the fundamental unresolved issues of the conflict. Until internal and external pressures create overwhelming costs for maintaining the status quo, Israel has no reason to dismantle its apparatus of occupation, oppression, and obfuscation. Until then, Israel’s war of words will continue. Mohamed Mohamed is the Finance, Grants & Development Associate at The Jerusalem Fund The views expressed by speakers, writers, and others do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine Center or The Jerusalem Fund. The Palestine Center is a non-political, educational forum and does not take positions on issues. http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/5703/war-words-israel-semantics-oppression

_____________________________________________ Northern Kentucky University looking into “Welcome White Week” poster`

21

‘You’re surrounded by people who look like you, and who may speak like you, who’re just like you - it’s always good to

have people who understand you!’ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v716n4ynX-w http://eaglerising.com/36590/students-traumatized-by-welcome-white-week-but-not-welcome-black-week/

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

Russia Insider EXCLUSIVE Fantastic Russian Primetime 2 HR Putin Documentary 'President'

Published on Aug 25, 2016 Special thanks to Rossiya 24 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_IE... for allowing us to post the documentary on our channel Translation courtesy of Vox Populi Evo https://www.youtube.com/user/VoxPopul... Keep us alive: http://russia-insider.com/support Visit us! http://russia-insider.com/en Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RussiaInside... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RussiaInsider We really can't recommend this documentary enough. It is made by Russian state TV, and so presents a favorable view of

Putin, - and is profoundly successful in rebutting the frankly

preposterous mudslinging that has become so commonplace in Western media. In the US, PBS recently ran a documentary depicting Putin as beyond evil - a thieving, murdering, democracy-smashing jerk who then invaded Ukraine. German state TV ran one with an almost identical story line just a few weeks ago. We keep telling people - those western versions of Putin are simply not true, and amount to the crudest form of character assassination. So now here is the antidote. We would advise everyone to watch both versions and draw their own conclusions. Once you dig into the facts, it becomes pretty obvious who is BSing, and who isn't.

22

We think, and we keep telling everyone this, that Putin has done a remarkably good job running his country, and seems to be a very admirable man. It's hard to disagree with this after watching this movie – 2:31:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecEK6llcucA

*** Der Verräter ist 85 geworden und freut sich des Lebens

Michail Gorbatschow gilt vielen Menschen als Verräter, weil er mit seiner Politik die UdSSR endgültig Geschichte werden ließ. Sein Lebensweg zeigt, dass er durchaus gute Verbindungen zum Westen hatte.

Von Thomas Roth, 9. März 2016 Nach Meinung des Mitgliedes des Sinowjow-Klubs, Oleg Nasarow, hat Gorbatschow, der als besonders willensstark gilt, trotzdem auf Malta den Akt über die volle und bedingungslose Kapitulation der UdSSR unterschrieben. Muss man das Verrat nennen? Den Schlüssel zur Antwort auf diese Frage hat der große russische Denker und Patriot, Alexander Sinowjew, gegeben. Der weltbekannte Philosoph und Logiker wendete das Wort "Verrat" im soziologischen Sinne an. In dem Artikel "Faktor des Verrates" schrieb Sinowjew: "Um das Verhalten des höchsten sowjetischen Führers als verräterisch zu bewerten oder so eine Bewertung zu widerlegen, ist es notwendig: Erstens, die Schuld des Führers in Bezug auf die unterstellte Bevölkerung zu betrachten. Der ist er es schuldig, die gewachsene Ordnung zu bewahren und zu festigen, die territoriale Integrität des Landes zu beschützen und weiter zu festigen und die Souveränität des Landes in allen Aspekten in seinen sozialen Organisationen zu schützen (die Behörden, das Recht, die Wirtschaft, die Ideologie zu gewährleisten), die persönliche Sicherheit der Bürger, das System der Erziehung und der Bildung, die sozialen und bürgerlichen Rechte … kurz gesagt – alles das zu beschützen, was in den sowjetischen Jahren erreicht wurde und aus dem sich eine Lebensweise entwickelt hatte, die von der Bevölkerung akzeptiert wurde. Die Führung wusste das. Die Bevölkerung war davon überzeugt, dass die Führung ihre Schuldigkeit erfüllen würde und vertraute

sich der Tätigkeit der Behörden an. Hat die Führung diese Schuldigkeit getan oder nicht? Zweitens muss man aufklären, ob die sowjetische Macht selbständig handeln konnte, oder ob sie von außen manipuliert wurde. Wurde ihr Verhalten von jemandem außerhalb des Landes geplant oder nicht und entsprach die Führung den Interessen dieser Kraft, oder nicht? Sinowjew hat früher als alle anderen in Gorbatschow den potentiellen Verräter festgestellt: "Schon bevor er Generalsekretär des ZK der KPdSU wurde ist er in England aufgetaucht. Er hat darauf verzichtet, das Grab von Karl Marx zu besuchen und stattdessen der Königin seine Aufwartung gemacht. Mich hat man damals gebeten, diese Tatsache zu kommentieren. Ich habe gesagt, dass die Epoche des präzedenzlosen historischen Verrates gerade beginnt. Meine Vorahnung hat mich nicht getrogen". In London hatte sich der zukünftige sowjetische Führer mit der Ministerpräsidentin Großbritanniens, Margaret Thatcher, getroffen. Danach hat Thatcher Reagan davon in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass man mit Gorbatschow reden könne. Im März 1985 ist sie nach Moskau – zur Beerdigung von Konstantin Tschernenko – geflogen. Da wurde sie mit Gorbatschow gesehen, der die UdSSR und die Partei seit dem Vortag führte. "Der Prozess ist gelaufen!" Einen Monat später, auf dem Plenum des ZK der KPdSU, wurde der Kurs auf "die Beschleunigung der sozial-ökonomischen Entwicklung des Landes" ausgerufen. Er legte den Schwerpunkt auf die aktive Nutzung der Errungenschaften von Wissenschaft und Technik und die Entwicklung des Maschinenbaus. Dann begann die Politik der so genannten "Perestroika (Umgestaltung)", im Februar 1986 hatte sie die Billigung auf dem VII. Parteitag der KPdSU bekommen. Die Breschnew-Periode fing man an, "die Stagnation" zu nennen. Bei Sinowjew

rief das heftigen Protest hervor. Im Artikel "Sowjetische Konterrevolution" kann man das minutiös nachlesen. Die sowjetischen Leiter und ihre ideologischen Lakaien haben nicht etwa analysiert, dann Schlussfolgerungen gezogen und danach gehandelt. Sie haben sich einfach in die Umgestaltung gestürzt, deren Unseligkeit im Voraus zu ahnen war. Die Umgestaltung hat eine Krise ausgelöst, die allumfassend wurde. Die Perestrojschtschiki konnten mit den Problemen nicht zurechtkommen, weil sie viele von ihnen überhaupt erst geschaffen hatten. Dazu kam, dass sich Gorbatschow nicht als besonders für die schöpferische Tätigkeit begabter Leiter erwiesen hat, was in der Gesellschaft zuerst Enttäuschung und

später dann wachsende Gereiztheit hervorgerufen hat. Je schlechter es im Land ging, desto beharrlicher suchte Gorbatschow die Anerkennung im Westen. Um danach zu streben, war er bereit, auf die geopolitischen Eroberungen der Periode des Zweiten Weltkriegs, die mit dem Leben von Dutzenden Millionen sowjetischer Menschen bezahlt wurden, zu verzichten. Jedoch den erfahrenen amerikanischen Politikern Sand in die Augen zu streuen, die am meisten die bewaffnete Kraft respektieren, misslang Gorbatschow gründlich. Über den Inhalt der Verhandlungen ist wenig bis jetzt bekannt. Und das ist nicht zufällig. Als ein Hauptergebnis des Treffens wurde der Abschluss des Kalten Krieges deklariert. Obwohl es heute offensichtlich ist, dass diese Erklärungen der Wirklichkeit nicht entsprachen. Eine seiner unrühmlichsten Aktionen bestand in dem Satz: "Ihr Verbleib ist für diesen zukünftigen Kontinent (Europa) wichtig. Denken Sie nicht, dass wir nach Ihrem Abgang streben." Ist es nicht merkwürdig, dass einige Wochen nach Malta die Verwaltung Bush die Bereitschaft geäußert hat, Vermittler nicht nur zwischen Moskau und den Staaten des Warschauer Vertrags, sondern auch zwischen Moskau und der Hauptstadt der Litauischen SSR, Vilnius, zu werden? Bei allen außenpolitischen Vorgängen danach (vom Beitritt der DDR bis zur Verschlechterung der Beziehungen zu Kuba) entstand der Eindruck, dass Gorbatschow, auf Malta den Akt über die volle und bedingungslose Kapitulation der UdSSR unterschrieben hatte.

Die Antwort auf die Frage, ob Gorbatschow im Interesse der USA arbeitete, ist offensichtlich. Die Amerikaner waren von ihm begeistert und belohnten ihn während eines Besuchs in den USA. Am 30. Mai kam er dann angeflogen, ergötzte sich buchstäblich am Erfolg, als die Menge begonnen hatte, ihn zu begrüßen und zu applaudieren. Über den Übersetzer hat er dann ausgerufen: "Ich fühle mich, und das zu Recht, hier wie zu Hause!" Es war seltsam, aber in der Heimat hätte sein eigenes Volk ihm ein solches Treffen nicht veranstaltet. Bei Gorbatschow war der Durst nach persönlicher Anerkennung so groß, dass er am nächsten Tag innerhalb von vier Stunden fünf Belohnungen in Form von Auszeichnungen von verschiedenen Organisationen kassierte. Und 1990 erhielt Gorbatschow dann endlich noch den heiß ersehnten Friedensnobelpreis. Auf das folgende Geschenk musste man zwei Jahre warten. In 1992, als mit der Sowjetunion Schluss gemacht wurde, hatte Reagan den ehemaligen Präsidenten der UdSSR zu sich auf seine Viehfarm eingeladen und schenkte ihm einen Cowboyhut. Gorbatschow schreibt darüber in seinen Erinnerungen. Dazu bemerken Politikwissenschaftler ganz fein, dass der ehemalige Cäsar der Halbwelt darauf bis jetzt stolz ist. Die historischen Russen waren stolz darauf, wenn die Zaren ihnen Pelze für die Schultern schenkten. Gorbatschow freute sich über ein Stück Arbeitskleidung für 20 Dollar. Das Foto davon brachte Reagan wenigstens 5.000 Dollar.

23

Im August 1991, drei Tage nach dem so genannten "Putsch", hat Sinowjew die prophetischen Worte geschrieben: "Es ist ja jetzt allgemein üblich zu meinen, dass "der Kalte Krieg" zu Ende gegangen ist und dass das große Verdienst darin Gorbatschow und seinen Mitkämpfern gebührt. Es werden die Jahre vergehen und die Nachkommen werden die Rolle Gorbatschows auf der Basis der Würde bewerten und zwar exakt als das was es ist: ein Verrat der nationalen Interessen des Landes und des Volkes. Ich kenne aus der Geschichte keinen vergleichbaren anderen Fall eines solchen Verrates, wo ein kleiner Bauernjunge für ein wenig Liebe ein ganzes politisches Lager verschenkt hat. (Apropos Bauernjunge. Seine Mutter war Maria Gopkalo und

sein Großvater war Andrei Moiseevich Gorbatschow, beide waren Juden.) Im Zweiten Weltkrieg hat es nicht wenig Beispiele eines derartigen Verrates gegeben, aber das waren einfache Kindervergnügen im Vergleich dazu, was Gorbatschow in Friedenszeit gelang. Er galt als erfahrener Partei-Apparatschik, der mit Sachverstand die ganzen Möglichkeiten der Macht einsetzen kann, über die der kommunistische Staat verfügte. Aber sein Charakter ließ ihn einen anderen Weg wählen. Auch heute noch kann er in Freiheit durch die Welt reisen und seine Weisheiten absondern. Nur ein Beispiel für das, was er angerichtet hat. Und damit meine ich nichts internationales sondern etwas, was viele Millionen Russen ganz persönlich betrifft. Putin sagte in dem Zusammenhang einmal, dass der Zerfall der UdSSR einer Katastrophe gleich kam. Und damit meinte er die Situation von zig Millionen Russen, deren Leben sich von heute auf morgen grundlegend änderte. Die USA leben von den

Ressourcen ihrer Partner, Unterlegenen usw. Sie beuten diese Länder aus. Die Russen verfahren genau anders herum. Sie entwickeln, industrialisieren, mechanisieren usw. ihre Partnerländer. Dabei helfen Millionen von Russen. Plötzlich ist das dort Ausland geworden. Damit verliert Russland nicht nur jede Menge Werte, sondern auch die Helfer ihre Heimat.

Kasachstan ist vor hundert Jahren überhaupt erst erweckt worden. Das lässt sich gut nachlesen in "Neuland unterm Pflug" von Scholochow. Heute sind die Millionen Helfer – auch unter sanftem kasachichem Druck – wieder ins Mutterland gezogen und Kasachstan kann jetzt dreimal täglich betonen, dass es ein souveräner Staat ist.

Ich habe auch bereits einmal meine Heimat verloren. Ich weiß wie schrecklich das ist, wenn auf einmal Fremde auftauchen und Dir erklären, wie Du zu leben hast. Meinen herzlichen Glückwunsch zum 85. Geburtstag, Gorbi! https://www.contra-magazin.com/2016/03/der-verraeter-ist-85-geworden-und-freut-sich-des-lebens/

_________________________________________________ The Crazy, Failed Idea of Creating a Jewish State in Russia | VICE | United States

Masha Gessen, a journalist, was born to a Jewish family in Moscow. In the early 1980s, facing a potentially bleak future for their children in the USSR, her family emigrated to the US, though Gessen moved back to Moscow after college. Gessen is a lesbian, and after anti-gay rhetoric heated up in Russia in 2013, she decided she'd only feel safe if she, her partner, and her three kids returned to the US. That double emigration left Gessen fascinated with the idea of space, safety, and identity. Gessen, known for her work covering Russia's homophobic politics and the machinations of Putin, began looking into Birobidzhan, a small region near the Chinese border in Russian that was established as the world's first autonomous Jewish region in the early 1930s. Birobidzhan was never much: the climate and surrounding land was too harsh to support sustainable agriculture. No more than 30,000 Jews ever actually inhabited the region. Birobidzhan was always more a dream than an actual place. The idea for Birobidzhan was based on the philosophies of Simon

Dubnow, a Jewish writer and activist, who saw Jewish cultural autonomy as crucial to maintaining identity in the face of increased calls for Jews to assimilate. He saw cultural autonomy as a more enlightened alternative to state and military autonomy, but even Dubnow was skeptical of the dream of Birobidzhan. Soon after the Jewish region was established, Soviet leaders decided that Yiddish and Jewish autonomy was antithetical to a united Soviet front, and many of the region's leaders were murdered. Birobidzhan was over before it started. Gessen's new book, Where the Jews Aren't: The Sad and Absurd Story of Birobidzhan, Russia's Jewish Autonomous Region, is out now from Schocken/Penguin Random House. It follows the creators of Birobidzhan as they attempt to create an idyllic Jewish enclave, traces Masha's family's history of emigration, and explores what it means to be a Jew and to have a safe space to live. VICE spoke with Masha Gessen to find out how Birobidzhan got started, and what we can learn from it today.

VICE: Why did you want to write this book? Masha Gessen: I first wrote it in 2009. There was this draft that was lying around for years. I knew the draft needed to be reworked, but I couldn't get myself excited enough to rework it. Then when I emigrated for the second time, fleeing Russia again, as my parents had done 35 years earlier, that sort of gave me the motivation to rework the book and turn it into the draft that was finally published.

What drew you to Birobidzhan as a topic, in specific?

I was never particularly interested in Birobidzhan as an actual place, just because there isn't a whole lot to say about Birobidzhan as a place. Birobidzhan, in a way, never happened. It was an idea that was tied to a place. I was interested in the idea of autonomism, and I was also interested in this idea of a safe place for Jews, which is intimately tied to the idea of autonomism. I knew that the book ultimately had to be a rumination on safety, immigration, exile, and diaspora. I wasn't in that state of mind until I had to go into exile for the second time in my life.

In some ways, the book is a history of Birobidzhan, but it’s not just a history because the idea of a separate place

for Jews is still a very controversial, right? I hope it’s not purely historical. I think that the theme of exile, the theme of diaspora, the theme of are you ever really safe if you’re not with your own people? Are all universal. I’m also really interested in the idea of what it means to be Jewish. And

that is why Simon Dubnow, the originator of the idea of autonomism is such a major character in the book. He is incredibly eloquent on what makes a Jew. He talks about the

24

possibility of a secular Jewish identity, the possibility of a cultural Jewish identity, the possibility that you can be non-observant but Jewish, but you cannot be Jewish and observant in another religion. He was very clear about that. He focused very closely and brilliantly on the conflict between emancipation in the sense of being granted cultural rights and cultural identity. I think most American Jews have an incredibly narrow idea of what being Jewish is, and it actually ties to my own life and my kids’ lives as exiles. My 18-year-old son was telling me that just the other day, that he keeps getting into arguments with other teenagers who tell him he can’t be Jewish if he’s not religious.

But he probably knows more about what it feels like to be a Jew in the world than many religious Jews here.

Images courtesy of Penguin Random House

Was the dream behind Birobidzhan different from the reality?

In the early 20th century, there was an ongoing debate among different factions of Jewish thinkers. There was the assimilationist urge, and there were two kinds of reactions to the urge to assimilate. One was the Zionist argument: The Zionist argument was basically founded in the idea that as long as Jews live in diaspora, they will be followed by anti-Semitism, and that you could never get rid of anti-Semitism as long as Jews were a minority where they lived. The only way for Jews to live free of anti-Semitism was to have their own state. In the Zionist argument, the location of that state was not terribly important—although it was better if it was in Palestine—but it had to be a full state with its own army and with sovereignty. And then there was Dubnow’s argument. He basically said on one level that Jews had lived in diaspora for 2,000 years and there’s no reason to move elsewhere, but at the same time there was every reason to resist the assimilation. And the way to do it, to maintain a cultural identity, was to strive for a kind of autonomy, but that autonomy should not include state sovereignty and should not include having a Jewish army. Jews could be protected by the state where they live, but they should have the right to self-government. He saw the Jews lacking military and lacking state sovereignty as a positive, as what allowed Jews to become the purest, the best kind of nation. And this really breaks my heart, but his argument was Jews would be unable to oppress another people with their military might, because they’ve never had military might. They’re unable to fight over territory, because they’ve never had their own territory. Which is sad because today we see that’s obviously not true.

What was Dubnow’s take on Birobidzhan?

Dubnow was no advocate of Birobidzhan. His ideal of autonomism was already perverted by Birobidzhan because he didn’t think that Jews had any way of benefiting from the Bolshevik state. He was very much a realist on that. But it was that idea that the founders of Birobidzhan ran with, and you have to admit it sounded pretty good on paper. But then, of course, when the first reconnaissance mission to Birobidzhan returned, they said that place is pretty much uninhabitable. It was either swampland or rocks and it was infested with, as they put it, these evil insects, which really make it impossible to survive the summer there for both man and cattle. And the Soviet State was never concerned with the human cost of

whatever project they undertook, so they just sent Jews to this uninhabitable place, and when they arrived, it was a nightmare. They had no real shelter. The weather was awful. There were no roads. They couldn’t work the land because they didn’t know how and because the land was almost impossible to cultivate. Birobidzhan is a like a monument to an idea that never came to fruition. What did you think this region was like before you went,

and what did it turn out being like when you visited? I’m not sure I was expecting anything. I just wanted to check it out. It’s a weird little place. On one hand, it looks like any other Russian provincial town. It’s close to the border with China, so it’s very much oriented toward China economically, and at this point, even culturally. The border is fairly permeable so there are a lot of Chinese people in Birobidzhan, a lot of traders, Chinese restaurants, that sort of thing. In other ways, Birobidzhan is like a monument to an idea that never came to fruition. It was just populated by statues and monuments of something that was never really there.

Did you come away with any feelings one way or the other about the need for a separate space for Jews?

I think that for me, the very, very, very long process of trying to figure out what kind of Jew I am has settled into a fairly comfortable place of thinking many contradictory things at the same time, which I think is a very Jewish thing to do. I think I would like to live in an imaginary Birobidzhan or an imaginary Jewish autonomy. I don’t think I would actually like to live in an actual Jewish autonomy. I think that I like living in New York City. In fact, that’s probably as close as one comes to living in a kind of Jewish autonomy.

You dedicate the book to your parents. Specifically you say “To my parents, who had the courage to emigrate,”

and I was wondering why you decided on that dedication. This book is largely a rumination on exile and on emigration, and the question that I keep circling back to is how do you know when it’s time to go? And sort of implicit in that question is how do you get up the courage to jump into the unknown? To this day, I can’t imagine what it was like for my parents. I was a young teenager then, but I didn’t have responsibility for much. I know how scary it was for me to pick up my family, which includes my partner and our two kids, to move to New York City, where I had been to college. And I had a US passport and I had the money to buy a house. Still, it was really scary to uproot my whole family, to put my kids through losing everything that they had taken for granted, and enter the culture shock of

emigration. I can’t imagine what it was like for my parents who didn’t know where they were going, who didn’t have papers, who had to go through a very mild form of refugeehood. We were in refugee camps in Austria and then Italy for a couple of months. What does it feel like to know that you had responsibilities for two young kids and you didn’t even know how you were going to make a living? My mother has been dead for 24 years, but my father is still around and doing fine. And he has told me that he thinks of it as a great adventure and an incredible opportunity that they had. I think that’s a really awesome way to think about it.

‘Where the Jews Aren’t’ is out now on Penguin Random House. Order it here.

Follow Moskowitz on Twitter. http://www.vice.com/read/the-crazy-failed-idea-of-creating-a-jewish-state-in-russia

________________________________________________

25

20 Uses for Coca Cola that Prove

It Belongs Anywhere But Inside Your Body by True Activist, August 15, 2016

1. Removes grease stains from clothing and fabric 2. Removes rust; methods include using fabric dipped in Coke, a sponge or even aluminum foil. Also loosens rusty bolts 3. Removes blood stains from clothing and fabric. 4. Cleans oil stains from a garage floor; let the stain soak, hose off. 5. Kills slugs and snails; the acids kills them. 6. Cleans burnt pans; let the pan soak in the Coke, then rinse. 7. Descales a kettle (same method as with burnt pans) 8. Cleans car battery terminals by pouring a small amount of Coke over each one. 9. Cleans your engine; Coke distributors have been using this technique for decades. 10. Makes pennies shine; soaking old pennies in Coke will remove the tarnish. 11. Cleans tile grout; pour onto kitchen floor, leave for a few minutes, wipe up. 12. Dissolves a tooth; Use a sealed container…takes a while but it does work. 13. Removes gum from hair; dip into a small bowl of Coke, leave a few minutes. Gum will wipe off. 14. Removes stains from vitreous china. 15. Got a dirty pool? Adding two 2-liter bottles of Coke clears up rust. 16. You can remove (or fade) dye from hair by pouring diet Coke over it. 17. Remove marker stains from carpet. Applying Coke, scrubbing and then clean with soapy water will remove marker stains. 18. Cleans a toilet; pour around bowl, leave for a while, flush clean. 19. Coke and aluminum foil will bring Chrome to a high shine. 20. Strips paint off metal furniture. Soak a towel in Coke and lay it on the paint surface. Now can you imagine what is does to your stomach lining? Furthermore, have you ever wondered what exactly Coca

Cola is? After 10 minutes: The sugar contained in a glass of Cola can cause a devastating “strike” on the body. The cause being the phosphoric acid which inhibits the action of sugar. After 20 minutes: A leap in insulin levels in bloodstream occurs. After 40 minutes: Ingestion of caffeine is finally completed. The eye’s pupils are expanding. Blood pressure rises because the liver disposes more sugar into the bloodstream. The

adenosine receptors become blocked thereby preventing drowsiness. After 45 minutes: The body raises production of the dopamine hormone, which stimulates the brain pleasure center. Similar to the reaction Heroin creates. After 1 hour: Phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in the gastrointestinal tract, which supercharges metabolism. The release of calcium through urine takes place. After more than 1 hour: Diuretic effects of the drink enters in “the game”. The calcium, magnesium, and zinc are removed out of the body, which are a part of our bones, as well as sodium. At this time, we can become irritable or subdued. The whole quantity of water, contained in a coca cola, is removed through urination.

When having a cold bottle of Coke and enjoying its undeniable freshness are we aware of what chemical “cocktail” we are putting into our bodies? The active ingredient in Coca-Cola is orthophosphoric acid. Due to its high acidity, cisterns used for transporting the chemical have to be equipped with special reservoirs designed for highly corrosive materials. Let’s have a look at “the anatomy” of one of the most advertised products of “Coca-Cola Co.” – Coca-Cola Light without caffeine. This drink contains Aqua Carbonated, E150D, E952, E951, E338, E330, Aromas, E211. Aqua Carbonated – this is sparkling water. It stirs gastric secretion, increases the acidity of the gastric juice and provokes

flatulency. Filtered tap water is what is primarily used. E150D – this is food coloring obtained through the processing of sugar at specified temperatures, with or without addition of chemical reagents. In the case of coca-cola, ammonium sulfate is added. E952 – Sodium Cyclamate is a sugar substitute. Cyclamate is a synthetic chemical, has a sweet taste, which is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and is used as an artificial sweetener. In 1969 it was banned by FDA, since it, as well as saccharin and aspartame, caused cancer in rats. E950 – Acesulfame Potassium. 200 times sweeter than sugar, containing methyl-ether. It aggravates the operation of the cardiovascular system. Likewise, it contains asparaginic acid which can also cause an excitant effect on our nervous system and in time it can lead to addiction. Acesulfame is badly dissolved and is not recommended for use by children and pregnant women. E951 – Aspartame. A sugar substitute for diabetics and is chemically unstable at elevated temperatures it breaks down into methanol and phenylalanine. Methanol is very dangerous as only 5-10ml can cause destruction of the optic nerve and irreversible blindness. In warm soft drinks, aspartame transforms into formaldehyde which is a very strong carcinogen. Symptoms of aspartame poisoning include: unconsciousness, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, palpitation, weight gain, irritability, anxiety, memory loss, blurry vision, fainting, joint pains, depression, infertility, hearing loss and more. Aspartame can also provoke the following diseases: brain tumors, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), epilepsy, Graves’ disease, chronic fatigue, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, mental deficiency and tuberculosis. Later, this substance was initially illegal due to its dangers but was again made legal in a suspicious manner. E338 – Orthophosphoric Acid. This can cause irritation of the skin and eyes. It is used for production of phosphoric acid salts of ammonia, sodium, calcium, aluminum and also in organic synthesis for the production of charcoal and film tapes. It is also used in the production of refractory materials, ceramics, glass, fertilizers, synthetic detergents, medicine, metalworking, as well as in the textile and oil industries. It is known that orthophosphoric acid interferes with the absorption of calcium and iron into the body which can cause weakening of bones and osteoporosis. Other side effects are thirst and skin rashes. E330 – Citric Acid. It is widely used in pharmaceutical and food industries. Salts of citric acid (citrates) are used in the food industry as acids, preservatives, stabilizers, and in the medical

fields – for preserving blood. Aromas – unknown aromatic additives E211 – Sodium Benzoate. It is used in production of some food products for anti-bacterial and anti-fungal purposes. It is often found in jams, fruit juices and fruit yogurts. It’s not recommended for use by asthmatics and people who are sensitive to aspirin. A study conducted by Peter Piper at the Sheffield University in Britain, found that this compound causes significant damage to DNA. According to Peter, sodium benzoate which is an active component in preservatives, doesn’t destroy DNA, but deactivates it. This can lead to cirrhosis and degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease. Coca-Cola is undeniably a very useful product. The key is to use it for purposes that do not include drinking! Here is a video about Coca-Cola! http://www.renegadetribune.com/20-uses-coca-cola-prove-belongs-anywhere-inside-body/

_____________________________________________________________________

26

IN BRIEF - a matter of SHAME That’s not Alfredo sauce!

Italy decriminalizes public masturbation 8 September, 2016 15:03

Those who like to play with their sausage and meatballs in the company of others have a new Mecca after Italy’s Supreme Court declared public masturbation is not a criminal offense. The decision overruled the sentence of a 69-year-old man for “taking out his penis” and “practicing autoeroticism” outside a university in Catania. The court ruled the “act is not included in the law as a crime,” according to La Republica, eliminating his three month prison sentence. The culprit, known as “Pietro L,” still faces a hefty fine of between €5,000 to €30,000, but he is free to roam and play with himself in the streets. Last year the Italian parliament decriminalized lurking in places frequented by young girls with the intention of masturbating in front of them, paving the way for this more recent ruling. Other countries impose stiff penalties for the lewd act, like the UK where the standard sentence can land a self-lover in prison for 14 days. [hedonistic inversion- ed. AI] The southern US state of Alabama makes private masturbation a crime, if you use help with a device designed "for the stimulation of human genital organs." While it’s not clear how police monitor these infractions, those convicted face a fine of up to $10,000 and “may also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than one year.” The law in Saudi Arabia is a little less forgiving on the topic of touching yourself. A teacher was sentenced to three years in prison and 300 lashes, and that was just for declaring masturbation permissible under Islam.

READ MORE: Both hands on the wheel: Driver crashes while pleasuring himself If Pierto was in Sweden, he would have been free to masturbate in public so long as it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.

That decision came after a 65-year-old man was acquitted of sexual assault charges for masturbating on a Stockholm beach. The District Court ruled that no offense had been committed as he was not pleasuring himself towards anyone, according to The Local. https://www.rt.com/viral/358685-italy-decriminalizes-public-masturbation/

Comment by German historian There is no culture, even the most primitive ones, where there is no sense of shame. Even in cultures going naked there is the taboo of staring at each others genitals. Without private property they know private parts‘. Sweden reminds me of the radical protestants like the Anabaptists, pre-Adamites, diggers and levellers. In the short-lived terror utopia of Münster everybody screwed everybody calling the raped one his ‚wife‘. – Hans-Peter Duerr: Nackheit und Scham, 1988.

*** *http://forward.com/news/349362/is-donald-trumps-endorsement-by-88-retired-generals-a-secret-neo-nazi-

code/ ***

*http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/

*** *http://forward.com/news/world/349179/poland-

poised-to-put-bad-historians-in-prison/ ***

*http://www.renegadetribune.com/dr-pierce-hate-speech/

_______________________________________________________________________

Teachers use online ‘robots’ to write school reports

Natasha Bita, National correspondent, Brisbane, THE

AUSTRALIAN, 12:00AM JUNE 18, 2016

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership chairman John Hattie. ‘It’s a public relations exercise.’

Teachers are using online “robots’’ to compile cut-and-paste student report cards to be sent to parents over the next fortnight. Education departments in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia permit teachers to use time-saving websites to generate report cards. One of the most popular, Report Robot, tells teachers they can “impress parents’’ by producing “personalised report comments for every student” at a cost of $82.50 a year. “Parents will be impressed with your comprehensive student reports that provide accurate freedback (sic); especially when they begin comparing report cards,’’ its website states. Report Robot promises teachers “more time with family because you can complete your reports much quicker … no more dragon mum or dad!’’ . Teachers type in a student’s first name, then select from a list of comments automatically written into a summary that can be cut and pasted on to report cards. Other online report providers include schoolreportwriter.com, which provides a library of 10,000 comments. These include: “(student name) has an inconsistent attitude to learning. Some days (she) is very focused and responsible for learning, but other days this is not evident.’’ A comment designed for Australian primary school students is that “(student name) created art works modelled on patterns

found in indigenous Australian art and also a hot-air balloon collage using oil pastels’’. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership chairman John Hattie said yesterday that report cards had become “public relations’’ rather than meaningful feedback. Teachers were using verbose report cards to “say nothing well … The problem is the blandness of most reports.’’ Professor Hattie said some schools were reluctant to upset parents with negative comments. “They don’t want to tell you your kid’s below average,’’ he said. “It’s a public relations exercise.’’ The Grattan Institute warned last year that some teachers were reluctant to award Ds and Es to students for fear this would -“reflect poorly on their teaching’’ or “harm a student’s self-esteem and motivation’’. The report’s author, Peter Goss, said yesterday that report cards were time-consuming for teachers so it was “tempting to -automate them”. “The value of report cards comes from the teacher really understanding the progress a child has made and what they should focus on — and then closing the loop with the parents on where their child is really at,’’ Dr Goss said. A NSW Education Department spokesman said principals could let teachers use “external web-based programs to assist in constructing student reports’’. A Victorian Education Department spokesman said that online report generators were “discouraged’’ but not prohibited. A Queensland Education Department spokesman said state schools were required to use the department’s OneSchool system to create reports to parents, and could not use commercial “comment banks’’. Comments:

FredrickJUN 18, 2016 A bureaucracy and principals that cannot set personal examples of moral and intellectual integrity will always degenerate and decay - so, if you know your classics, then the current problems facing students and educators and parents is nothing new. For a view of what happened during the 1980s in the classroom

27

perhaps a read of "The Boston -Curry Party" will amuse and soothe frayed teaching nerves - Google the title and relax ............... AndrewJUN 18, 2016

@Fredrick Thanks. I'll chase down a copy. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationalaffairs/education/teachersuseonlinerobotstowriteschoolreports/newsstory/a9a976cd0fddb251bd0fe144e0599b06

______________________________________________________ COMMONWEALTH BANK’S BRENDAN FRENCH - IS HE AUSTRALIA’S BIGGEST BANK FRAUDSTER? The Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s senior executive Brendan French, who is one of Australia’s biggest fraudsters, recently won a defamation case against a whistleblower. This is quite amazing given that it is French’s role at the Commonwealth Bank to cover-up multi-million-dollar fraud and

theft by Commonwealth Bank staff and others and Brendan French should be in jail for his crimes, not winning defamation cases.

Background The CBA is currently facing multiple fraud scandals involving their senior staff which are currently before the courts and various Australian senate inquiries. There is a standard theme with all of them with 3 key elements: Massive fraud and theft involving Commonwealth Bank staff. Customers ripped off and the bank refuses to pay compensation or at best minimal compensation well below what the customer has lost because of fraud by CBA staff. Senior management at the CBA refuse to report crimes by their staff to the police unless they are forced to. In some cases, they have given staff members who have committed fraud a promotion. The senior management at the CBA who conceal the fraud are in effect committing a crime themselves. Three recent examples of the CBA fraud and theft being investigated are: The Bankwest insurance fraud committed by the CBA worth hundreds of millions of dollars which is still under investigation by the Australian senate. I wrote in 2014: “The Commonwealth Bank bought Bankwest from HBOS in October 2008 for $2.1 Billion and as part of the agreement had a “warranty” provision that if any customers defaulted on their loans the Commonwealth Bank could “clawback” that amount from the purchase price.” “For example if 100 customers defaulted on business loans totalling $200 million the bank would be reimbursed the $200 million from HBOS and the original purchase price would have been reduced from $2.1 billion to $1.9 billion. Management at the Commonwealth Bank then decided to make as many customers as possible default on their loans.” (Click here to read more) Thousands of financial planning customers losing millions of dollars because of fraud by CBA staff. Last year I wrote: “the ABC’s Four Corners program had the story Banking Bad which even named at least one corrupt bank employee, Don Nguyen. Mr Nguyen has never been charged and under the leadership of Ian Narev. The CBA has deliberately concealed the evidence from the police.” (Click here to read more) The $76 million fraud revealed in the SMH this week involving CBA staff helping fraudsters rip-off CBA customers. The CBA concealed the fraud from police from 2007 until 2011 and forced innocent customers to sell assets that the CBA staff helped defraud. (Click here to read more)

Brendan French Brendan French covers up the CBA crimes on the clear instructions of the CBA’s CEO Ian Narev and Chairman David Turner as well the other directors. This is obvious given the evidence Ian Narev gave at the Senate Hearing last year in the below video. The below video is evidence being given regarding the Open Advice Review program. “The program was announced following a senate inquiry into tens of thousands of elderly victims of conflicted financial advice, forgery and fraud at the hands of CBA Financial Advisers. Many lost their entire life savings.” (Click here to read more) Who did the CBA appoint to head up the Open Advice Review program? Yep, their Number 1 fraudster Brendan French. At the 2:35 mark of the video Senator Nick Xenophon asks CBA CEO Ian Narev if Brendan French was aware of the fraud committed by former CBA employee Mr Don Nguyen from 2008 and onwards. Mr Narev replies he does not know but says Brendan French was “certainly not complicit” and “we have no

evidence that he was complicit in anything”. Senator Xenophon points out he did not ask him that question. So why did Mr Narev say that Mr French was “certainly not complicit”. For senate hearings it is common for senior managers to be coached before giving evidence. It is even more

common for criminals like Mr Narev to be coached and he clearly was. Mr Narev ended up making himself look stupid.

The Brendan French / Michael Fraser defamation case Michael Fraser runs the website The Arbitrator and has been mentioned on this site before in relation to his battle with the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of unhappy customers. Previously I mentioned the dodgy warning letter sent to Mr Fraser from CBA Executive John Geurts. (Click here to read the letter) Last year Brendan French (financed by the CBA) instituted defamation proceedings against Michael Fraser. The SMH reported: A consumer advocate who was spied on by the Commonwealth Bank now faces a legal action that should send shivers down the spines of whistleblowers around the country. The bank is funding a defamation action filed against the advocate, Michael Fraser, by a senior executive at the bank. The legal action is understood to have used the discovery process to seek the names of CBA whistleblowers and any relevant communications and correspondence with certain journalists, including myself. It is also believed to want access to all of Fraser’s hard drives. (Click here to read more) The bank was using the defamation case to go after whistleblowers which had nothing to do with the defamation case. Michael Fraser did not defend the case for cost reasons and also because it would have exposed whistleblowers who had given him inside information of corruption at the bank. During the court case Brendan French played the victim routine of how he had been outed for being gay in an email that Mr Michael Fraser sent to 500 CBA staff and the stress and duress caused by the harassment by Michael Fraser. This was interesting because Michael Fraser sent an email to 500 staff outing Brendan French for awarding a CBA contract to his then boyfriend Gregory Tillett amongst other things. The fact that French was gay was not an issue but he was obviously outed as a result. Brendan French works in Sydney which has a large gay population and no one would care less about him being gay. The SMH ran the below cartoon in April 2015 which would have been seen by 10,000’s of people and that to me seems to be outing Brendan French yet he has taken no action against the SMH. Why is that?

Michael Fraser and Brendan French

I doubt that Brendan French cared at all about being outed for being gay as the court case and the media attention means 100,000’s of people now know and it is all over the internet. What he was most likely really worried about is being outed for awarding the CBA contract to his partner which is potentially a sackable offence and maybe even a jailable offence. Justice Lucy McCallum and the defamation judgment – French v Fraser (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1807 (4 December 2015) (Click here to read) In the judgement at paragraph 6 it says “There is not the smallest suggestion of any actual wrong-doing on Dr French’s part. For the bank to back Dr French’s attempts to stem the personal harm to him caused by Mr Fraser was entirely appropriate.”

28

Well there is a truck load of evidence of Dr Brendan French’s wrongdoing before the Australian senate. And at paragraph 88 it says “The evidence also establishes beyond doubt that Dr French has suffered an immense amount of emotional pain and hurt as a result of the publications”. What about the hurt and suffering caused to the CBA customers who were ripped off by CBA staff and then the CBA refused to give them compensation? The below video is Merilyn Swan giving evidence about trying to get the money back that was stolen from her parents by the CBA and the get lost message she received from Brendan French. If Ms Swan and others had of given evidence at the defamation hearing I suspect the result would have been the

opposite. I notice Justice Lucy McCallum makes no mention of the widespread crimes of the bank and its staff which has been all over the media for the last few years. I would have thought that very relevant given the CBA were funding the matter and the case obviously impacted on the CBA’s reputation. Looks like Justice McCallum handed down the best judgment money can buy. It’s the same Justice McCallum who was caught having as a secret hearing to help Kerry Stokes. (Click here to read the transcript) While Michael Fraser certainly did say and do things that he shouldn’t have they are trivial at best compared to the widespread destruction caused by the corrupt conduct of the CBA senior management which includes Brendan French. But the CBA jumped on the trivial stuff, blew it out of proportion and tried to get the CBA whistleblower names which was their main objective. When they couldn’t get the whistleblowers names they then used the CBA’s financial muscle to win a defamation case for their dodgy employee Brendan French. The number of people starting to line up against the CBA is getting bigger by the day and a Royal Commission into the CBA and other Banks will have to happen eventually. This story has got a long way to go and I will continue to follow it. https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2016/02/07/commonwealth-banks-brendan-french-is-heaustraliasbiggest-bank-fraudster/

CBA funds defamation action against consumer advocate Michael Fraser

Adele Ferguson, Business columnist, April 14, 2015

Illustration: John Spooner

A consumer advocate who was spied on by the Commonwealth Bank now faces a legal action that should send shivers down the spines of whistleblowers around the country. The bank is funding a defamation action filed against the advocate, Michael Fraser, by a senior executive at the bank. The legal action is understood to have used the discovery process to seek the names of CBA whistleblowers and any relevant communications and correspondence with certain journalists, including myself. It is also believed to want access to all of Fraser's hard drives. It has been touted by Fraser's lawyer, Stewart Levitt at Levitt Robinson, as a David versus Goliath case. A case where David has no money and Goliath is seeking retribution and deterrence. "In this case David doesn't have two bob from what I can tell. He has never been able to commercialise what he is doing because he does a lot of things for nothing." Levitt says there is no indication of the extent of the damages being sought. Indeed, in a second listing in the NSW Supreme

Court justice Lucy McCallum last Friday directed that the parties mediate their dispute and didn't fix a date a date for hearing. The bank executive Brendan French, general manager of customer relations, filed the legal action against consumer advocate Michael Fraser, alleging he defamed him. French's amended statement of claim says some internet postings on Fraser's website defamed him, alleging he engaged in bullying and unethical practices in his role at the bank. French also alleges he was the subject of a vendetta as evidenced by a combination of telephone calls, voice messages, text messages and emails totalling more than 200 over a period of months. The bank is funding the defamation but says it is not party to

the proceedings and would not be provided with access to any materials discovered during the proceedings. "Our employees are entitled to use the court processes and the law of defamation to protect their reputation. As Mr French's legal action arises out of incidents that occurred while carrying out his role, CBA is funding Mr French's proceedings," a CBA spokesperson said. Fraser is defending the action. Fraser splashed the front pages of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in October 2013 when CBA got caught red handed in a spying scandal, with senior politicians spied on and photographed by private detectives at a political fund raiser for Nationals senator John Williams, who had spearheaded a senate inquiry into the bank's financial planning scandal. CBA hired global security firm G4S to conduct "Operation Lantern" on Fraser between August 28, 2013 and September 1, 2013. The story came to light after a leaked internal bank memo to G4S revealed the bank requested the spying agency take photos of people Fraser met to "allow for the identification of individuals". The memo also revealed that the bank wanted to confirm if Fraser was receiving information from bank insiders, something that raised eyebrows at the time about the real motivation of the bank. "There is some suspicion Fraser is being fed information from another employee of the bank but 'we have not been able to confirm this'." The bank defended its decision to spy on Fraser on the basis he was a "person who has conducted a systematic campaign of harassment, intimidation and threats to one of our employees over many months". That employee was French. Fraser, who refers to himself as "the Arbitrator", said in the past couple of years he has represented dozens of aggrieved CBA customers, some of who allege loan fraud. The case prompted Jeff Morris, who blew the whistle on CBA's financial planning scandal, to speak up about his experience as a whistleblower at CBA. "Throughout the financial planning scandal, CBA's focus was on hunting down and punishing the whistleblowers, in contrast to rogue planners and the crooked managers who covered up for them, who in many cases were rewarded," he said. "CBA trawled through whistleblowers emails and subjected them to interrogation by CBA Group Security." For Morris his experience of the "safe to speak up culture" claim by CBA for whistleblowers is simply untrue. Morris exposed the scandal in the bank which triggered a senate inquiry and subsequent apology from the CBA CEO Ian Narev to victims of rogue planners. The topic of whistleblowers and protecting their identity has

been an issue of much discussion in Australia, particularly compared with how they are treated in the United States and some other countries, where they are lauded for the light they shine on wrongdoing and compensated for the damage to their career. In the US whistleblowers receive a reward of up to 30 per cent through penalties and legal settlements. Sadly Morris is living proof that whistleblowers in Australia are essentially thrown to the wolves. He went to ASIC in late 2008 and was ignored for 16 months then left to negotiate his own exit from CBA. There are no rewards or even compensation for whistleblowers in Australia. Institutions are essentially free to deal with them as they wish. It is why any legal action that is used to track and track down a whistleblower should be frowned on. http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/cba-funds-defamation-action-against-consumer-advocate-michael-fraser-20150413-1mjyae.html

______________________________________________