Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 24th, 2009 #61
Curtis Stone
Senior Member
 
Curtis Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,057
Curtis Stone
Default Toben says he will go to Germany !?!?

Pia Akerman | January 24, 2009
Article from: The Australian
REVISIONIST commentator Fredrick Toben will fight charges of Holocaust denial in Germany within weeks of escaping extradition proceedings in London, after negotiating with German prosecutors to face a European court.

In a video posted on YouTube, Dr Toben declares he will travel to Germany to meet Mannheim prosecutor Andreas Grossman, responsible for the failed extradition case against the former Adelaide schoolteacher in Britain last year.

"Mr Grossman, here is a message for you: that in the near future I shall be travelling to Germany, I shall be visiting you and we shall be thrashing it out in the German court," Dr Toben says in the video.

"I am progressing to that next stage in our battle for truth, in our battle for civilisation, in our battle to liberate the people who are oppressed. "We shall see whether truth will prevail ... whether we can in fact get some justice or whether you are simply going to demolish me, criminalise my thoughts and therefore further kill the German soul."

Dr Toben, 64, declined to say when he would go to Germany when contacted by The Weekend Australian yesterday.

But he said he had already been in email contact with Mr Grossman to arrange the court proceedings.

"I don't like being threatened by people who say they are going to hunt me down," he said. "Let's be civilised in these things, and discuss it and thrash it out."

Dr Toben spent seven months in Mannheim prison in 1999 for inciting racism. He will now face up to five years in jail, with parole an unlikely prospect unless he recants his claims.

British police arrested Dr Toben last October on a plane at Heathrow airport, acting on a European Union arrest warrant issued in Germany, which accused him of publishing internet material "of an anti-Semitic and/or revisionist nature".

A British judge ruled the arrest warrant invalid, a decision Germany initially appealed against before withdrawing.

Dr Toben would not say if he had already arranged legal representation, as he will almost certainly face another jail term. "Nothing is ever certain, but I just don't like this nonsense of being targeted and pulled off a plane," he said. "This is just primitive."

In the YouTube video -- where he speaks in front of Canberra's Parliament House -- Dr Toben foreshadows a visit to an upcoming revisionist conference to be held in Tehran.

He was a speaker at a similar conference organised by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian capital in 2006 that sparked strong condemnation from international leaders.

Meanwhile, a Federal Court judgment in a civil case against Dr Toben is still pending. He has pleaded not guilty to 28 charges alleging he breached orders by the Federal Court in 2002 not to publish offensive material on his website. The material breached the Racial Discrimination Act, implying that the Holocaust did not happen and doubting the existence of gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

He faces a finding of criminal contempt if found guilty.
 
Old February 20th, 2009 #62
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

 
Old April 16th, 2009 #63
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Töben convicted for continuously telling the truth

An Australian previously jailed in Germany and Austria for expounding his view that there were no mass killings of Jews in World War II was convicted Thursday of contempt of court in Melbourne for continuing to publish anti-Semitic material on his Web site.

German-born former high school teacher Frederick Toben, 65, was the subject of a civil action by Jeremy Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, for defying a court order to stop publishing claims that the Holocaust never happened.

Toben, who said he would choose to go to jail rather than pay a fine when he is sentenced later this month, said he had no regrets.

"If you believe in something and you want to have that freedom to express your opinions, then you should be prepared for sacrifices," he said outside the court in Sydney.

Last year, Toben was held in London under a European Union arrest warrant because he is wanted by the District Court in Mannheim, Germany, on charges of publishing material on the internet of an anti-Semitic or revisionist nature.

Denying the Holocaust is an offence in Germany with a maximum jail term of five years.

In 1999, Toben spent seven months in jail in Germany and has served an 11-month sentence in Austria for Holocaust denial.

In 2006, Toben was a speaker at a controversial two-day conference in Tehran organized by the Iranian government and attended by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There, he described as "mere puffery" the assertion that mass killings of Jews were carried out by the Nazis.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078746.html
 
Old April 17th, 2009 #64
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...query=%5etoben
 
Old April 20th, 2009 #66
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

I find this particular case more than disturbing, and upsetting, for a variety of reason.

I am starting to believe that a hunger strike by these elders, one following another, rather than total is necessary in order to draw world attention to this disgusting jewish travesty of justce - in this I also include the only woman, POW Sylvia Stolz.

"holocaust denial law" - I spit on it.

I'm more than inclined to go to Germany and publicly deny the Hoax and Holocaustianity and be imprisoned. I would not mind being the first to take to the blanket and hunger strike. I'm young enough and in good health, it would take a longer time for me to starve.

It is time to make a Stand and expose this barbaric law for what it is and thereby expose the kikes to the world for the vicious bloodthirsty animals they are and always have been. The denial law must be repealed.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; April 20th, 2009 at 05:41 PM.
 
Old May 4th, 2009 #69
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Is Dr. Toben's website completely down? Is there a mirror somewhere? I meant to download the entire website and was going to mirror it here but got distracted with some out of state work.

Is there a chance someone here has a complete copy of Dr. Toben's website?
 
Old May 4th, 2009 #70
Curtis Stone
Senior Member
 
Curtis Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,057
Curtis Stone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
Is Dr. Toben's website completely down? Is there a mirror somewhere? I meant to download the entire website and was going to mirror it here but got distracted with some out of state work.

Is there a chance someone here has a complete copy of Dr. Toben's website?

I wish very much I had taken down everything. Maybe the Wayback Machine has it.


http://www.adelaideinstitute.org Adelaide Institute

<a href="http://www.adelaideinstitute.org">Adelaide Institute</a>


There is a notice at the bottom saying the site is having a little rest "due to a change of management."

When he waves out the window of the car in the video below, I thought myself he was giving a salute at the end and I watched it twice to make sure.
__________________
Blood on the Menorah (1948) Robert Mitchum. In post-war Europe, an American newspaper man foresees the coming doom of transition to a Judaic society. Worth seeing. (Dir: Bill White, 99 mins.)

Last edited by Curtis Stone; May 4th, 2009 at 02:48 PM.
 
Old May 11th, 2009 #71
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default AL NAKBA CONFERENCE TEHERAN 16-17 May 2009 - Töben received an invitation to attend



http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/
 
Old May 13th, 2009 #72
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=93909
 
Old May 24th, 2009 #74
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

Dr. Töben's new email address:
[email protected]
 
Old May 24th, 2009 #75
Curtis Stone
Senior Member
 
Curtis Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,057
Curtis Stone
Default His web page today -

"If the Holocaust can be shown to be a Zionist myth, the strongest of all weapons in Israel's propaganda armoury collapses."

Professor W D Rubenstein (Quadrant, September 1979)

"Arbeit Macht Frei"

Yatala Gulag - will this be Dr Töben 's home for the next three months ???

Is this the FINAL SOLUTION for Dr Töben?

Will he be fit for work - or will he be gassed immediately upon arrival?

Töben is getting ready for his three months prison sentence because they lost the argument and claimed hurt feelings. He has thus successfully resisted mental rape and escaped from the conceptual prison into which they wish to place his mind. This is a great victory for free expression in Australia.

AUSTRALIA

THIS CLEVER COUNTRY

WHAT AN INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT

AND WHAT GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD KNOWLEDGE!

AUSTRALIA HAS NOW, through a contempt charge, CRIMINALIZED OPINIONS

Please note that Dr Töben’s next court appearance is 10.00am, Wednesday 27th May 2009, at the Federal Court of Australia, 3 Angas Street, Adelaide (near Victoria Square) When you get into the lobby you will see a board showing the room number for "Jones v Toben". It is expected that he will be imprisoned at this time. Anyone who is able to support Dr Töben and attend this hearing, please make a special effort.

Please advise your intended presence to Peter Hartung [email protected]

APPEAL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Please help Dr Töben meet his considerable legal costs

For details of how to donate please email Peter Hartung [email protected]
__________________
Blood on the Menorah (1948) Robert Mitchum. In post-war Europe, an American newspaper man foresees the coming doom of transition to a Judaic society. Worth seeing. (Dir: Bill White, 99 mins.)
 
Old August 10th, 2009 #76
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Dr Töben's appeal hearing will be heard at The Federal Court of Australia, 3 Angas Street, Adelaide, at 10.00 AM, Thursday 13th August 2009. Please attend and show your support.
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/
 
Old August 14th, 2009 #77
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default The “Toben Case” as seen by Voltaire

For the historian, the sociologist, or the jurist, the case of Australian revisionist Fredrick Toben is one of the simplest and most instructive. It is also both appalling and amusing.

One day, moved by curiosity, this German-born Australian left the antipodes on a journey to Europe in order to confer with an individual who had coined the phrase « No holes, no “Holocaust” ». From there he went on to Poland, to Auschwitz, where with his own eyes he observed that, in the effective absence of any “holes” in the collapsed roof of an alleged homicidal gas chamber, there was cause to doubt whether such chemical slaughterhouses had ever existed at that spot, the veritable centre of the “Holocaust”. Finally, on a pilgrimage to the Germanic lands, he shared his doubts and asked for explanations, an act which earned him forthwith a stay in prison.


Voltaire would have liked this “affaire Calas” (of a less tragic sort). From it he could have drawn inspiration for a tale entitled: The Emperor’s New Clothes or The Imposture. It seems right to imagine that, as in a classical French play, the story should evolve in five stages.


In the first of these stages, our hero from the other hemisphere hears tell that a certain European emperor, dear to the Jews and thus also to today’s Germans, is, in the eyes of his court, bedecked in the most extraordinary attire, whilst in reality he is quite simply naked. It is said that some ingenious rascals had pretended to create for the emperor garments of an exceedingly rare cloth, costing a fortune. In the next stage, our Australian, modern-day Huron of the Voltaire tale Le Huron ou l’Ingénu, armed with some advice on how to carry out his inquiry arrives in Europe and prepares to see for himself. Once on location, he gets the impression that this emperor could well be naked. In a third stage, he proceeds to inquire of those around him, going so far as to whisper to the courtiers: “Is your emperor perhaps naked?” For want of a fitting reply, he resolves to go to the Germanic lands and consult a man of the craft. This latter person, most certainly a German and perhaps a Jew as well, has a reputation, the world over, for such good knowledge of the solution to the riddle that he will not abide any answer other than his own. This individual, prosecutor of woeful mien, invites the sceptic to come back to see him the next day in order to get his answer. This our Australian does not fail to do. There, in the prosecutor’s study, with a stranger present, he is asked to repeat his question. Which he does. And so it is that, in a fifth and final stage, the question-man finds himself behind the bars of a German jail.


In the reality of the Toben case, the prosecutor was a man called Heiko Klein, the stranger was a police informer and the jail was, for seven months, that of Mannheim.


What followed would equally have inspired Voltaire. It throws a stark light on the way in which the German justice system works at present and on the mode of conduct adopted by a large number of Western democracies as soon as the most hallowed of their taboos, that of the “Holocaust”, appears to be in peril.


Removed from his jail cell, F. Toben, in handcuffs and duly escorted, was led into a courtroom. But, given the gravity of his case, he had the right only to a mock trial. He was, of course, provided with counsel, but the latter was made to understand that he would do well to keep quiet if he did not want to join his client in prison. The lawyer kept quiet and F. Toben was found guilty, sentenced to time served and a heavy fine, and then released on bail the next day.


In Australia, the authorities were careful not to intervene in favour of the victim. Indeed they fell little short of applauding the German judges’ decision, most likely envying the German magistrates freedom of action.


In the rest of the Western world, everyone, by and large, fell into tune with Germany and Australia. The “élites” in place kept silent or approved. None of them got the idea of decrying an outrage. No petitions in support of the heretic, no demonstrations. “Amnesty International” considered it natural and normal that an intellectual, an academic should be so treated. In effect, precisely because he is a professor, many must be of the opinion that F. Toben surely ought to know that some questions simply offend decency.




Twenty years earlier


Twenty years previously, I myself had lived through an experience comparable to that of my Australian colleague. In the columns of Le Monde (Feb.21, 1979), thirty-four French historians — among whom some, like Fernand Braudel, enjoyed international renown — had issued a joint declaration rebuking me for having put a question that propriety should have forbidden me to conceive.


I had discovered that the existence and operation of the alleged Nazi gas chambers were, for physical and chemical reasons understandable to a child of eight, fundamentally impossible. In the late seventies I had therefore asked Germany’s accusers how, for them, such mass murder by gassing had been technically possible. The answer took some time in coming, then gushed forth:


It must not be asked how, technically, such mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, given that it took place. That is the requisite point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth : there is not, there cannot be any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.
I had the awkwardness to think then that I had just brought off a decisive victory. My adversaries were taking flight. They showed themselves to be unable to reply to my arguments except by spin. For me, the myth of the alleged gas chambers had just breathed its last.


Pressac’s surrender, Spielberg’s triumph


Of course, from a scientific standpoint, those gas chambers had fallen back into nothingness. The following years were to confirm this. From 1979 to 1995, every attempt to demonstrate their existence would abort: the Rückerls and Langbeins, the Hilbergs and Brownings, the Klarfelds and Pressacs would all suffer the most humiliating failures. It is not I who say this but rather one of their keenest apostles, historian Jacques Baynac. In 1996, in two long and particularly well-informed articles, this fierce opponent of the revisionists drafted, with a heavy heart, an assessment of the vain tries to establish the existence of the Nazi gas chambers (Le Nouveau Quotidien [of Lausanne], Sept. 2 and 3, 1996). Baynac’s conclusion: the historians had failed totally and, as a result, recourse was had to the judiciary in order to silence the revisionists.


In March 2000, Jean-Claude Pressac was, in a way, to announce his own surrender. On this point one may read an interview with him published by the French academic historian (and staunch anti-revisionist) Valérie Igounet in her book Histoire du négationnisme en France (Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 2000, p. 613-652). The last two pages of the interview are staggering: J.-C. Pressac states that the “rubbish bins of history” await… the official story of the concentration camps! This text of a recorded talk, supposedly of June 15, 1995, must have been somewhat modified afterwards.


But, as is well known, the sphere of science, on the one hand, and that of the mass media, on the other, are plainly different in nature. In the latter sphere, while the Nazi gas chambers have had a very rough time of it, the adjoining myths of the genocide and the six million have prospered thanks to a thunderous promotion. Hilberg and his like may have failed in their work as historians but Spielberg, the master of special effects cinema, triumphs with his holocaustic epics. Today, the kosher version of Second World War history has force of law and of custom to such a degree that the nasty “deniers” seem annihilated.


The particular case of F. Toben


Nevertheless, a number of these rebels called revisionists remain alive, and very much so, to the despair of the thought police and their lackeys in the prosecution service, the judiciary, and the media. Among these revisionists stands F.Toben, who, upon leaving prison, did not have the decency to show the least contrition or, as is said today, repentance. It may be feared that, for him, the emperor (of the Jews) will stay definitively naked, and that he will continue going about repeating “No holes, no ‘Holocaust’”, or, in allusion to the non-existent fabric , “No clothes, no ‘Holocaust.’”


Beginning with the indomitable Paul Rassinier, a good many other revisionists besides our Australian have endured or still endure a thousand travails. A few months ago, one of them, in Germany, was driven to suicide. Werner Pfeifenberger, a professor in Münster, killed himself on May 13, 2000 after years of an exhausting struggle against his persecutors. On 25 April 1995, in a Munich square, Reinhold Elstner immolated himself by fire.


What distinguishes the revisionist Toben’s case from that of others is its simple and swift unwinding, and therefore its illustrative value. One might call it a synopsis, an all-in-a-nutshell sketch. It is nothing but the story of a man who, for having made a prosaic remark on a material fact, finds himself in prison. To whoever cared to listen, he had, in fact, held forth thus: “At Auschwitz-Birkenau, day after day, a deadly substance was apparently poured through four openings, specially made in a reinforced concrete roof, so as to kill, each time, the thousands of persons confined in the room below. How could such an operation be possible given that manifestly, as one may remark today, none of those four openings ever existed? Of course, the roof is now in ruins but, on the surface, no trace of those openings can be made out and, if one slides down beneath the ruin, one can see also that the ceiling has never had any openings in it. How do you explain that?” He received no answer. Then, he sought out a man who, by definition, must know the answer to his query (and the answer to several others of the same calibre, -- material and rudimentary). As his only reply, that individual deemed it necessary to throw the inquirer into jail. But, once out of jail, what did our impertinent friend do? He repeated his question, but this time urbi et orbi, and with renewed vigour.


A story edifying in its brevity, and not without spice.


Toben in an Ingénue Role from a Tale by Voltaire


I shall say it again: a Frenchman familiar with Voltaire is tempted to see in this antipodean a reincarnation, in his own mode, of Candide or the Huron (the original Ingénu). Under Voltaire’s pen, the ingenuousness, real or feigned, of those two heroes, wholly of his imagining, ended up putting them through numerous ordeals -- but it also helped them overcome adversity, and not without providing some interesting perspectives for the reader on the beliefs and superstitions to be found at the foundations of our society and institutions. The story of Fredrick Toben (German as was, in fact, Candide) would probably have appealed to Voltaire on another score, that of the execrable intolerance of the Jews and their high priests (See : Henri Labroue, Voltaire antijuif [Paris, Les Documents contemporains, 1942].)


Today, in France, the re-editions of some of the works of the “patriarch of Ferney” are expurgated, for fear of displeasing the Jews. No one can doubt that, if he came back to this world, Voltaire, following Toben’s example, would be “put inside” for his disrespectful questions. Even Switzerland, where in his time Voltaire knew he could find refuge, would today not fail to lock him.


********


A note to the reader : Voltaire (1694-1778) was notably the author of Candide ou l’Optimisme (philosophical tale, 1759), Le Huron ou l’Ingénu (satirical tale, 1767) as well as the Dictionnaire philosophique ou la Raison par alphabet (1764). He intervened in a series of court cases, such as that of the Calvinist Jean Calas, to speak out against what he called the crimes of intolerance or of superstition. He spent his last twenty years at Ferney, near the Swiss border.


Note on a false attribution to Voltaire: It is by mistake that the following remark is attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, sometimes with the adjunct “Monsieur l’abbé…”. In reality, a London author, in a book published in 1906, wrote the following, on the subject of the attitude taken by Voltaire in case of intense disagreement with an adversary: ”I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it was his attitude now.” The author was called Stephen G. Tallentyre (real name: Evelyn B. Hall) and the book was entitled The Friends of Voltaire. Source : Paul F. Boller Jr and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, New York and Oxford, O.U.P., 1989, p. 124-126. Such,anyway, is the information that I have drawn from an article in L’Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux (Nov. 1993, p. 1157), kindly sent to me seven years ago by the Belgian revisionist Pierre Moreau, to whom I had confided my failure to find the remark in any of Voltaire’s writings.

August 22, 2000




Posted by N

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/...-voltaire.html
 
Old August 15th, 2009 #78
fossilator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 388
fossilator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bandanza View Post
For the historian, the sociologist, or the jurist, the case of Australian revisionist Fredrick Toben is one of the simplest and most instructive. It is also both appalling and amusing.

One day, moved by curiosity, this German-born Australian left the antipodes on a journey to Europe in order to confer with an individual who had coined the phrase « No holes, no “Holocaust” ». From there he went on to Poland, to Auschwitz, where with his own eyes he observed that, in the effective absence of any “holes” in the collapsed roof of an alleged homicidal gas chamber, there was cause to doubt whether such chemical slaughterhouses had ever existed at that spot, the veritable centre of the “Holocaust”. Finally, on a pilgrimage to the Germanic lands, he shared his doubts and asked for explanations, an act which earned him forthwith a stay in prison.


Voltaire would have liked this “affaire Calas” (of a less tragic sort). From it he could have drawn inspiration for a tale entitled: The Emperor’s New Clothes or The Imposture. It seems right to imagine that, as in a classical French play, the story should evolve in five stages.


In the first of these stages, our hero from the other hemisphere hears tell that a certain European emperor, dear to the Jews and thus also to today’s Germans, is, in the eyes of his court, bedecked in the most extraordinary attire, whilst in reality he is quite simply naked. It is said that some ingenious rascals had pretended to create for the emperor garments of an exceedingly rare cloth, costing a fortune. In the next stage, our Australian, modern-day Huron of the Voltaire tale Le Huron ou l’Ingénu, armed with some advice on how to carry out his inquiry arrives in Europe and prepares to see for himself. Once on location, he gets the impression that this emperor could well be naked. In a third stage, he proceeds to inquire of those around him, going so far as to whisper to the courtiers: “Is your emperor perhaps naked?” For want of a fitting reply, he resolves to go to the Germanic lands and consult a man of the craft. This latter person, most certainly a German and perhaps a Jew as well, has a reputation, the world over, for such good knowledge of the solution to the riddle that he will not abide any answer other than his own. This individual, prosecutor of woeful mien, invites the sceptic to come back to see him the next day in order to get his answer. This our Australian does not fail to do. There, in the prosecutor’s study, with a stranger present, he is asked to repeat his question. Which he does. And so it is that, in a fifth and final stage, the question-man finds himself behind the bars of a German jail.


In the reality of the Toben case, the prosecutor was a man called Heiko Klein, the stranger was a police informer and the jail was, for seven months, that of Mannheim.


What followed would equally have inspired Voltaire. It throws a stark light on the way in which the German justice system works at present and on the mode of conduct adopted by a large number of Western democracies as soon as the most hallowed of their taboos, that of the “Holocaust”, appears to be in peril.


Removed from his jail cell, F. Toben, in handcuffs and duly escorted, was led into a courtroom. But, given the gravity of his case, he had the right only to a mock trial. He was, of course, provided with counsel, but the latter was made to understand that he would do well to keep quiet if he did not want to join his client in prison. The lawyer kept quiet and F. Toben was found guilty, sentenced to time served and a heavy fine, and then released on bail the next day.


In Australia, the authorities were careful not to intervene in favour of the victim. Indeed they fell little short of applauding the German judges’ decision, most likely envying the German magistrates freedom of action.


In the rest of the Western world, everyone, by and large, fell into tune with Germany and Australia. The “élites” in place kept silent or approved. None of them got the idea of decrying an outrage. No petitions in support of the heretic, no demonstrations. “Amnesty International” considered it natural and normal that an intellectual, an academic should be so treated. In effect, precisely because he is a professor, many must be of the opinion that F. Toben surely ought to know that some questions simply offend decency.




Twenty years earlier


Twenty years previously, I myself had lived through an experience comparable to that of my Australian colleague. In the columns of Le Monde (Feb.21, 1979), thirty-four French historians — among whom some, like Fernand Braudel, enjoyed international renown — had issued a joint declaration rebuking me for having put a question that propriety should have forbidden me to conceive.


I had discovered that the existence and operation of the alleged Nazi gas chambers were, for physical and chemical reasons understandable to a child of eight, fundamentally impossible. In the late seventies I had therefore asked Germany’s accusers how, for them, such mass murder by gassing had been technically possible. The answer took some time in coming, then gushed forth:


It must not be asked how, technically, such mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, given that it took place. That is the requisite point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth : there is not, there cannot be any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.
I had the awkwardness to think then that I had just brought off a decisive victory. My adversaries were taking flight. They showed themselves to be unable to reply to my arguments except by spin. For me, the myth of the alleged gas chambers had just breathed its last.


Pressac’s surrender, Spielberg’s triumph


Of course, from a scientific standpoint, those gas chambers had fallen back into nothingness. The following years were to confirm this. From 1979 to 1995, every attempt to demonstrate their existence would abort: the Rückerls and Langbeins, the Hilbergs and Brownings, the Klarfelds and Pressacs would all suffer the most humiliating failures. It is not I who say this but rather one of their keenest apostles, historian Jacques Baynac. In 1996, in two long and particularly well-informed articles, this fierce opponent of the revisionists drafted, with a heavy heart, an assessment of the vain tries to establish the existence of the Nazi gas chambers (Le Nouveau Quotidien [of Lausanne], Sept. 2 and 3, 1996). Baynac’s conclusion: the historians had failed totally and, as a result, recourse was had to the judiciary in order to silence the revisionists.


In March 2000, Jean-Claude Pressac was, in a way, to announce his own surrender. On this point one may read an interview with him published by the French academic historian (and staunch anti-revisionist) Valérie Igounet in her book Histoire du négationnisme en France (Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 2000, p. 613-652). The last two pages of the interview are staggering: J.-C. Pressac states that the “rubbish bins of history” await… the official story of the concentration camps! This text of a recorded talk, supposedly of June 15, 1995, must have been somewhat modified afterwards.


But, as is well known, the sphere of science, on the one hand, and that of the mass media, on the other, are plainly different in nature. In the latter sphere, while the Nazi gas chambers have had a very rough time of it, the adjoining myths of the genocide and the six million have prospered thanks to a thunderous promotion. Hilberg and his like may have failed in their work as historians but Spielberg, the master of special effects cinema, triumphs with his holocaustic epics. Today, the kosher version of Second World War history has force of law and of custom to such a degree that the nasty “deniers” seem annihilated.


The particular case of F. Toben


Nevertheless, a number of these rebels called revisionists remain alive, and very much so, to the despair of the thought police and their lackeys in the prosecution service, the judiciary, and the media. Among these revisionists stands F.Toben, who, upon leaving prison, did not have the decency to show the least contrition or, as is said today, repentance. It may be feared that, for him, the emperor (of the Jews) will stay definitively naked, and that he will continue going about repeating “No holes, no ‘Holocaust’”, or, in allusion to the non-existent fabric , “No clothes, no ‘Holocaust.’”


Beginning with the indomitable Paul Rassinier, a good many other revisionists besides our Australian have endured or still endure a thousand travails. A few months ago, one of them, in Germany, was driven to suicide. Werner Pfeifenberger, a professor in Münster, killed himself on May 13, 2000 after years of an exhausting struggle against his persecutors. On 25 April 1995, in a Munich square, Reinhold Elstner immolated himself by fire.


What distinguishes the revisionist Toben’s case from that of others is its simple and swift unwinding, and therefore its illustrative value. One might call it a synopsis, an all-in-a-nutshell sketch. It is nothing but the story of a man who, for having made a prosaic remark on a material fact, finds himself in prison. To whoever cared to listen, he had, in fact, held forth thus: “At Auschwitz-Birkenau, day after day, a deadly substance was apparently poured through four openings, specially made in a reinforced concrete roof, so as to kill, each time, the thousands of persons confined in the room below. How could such an operation be possible given that manifestly, as one may remark today, none of those four openings ever existed? Of course, the roof is now in ruins but, on the surface, no trace of those openings can be made out and, if one slides down beneath the ruin, one can see also that the ceiling has never had any openings in it. How do you explain that?” He received no answer. Then, he sought out a man who, by definition, must know the answer to his query (and the answer to several others of the same calibre, -- material and rudimentary). As his only reply, that individual deemed it necessary to throw the inquirer into jail. But, once out of jail, what did our impertinent friend do? He repeated his question, but this time urbi et orbi, and with renewed vigour.


A story edifying in its brevity, and not without spice.


Toben in an Ingénue Role from a Tale by Voltaire


I shall say it again: a Frenchman familiar with Voltaire is tempted to see in this antipodean a reincarnation, in his own mode, of Candide or the Huron (the original Ingénu). Under Voltaire’s pen, the ingenuousness, real or feigned, of those two heroes, wholly of his imagining, ended up putting them through numerous ordeals -- but it also helped them overcome adversity, and not without providing some interesting perspectives for the reader on the beliefs and superstitions to be found at the foundations of our society and institutions. The story of Fredrick Toben (German as was, in fact, Candide) would probably have appealed to Voltaire on another score, that of the execrable intolerance of the Jews and their high priests (See : Henri Labroue, Voltaire antijuif [Paris, Les Documents contemporains, 1942].)


Today, in France, the re-editions of some of the works of the “patriarch of Ferney” are expurgated, for fear of displeasing the Jews. No one can doubt that, if he came back to this world, Voltaire, following Toben’s example, would be “put inside” for his disrespectful questions. Even Switzerland, where in his time Voltaire knew he could find refuge, would today not fail to lock him.


********


A note to the reader : Voltaire (1694-1778) was notably the author of Candide ou l’Optimisme (philosophical tale, 1759), Le Huron ou l’Ingénu (satirical tale, 1767) as well as the Dictionnaire philosophique ou la Raison par alphabet (1764). He intervened in a series of court cases, such as that of the Calvinist Jean Calas, to speak out against what he called the crimes of intolerance or of superstition. He spent his last twenty years at Ferney, near the Swiss border.


Note on a false attribution to Voltaire: It is by mistake that the following remark is attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, sometimes with the adjunct “Monsieur l’abbé…”. In reality, a London author, in a book published in 1906, wrote the following, on the subject of the attitude taken by Voltaire in case of intense disagreement with an adversary: ”I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it was his attitude now.” The author was called Stephen G. Tallentyre (real name: Evelyn B. Hall) and the book was entitled The Friends of Voltaire. Source : Paul F. Boller Jr and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, New York and Oxford, O.U.P., 1989, p. 124-126. Such,anyway, is the information that I have drawn from an article in L’Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux (Nov. 1993, p. 1157), kindly sent to me seven years ago by the Belgian revisionist Pierre Moreau, to whom I had confided my failure to find the remark in any of Voltaire’s writings.

August 22, 2000




Posted by N

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/...-voltaire.html
Excellent post!
 
Old August 25th, 2009 #79
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default The toben case: Welcome to talmudistan

I went to Adelaide in order to attend the final kangaroo court hearing that dispatched Dr Fredrick toben to prison. Toben was appealing against the decision by a lower court judge to impose on him a three-month jail term for an alleged “contempt of court” offence. The reasons given for the allegation was that on numerous occasions Toben did not believe the allegation that Germans gassed jews in the fourties of the twentieth century. The said judge ordered Toben not to insult jews who believed in the Holocaust myth, and to stop “vilifying” them by believing and asserting that those deluded individuals were “of limited intelligence”, an assertion with which many, including my humble self, would totally agree. People do not need to be of super intelligence in order to see that the so called “Jewish Holocaust” was a total fabrication.

Jews in Germany were among many other groups accused of being “enemies of the state”. They were arrested and sent to concentration camps to be used as forced labour for the German war effort during WW2. There is not a shred of real or logical evidence that any Jew had been deliberately killed. The conditions in the camps might have been bad, the food rations might have been inadequate, but the allegation that Jews were mass-killed is totally absurd. Some workers were dead because of infectious typhus, a disease transmitted by body lice. The corpses of the dead had to be burnt in order to stop the spreading of the epidemic. The claim that six million Jews were executed is a blatant lie propagated by demented individuals who survived the war.

Anyway, I delved into the “Adelaide High Court” where a “full court” of three judges sat on the bench. As the hearing progressed, I could clearly see that the judges have made up their minds before walking into the room. As the formalities continued, David Perkins, the defence counsel, opened for the three judges every possible avenue that would make them reach a sensible decision. He tried to make them understand that the “Anti Discrimination Act” should not override the constitutional right to free speech, but they insisted that the whole matter was an ordinary run-of-the-mill simple case of contempt of court that had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Hiding behind this flimsy façade of “contempt of court”, the presiding judge began to read the justification for the forthcoming sentence. My stomach could not take such nonsense and I found myself walking out of the courtroom before the sentence was announced. As I waited outside, I reflected sadly on my last forty years as an Australian citizen. Is this really the free country I loved so dearly? Will it continue to be my refuge from the ugly totalitarian system I left back at my birthplace Egypt?

My colleague, the brave fearless Fredrick Toben, walked out a few minutes after. We exchanged a reassuring look and, together with Peter Hartung and several other supporters, walked for a few metres in the direction of a number of Federal Police agents, who were shyly ready to carry out the instructions they previously received. Fredrick bid us goodbye and walked to them with a friendly smile saying, ”Here I am, I am ready and I have nothing to carry with me.” Minutes later, I met David Perkins, who almost talking to himself remarked, “They gave us no chance!”

Unlike the programmed robots I have seen on the day, David struck me as a very decent strong believer in and advocate of free speech. He probably believed that the law of the land and its custodians would never transform Australia into a member of the Talmudic group of nations. I believe that, on 13 August 2009, he faced his day of reckoning.
Posted by Mohammed A. Hegazi at 2:07 AM
1 comments:

Noor al Haqiqa said...
You have a few good posts here that I had lost before putting up ... First being the one on the Talmud and the body part rabbi ... and the pic of toben will be on my next post, it is JUST what I needed....
http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/
... adding you to my blog roll which is getting huge LOL... but everyone has such good stuff...

3:02 AM

http://hegazi.blogspot.com/2009/08/t...lmudistan.html
 
Old August 25th, 2009 #80
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

The Australian

To the Editor:

In the Australian, August 18, 2009, issue, Steven Lewis and Peter Wertheim wrote Freedom of Speech should not be freedom to vilify. It has its certain merits; however, when it comes to those who question or deny the Holocaust, the word is grossly overused in denying freedom to those who question. Instead of debating the issue, these people are vilified and character assassinated by instilling and reading into what they believe the questioners had written,as they have done to the statements used by Dr. Toben, which, to the average reader do not sound offensive, racial hatred,
racist or anti-Semitic but logical questions when one considers that a Holocaust did not occur as such, for killing was not limited only to Jews.

Pulling a "Holocaust" out of World War II, is, in itself, a racistact. Any government which requires persons within its jurisdiction to accept a belief, without allowing public questioning or debate as to its validity, is thereby establishing a government religion. Most government constitutions in the "free world" preclude the establishment of a governmentreligion. Portraying Jews as the exclusive victims of the so-called Holocaust has the effect of deifying the Jewish people.


Like all freedoms, the proper limits of free speech are exceeded when it is about causing physical and mental harm....But harm has to be proved according to objective criteria. The questions raised by the
historian/revisionists were never debated, or proved wrong or harmful .simply genuine questions of a academic group seeking clearer facts and scientific debate, which never occurred. The thrust of his material to use the internet to stoke up hatred against Jews as a group, is an unproven statement that has never been clarified or actually been part of an open debate about history, but only used to their means to distort the intent of the questioning the Holocaust did not occur, or that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, that Jewish people who believed in the Holocaust were of limited intelligence and that they have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II from what he described as "a Holocaust myth," are reasonable. In a legal first in Austsralia , Fredrik Toben, has been jailed for three months following the failure of his appeal for contempt of court rising from
repeatedly ignoring court orders to remove material the court found that breached the racial-hatred provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act .However, the claims as listed are no criminal sanctions under the [Racial Discrimination] act. Toben went to jail for contempt of court...

The Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Congress, and many other Jewish organizations are "watchdog groups" around the world, seeking to condemn anyone for any statements that can be tiwisted into a "Hate Crime," turning people into "criminals" and having them imprisoned.History shows that ever since "Jews" were finally dispersed from the land of Milk and Honey, as promised by their God if they would obey his commandments, they have sought revenge in many countries to where they had migrated, and not assimilated.


No Christian, or other public affairs groups have ever made criminal charges against the public vilifying of Jesus Christ by Jews from the time they insisted that the Romans crucify him.. No non-Jewish group has ever taken Menacheim Begin when he made a speech to the Kneeset ( the Israeli Parliament) that was published in The New Statesman in June 25, 1982. when he said: "Our race is the master race. We are divine gods on this earth. We are different from the inferior races as they are from insects---other races compare to us as human excrement."

Neither did any group speak out against Golda Meir, who was Israel's Prime Minister in 1969 when she said: "There is no such thing as a Palestine people. It is not as if we came and threw them out and took there country. They did not exist." Now, for more than 60 years they have been wiping out
the Palestines whom she claimed did not exist. (Is not a denial of an ethnic group an act of racism and hate?)


"It is the Jews who originated biblical exegesis (a critical analysis of the Bible), just as they were the first to criticize the forms and doctrines of Christianity...Truly has Darmesteter written: 'The Jew was the apostle of unbelief, and every revolt of mind originated with him.'" (Bernard Lazare, Antisemitism: It's History and Causes, London: Britons Publishing Co., 1967, pp. 149-151).


"Ever since the Jews invented the libel charge of 'anti-Semitism' in the 1880s (The word 'anti- Semitism' was first printed in 1880.' The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I (1901), p. 641), it has been built up with Jewishmoney, organizations, propaganda, and lies (such as the Holocaust-Holohoax), so that now the word is like snake venom which paralyzes one's nervous system. Even the mention of the word 'Jew' is shunned unless used in a most favorable and positive context." (Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, p. 63).

There is no concerted effort by any group to fight free speech vilifying non-Jewish races or ethinic groups by their smears and gross insults. While there is still some freedom of speech, the world needs to counter the Jewish influence that is being inflicted through this "Hate Crime Law" being foisted upon the governments of still independent nations, and superceding the United Nations Resolutions.

Considering that one of the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations is that of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights proclaim the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

Convinced that freedom of religion and belief should also contribute to the attainment of the goals of world peace, social justice and friendship among peoples and to the elimination of ideologies or practices of colonialism and racial discrimination as based on This Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief:

Article 1
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.

Article 3
Discrimination between human being on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.


All this makes no need for the "Hate Crime Law" that has been instigated by the self-serving Jewish organizations, and being foisted on individual nations to supersede their own government laws and the United Nations where no serious action has been taken against their ethnic crimes. Words that are
turned and twisted to meet such a law will, and can only encourage more hatred.

Amy Phillips Aremia
Raleigh, NC 27613
USA



The article to which this letter refers:

Voice to be held in contempt

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Hom...australian.htm
 
Reply

Tags
adelaide institute, fredrick toben, holocaust heresy, holocaust heretic, töben

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.
Page generated in 0.19048 seconds.