Aug 29, 2011

Re: Exchange over Rebel News/Eustace Mullins -


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Fredrick Toben" <>
Date: August 29, 2011 7:40:59 PM EDT
To: "'Carolyn'" <>
Cc: "'Dagmar Brenne'" <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
Subject: RE: Exchange over Rebel News/Eustace Mullins -

Carolyn  - 'don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say' = a cop-out!


1. While Andrew was living in Sydney I always wished to have a cuppa with him – but he declined – and I always wondered why… this linking National Socialism with any kind of Jewish influence is often a Jewish mindsets trying to own the uniqueness of Adolf Hitler and his vision of what would make Germany prosper. Such mental constructs fail to note that Talmudic thinking uses the death dialectic while National Socialism uses the Hegelian dialectic, among other forms of thinking of course – and individuals who recognised this would then claim Germany wanted to rule the world, etc.


2. As to Ingrid - I think you know the story about her in the past having been a Nazi-hunter of sorts and when she met Ernst during the 1990s she turned around – for whatever reason…

The points you make in your response are spot-on but her basic work keeping the matter in the public's eye is good, and as with many of us it has become a life-consuming passion. After all, that's what the quest for truth is all about, isn't it?.


3. Currently this controversy is also alive in Adelaide with David Brockschmidt who hates the idea of Hitler re-habilitation/correction - meaning that for him Hitler was evil, etc. I follow the Horst Mahler line that anyone who wishes to be German or wishes to cherish their German heritage must confront the Holocaust lies because therein lies the instrument that is killing the German soul.


4. Dagmar Brenne, in Australia, is the one with whom Brockschmidt locked horns because she is a devout Christian and a devout Hitler admirer, meaning that she is combining the cross and the swastika, something that infuriates Brockschmidt because, as he says, you can't do that. To that I say: why not? Dagmar has recognised that in essence the Holocaust debate is one that concerns Germans and Jews – and that we cannot like David Brockschmidt wished to do years ago bring together the Germans and the Jews. Both have to chose to be either one or the other – as it should be. The Jewish tradition is a worthy object of preservation; the German tradition is a worthy object of preservation. The problem is that if Jews merge with Germans, then the German qualities dominate and the Jewish element becomes assimilated, then becomes extinct. At the moment in Germany the process is the reverse: the German element is disintegrating while the Jewish element is rising, of course riding on the Holocaust lies. As Horst Mahler pointed out the Holocaust lies as protected legally will, if not stopped, destroy the German soul.


5. What also gets me with some individuals who have some Jewish linkage, like Winkler, Duff and Brockschmidt, is that they hate religion – but still claim to have a Jewish connection, thus making the racist claim for the Jewish religion, which it is not. They also feel uncomfortable about Adolf Hitler and National Socialism and wish to have it owned by Jewish-Talmudic thought structures. Then again, Michael Hoffman makes a similar claim on account of his religious studies. But we know that once we abstract matters to a point we can make anything fit into a theory – and their theory is that National Socialism is bad, bad, bad – more on this later, perhaps. I still have n ot yet read Mein Kampf nor the Protocols, and I'll need more time in a cell again to reflect on such matters.


6. When I began on this Adelaide Institute project in 1994 I noted that initially I received enthusiastic support from individuals world-wide, then when we had success and supporters were contributing to our cause and moving away from traditional heavies, then I noted the turf-wars hotting up. We had the prime example with Walter Mueller who tried to get his Community News spread within certain territory controlled by an individual and antagonism of the most trivial kind caused a fracture – I need not go on because by now you would be aware of the 'enemy within', the prime example of which is Willis Carto and how he had his IHR stolen by Mark Weber and others who thought because there was that millions of dollars legacy that this would set them up for life. Some in the movement are not aware of how difficult it is to keep a team together, as has Willis Carto these past 50 years.


7. Hence, on the one hand I understand why Ingrid and Andrew shy away from direct confrontation within the group but then on the other hand it is a verbal exchange that needs to be done, while the Weber-IHR confrontation was outright treason that led to a physical appropriation of property that had been developed over the years. I always claim that had the Revisionists not done this deed, then Revisionists by now would have had a fully-fledged tertiary institution where solid research would have occurred. One of the reasons offered to justify the theft was that Willis Carto is a racist. Well, since 1993 we know that this term is just one of those that is used to stifle/terminate debate, as are 'hater', 'Holocaust denier', 'antisemite', 'Nazi', etc.


8. I am sending a copy of this email through to some active participants in this matter as well as to some who would rather just observe on the sideline. The important point is that, I assume, all value truth as a primary value because without it we fall apart as does our civilisation. I always look at a simple bridge over a river – if engineers fiddle the truth in measurements, etc., then the bridge will crash down; so, too, with our mental constructs that are not based on truth – truth is a moral value and where there is no truth, lies flourish and the rot sets on…as we see with the USA and other so-called western free and democratic nations.


Hear from you soon –




From: Carolyn []
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 12:18 AM
To: Fredrick Toben
Subject: Exchange over Rebel News/Eustace Mullins


Fred, the part I put in red at the very bottom is what made me so mad.

I also wrote a very good critique of Andrew Winkler's entire site, including

"Our Mission" and things like that, but I don't have that saved for some reason.

Too  bad, it was good. I know I come on too strong right from the beginning,

as I already mentioned to you. But my arguments are sound, while theirs are not.




Sunday, April 17, 2011 11:32 PM



"Ingrid Rimland" <>


"Tony" <>, "Rod Remelin" <>, "JB Campbell" <>, "Andrew Winkler" <>, "Mark Glenn" <>, "michael rivero" <>, "Gnostic Liberation Front" <>, "John Kaminski" <>... more



To Ingrid, John and all:


I'm glad to have the opportunity to reply to Ingrid's gentle rebuke, which she did send out to all on the cc list even though she advised me not to. I'm a forthright speaker, I believe in being that way, I like other's to be the same, so I'm not inclined to temper my comments. Nor do I think I was intemperate.


First, I was only referring to the last lines of John's email, not the bulk of it which I have not yet had the opportunity to read. I was commenting only on this:

[For further study, also see Andrew Winkler's brilliant recap of "Eustace Mullins and the Zionist Complicity with the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust'" <>] 

I thought I made that clear. I'm sorry if I did not.


Ingrid, if my argument had merit, and you agree with it in almost all particulars, why object? It's because you believe in "getting along" with everyone to the point of not saying what you really think.  Oh yes, I know ... they just haven't caught on yet. Give them time. I've heard it before. I don't believe it.


Second, Ingrid, I'm suprised to hear you say, "I only know what Ernst told me." I thought you were informed about things like this on your own. Hitler took money from anyone who would give it to him in the beginning. Wouldn't you? It only matters if there were strings attached. I think this whole question of who Hitler took money from is a red-herring. Was he following their program, or his own? As you said, he was following his own. I don't know who he took money from and I'm sure no one else does either. Except the people who were there.


Also, the url to Hitler's speech supplied by John was no good. So much for that.


Yes, Andrew Winkler is half-right. But the half that's wrong is very important. And Andrew Winkler has been in this "movement" for a long enough time that there is no excuse for him not to know better. But it appears that Andrew Winkler is concerned with "racism." Condeming racism is more important than finding the truth of history. What if racism was the truth? All four of the names you mentioned have that in common. 


As you probably know,  I could not disgree with you more when you say that Gordon Duff has done excellent work "for a long time, on most topics." Absolutely not! He is an abomination. Disinfo, Ingrid, disinfo. 


You wrote: "It's unworthy of any one of us to do that - it isn't chivalrous to kick a dead man in the shin - but is that a battle I need to take on?  When it is costing me a useful comrade who is 100% on my side in other, far more important ways?"

Yes, it is a battle I will take on. I don't think anyone who does that is a comrade, nor do I think there are far more important issues. Because that issue of Adolf Hitler is the crucial issue of our time. That is the issue that holds things where they are, this New World, Jew World Order ... or allows that which is rigid and calcified to move freely once again. There is no more important issue. I'm sorry if you think there is.


Lastly, if someone sends me an email with many other names attached, I think it is proper to respond to all those named by the sender when it is a general comment, which mine was. Yes, I wanted Andrew Winkler to see it. How else is he going to get educated? By my replying only to John?


Maybe it's because I don't ask for money, ever, while most of the rest on this list do, and therefore have to be careful whom they might offend. I judge people a lot by how much they live off of contributions. It depends on the value of the work they're doing, of course, but some could disappear and it would not make a bit of difference. I didn't ask to be on this list either. John just added me to it. He can always take me off again if I'm too disruptive.







Amen!!! As as sign of good will here the latest addition to the Rebel News site:


Andrew Winkler
Rebel Media Group
Rebel News





"Carolyn" <>, "Ingrid Rimland" <>


"Tony" <>, "Rod Remelin" <>, "JB Campbell" <>, "Andrew Winkler" <>, "Mark Glenn" <>, "michael rivero" <>, "Gnostic Liberation Front" <>... more

Ingrid dear -

I only called Ernst, whom as you know I admire greatly, a pacifist because that's how he describes himself.  I don't agree with pacifism and my views are pretty well-known, too.  I have always said to him and to you that his pacifism signaled the enemy that they could do what they wanted and not get shot.  Despite my writing and saying some very illegal things over the past 23 years, the thugs have left me alone.  But I have never and would never refer to Ernst as an old man, which sounds terribly disrespectful on my part.  After all, I'm 64!  A worn-out 64 at that.

Please give my kindest regards to Ernst and tell him that I never said that.  I know he must be at least 65 by now.




On 18/04/2011 4:28 AM, Ingrid Rimland wrote:

From: Ingrid Rimland <>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Fwd: America is on the wrong side
To: "Carolyn" <>
Cc: "Tony" <>, "Rod Remelin" <>, "JB Campbell" <>, "Andrew Winkler" <>, "Mark Glenn" <>, "michael rivero" <>, "Gnostic Liberation Front" <>
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2011, 3:28 PM




Carolyn, John, et al -


I need to give my two cents' worth to this erupting and maybe disrupting disagreement.  I want to say this gently, but it seems to me that we have vastly more important, overriding things in common than areas where we disagree.  I think that's what we need to keep in mind that - when we disagree with someone -  we don't let our disagreement be sands of friction to the much more important goals that we have in common and need to protect. 


I think the temptation of arguing with someone and then getting everybody to take sides is destructive of our Volksgemeinschaftsgeist.  We don't do that with snail mail - why do it with email?  Because it is easy and free?


To be specific to your objection to John's article, Carolyn.  In general, I believe you have merit on your side - because what little I know of the topic - was Hitler, or was he not, "controlled" by the Jews? - is an important one.  I only know what Ernst told me - that Hitler took Jewish money in the beginning, but he didn't let the Jews put a ring in his nose in exchange - and that THAT was the reason things got deadly between them.  They couldn't control him.  He didn't do what they wanted him to do, because the man couldn't be bought.  He did what he felt was right.  So if John brings the Rothschilds and the Pope and whatnot into his essay, I believe that he is wrong on that specific point, but that is not ill will or malice or even sabotage, that's ignorance - and ignorance on a specific fact in history is hardly a sin.  We have all been guilty of that. What is far more important is that he provided a URL to one of Hitler's speeches, and people will go and read stuff for themselves - and maybe revise their opinion.  


And if Andrew is only "half-right", that is a valid criticism also in my book, but that is not a sin either.  Those two can still learn.  Maybe they will, and maybe they won't.  We can all still learn.  Who was it that said, "Meine Herren, die Generallinie nicht vergessen!"? 


What is far more important, to me, is that both John and Andrew and even Gordon Duff and Michael Rivero and you and I have done excellent work for quite some time on MOST topics, and we each in our corner have helped to erase all kinds of misconceptions.  Do we have disagreements?  Of course.  I remember Bruce Campbell once calling Ernst "a pacifistic old man" - and did he ever put my nose out of joint!  But that did not impact on our friendship because we respect each other for our strengths and strive to overlook our weaknesses.  In my book - and this has only come to me lately - I believe that it is far, far more important not to attack somebody openly on an itsy-bitsy point of disagreement and be tolerant if our  comrade in the trenches does 90 or 95 % of good work.  We should write off the 5% where he does not - or tell him privately. 


I have felt strong misgivings, even shame, when otherwise sane, moral people keep nitpicking on Hitler - when it is clear they don't know anything whatsoever about Hitler from beans.  They regurgitate what the enemy has put into their hard drive.  Why do they do it?  Because they think they get themselves some brownies by putting themselves in a good light - brownies likely from the enemy who loves it when they do it.  It's unworthy of any one of us to do that - it isn't chivalrous to kick a dead man in the shin - but is that a battle I need to take on?  When it is costing me a useful comrade who is 100% on my side in other, far more important ways? 


I think if we feel strongly enough to write to a comrade about a disagreement, we should not broadcast it on the Net.  It only dissipates our energy and time and soul essence.  We should keep that private and see if it can be resolved amicably - or if not, to just set it aside for a better opportunity.


As we say in German, Nichts für ungut.  Don't misunderstand what I am trying to say.




--- On Sun, 4/17/11, Carolyn <> wrote:

From: Carolyn <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: America is on the wrong side
To:  "John Kaminski" <>
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2011, 9:26 AM



You are confused about many things, and you therefore confuse your readers who want to think you are a fount of wisdom on all things "Judaic."


Please justify your statement at the end of this emai that Andrew Winkler's recap of "Eustace Mullins and the Zionist Complicity with the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust'" is "brilliant." Brilliant is what way?


Yes, Mullins is wrong. But Winkler only corrects him halfway. Winkler says: "the Zionists did not only closely cooperate with the Nazis on their common goal of relocating all European Jews to Palestine, but actually financed and controlled them. " Do you know this to be a fact? What is your source - the two book Winkler lists? If so, that is poor scholarship, John.


Winkler also mentions the revisionist work of  Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno or Germar Rudolf ... supposedly to prove that he knows the "holocaust" is a hoax. Fine. But what does that have to do with what he further says -- his final point -- that "German National Socialism was a merger of Italian style fascism, controlled by elements in the Italian aristocracy and Catholic Church, and Rothschild-Zionism." How does this make any sense? Winkler adds that "the Israeli conduct in Palestine reminds us so much of Nazi Germany."


I personally know all four of the revisionists mentioned and I know they would not agree with Winkler. So what is Winkler's game? He sounds a lot like Gordon Duff, John ... who you believed in too, until I told you differently and you finally saw the light with Libya. Or did you?


Is it the anti-racism that has you hooked? Winkler points out in this "recap" as you call it-- as Duff similarly always manages to get into his posts-- the "blatant racism displayed by some Nazis towards non-Germans, for example Julius Streicher's "Der Stuermer", was nothing more than a Germanised version of 3000 year old Jewish supremacism."


Who believes this, John? The four revisionists Winkler stuck into his "recap" in order to show his bonafides? I say no. I certainly don't believe it. Do you believe it? I would like to hear something really clear from you on this. (By the way, Fredrick, I did not hear any answer from John Kaminski -- carolyn)





--- On Sun, 4/17/11, John Kaminski <> wrote:

From: John Kaminski <>
Subject: Fwd: America is on the wrong side
To: "alex james" <>, "Bellringer" <>, "Carolyn Yeager" <>, "Charles Giuliani" <>, "Clayton Douglas" <>, "Counter Bias" <>, "Deanna Spingola" <>, "Dublin Mick" <>, "James Stenzel" <>,,, "John Kilsnow" <>, "John Kountouris" <>, "Mark Elsis" <>, "Mike Delaney" <>, "Radical Press" <>, "Rick Adams" <>, "Shortwave Wars" <>, "Snippets & Snappits" <>, "The 800 Pound Gorilla" <>, "Victor Thorn" <>, "Viewzone" <>, "William Blair" <>
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2011, 7:59 AM


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Kaminski <>
Date: Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM
Subject: America is on the wrong side
To: Tony <>, Rod Remelin <>, JB Campbell <>, Andrew Winkler <>, Mark Glenn <>, michael rivero <>, Gnostic Liberation Front <>, Ingrid Zündel <>

America is on the wrong side


Will we ever finally realize that 

the bottom line leads straight to hell?


[includes ClarityQuest podcast with Zane Henry and John Kaminski, which touches on currency as consciousness, the right to resist government poisons falsely called medicines, and America being on the wrong side of every important issue in the world < >]




By John Kaminski



At this very moment, staunch allies of the United States in Bahrain and Yemen are shooting their own citizens in the head and following the Jewish practice of harvesting them for their organs — all for protesting government tyranny. But in Libya, the story is very different, where a legitimate and independent government is being destroyed so that the Western powers and international bankers can steal the valuable supplies of oil and water from a much defamed but always peaceful and productive nation. <>


America is on the wrong side, in every subject, on every question, concerning any matter of principle, practice or policy in the world. Instead of being on the side of people it pretends to protect, America is on the side of the international bankers who are squeezing the life out of everyone. How many more disasters will it take for people to realize this? And if America ultimately succeeds in its totalitarian quest, how long will it be before people everywhere are forbidden to think about the moral depravity of state-sponsored criminality at all?


America as a government and hence as nation is on the wrong side of everything. One need look no further than how it is misleading its own citizens on the dangers of radiation from Japan as it closes down its radiation monitoring stations and deliberately deceives the public with rosy reports of minuscule radioactivity over North America. All the while, reports from nongovernmental radiation monitors reveal the worst. The question of which reporting is true will be answered in a very short time when millions of people begin to get seriously sick.


America has become like an abused piñata that has been slammed so many times by people stealing its money that all its treasures are spilling to the ground like so much blood from a bleeding heart that has been forcibly carved out of the carcass of its owner, who is each one of us.


In matters of money, medicine, media and aggression against other hapless target countries whose resources we want to steal and whose people we want to enslave, America is absolutely, irrevocably and permanently on the wrong side.


Why? Because America is not run by Americans. It is run by people who claim to have no nationality, they just work for the common good. That's why they've let all those nonAmericans into the country, they say. It's for the common good. Now that we have a bonafide nonAmerican president, who refuses to defend American borders that are being overrun by illegal immigrants, we can see clearly that America is no longer being run by Americans. Who are they, you ask? No, the problem is you're afraid to ask. I've been telling you the answer for years, but you think you'll be harmed if you believe what I tell you, never realizing that you are being terminally injured because you don't.


The rest of the world should realize (and I believe they probably already have and I just don't know it) that any country that lies to its own citizens will lie to every other country it deals with. The U.S. track record with its own native population should have answered that question a hundred years ago, but the American people have gone on believing their government has always been telling them the truth, and that is the course that was followed in our way to the ultimate destruction of America day, which to all observers appears to be not more than a few months off, if that long.


I began to think about how America has always been on the wrong side after I read Adolf Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S. four days after Pearl Harbor.  In part, Hitler said: "The American President and his plutocratic clique have called us the "have not" nations. The is correct! But the "have nots" also want to live, and they will certainly make sure that what little they have to live on is not stolen from them by the "haves."


(Read Hitler's whole speech at <> It will definitely open your eyes as it sounds like a description of the world today.


America is on the wrong side. Think about it. Where does that put your "support our boys in uniform" shtick, our boys who are raping Iraqi children for kicks, bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan by pushing buttons in Tampa, and siding with the Israelis as "God's Chosen people" as these insane Jews slaughter well-meaning people who try to bring food to starving people in Gaza?


America is on the wrong side. Think about the big push to get you to take the poison swine flu vaccine, the coverup of autism-producing Thimerosal in most vaccines, forcing its own troops to take vaccines whose ingredients are never revealed, and vaccinating the cervixes of little girls to prevent a disease they will never get and likely complicate the delivery of healthy children they will never have.


America is on the wrong side. Think about the buildings they blew up in New York City. That there are still people who believe Muslim terrorists did this dastardly deed attests to the dumbing down of the greatest country that ever was into an Army of robot droids willing to do the bidding of their Jewish masters who control them with trivial television and meaningless religion.


I could write a thousand more paragraphs like this and so could you.


But the point of it all is to realize that this group of paid off politicians who supposedly represent American interests around the world actually do not represent Americans at all, they represent the international Jewish bankers who control all the countries of the world except the half dozen or so the U.S. is constantly threatening and/or invading.


America is on the wrong side in everything. And as a result, whether you like it or not, if you're an American, so are you. So while you're looking for a way to rebut this argument, you need look no further than your own soul. 


If you continue to keep your head down, try not to rock the boat, and hope some government program doesn't suddenly remove you from this life, I'm afraid the odds are increasing daily and exponentially that you are going to die in that position.


The people now in charge all need to be removed and arrested for their easily provable crimes. That you are not now working to make this happen with all possible speed, you might say, is counterintuitive to your own chances of survival, because as long as they continue to remain in charge, their policies of population reduction and the eradication of all peoples' most basic rights will only accelerate.


The whole world knows this, except for people in the United States — America is on the wrong side.





John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida preaching the message that no problem in the world can be authentically addressed without first analyzing tangents caused by Jewish perfidy, which has subverted and diminished every aspect of human endeavor throughout history. Support for his work is wholly derived from people who can understand what he's saying and know what it means.  250 N. McCall Rd. #2, Englewood FL 34223 USA


[PS: My Mac spellchecker doesn't recognize Kaminski as a valid spelling; it only lists the Jewish version of the name, Kaminsky, as correct. Imagine that. Just like Wikipedia, Google, and all those people who write me pretending not to be Jews.]


[For further study, also see Andrew Winkler's brilliant recap of "Eustace Mullins and the Zionist Complicity with the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust'" <>]






"Carolyn Yeager" <>

Cc:, "Mike Delaney" <>, "Dr. Gunther Kümel'" <>, "Franz Seiler" <>, "Fredrick Töben" <>, "Jason Palm" <>, "Joe Cortina" <>... more

Dear Experts,


Can somebody set me straight on all this?


Best wishes,

John K.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rebel News <>
Date: Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:30 AM
Subject: Latest Rebel News Editorial: Why I don't believe in the Holocaust revisited

A response to Eustace Mullins' speech concerning Zionist complicity with the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust'

Last week, a video was making the rounds of a speech given by one of the greatest historians of the 20th century, Eustace Mullins, in which he was suggesting that the Nazi concentration camps were the result of Zionist cooperation with the German Nazis for the purpose of eliminating those parts of European Jewry who were opposed to the Zionist plan of relocating all European Jews to a future Jewish State in Palestine.

Implied in Mullins' suggestion was that at least some of the Nazi concentration camps had in fact - as the law-enforced Judeo-Bolshevik narrative of WWII wants us to believe - the purpose of industrial-scale mass killings. That's obviously nonsense.

Yes, the Jews have cooperated with the Nazi, as they have been doing for centuries with any political or religious cause of any traction, in pursuit of their own evil agendas. I call it the 'Jewish dark art of gate-keeping'. In fact, as we have learned from Edwin Black's book titled 'The Transfer Agreement' and Hennecke Kardel's 'Adolf Hitler - Founder of Israel' , the Zionists did not only closely cooperate with the Nazis on their common goal of relocating all European Jews to Palestine, but they actually financed and controlled the Nazis. In fact many first and second tier Nazis were (crypto-)Jews themselves and there have been hundreds of thousands of Jews fighting for Hitler in the German Wehrmacht.

Without your help Rebel News must be closed down on May 1

After 5 1/2 years of putting in a minimum of 50-60 unpaid hours per week, I can no longer afford to subsidise the ever increasing running costs of this site. Either I break even from now on or I am forced to shut it down. So please, if you haven't already done so recently, click on the orange button on top of our homepage and chip in with whatever you can spare. Or better even, use the form under the red stop sign further down on the right to set up a subscription.

Kind regards,

Andrew Winkler
Rebel News

Subscription Notice

You have received this email because you are a registered user of Rebel News. If you don't remember doing so, it is quite possible that your email address was registered on our site by political opponents trying to get Rebel News listed as a spammer. To unsubscribe, please use the unregister function under the main menu of the site. If necessary, use the 'forgot your username' and 'forgot your password' links on the login screen (, quoting the email address this newsletter was sent to.

Feedburner Newsflash

To receive our daily newsletters with the latest articles on the Rebel News site, please enter your email address in the subscription form below the red stop sign on our homepage (


Recent Activity:
A bad score is 598. A bad idea is not checking yours, at


No comments: