With Compliments to Your Information and Consideration:
Old Fritz
OPEN LETTER TO
Senator
Christine Milne BA(Hons), Cert.Educ.(Tas.)
(Leader of the Australian Greens)
Australian Senate, Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Senator Milne,
I refer to your speech with regard to section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Australian Senate of Tuesday, 17 June 2014. Your speech is produced on following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9M7hT1V_cM
To your speech I respond herewith as follows:
Under section 130 StGB of the German Penal Code you can indeed be jailed for defaming, insulting and sullying the memory of the dead of the Holocaust. It applies only to the dead of the Jews and no other people, which is in itself unfavourable to other people, for example Gypsies and the people in the Firestorm of Dresden, etc., who were brutally exterminated during WW 2.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/09/the-true-foundations-of-the-nuremberg-tribunal/
An explanation to this I found in the following article, which headline states: “Gay Jews have ‘higher souls’ than gentiles, says Israeli deputy minister”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.566021
Nobody in the World gives a damn when an artist produced “Piss Christ”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
which defames, insults and sullies the memory of the brutal death of the God of the Christians by the Romans on behalf of the Jews and which defames, insults and sullies the memory of the brutal death of Christians in the Roman Colosseum.
A messianic Jew, Brother Nathanael talks how Jews make a mockery hate on Jesus Christ:
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=651
Would section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act also be applicable in these mockery hate on Jesus Christ? But well, Christians have to love sinners and forgive them, haven’t they? Very well worked out by the ones, who invented Christianity, isn’t it?
The section 130 StGB of the German Penal Code itself is in breach of democratic laws. For example, if someone accuses some – one of having murdered his son, but the accused denies this, this accused has a right to maintain to be innocent, even though he may get convicted on weak circumstantial evidence. The convicted one has a right to deny that he murdered the son and to maintain also to be innocent after the conviction in jail. Nobody in the World would go and jail this convicted person for defaming, insulting and sullying the memory of the family’s dead son, who was brutally murdered. Many people assume that once a trial is over, the case is done once and for all. However, sometimes cases can be retried.
Reasons for a re – trial include attorney misconduct or mistrial in the original trial, or an error which made the trial unfair. The convicted murderer has a democratic right in jail to search for fresh and compelling evidence to get a retrial. A Court of an appeal can allow or order a retrial on the basis of fresh and compelling evidence, a tainted conviction or an administration of justice offence, that the convicted one did not get a fair trial and can order a re – investigation.
For that reason in 2014 an inquiry, headed by Justice Brian Ross Martin, found there had been “a substantial miscarriage of justice”, in the Eastman case. Eastman “did not receive a fair trial”, the forensic evidence on which the conviction was based was “deeply flawed” and recommended the conviction be quashed.
http://www.eastmaninquiry.org.au/
According to section 130 StGB of the German Penal Code, Mr. Eastman and Justice Brian Ross Martin are guilty for defaming, insulting and sullying the memory of the dead Mr. Colin Winchester, the former ACT Policing Chief Police Officer, who was brutally exterminated.
In another case, Mr. Ziggy Pohl of Queanbeyan, NSW was wrongly convicted of the 1973 murder of his wife Joyce and served ten years in prison:
http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.com.au/pohl.html
Mr. Pohl maintained his innocence at all the time and according to today’s Holocaust-Philosophy, he was a denier and guilty of defaming, insulting and sullying the memory of his dead wife Joyce! On 8th September, 1990, Roger G Bawden walked into the Queanbeyan Police Station and confirmed to murdering Mrs. Pohl. In 1992, the NSW Governor granted Mr. Ziggy Pohl an unconditional pardon. Accordingly Germans have a right too, to maintain their innocence in the Holocaust-convictions and look for for fresh – and compelling evidence to get a re-trial.
The Germans and people like Dr. F. Toben have a right to look for fresh and compelling evidence in the Holocaust – case, because the Nuremberg trial had stirred considerable controversy in the USA. Mr. Jackson’s predecessor as US Supreme Court Associate Justice (and shortly to become Chief Justice) Harlam Fiske Stone remarked at the time: ‘Jackson is away conducting his high – grade lynching party . I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little to sanctimonious a fraud to met my old – fashioned ideas.”
Stone’s was not a lone voice either. Speaking in 1947, Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi commented on the ongoing legal proceedings in Nuremburg by saying: “As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what’s taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States….”
Another congressman, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin, expressed a similar view, declaring in 1949: “The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history…… The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst”!
On the one hand, the founding ethos of the United Nations was partially built at the trial and with it the basis of the modern world order. More controversially, the cornerstones of evidence for the Holocaust were laid at Nuremberg. If then the trail really was some sort of lynching party and nothing more, is it reasonable to doubt its conclusion?” Source: “From Nuremberg to Nineveh” by Mark Turkey, pg. 14.
US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlam Fiske Stone’ s fears of the conduct of a high-grade lynching party are also raised in a different manner by the book of Jewish writer John Sack, “An Eye for an Eye”:
http://www.johnsack.com/dictionary_of_literary_biography_an_eye_for_an_eye.htm
It is an established fact, that confessions of the defendants were obtained by torture at Nuremberg. A US Army Commission of inquiry consisting of Pennsylvania Judge Edward van Rhoden and Texas Supreme Court Judge Gordon Simpson officially confirmed the charges of gross abuse. German defendants, they found, were routinely tortured at the “war crimes” trials in Dachau. Included in the torture was to kick in the testicles of the defendants beyond repair. Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
http://greatwhitedesert.org/dir/index.php?title=Injustice_at_Nuremberg
Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles f. Wennersturm, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser alleged Nazi war criminals after the war, pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from European living space because they considered them harmful to the war effort and to Western European civilization! Source: Chicago Daily Tribune (1923 – 1963); Feb.23, 1948, pg 1 “Nazi Trial Judge rips’ ‘Injustice'”, by Hal Foust:
“NUERNBERG, Feb. 20 (Delayed). The Iowa Supreme Court Justice who presided over the recent trial of eight German generals who were sent to prison for war crimes is returning home this week, disillusioned and 15 pounds lighter. He is Charles F. Wennerstrum, 59, of Charlton, Ia., a native of Cambridge, I11, and a member of the Iowa Supreme bench since, 1941.’………’If I had known seven months ago what I know today’, he told friends as he packed to leave for America, ‘I would never have come here.’………..’Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case’……’Our tribunal introduced a rule of procedure that when the prosecution introduced an excerpt from a document, the entire document should be made available to the defense for presentation as evidence. The prosecution protested vigorously’……”Justice Denied”…..’Gen. Taylor (Brig.Gen. Telford Taylor, Chief of the prosecution) tried out of court to call a meeting of the presiding judges to rescind this order. It was not the attitude of any conscientious officer of the court seeking full justice’………’Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance upon self – incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more than 2 1/2 years, and repeated interrogation without presence of counsel. Two and – half years of confinement in a form of duress in itself’…..”The lack of appeal,” replied the judge, “leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied.”
Chris Dodd wrote about his father Thomas Dodd, who was acting Chief of Counsel of US Chief-prosecutor Justice Robert H. Jackson. His book excerpts a September, 1945 letter from his father “….You will understand when I tell you that this staff (here) is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial – for their own sake. For – mark this well – the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge…..” Source: http://mondoweiss.net/2007/10/a-war-for-the-j.html
Also some of the prosecutors of the Allied dissented from the Nuremberg trials, like Mr. Francis Parker Yockey, who was a post-trial reveiw attorney. Willis Carto, stated that when Yockey was called before his superior, presumably Sonenfield, he was told: “We don’t want this type of report. This has entirely the wrong slant. You’ ll have to rewrite these reports to conform to the official viewpoint.” Yockey is said to have responded that he was “a lawyer, not a journalist. You ‘ll have to write your own propaganda.” Source W. Carto, “Introduction,” Imperium, op. cit. xi – xii,
Dr. Charles E. Weber served in the US-Army during the Second World War. He worked in various intelligence assignments, including examination of the records of the German Supreme Command (OKW) in the Fechenheim Document Center in connection with the Nuremberg Trials. Thus he knew first hand what was going on, because he was in the nerve – centre of the Nuremberg Trials. Why would a man like him be critical about the Holocaust? Source: http://codoh.com/library/authors/2031/
U.S. Senator Robert Taft argued that “the trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice”. Cited in Raymond M. Brown, The American Perspective on Nuremberg: A Case of Cascading Ironies, in the Nuremberg Trials, supra note 583, at 21, 24.
The Indian Justice (Judge of Calcutta High Court), representing then British India, at the Tokyo Tribunals, Mr. Radhabinod Pal, made the point of unequal justice: “If Japan is judged, the Allied should also be judged equally”.
Source: CRYER, supra note 591, at 98, with further assessment.
He wrote a 1235 page dissent, that the Tokyo Trials were an exercise in victor’s justice and that the Allies were equally culpable in acts such as strategic bombings of civilian target. The published version, condensed from its original 1, 900 -pages length, of Justice Pal’s brilliant dissenting opinion on the verdict of the Tokyo war crimes tribunal of which he was a member. He rips to shreds the list of charges against the accused, and in his moral outrage against the conduct and the very fact of trial even states that the whole farcical trial and – hanging of the Japanese itself ” a war crime of peculiar gravity”.-
The article by Mr. John Pilger under the headline “The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today” is supporting the opinion of the Indian Justice R. Pal: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today
Some free-thinking minds may come to the conclusion that the Nuremberg Trials were some sort of old fashioned Guantanamo Bay Interrogation Camp and that section 130 StGB of the German Panel Code is the continuation of the feelings Justice Wennersturm had, namely, that justice has been denied!
Judges and Scientists in today’s Germany, the FRG (Fraudsters Run Germany), are not happy about section 130 StGB and they can vent their critique only after retirement, fearing the loss of their job, when expressing a critical opinion. In 2008 the pensioned judges Hoffmann – Riem and Hassemer of the German Federal Court took a critical stand in regard to penalizing Holocaust denial. The daily paper “Der Tagesspiegel” (July 10, 2008) commented on Hoffmann-Riem’s opinion: “The Federal Court according to Hoffmann-Riem, has up to now not engaged itself with the punitive illegality of Holocaust denial. But it is possible that in the future there could be a new basic decision!”
“The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” (March 4, 2010) pg. 4 writes: “Shortly after his retirement from the Federal Court Hoffmann-Riem said: “As a lawgiver I would not penalize Holocaust denial.”
“The Tageszeitung” (February 9th, 2007, pg. 6) writes about the Zuendel-Trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason” (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”
According to Historical Science Professor Dr. Ernst Nolte “The common belief that every doubt about the ‘Holocaust and the six million victims’, as priori is a mark of a malignant mindset and has to be forbidden, can not be upheld according to the fundamental meaning of the maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est – everything has to be doubted’. Science can never accept that and is to be rejected as an attack against the principal of scientific freedom. Source: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=2392
Anti-Nazi Mr. Germar Rudolf PhD., MChem., published the findings of his forensic investigation of the alleged gas-chambers in Auschwitz and under section 130 StGB of the German Penal Code was imprisoned for 2 1/2 years. What an absurdity! How can an expert-opinion, which would be allowed in any Court of the world, defame, insult and sully the memory of the dead of the Holocaust? But does the real problem lay in his findings contradicting the official story?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html
But there is also the investigation of Auschwitz of Jewish researcher Mr. David Cole and it is filmed on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-xlIGBFTIU
There are the writings of the Holocaust-Religion by Jewish musician Mr. Gilad Atzmon: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/precious-holocaust-religion-challenged.html
Famous US-American Jews Prof. Dr. Norman Finkelstein speaks and writes about the Holocaust-Industry:
http://normanfinkelstein.com/category/the-holocaust-industry/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Chutzpah
The Jewish Editor of the “Uncensored Magazine” published in his latest edition of June-September, 2014 (available at the news-agencies), “The Suppressed Story of the Bergen-Belsen Camp” on pages 48-53.
In the introduction to this article, Jewish writer, Mr. Paul Eisen states as follows:”………Yet Belsen never was an extermination camp”…….”But what is noteworthy is that this fact is widely, even universally, accepted, even by mainstream Holocaust “historians”.”
However the Zionist controlled media of the Western World will not reveal this!
Mr. David Brockschmidt is an associate of the Adelaide Institute. He risked his life for the survival of the Zionist State of Israel during the famous 6 days war. His mother was a Polish Jewess and his father German. They were business-partners of Oscar Schindler and saved Jews in Berlin and Warsaw. Without the trucks of Heinrich Brockschmidt, Oscar Schindler’s Jews never had made it. How do you think, Mr. Brockschmidt fits in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n216.htm
Today’s Revisionism of the Holocaust has its origin in the testimony and findings of former French resistance fighter and Holocaust-survivor Prof. Paul Rassinier, who came to the conclusion that there was never a policy of extermination by Nazi-Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rassinier
An Allied commission of inquiry had already rejected the stories of homicidal “gasings” in a whole series of camps, including Dachau, Ravensbrueck, Struthof (Natzweiler), Stutthof (Danzig), Sachsenhausen and Mauthausen (Austria). Source: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml
In the famous Zuendel-trials of 1985 – 1988 following witnesses appeared:
Witness Arnold Friedman was despairing of his case. He ended by confessing that he had indeed been at Auschwitz-Birkenau (where he never had to work except once, uploading potatoes), but that, as regards gasings, he had relied on what others had told him.
Witness Joseph G. Burg (pen-name Ginsburg) had spoken to hundreds of people who had been in Auschwitz and had visited the camp in the fall of 1945. Burg formed the opinion that there were no “extermination” camps at all, that gas chambers had never existed and that there had been no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe. He published his opinions in his books. Consequently he was not allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetery, and nobody of his tribe wanted to do his eulogy.
Witness Rudolf Vrba had completely made up the number and location of the “gas chambers” and the crematories in his famous 1944 report, and thus he was then shown to be an imposter.
Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden was interned at Auschwitz-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. Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html
There are also some Jewish eye-witness statements on following videos, published on following web-site: http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/
Here the account of Mr. Heinz Weichart, a German Jews, who lived in Germany when Adolph Hitler was elected to office in 1932, on:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Under%20Two%20Flags.htm
The Poles and the Soviets had discovered the death register of that complex of 39 camps and sub-camps. They have furnished a copy of the death-register to the Red Cross International Tracing Service in Arolsen. Neither of them authorize research in these volumes. It is clear that, if the content of the death register of Auschwitz were made public, it would be the end of the myth of the millions of deaths in the camps: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html
Why are the British files about Adolf Hitler’s deputy Wolf R. Hess not released, now? They are due for release until the years 2017/18? http://henrymakow.com/hess_was_on_peace_mission_from.html
What has the system behind this to hide and thus make things not open to public scrutiny straight away?
Australian Mr. Simon Caterson reflects in “The Age” on a sorry history of hoaxes as Holocaust-memoirs, including Stoker Donald Watt:
I met Germans who live in Australia and do not want to live in Germany anymore, because it is an opinion-snooper dictatorship. They also know that former West German head of Military Intelligence Gerd-Helmut Komossa’s book “The German Card” claims that Germany has, until now been controlled by the United States. His book is not allowed in Germany, something you would only attribute to Hitler’s Germany. http://rt.com/usa/germany-us-pact-komossa-978/
Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid (Social Democrat) who was involved in setting up the Basic Law of Germany in 1949, explained, that the Federal Republic is not a state, but rather an “organizational form of a modality of foreign rule” and thus a violation of international law forced upon Germany by its victorious enemies. Accordingly you have to understand section 130 StGB of the German Penal Code:
http://carolynyeager.net/sylvia-stolz-german-joan-arc
I met also some Germans in Australia who were denounced and defamed as Nazis in this Country, even though they were born after the 2nd World War. It was so bad to them that they were to afraid to complain to the authorities about the treatment they received here. I know only two, who tried to pursue their grievance through the Human Rights Commission, but gave up, because they did not get the adequate help from them and their lawyers. They became mentally sick and live on a DSP-Pension today. So far this tolerant society and nation.
It seems that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is similar to section 130 StGB of the German Penal Code. Mr. Philip A. H. Adams AO is not suspected of any Anti-Semitism and he wrote: “Yet I was destined to fall out with my Jewish friends over the anti-vilification legislation – to be greeted with a chilly response by the Jewish audience that had, in the past, always made me welcome. Thus Isi Leibler was underwhelmed by the line I took at a conference on anti-Semitism. I said that I regarded the attempts to legislate against bigotry, and to turbo-charge the legislation with criminal sanctions, was wholly inappropriate and counterproductive. How could I be a member of Amnesty International, arguing for the release of “prisoners of conscience” when Australia, too, would be putting people in prison for things they ‘d said rather than for things they ‘d done? I warned that there were plenty of bigots in the country – amongst the League of Rights and the shock-jocks – who’d welcome the opportunity to be charged and convicted – who ‘d love being martyrs, knowing full well that it would significantly increase the size and enthusiasm of their following”. Source: http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/4678.htm
In another article Mr. Adams wrote: ….”I could cover pages with evidence of my good-will to the Jewish community. … In short, I felt that I’d paid my dues. And yet it took only a hint of cautious, friendly criticism to put me on the receiving end of Jewish anger. ….. When talking to the wider world, I try and explain such excesses in terms of Jewish suffering and anxieties. But when I talk to Jews, I have to say that, again and again, you’re your worst enemies. Instead of trying to persuade people to your point of view, there’s a tendency to bully, to threaten, to censor.”
Terry Lane, broadcaster for ABC television and a newspaper columnist, once stated as follows:-“What’s more, once the expression “anti-Semite” hits the air, or, heaven forfend, the sacred formula “six million” is uttered, then I know from bitter experience that there is not one manager or editor in the country who will defend an underling. We are thrown to the jackals. In the end the truly tolerant have no defence against intolerance. I surrender. To the Zionists I say: you win. To the Palestinians: forgive my cowardice”. Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2418/
David Pentberthy wrote that: “Some Greens were deeply offended by this. Their indignation at protecting the memory of the Holocaust can be easily dismissed as confected”, with regard to the Greens of the Marrickville council’s BDS on Israel. Source:
http://www.abc.com.au/news/2011-04-04/tale-of-a-smear-foretold3a-the-nazi-greens/55182
Well, who is in breach of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? Mr. Adam, Mr. Lane, the Greens of the Marrickville council or the ones who put them on the receiving end of the anger of a certain ilk?
The same question can be asked in the case of newspaper-columnist Mr. Mike Carlton. ‘Broadcaster Phillip Adams also tweeted his regret, saying it was a shame to lose Carlton. “Mutual hostility for many years but Mike writes a good column,” he said.” Will be missed.’ Source :
It looks as there exist a certain untouchable ilk in this world who has the status of diplomatic immunity and thus can do anything without impunity. They are even able to ignore United Nations resolutions against them! Accordingly the Cartoon by Glen Le Lievre is in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/sydney-paper-cartoon-racially-vilifies-jews-says-community/
There is an explanation why a certain ilk were disliked, resented and finally expelled from their host countries and this explanation finds the reality in the way this ilk behave and act towards the Palestinian people, today! Rabbi Manfred Reifer gave the following explanation, on: http://traitor666.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/dr.html
These days Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says Israeli actions are more barbaric than Hitler, on:
http://www.veooz.com/news/SHLJenn.html
At least since Watergate, we know that we cannot trust our politicians who make up history. So, why should we trust the history of the Holocaust, when there are doubtful facts about it?
With regard to 9/11, I like to mention, that the world-wide 9/11 movement knows, that architects have discovered large amounts of a high-tech-explosive chemical called Nano-thermite in the dust at Ground Zero in New York. Unlike airplane fuel, Nano-thermite can actually melt steel and is only possessed by the U.S. and Israeli military.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/19/busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews/
Israeli businessman Larry Silverstein purchased a 99 year lease on the World Trade Center complex for a $ 125 million down payment. He immediately insured the complex against terrorist attack. Six weeks later the 9-11 attacks happen and Silverstein collects a $ 4.6 billion insurance payout! How fortunate for him!
Christopher Bollyn writes about the deception and the destruction of the evidence in the 9/11 cover up:
http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/
The Walls Are Crumbling Down Around the “Official 9/11 Story” – Why? Here the answer on following web-site:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-walls-are-crumbling-down-around-the-official-911-story-why/5394984
On a daily basis, more and more people learn about the glaring inconsistencies in the official 9-11 – story and the official Holocaust-story and they are certainly making up their own mind and certainly the breaches of section 18C of the RDA will go skyrocketing.
With best regards,
Yours faithfully
Old Fritz