Date: 2010/9/25
Subject: To diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro
To: ReporterNotebook <reporternotebook@gmail.com>
=============================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70svPcdwNU
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mr2010Singh#p/f/1/R_WW9gsXVts
===============================
To: diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro
Many thanks, mate Santomauro – that's a new title for me 'dinosaur'!
Excellent description of me and my work!
When next I'm in New York we'll have to toast on that.
Töben
1. I must confess I am now blinded by the many words – I am drowning in a sea of particulars - that came my way as I read through http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-revisionism-is-all-about-chat-with.html I am currently preparing a High Court challenge and do not have the time directly to respond to Mühlenkamp's material and so that needs to be left for a later date but, for what it's worth, here's a quick response.
1.1 Let me briefly comment on what Mühlenkamp says about Richard Krege in the below introduction where he refers to Krege's research as 'bumbling and counterproductive attempt'. Krege's work is groundbreaking, figuratively and literally, because such work had not been done before. It is a simple basic idea that yielded results and had the upholders of the 'Holocaust-Shoah' myth scrambling and re-adjusting their narrative. Some years later the Mythbusters TV series used the same technology in one of their episodes where they attempted to locate a body buried in the ground. Rather than scoff at Krege's pioneering work, Mühlenkamp should lose his fear of having his pet-belief scrutinized for factual truth content.
1.2 In the Wikipeadi article on Krege that he links to in the below article the penultimate sentence indicates what problems Revisionists face: "However according to British historian Alan Heath, Krege did not have permission from the authorities in Warsaw, Siedlce nor in Treblinka itself ….Krege has not only failed to publish his findings but also has failed to respond to questions as to the actual dates of his alleged visits to Treblinka and Bełżec nor challenges to visit the site with qualified scientists. So, Krege's sin was to be an independent thinker who produces goods that the guardians have not sanctioned, that an ethics committee has not cleared because it offends those who believe in the "Holocaust-Shoah' myth. Shame, Mühlenkamp, shame on you!
1.3 I think it is common knowledge that after returning from the Teheran Holocaust Conference Richard Krege was, after almost ten years, dismissed from his government job at Air Services in Canberra, Australia – and Mühlenkamp smirks at Krege's faced difficulties! Such an attitude of mind as displayed by Mühlenkamp indicates to me he has some deep-seated unresolved personal problems that he needs to project on others. Revisionists are all too familiar with 'Holocaust-Shoah' believers who project their own personal psychological and intellectual inadequacies – basic hatred - on to those who refuse to believe in their exaggerations, distortions, fabrications and outright lies.
1.4 Since Krege's unofficial results have become known it is the official Treblinka narrative that has effectively been demolished – hence the 'Holocaust-Shoah' narrative has no reality in space and time, only in memory.
1.5 Mühlenkamp operates on a win-lose Marxist/Talmudic dialectic while individuals who seek out the truth of a matter operate on the co-operative win-win Hegelian dialectic. Revisionists don't need to abuse anyone because they merely seek out the truth of a matter, and some individuals may find this process quite hurtful because it means giving up some beliefs that went deeply into their personal identity. After all, the truth hurts is a maxim that most of us made acquaintance with during our childhood but then left behind as we grew up and realized that sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words never did. However, I must admit when abuse comes my way, I sometimes fail to resist the impulse to respond in kind.
2. By the tone of his response, and not only by his name, did I sense that Herr Mühlenkamp is German – the anger, more so the fear that he will eventually have to re-think and re-evaluate his belief system, is clearly evident. But while the official 'Holocaust-Shoah' conspiracy theory is legally sustained and reinforced he will not have to face any Revisionist illumination. He can even pretend to do combat for them on their behalf, for example to start a petition to decriminalise the Holocaust debate, thereby indirectly testing the temperature about the debate and at the same time collecting more information about individuals who are buckling under the burden of the 'Holocaust-Shoah' lies! But in the meantime he's flat out defending his belief in the Holocaust-Shoah myth. I recall in my first year of philosophical studies we had a meeting where the Rationalists claimed there is no God and one student screamed out that this is not true, that there is a God. This was the first time that the student, in public, had heard anyone make such a statement, denying the existence of God! It was the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who asked how is it that in western democracies anything can be denied, even the existence of God, but that it is sacrilege to question the Holocaust, to deny it ever happened.
3. Mühlenkamp's frenzied tone, of course, is further indicative of his fear that he must know that if he only expresses a minute doubt, if he deviates just a little from the official conspiracy theory - from the basic premises of the 'Holocaust-Shoah' dogma/ideology: 1. 6 million, 2. systematic extermination and 3. homicidal gas chambers as a murder weapon, then in a flash he would have a European Arrest Warrant made out in his name! There is a whole legal fraternity out there waiting to service the 'Holocaust-Shoah' industry because they consider anyone doubting the official narrative is 'scandalising' society. Some of the legal supporters to continue to criminalize the 'Holocaust-Shoah' actually are libertarians who defend free expression at any price – but they have classified 'Holocaust-Shoah' matters as 'hate-speech', thereby excising it from open debate, i.e. only the official version of events is permitted to be canvassed and not any dissenting view that would question the three pillars on which the myth rests.
4. His unnecessary snide remarks throughout his 'ramblings' indicate to me that Mühlenkamp is more interested in debasing a serious discussion rather than rationally finding out the truth of a matter. In the past I've had numerous discussions with die-hard Holocaust-Shoah believers that have been productive, and some of these individuals are still about. It seems to me that Mühlenkamp does not wish to understand how the 'Holocaust-Shoah' documentation has been fabricated, just as many professional historians cannot understand that our knowledge of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman world rests mainly on written documentation produced during the Middle Ages.
5. We only need to look at the making of the most recent world/global myths – WMD of 2003, 9:11 of 2001 – then we can see how the 'Holocaust-Shoah' has had over 60 years of legal codification and justification. Recently a new book was published wherein the crimes of the Chinese Revolution are detailed. In this regard Carlos Porter asks: Why is it that only 'official historians' have had access to the German documentation centre at Arolsen while Revisionists have had to do their research under the most trying conditions? Mühlenkamp does not reference such a one-sided approach to research, and can only debase his own arguments through personal subjective afflictions by smearing individual Revisionists – which indicates to me he has a deep-seated fear of their work.
6. Fortunately for those who uphold the official version of the 'Holocaust-Shoah' myths life will continue to be comfortable. It wasn't for Dr Wilhelm Stäglich nor for Dr Stuart Hayward [who added Joel to his name in deference to his Jewish heritage that he pulled out when the heat was on him-] with the former having his academic title revoked and the latter recanting his academic work. There are others, of course, who have had worse treatment heaped on them but it has always been a defaming of the person. Still, it doesn't matter how much written stuff Mühlenkamp gathers up in order to discredit Revisionists' work, this fact alone indicates that the upholders of the 'Holocaust-Shoah' myth are using any means of power at their disposal with which to silence opposition – and that's a political matter.
7. I hesitate to reflect on this matter but none of the upholders of the 'Holocaust-Shoah' myth – except for the dissenters who return to the fold after recanting – have been legally pursued. During my October-November 2008 London 50 Days in Gaol a number of public commentators, including Isi Liebler in Jerusalem, indirectly advised the British government not to extradite me to Germany by claiming that 'Holocaust denial' should not be criminalized. My matter thereby became a political-legal issue: should British Common Law criminalize so-called 'Holocaust denial'? Had I been extradited, then this would effectively have criminalized the expressing of opinions, something that is readily done in the European Civil Law countries where it is considered 'racist' to question matter 'Holocaust-Shoah'. What nonsense it is to stifle an historical debate on those grounds! The other argument is that there is a danger of Nazism re-emerging. Anyone with any historical sensitivity knows no event ever returns as an exact copy from the past. What this indicates, however, is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the current ideological mindset put in place after World War Two that needs again and again make reference for its legitimacy to matters 'Holocaust-Shoah'.
8. While reading through the many words that Mühlenkamp wrote in reply to my response I was again reminded of the Middle Ages where one contentious issue was: How many angels fit on a pinhead? Although philosophically it illustrates the problem of universals and particulars, a practical effect flowing therefrom was retaining control of ideology. That's what Mühlenkamp's response is all about. It is not possible to write a definitive 'Holocaust-Shoah' narrative because too many archives are still closed, and as Norman Finkelstein argues, one of the other problems afflicting research is the multi-billion 'Holocaust industry', and any dissenting opinion needs to be smashed before it can flourish, even if it contains elements of truth in it. Arthur Schopenhauer's 3-stage emergence of truth is comforting here: 1. It is ridiculed, then 2. It is violently opposed, and 3. It is accepted as a given. Mühlenkamp seems to have regressed to the first stage, while we are already at the end of the second stage, which came about with the imprisonment of Sylvia Stolz, Ernst Zündel, Horst Mahler, Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik, among others.
Cheers
Fredrick Töben
=============================================
From: ReporterNotebook [mailto:reporternotebook@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 25 September 2010 9:42 AM
To: reportersnotebook
Subject: What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fredrick Töben (Part 1)
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010
What "Revisionism" is all about – A Chat with Fredrick Töben (Part 1)
Some days ago the discussion with Michael Santomauro and "Thomas Dalton, Ph.D." on this blog spot caught the attention of one of the "Revisionist" movement's dinosaurs, Dr. Fredrick Töben.
Start:
This German-born Australian citizen is known as the founder of the "Revisionist" Adelaide Institute, which in turn is known for, among other "Revisionist" activities, having funded the bumbling and counterproductive attempt of one Richard Craigie, also known asRichard Krege, to demonstrate by ground penetrating radar scanning that the soil of the former Treblinka extermination camp shows no disturbances suggesting the mass graves in which most of the camp's victims were buried, before being exhumed and cremated in a somewhat-less than successful effort to conceal or erase the physical traces of the crime.
Last Monday Mr. Töben asked diligent "Revisionist" messenger Michael Santomauro, who had earlier forwarded messages of "Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.", to post the following message under the blog mentioned at the beginning:
No comments:
Post a Comment