Published by the Institute for Historical Review

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/denial.shtml

In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to the supposed danger of “Holocaust denial.” Politicians, newspapers and television warn about the growing influence of those who reject the Holocaust story that some six million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the Second World War, most of them in gas chambers.

In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, “Holocaust denial” is against the law, and “deniers” have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some Jewish community leaders have called for similar measures in North America. In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the “League for Human Rights” of the Zionist B’nai B’rith organization, says: [1]

“The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself.”

Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”?

Six Million?

Should someone be considered a “Holocaust denier” because he does not believe – as Matas and many others insist – that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It found that “the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions.” [2]

Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as “deniers.” Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.

Human Soap?

Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that the Nazis did not make soap from the corpses of murdered Jews? After considering the evidence – including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets – the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that “in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.” [3]

In 1990, though, Israel’s official Yad Vashem Holocaust center “rewrote history” by admitting that the soap story was not true. “Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?,” said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. [4]

Wannsee Conference?

Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he does not accept that the January 1942 “Wannsee conference” of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe’s Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong – and a “Holocaust denier” – because he declared: “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.” In Bauer’s opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but “hardly a conference” and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.” [5]

Extermination Policy?

Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe’s Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe’s Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. [6] As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: [7]

“In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution’ have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.’ In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.”

A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into “intentionalists” and “functionalists.” The former contend that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter hold that Germany’s wartime “final solution” Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. [8]

Auschwitz

So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be “denial.” But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History: “…From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz , but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones.” [9]

Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz – allegedly the main extermination center – are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: “Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945.” [11]

Is it “Holocaust denial” to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]

Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote: [14}

“… Many questions remain open ... All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.”

Gas Chambers

What about denying the existence of extermination "gas chambers"? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that “most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” [15}

Höss Testimony

One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Höss, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. [16]

It is now well established that Höss’ crucial testimony, as well as his so-called “confession” – which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal – are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death. [17] Höss’ wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement – which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law – Höss claimed the existence of an extermination camp called “Wolzek.” In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease. [18] Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Höss was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family.

Forensic Investigations

In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer calls for “excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs” to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by American execution equipment consultant, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on-site forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as claimed. After a careful study of the alleged killing facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, an analysis of samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas chambers showed either no or minuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the active ingredient of Zyklon B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews at Auschwitz. [19]

A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter’s finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers. [20]

The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas no or only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the camp’s disinfestation delousing chambers.

Another forensic study was carried out by German chemist Germar Rudolf. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples, the certified chemist and doctoral candidate concluded: “For chemical-technical reasons, the claimed mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz did not take place … The supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose…” [21]

There is also the study of Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl, a respected expert witness in numerous court cases, and former president of Austria’s professional association of engineers. In a 1992 report he called the alleged mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers “technically impossible.” [22]

Discredited Perspective

So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Those who support criminal persecution of “Holocaust deniers” seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal’s findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited.

For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as “deniers.” But the truth can’t be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe’s Jews during World War II.

Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers and classrooms.

Notes

1. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), Jan. 22, 1992.

2. Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT “blue series”), Vol. 22, p. 496.

3. IMT “blue series,” Vol. 22, p. 496.

4. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 25, 1990; See also: M. Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991.

5. The Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8.

6. See: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel (Toronto: Samisdat, 1992), pp. 192, 300, 349.

7. C. Browning, “The Revised Hilberg,” Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3, 1986, p. 294; B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 117.

8. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 24-25.

9. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History (Pantheon, 1988), p. 365.

10. Nuremberg document 008-USSR, in IMT “blue series,” Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.

11. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 441.

12. Y. Bauer, “Fighting the Distortions,” The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million,” The Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; ” Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million,” The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.

13. J.-C. Pressac, Les Crémetoires d’Auschwitz: La machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993), p. 148. See also: R. Faurisson, “Jean-Claude Pressac’s New Auschwitz Book,” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994, p. 24.

14. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), p. 366.

15. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), pp. 362-363.

16. IMT “blue series,” Vol. 1, pp. 251-252; Nuremberg document 3868-PS, in IMT “blue series,” Vol. 33, pp. 275-279.

17. Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235-237.

18. See: R. Faurisson, “How the British Obtained the Confession of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389-403.

19. See, for example: B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 469-502. See also: M. Weber, “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93, pp. 421-428
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p421_Weber.html )

20. “An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers’,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 207-216.

21. G. Rudolf, Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den ‘Gaskammern’ von Auschwitz (London: 1993) ( http://www.vho.org/D/rga/ ); The Rudolf Report (in English) ( http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/ )

22. “The ‘Lüftl Report’,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93.

This essay is adapted from a text first published in 1992 by the Canadian Free Speech League.

About the Author

Barbara Kulaszka is a Canadian lawyer who practices law in Brighton, Ontario. She is best known for her work in free speech cases. During the 1988 “Holocaust trial” in Toronto, she served a co-counsel (with Doug Christie) for defendant Ernst Zundel. In 1999 she was awarded the “George Orwell Award” by the Canadian Free Speech League.

Print Friendly Page

With thanks to Reverend Maritz of the South African Church of Creativity for the image below.

Cailen.

“… KILL THE WHITE MAN!!! … feed them to some starving pigs … it is not hard to exterminate these bloody devils from Europe all of them ….”
From the ANC Youth League, Facebook Page. 21 January 2012

Print Friendly Page

A clearly terrified Prime Minister Gillard is shielded from the marauding rabble
Image: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/cue-whitney-houston-heres-julia-gillards-bodyguard/story-e6frea8c-1226254942911

Image: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092021/Julia-Gillard-rescued-Australia-Day-Aboriginal-protesters-shes-dragged-safety.html

Police have stated that no criminal charges will be made against the Aboriginal "activists."

Prime Minister Gillard's shoe was also stolen during the affray and is being kept for sale on eBay.

https://www.google.com/search?q=prime+minister+gillard+aboriginal+activist+australia+day+attacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

Cailen.

Update Jan 28: The blame has now shifted from violent Abos to blaming possibly “white supporters” (try telling one of those “white supporters” that they are not Aboriginal – not Indigenous to this land and you will find yourself charged under Racial Vilification Laws for denying their “Aboriginality”) and when they can, totally ignoring the violence to falsely accuse Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of “inciting violence” with “racist” speech. Other elements have chosen to concentrate on the fact that the problem began because Prime Minister Ju-Liar Gillard’s staff have been discovered to have been involved in instigating the violence of the day – although they only intended for Abbott to be on the receiving end in an attempt to make their Ju-Liar look good.

The other thing – and possibly this is the most important and most disgusting of all the lies being passed around after Canberra’s Black Power Race Riots is the claim from all media and government sources that this is the first instance of Aboriginal violence in more than 200 years. What a load of HORSE SHIT! Check your history, check your murder rates, your records of violence … IF you are able to discover the truth, you will find that Whites are always being bashed by groups of Australia’s wonderful Indigenous people. It is almost always for racial reasons. If it’s not because the victim is White so he must have something worth stealing, or Abos out for another episode of bashing “White c*nts,” then it’s part and parcel of a Black Deaths in Custody or Land Rights March.

But the truth about Abo violence is something you will rarely discover when going through official channels. When a White is beaten by non-Whites of any ethnicity and the police become involved, the police almost always try to find a way to end the investigation before it starts. They may close their notebooks and just nod their heads in understanding, or they may threaten you with charges of Racial Vilification if you attempt to make an official complaint. Other times they will just shrug and say it’s not their fault, they are only following orders. And even when the non-White is arrested and convicted, the judge will speak of his understanding of the hard life or difficult upbringing that the perpetrator has been forced to lead. The sentence will be set to the required minimum and it will be recorded as an uneventful criminal act with no racial overtones. Hence there are no – or near enough to no records in Australia that show racially motivated Aboriginal crime.

I wonder how many thousands have died over the years while hearing shouts of “WHITE C*NT!” as they are kicked to death?

And yet, although I blame the Abos for their criminal behaviour and the support it induces within their own community, the ones I hold to account are the White Race-Traitors who have gone out of their way to make it a crime to tell the truth in this once great nation. Without a doubt, Aboriginal Australians will be granted their much sought sovereign land and be able to separate themselves from White Australia; but for you Whites, there is no sovereign escape plan – for you there is only a noose waiting at the end a rope. Remember that Prime Minister Ju-Liar Gillard, Abbott and the rest of you Race-Traitors: You can flee in terror from the “Aboriginal activists” today, but tomorrow, when we come after you, you will be forced to pay for your sins against the White Race – and no amount of running will save you.

Cailen.
Another victim of Black violence brought on by White Race-Traitors.

Print Friendly Page

It appears that a certain racial and religious element didn’t like the truth being told about the Oslo murderer. See http://sacreator.com/blog/norway-mass-murderer-anders-behring-breivik-is-anti-racist-pro-homosexual-and-pro-israel. Ah well, at least unlike last time, they were very polite and left within minutes. And without confiscating any computer equipment and tax records this time! They were in and out so fast I didn’t even get a chance to say the five words: “I have nothing to say.”

So if somebody tries to tell you that we do not have a political or ideological police force in Australia, tell ‘em their dreamin’.

Cailen.

Related
http://sacreator.com/blog/sa-government-raid-2006
http://sacreator.com/blog/to-the-police-complaints-authority

Question: Are you required to allow police into your home if they are not carrying a warrant?

Answer: No. See Plenty v Dillon – 1991 – HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

Print Friendly Page

Badar also states that “If you are occupying someone else’s land then those victimised people have the right to resist. … You have no business in interfering with the people of the Muslim world, … occupation should be resisted militarily. People there have a right to resist.”

Well Badar, I have news for you, you are occupying Australian soil and we White Australians are constantly being victimised by your Islamic thugs. By your own account, we have the right to resist, and resist we shall.

Cailen.

Related: http://sacreator.com/blog/ban-muslim-headdress

http://sacreator.com/blog/ban-muslim-headdress

http://sacreator.com/blog/muslim-massacre-game-causes-uproar

Source: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/radical-islamic-leader-scorns-diggers-fighting-in-afghanistan/story-e6frea8c-1226086732071

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/australian-troops-fair-game-for-muslims-in-war-on-afghanistan-hizb-ut-tahrir-believe/story-e6freuy9-1226086675320

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslims-obligated-to-resist-democracy-say-radicals-20110703-1gxfw.html#ixzz1R4rFANa4

Print Friendly Page

From: http://www.unhcr.no/Pdf/Baltic_nordic_HL_2011/May_2011.pdf

“A report released by the (Oslo) police on Wednesday states that all assault rapes during last year were committed by men with a non-Western origin. All the reported rapes during the last 5 years are done by men with a foreign origin. Police inspector Hanne Kristin Rodhe says the perpetrators often are unemployed, have been asylum-seekers during the last five years and come from a traumatized environment. She adds that their perception of women can be one of the motives behind the rapes.”

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt said on his Blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/all_rapes_in_oslo_by_foreigners_police

“Australia has not reported any such marked pattern.”

So I asked in his Comments section: (which would be refused publication in the Adelaide Advertiser or the Punch because us recalcitrant racists are not permitted to question society or the social, racial and political agendas of those whom we are supposed to think of as our betters …)

Could that be because Australia refuses to track or just refuses to publish race based crime statistics? What I do know is that most of the time when talking about society in general, the statistics typically speak of foreign born Australians and Australian residents along with those born in Australia of foreign born parents compared with those of families consisting of two or more generations born in Australia, and Australian Indigenous people.

This all boils down to:
New Australians (of indeterminate race, religion or origin).
Settled Australians (of indeterminate race, religion or origin).
Indigenous Australians (who thanks to today’s laws and variable statistics are also often of an indeterminate race, religion and origin).

My question is: are we just PC fools burying our heads in the sand by accepting the refusal of government bodies to release accurate statistical data comparable to accumulated statistics from overseas? Or are we the most racially harmonious nation on Earth like we are constantly told? Or is it too racist to ask for clarification?

Cailen Cambeul of Adelaide, SA

Statistics from the FBI Website

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2009hatecrimestats_112210

Hate Crime Statistics, 2009, includes the following information:

Of the 6,598 single-bias incidents, 48.5 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 19.7 percent were motivated by a religious bias, 18.5 percent were motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, and 11.8 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 1.5 percent of single-bias incidents.

There were 4,793 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2009. Intimidation accounted for 45.0 percent of crimes against persons, simple assaults for 35.3 percent, and aggravated assaults for 19.1 percent. Other offenses, including nine forcible rapes and eight murders, accounted for the remainder.

There were 2,970 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property; most of these (83.0 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. The remaining 17.0 percent of crimes against property consisted of robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses.

An analysis of data for single-bias hate crime incident victims revealed that 48.8 percent were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race, 18.9 percent because of a bias against a religious belief, 17.8 percent because of a sexual orientation bias, 13.3 percent because of an ethnicity/national origin bias, and 1.2 percent because of a disability bias.
Of the 6,225 known offenders, 62.4 percent were white, 18.5 percent were black, 7.3 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group), 1.0 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 0.7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. The race was unknown for the remaining known offenders.

The largest percentage (31.3 percent) of hate crime incidents occurred in or near homes. In addition, 17.2 percent took place on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 11.4 percent happened at schools or colleges; 6.1 percent in parking lots or garages; and 4.3 percent in churches, synagogues, or temples. The remaining 29.7 percent of hate crime incidents took place at other specified locations, multiple locations, or other/unknown locations.

For statistical purposes, the US Government’s Department of Justice considers there to be only four different races: Black, Asian, Native American and White. Those classed as White by the DOJ include Europeans as well as Arabs, Jews and Mestizos (Mexican, Central and South Americans of mixed or native ancestry).

He sure as hell doesn’t think he’s White. Why should we?

Cailen.

Print Friendly Page

AAP: Adelaide Advertiser | May 5, 2011

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/indians-may-fill-resources-skills-gap/story-e6frea7c-1226050272001

TENS of thousands of Indian graduates could be trained to Australian standards in a bid to plug the gap in Australia’s booming resources sector.

A Skills Australia report earlier this week said Australia would need 2.4 million extra skilled workers in the next four years to meet the demands of the mining boom.

Forget importing more bloody Indians. Train 2.4 million unemployed Australians instead.

Cailen.

Print Friendly Page

I then went to their website where I read the following diatribe of hate levelled at White people, culture, society and history:

Our People
The Institute draws members from many walks of life. Its commitment to creative interdisciplinary scholarship and research brings academics and students from a wide range of disciplines and universities both within and outside Australia. The Institute’s efforts to broaden…

About IPCS

The spectre of colonialism still haunts the world, despite assertions about the end of formal colonial control and the rise of democracy and universal human rights. The aim of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies is to understand and undo the continuing legacies of colonialism today: dispossession, displacement, racism, and intercultural violence. In particular, this entails understanding social and economic pressures and cultural prejudices faced by indigenous peoples and impoverished communities, supporting those facing the consequences of political upheaval and violence, and generating dialogue across worlds of continuing and often…

Following is my own response to this Marxist, Black Supremacist/Victim ideology:

To the Institute of Postcolonial Studies
Tel: + 61 3 9329 6381
Fax: + 61 3 9328 3131
Email: postcol@netspace.net.au
Website: http://ipcs.org.au

78-80 Curzon Street
North Melbourne, 3051
Victoria, AUSTRALIA

To Mr Dylan Bird,

Your institute is an institute of hatred with contempt for reality. On the one hand you treat the biological separation of humanity into different races as a myth, and even go as far as to preach that it is society and culture that decide whether a person is indigenous to this country. And yet, you still choose to treat colonialism and White people with disrespect on every turn. Your form of Aboriginality is nothing less than Indigenous Nationalism. i.e. Black Supremacism in an attempt to exterminate White people through their assimilation into indigenous Australian culture and society. That is by definition, genocide.

I, and millions of others, view your behaviour with contempt. We as White Australians will not be joining your Aboriginal Nation of Indigenous Overlords that you seem to propose. Instead, we will steadfastly maintain our White Australian identity, culture, race and society in the face of your postcolonial racism.

Furthermore, there are many Indigenous Australians who feel the same. They are proud of their Aboriginality and dismiss the idea of marrying outside their race. Nevermind accepting a White man or woman as an Indigenous Australian, simply because he or she self identifies as indigenous to this nation. And I for one respect them for their stance. You Sir, deserve no such respect. If you are a White man, then you are a traitor to your race – and the same can be said if you do indeed have any Aboriginal heritage. Your views are an insult to both Aboriginal and White Australians, and the day that your Institute of Postcolonial Studies is closed down, the better for all Australians.

Yours Sincerely,

Reverend Cailen Cambeul,
Church of Creativity.
PM@creativityalliance.com
http://CreativityAlliance.com

Print Friendly Page

Pauline Hanson is back in politics and as per usual, the Australian Labor Party are crying “RACIST!”

“I want to make unequivocally clear that the NSW Labor Party will have no preferences for Ms Hanson,” Premier Kristina Keneally told Fairfax Radio Network.

“We absolutely condemn the sorts of racist and discriminatory policies which come from Ms Hanson and parties like One Nation.”
Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott isn’t doing much better by allowing Ms Hanson to be referred to as a “serial pest” during his own interview, but at least he did say that as an Australilan citizen she has a right to stand for election. But then, Abbott being the one ultimately responsible for Ms Hanson’s false imprisonment no doubt has his own plans on how to make use of and crush Ms Hanson.

Meanwhile the media in its support of the destruction of the Australian way of life continue to run out the tired old accusations of racist, gaol-bird (they mention that she was found guilty of electoral fraud but conveniently neglect to mention that the conviction was overturned), political profiteer (according to the media Ms Hanson only goes into politics planning to deliberately lose the election while walking away with a tidy wad of cash in her purse – while no other Independent or big party poli has even thought of doing the same), and of course that Ms Hanson once owned a fish and chip shop (as if politics should be left to university trained Fabians/Marxists like Ju-liar Gillard and the common person should know and keep to their place in society).

Ms Hanson hit back at Premier Keneally’s comments, telling Fairfax Radio Network: “I’m not racist.”

“No-one can ever comment or make a comment on any racist statement I have ever said,” she said today.

“I have … as an Australian … a right to question immigration and multiculturalism, which I don’t believe is helping our country.

“I believe in people coming here, assimilating, becoming Australians and be proud of this country and abide by the laws of the land.”

Ms Hanson said the major political parties feared her.

“Why? Because they know I’ve always spoken out, I expose them for what they are,” she said.

“They want to hold onto their power and the positions.

“It is in the people’s interest of NSW to ensure that I am on the floor of NSW.”

Ms Hanson is correct; she is not a racist. What Ms Hanson is, is best defined as a multi-racial nationalist. That is, she believes in equality for all races combined with a passionate belief that Australia as a nation and Australian culture is not only worthy of maintaining in its current form, but is also worthy of the highest possible praise and every Australian should have the right to feel proud of the history of their island nation. After all, was it not Ms Hanson that some years ago happily sang “I am, you are, we are Australian” with a little Aboriginal girl? If you want to understand the real Pauline Hanson, ignore the media, listen to the lady and read her maiden speech in parliament, which I have included below.

Cailen.

Here are the news links – if it can really be called news. I suggest skimming through or even skipping the actual articles and reading the comments. That’s where the real news is.

Newcastle Herald: Pauline Hanson on group ticket
Daily Telegraph: Pauline Hanson eyes Upper House seat
News.com: Pauline Hanson eyes Upper House seat in NSW state election
Adelaide Advertiser: Pauline Hanson’s political comeback turns nasty
Herald Sun: Pauline Hanson nominates for NSW Upper House in new run for politics

Pauline Hanson’s Maiden Speech in Federal Parliament
Tuesday, 10th September 1996.
“Mr Acting Speaker, in making my first speech in this place, I congratulate you on your election and wish to say how proud I am to be here as the Independent member for Oxley. I come here not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share of life’s knocks.

My view on issues is based on commonsense, and my experience as a mother of four children, as a sole parent, and as a businesswoman running a fish and chip shop. I won the seat of Oxley largely on an issue that has resulted in me being called a racist. That issue related to my comment that Aboriginals received more benefits than non-Aboriginals.

We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded `industries’ that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups. In response to my call for equality for all Australians, the most noisy criticism came from the fat cats, bureaucrats and the do- gooders. They screamed the loudest because they stand to lose the most–their power, money and position, all funded by ordinary Australian taxpayers.

Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals. Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not believe that the colour of one’s skin determines whether you are disadvantaged. As Paul Hasluck said in parliament in October 1955 when he was Minister for Territories:

The distinction I make is this. A social problem is one that concerns the way in which people live together in one society. A racial problem is a problem which confronts two different races who live in two separate societies, even if those societies are side by side. We do not want a society in Australia in which one group enjoy one set of privileges >and another group enjoy another set of privileges.

Has luck’s vision was of a single society in which racial emphases were rejected and social issues addressed. I totally agree with him, and so would the majority of Australians.

But, remember, when he gave his speech he was talking about the privileges that white Australians were seen to be enjoying over Aboriginals. Today, 41 years later, I talk about the exact opposite–the privileges Aboriginals enjoy over other Australians. I have done research on benefits available only to Aboriginals and challenge anyone to tell me how Aboriginals are disadvantaged when they can obtain three and five per cent housing loans denied to non-Aboriginals.

This nation is being divided into black and white, and the present system encourages this. I am fed up with being told, `This is our land.’ Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here, and so were my parents and children. I will work beside anyone and they will be my equal but I draw the line when told I must pay and continue paying for something that happened over 200 years ago. Like most Australians, I worked for my land; no-one gave it to me.

Apart from the $40 million spent so far since Mabo on native title claims, the government has made available $1 billion for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders as compensation for land they cannot claim under native title. Bear in mind that the $40 million spent so far in native title has gone into the pockets of grateful lawyers and consultants. Not one native title has been granted as I speak.

The majority of Aboriginals do not want handouts because they realise that welfare is killing them. This quote says it all: “If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.”

Those who feed off the Aboriginal industry do not want to see things changed. Look at the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Members receive $290 a day sitting allowance and $320 a day travelling allowance, and most of these people also hold other very well paid positions. No wonder they did not want to resign recently!

Reconciliation is everyone recognising and treating each other as equals, and everyone must be responsible for their own actions. This is why I am calling for ATSIC to be abolished. It is a failed, hypocritical and discriminatory organisation that has failed dismally the people it was meant to serve. It will take more than Senator Herron’s surgical skills to correct the terminal mess it is in. Anyone with a criminal record can, and does, hold a position with ATSIC. I cannot hold my position as a politician if I have a criminal record–once again, two sets of rules.

If politicians continue to promote separatism in Australia, they should not continue to hold their seats in this parliament. They are not truly representing all Australians, and I call on the people to throw them out. To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag.

The greatest cause of family breakdown is unemployment. This country of ours has the richest mineral deposits in the world and vast rich lands for agriculture and is surrounded by oceans that provide a wealth of seafood, and yet we are $190 billion in debt with an interest bill that is strangling us.

Youth unemployment between the ages of 15 to 24 runs at 25 per cent and is even higher in my electorate of Oxley. Statistics, by cooking the books, say that Australia’s unemployment is at 8.6 per cent, or just under one million people. If we disregard that one hour’s work a week classifies a person as employed, then the figure is really between 1.5 million and 1.9 million unemployed. This is a crisis that recent governments have ignored because of a lack of will. We are regarded as a Third World country with First World living conditions. We have one of the highest interest rates in the world, and we owe more money per capita than any other country. All we need is a nail hole in the bottom of the boat and we’re sunk.

In real dollar terms, our standard of living has dropped over the past 10 years. In the 1960s, our wages increase ran at three per cent and unemployment at two per cent. Today, not only is there no wage increase, we have gone backwards and unemployment is officially 8.6 per cent. The real figure must be close to 12 to 13 per cent.

I wish to comment briefly on some social and legal problems encountered by many of my constituents– problems not restricted to just my electorate of Oxley. I refer to the social and family upheaval created by the Family Law Act and the ramifications of that act embodied in the child support scheme. The Family Law Act, which was the child of the disgraceful Senator Lionel Murphy, should be repealed. It has brought death, misery and heartache to countless thousands of Australians. Children are treated like pawns in some crazy game of chess.

The child support scheme has become unworkable, very unfair and one sided. Custodial parents can often profit handsomely at the expense of a parent paying child support, and in many cases the non-custodial parent simply gives up employment to escape the, in many cases, heavy and punitive financial demands. Governments must give to all those who have hit life’s hurdles the chance to rebuild and have a future.

We have lost all our big Australian industries and icons, including Qantas when it sold 25 per cent of its shares and a controlling interest to British Airways. Now this government wants to sell Telstra, a company that made a $1.2 billion profit last year and will make a $2 billion profit this year. But, first, they want to sack 54,000 employees to show better profits and share prices. Anyone with business sense knows that you do not sell off your assets especially when they are making money. I may be only `a fish and chip shop lady’, but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping.

Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price.

Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said:

Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians.

I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

There is light at the end of the tunnel and there are solutions. If this government wants to be fair dinkum, then it must stop kowtowing to financial markets, international organisations, world bankers, investment companies and big business people. The Howard government must become visionary and be prepared to act, even at the risk of making mistakes.

In this financial year we will be spending at least $1.5 billion on foreign aid and we cannot be sure that this money will be properly spent, as corruption and mismanagement in many of the recipient countries are legend. Australia must review its membership and funding of the UN, as it is a little like ATSIC on a grander scale, with huge tax-free American dollar salaries, duty-free luxury cars and diplomatic status.

The World Health Organisation has a lot of its medical experts sitting in Geneva while hospitals in Africa have no drugs and desperate patients are forced to seek medication on the black market. I am going to find out how many treaties we have signed with the UN, have them exposed and then call for their repudiation. The government should cease all foreign aid immediately and apply the savings to generate employment here at home.

Abolishing the policy of multiculturalism will save billions of dollars and allow those from ethnic backgrounds to join mainstream Australia, paving the way to a strong, united country. Immigration must be halted in the short-term so that our dole queues are not added to by, in many cases, unskilled migrants not fluent in the English language. This would be one positive step to rescue many young and older Australians from a predicament which has become a national disgrace and crisis. I must stress at this stage that I do not consider those people from ethnic backgrounds currently living in Australia anything but first-class citizens, provided of course that they give this country their full, undivided loyalty.

The government must be imaginative enough to become involved, in the short-term at least, in job creating projects that will help establish the foundation for a resurgence of national development and enterprise. Such schemes would be the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, new roads and ports, water conservation, reafforestation and other sensible and practical environmental projects.

Therefore I call for the introduction of national service for a period of 12 months, compulsory for males and females upon finishing year 12 or reaching 18 years of age. This could be a civil service with a touch of military training, because I do not feel we can go on living in a dream world forever and a day believing that war will never touch our lives again.

The government must do all it can to help reduce interest rates for business. How can we compete with Japan, Germany and Singapore, who enjoy rates of two per cent, 5.5 per cent and 3.5 per cent respectively? Reduced tariffs on foreign goods that compete with local products seem only to cost Australians their jobs. We must look after our own before lining the pockets of overseas countries and investors at the expense of our living standards and future.

Mr Acting Speaker, time is running out. We may have only 10 to 15 years left to turn things around. Because of our resources and our position in the world, we will not have a say because neighbouring countries such as Japan, with 125 million people; China, with 1.2 billion people; India, with 846 million people; Indonesia, with 178 million people; and Malaysia, with 20 million people are well aware of our resources and potential. Wake up, Australia, before it is too late. Australians need and want leaders who can inspire and give hope in difficult times. Now is the time for the Howard government to accept the challenge.

Mr Acting Speaker, everything I have said is relevant to my electorate of Oxley, which is typical of mainstream Australia. I do have concerns for my country and I am going to do my best to speak my mind and stand up for what I believe in. As an independent I am confident that I can look after the needs of the people of Oxley and I will always be guided by their advice. It is refreshing to be able to express my views without having to toe a party line. It has got me into trouble on the odd occasion, but I am not going to stop saying what I think. I consider myself just an ordinary Australian who wants to keep this great country strong and independent, and my greatest desire is to see all Australians treat each other as equals as we travel together towards the new century.

I will fight hard to keep my seat in this place, but that will depend on the people who sent me here. Mr Acting Speaker, I thank you for your attention and trust that you will not think me presumptuous if I dedicate this speech to the people of Oxley and those Australians who have supported me. I salute them all.” – Pauline Hanson.

Print Friendly Page

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_country_is_brandis_describing

Liberal frontbencher George Brandis in the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/politicans-must-defend-the-multicultural-project-20110222-1b400.htm

When I was growing up in Sydney in the 1960s, Petersham was a popular place of settlement for immigrant families – “New Australians”, as they were often called.

Our next-door neighbours were Chinese, next to them was a Greek family, there was an Italian family directly across the street. At my local convent school, St Thomas’s in Lewisham, almost half of the kids were from non-English speaking backgrounds.…

With each new wave of settlement there has been, from some among the established population, suspicion and resentment. Equally there has been, among those newly arrived, fear of the new and unknown, and a desire to cluster together to preserve the traditions and customs of their homeland… Then, the new generation, whose experience is only of this country, seeks to break free of the bonds of its parents’ culture and identifies primarily with being Australian.

George Brandis is the federal shadow attorney-general.

The following comment was snipped for length by the Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt Blog, but can be read here in its entirety.

The first ten years of my life were spent in what today would probably be called the multicultural success of the planned community/city of Elizabeth in South Oz. The fact is, it was multi-ethnic from a strictly European point of view and can be both classed as a failure and a success, depending on how much hindsight you have.

Elizabethans of the 60′s and 70′s were predominately of British origin. The remainder were Europeans from the South of Spain to the North of Scandinavia, but the majority were Germans, Greeks and Italians. When first arriving in Australia, all immigrants who had not already made plans, were given the option: live in the immigration camps in appalling conditions until you can find your own accommodation, or move to Elizabeth and accept government housing. My grandparents chose to live in the camp until their own home was completed, but my parents who came from Scotland as children, willingly moved into government housing in Elizabeth which is where I noticed the following issues. It was not uncommon for a non-English speaking family to reject Australia, refuse to allow their children to speak English at home or have English speaking friends in their homes. Most of those types were members of ethnic social clubs and often returned “home” to their own country within a few years.

Those that stayed didn’t always integrate well, but by the 80′s they had integrated to some degree because they had lived here for twenty plus years. Their children were fully integrated, bi-lingual and were no different from the rest of us of British origin. George Brandis might call that a multicultural success, but considering much of the culture was the same, we were racially the same (bear in mind that John Howard has stated that multiculturalism is really multiracialism which is the integration of non-Europeans into Australia) and the only real difference was language. Some could not overcome that but most eventually did. Sure, the Italians (for example) worked hard the moment they got here, but reports from my parents generation are that they (the English speakers) were refused for jobs because they did not speak Italian. I can testify that I had the same problem in the 80′s because I did not speak Vietnamese and that it was rather annoying to say the least. But what did I find by the 90′s? The second generation of Italians to be born in this country had turned their backs on Australia. Unlike their parents who were my peers, they adopted the stance that we were all “Skips” and inferior to Italians.

All of this means that while the process of integration was in place, those of the same race but originating from a different nation and of a different language can get along without any problems. It was the failed multicultural experiments of the 80′s and on that turned those Australian children into Italian Nationalists.

Keeping all of that in mind, there is no evidence that multiculturalism has been a success. All it has done is built separatism and since 1973 it has brought on racial and cultural enclaves such as Vietnamese run Cabramatta which was a no-go zone for whites in the 80′s and today’s Middle Eastern crime war-zone of Bankstown. And when you compare that to other nations who do not have us “white racists” to contend with, you notice that they too are divided into racial and cultural enclaves. At least with a second generation Australian kid claiming he’s Italian, you can send him home so he wakes up to himself and realises that us “Skips” are not his enemy. Can’t say the same for a Tongan, a Lebanese or Chinese.

Cailen Cambeul of Adelaide, SA

Update Feb 26, 2011: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_multiculturalism_is_what_its_fans_dare_not_say

Print Friendly Page