Dr. Fredrick Toben’s 1996 Christmas Correspondence With Jamie McCarthy

My dear Jamie

It is Christmas day and contrary to your expressed views I think my exercise has been a success. Many individuals who do not accept the Holocaust dogma feel the way you now feel – not being listened to, lied about, misquoted, ridiculed, ignored and hurt. You are fortunate in that you have a sharp mind and a means of expressing and ventilating your thoughts to a wider audience. How would you feel, what would you think, if I had the power to stop you expressing your thoughts on the Holocaust dogma?

What would be your response if I now imposed legal sanctions on your work? Say, five years prison or a $50.000 fine, or both, for your asserting that the homicidal gas chambers did exist, i.e. reverse the claim and have the official dogma state that the gas chambers did not exist?

How would you like to be terrorized – physically attacked, house burnt down, parcel bombed, taken through the expensive court system to break down your physical and mental resistance to alien ideas – for upholding your right not to investigate the non-homicidal gas chamber dogma?

EMPATHETIC UNDERSTANDING – what if?

Jamie, I call on your empathetic understanding and perhaps, if you have the time, you could answer the following for me:

1. What if you had a friend, an Auschwitz survivor, who tells you that he never saw the homicidal gas chambers but that he had been through the showering and hair cutting process without incurring any harm at all?
2. What if your Auschwitz survivor friend tells you about the swimming pool that he swam in while living at the camp?
3. What if your survivor friend tells you about the cultural life of the camp which included listening to classical music played by the camp orchestra, and for those who needed it, a visit to the brothel?
4. What if your Auschwitz survivor friend tells you that he could not publish his story because no publisher was interested in hearing from an Auschwitz survivor who did not talk about the “gas ovens”, without mentioning the homicidal gas chamber story?
5. What if your survivor friend tells you that he cannot openly talk about his brother who spent the entire war years on a farm outside Berlin because after the war his brother claimed to have been incarcerated at Auschwitz – and that this claim has been financially honored by the German government?
6. What if your survivor friend tells you that his parents officially died at Auschwitz when in fact his mother recently died in New York and his father in Jerusalem?
7. What if your survivor friend tells you that the only nasty persons in the camp were the Jewish Kapos, those who were in charge of running internal camp matters?
8. What if your survivor friend tells you that, until the typhoid epidemic swept through Auschwitz, the camp was a reasonably civilized place which naturally had the usual social problems found in any large township community?
9. What if your Auschwitz survivor friend tells you that a number of his own Auschwitz survivor friends have been telling lies for many years about the alleged homicidal gas chambers that they claimed existed at Auschwitz?
10. What if your survivor friend tells you that he has received anonymous death threats because he wrote a few letters to the newspapers wherein he questions the veracity of the Holocaust dogma, in particular the alleged homicidal gas chamber story?
11. What if your Auschwitz survivor friend tells you that most of his former inmate friends are bitter people who now pathologically hate anything German?
12. What if your survivor friend tells you that The Rudolf Report – download available from Adelaide Institute's site – contains the latest forensic findings which conclusively refute any claim that Auschwitz had a homicidal gas chamber facility? Would you support the legal persecution that Rudolf is now suffering at the hands of the German government? How would you explain it to your children that Germar Rudolf is the father of two small children and that he, together with his wife, is now on the run from German justice because he did not wish to spend 14 months in prison for having written an honest objective report which demolishes the holocaust dogma?
13. What if your Auschwitz survivor friend tells you that about four weeks ago, respected German historian, Professor Hans Mommsen, publicly claimed that Hitler didn't really want the war and that Hitler seemed to have slipped into it?

Thank you for participating in this exercise, Jamie, and contrary to what you have stated,I believe that we have had a good productive dialogue. Kindest regards and all the best for the festive season.

Fredrick Toben
Adelaide Institute

Recipients, and readers of this correspondence, greetings to you. Please feel free to post this correspondence on your site. 1996 has been a productive year for us. We have succeeded in opening up encrusted thought patterns – desperation is setting in as the legal screws are applied in a frenzy to the protesters, the dissenters, the heretics of the holocaust dogma.

I shall have a hearing before our Human Rights Commission before March 1997 and shall vigorously defend the allegations brought before it by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, who is merely acting on behalf of the Los Angeles based Simon Wiesenthal Center who, in turn, is acting on behalf of World Jewry. I am not claiming that this is a conspiracy. What we have here is merely people acting in concert.

Let us therefore, in 1997, produce for the world stage a wonderful revisionist concert – and salute those brave individuals who in their own way and at considerable personal expense and sacrifice dared to challenge the Holocaust dogma:

Conscious of my own failings in not offering a complete list, I think of Paul Rassinier, Harry Barnes, Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Zündel, Wilhelm Stäglich, Thies Christophersen, Ditlieb Felderer, Udo Walendy, Günter Deckert, Germar Rudolf, Jim Keegstrar, Malcolm Ross, Achmed Rahmi, Doug Collins, Friedrich Berg, Henry Roques, Charles Weber, Hans Schmidt, Manfred Jünger, John Bennett, Andreas Röhler, Hans-Dietrich Sander, Peter Töpfer, Georges Piscoci, Michael Hoffmann, David Irving, Ingrid Rimland, Mark Weber, Greg Raven, Jürgen Graf, Bradley Smith, David Cole, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Countess, John Sack, Serge Thion, Marc Lemire, Wigbert Grabert, and the many individuals who have stood behind those whose names appear above. In the latter category there are the legal eagles who accepted the challenges knowing full well that they will never recover their legal costs from the proceedings in defending Holocaust heretics, such as Doug Christie, Hajo Herrmann, Ed Wall, Herbert Schaller. Some members of the legal fraternity have spent over $100,000 of their time – all for free, for the cause in which they believe. Some have not even been thanked for their unpaid work!

It is appropriate at this point to spare a thought for Professor Israel Shahak who, only the other day, has had his home raided by Israeli security. We immediately think of Mordecai Vanunu who, for over a decade, has languished in solitary confinement – with his mind and willpower still intact! But a decade fades into insignificance if we recall Rudolf Hess' sentence – then to be dispatched by strangulation.

Let us also during the festive season offer a prayer of forgiveness for public prosecutor Klein of Mannheim for being so misguided in his zealous pursuit of Holocaust heretics.

We should now extend our commiserations to Deborah Lipstadt, Gerald Fleming, Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning, Gitta Sereny, Eberhard Jäckel, Wolfgang Benz, Michael Wolfsohn, Konrad Kwiet, Heinz Kent and the ever dwindling number of individuals who are faced with the daunting task of upholding the Holocaust dogma.Their strength lies in having at their disposal unlimited funds and public sympathy.

To all those who are taking part in this final intellectual adventure of the twentieth century let me extend my personal hopes that 1997 will be an extraordinarily productive year for revisionists.

Fredrick Toben
Adelaide Institute