Dr Fredrick Töben is a hero for our times. He is a hero because he is one of those rare individuals in the present day for whom principles – and particularly the right of free speech and the uninhibited pursuit of truth – are more important than creature comforts, social ostracism, and even jail.

But Dr Töben’s heroism is of a special character because he is willing to stand against what is perhaps the most formidable power in the world, and to speak truth to the grand lies which that power supports. That power is what I call the Jewish Establishment – the men and women who command the organisations – and most importantly, the money, power and prestige – of the international nation of Judah.

As a philosopher, I wish now to pause and comment on what I have just said – somewhat after the fashion of Laurence Stearne in his famous pathbreaking seventeenth century novel Tristram Shandy This pause is necessary because of the peculiar difficulty of speaking about Jews, and particularly their power and influence, especially when it is spoken of in a negative light. My pause here is for the purpose of saying that it is at this point in my discourse that a great hue and cry typically arises from Jews and their shabby goy factotums, generally consisting of a collection of the most powerful of modern-day anathemas: ‘bigot’, ‘hater’ and ‘anti-Semite’ to name just three. These are what I call ‘shut-up words’, i.e., words intended to intimidate the speaker and silence his further comment. They are also words to which the madding crowd has been Pavlovianly conditioned to respond by shutting their ears, a conditioning achieved by the constantly-repeated politically-correct mantras of the mass media. But curiously, these anathemas – powerful as they are – are beginning to lose that power, not merely because of severe overuse, but also because the ideas – or more precisely, the ‘truths’ – which they attempt to suppress are simply too powerful to suppress for long. There is only so much time that a top can be kept on a pressure cooker, and the modern-day pressure-cooker of politically incorrect ideas is getting close to the point of explosion. When that explosion happens – and there does not now seem to be any way to avoid it – the result is going to be a very nasty – and lethal – mess.

The Jews are a smart and clever people, and in a way it is a tribute to them that they have discovered the power of shut-up words, and have made such effective use of them. But the curious thing about shut-up words is that – like so many other lies to which the Jewish Establishment has given its imprimatur – they are constructed out of hot air. For example, consider bigotry: As Ambrose Bierce in his Devil’s Dictionary put it, a bigot is ‘One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion which you do not entertain’. (Or to put it more bluntly, anybody who vigorously disagrees with someone else is a bigot.) Likewise, what is the objection to hate, provided only that it is directed against hateful things? (Which is to say that hate is wrong only if the hatred happens to be Politically Incorrect.) And as for ‘anti-Semitism’, this is not – as the Jews and their shabby goy factotums would have it – analytically bad, but is either bad or good depending on whether Jews as a people are bad or good for the nations in which they reside; and this ‘Jewish question’ is therefore one whose answer depends on objective Jewish behaviour, and not on some ethereal Jewish Platonic Form conjured up by a Talmudic scholar to which the quality ‘good’ is attached in pincushion fashion. Or, as my author friend L.A. Rollins put it, ‘An anti-Semite used to be someone who hated Jews, but is now someone the Jews hate’.

While Dr Töben has never been intimidated by shut-up words, his particular contribution to free speech consists of his efforts over the last decade to examine what I have called the Orthodox Jewish Version (OJV) of the Holocaust, i.e., the allegation that Nazi Germany killed six million Jews, primarily in gas chambers. His work, along with the work of many other courageous men around the world, many of whom have suffered for their efforts in the same way Dr Töben has suffered, has shown beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that not only is the OJV false, but in fact is a Big Lie. This in a nutshell is the essence of what has come to be called ‘Holocaust revisionism’ – a curious name because ‘revisionist’ was once a smear word used by communists against other communists who would not toe the party line. But whatever you call it, it is of enormous significance for several reasons. For one thing, the state of Israel has in effect been built upon this lie – the guilt and sympathy expressed by the European and American peoples over the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis has been a continuing source of funds for Israel and for Jews, amounting to some $125 billion from America alone since 1948, and continuing in the form of ‘reparations’ for which large companies and whole nations are even now being shaken down.

The French have a phrase to describe what for them seems to be their most frequent source of trouble, ‘cherchez la femme’ (look for the woman); but it is apparent from the Holocaust lie that the world might ought to think of re-forming this phrase as ‘cherchez l’argent’ (look for the money) or, as I have suggested elsewhere, ‘cherchez le juif’ (look for the Jew). Certainly the Jews themselves are aware of the financial import of the Holocaust, for they have a phrase that is heard everywhere in Israel: ‘There’s no business like Shoah [Holocaust] business’.

But there is another element of importance to the work of Dr Töben and the other Holocaust revisionists. To put it in the bluntest of terms, it is to show that Hitler was right, or at least that he was very much on the right track, when it came to his attitude about Jews. This is not to say that Dr Töben has become a Hitler apologist; but it is to say that the logical implications of revisionist work cannot be avoided by any fair-minded person. In particular, it refutes the notion – pounded into the public consciousness at the Nuremberg trials and in Hollywood movies ever since – that Hitler was a monster. And if Hitler wasn’t a monster, then the next logical question is, Exactly what WAS he? Was he right to identify the Jew as a threat to Germany and the white race? Indeed, with the last 40 years or so filled with Holocaust shakedowns based on a Big Lie for a little country that practices genocide after the supposed Nazi fashion and has brought us to the cusp of World War III as a result, does this in fact prove that Hitler was right, and that the real Nazis are alive and well and living in Israel?

But the work of Dr Töben and the other revisionists have brought to light another fact. While we have all heard ad infinitumandad nauseamthat Hitler was an advocate of the Big Lie technique, the fact is that, in his book Mein Kampf, Hitler discussed the Big Lie as being a practice of the Jews. So what that means is that not only did the Jews turn the Holocaust into the Big Lie of the OJV, but they also told another Big Lie in accusing Hitler of advocating it, in both cases confirming that Hitler was right.

The provenance of my own interest in revisionism is my passion for controversial ideas and free speech. Briefly, I have discovered that many perfectly reasonable and rational ideas are violently opposed by this or that group, and it has become a natural for me to jump into the fray wherever angels fear to tread, but devils like me do not. When I first began my writing career, I started with philosophy, and having settled all the Big Questions to my satisfaction – if not quite to the satisfaction of everyone else – I investigated many other things, but never found anything like a Third Rail until I touched upon revisionism and the other issues surrounding Judaism. What I discovered was an incredible nexus of extremely complex and difficult problems, with revisionism being the most public, but not by any means the most interesting to me personally. In fact, many now consider revisionism passe, waiting only to be discovered by the masses, while the rest of us wrestle with far more difficult problems, including the more subtle aspects of the Jewish Question. In fact, this is the reason I established a website (www.thebirdman.org) which has now become one of the most popular in the world (we are ranked in the top half percent of more than 20 million websites worldwide by Alexa.com). What we have discovered is that there is a hunger for seeing these questions explored and the Politically Incorrect truth exposed; and while revisionism remains the subject of greatest popular attention, there is a growing consciousness of the far larger scope of questions relating to Jews. But whatever scope the Jewish Question may have, revisionism remains the principal case study, and most of the larger questions are writ small in the annals of revisionist experience, including that of Dr Töben.

With the above remarks, I commend to you a modern hero’s book. A man who has been on the front lines fighting for free speech and real history, as Dr Töben has been, knows a lot more than the pundits and philosophers that keep a safe distance in their bunkers and ivory towers. Not only do we need more men of Dr Töben’s character and intelligence, but we need to learn from him that we may be prepared to better defend ourselves and Western civilisation against a Jewish Establishment which seems so eager in its every act to put six feet under the traditions of freedom which have cost so many lives and taken so many centuries to develop.

Dr Töben, we salute you!

Thank you Cotard for that.

Gerard Menuhin:

When I was asked to write a foreword to Dr.Fredrick Töben’s book about his experiences in the UK late last year, I welcomed the opportunity to voice certain convictions of my own. However, in view of the puerile but virulent decreest hat have gradually undermined traditional law and the courts in all the so-called democracies, I bethought myself to consult a lawyer. His advice has been clear and indubitable: my utterances would land me before a courton a charge of “racial discrimination,” under Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. Even sensible Switzerland has lost it sway and its faith in the independence which has served it so well, and has submitted to pressure to alter its laws. Accordingly, not having Dr. Töben’s admirable courage and steadfastness, instead of presenting well-founded and far-reaching arguments, leading to an inescapable conclusion, I have restricted myself to commenting on such curious laws and on the duplicity of governments which live by public funding but betray this selfsame public, their countrymen, at everyturn, by progressively reducing their freedom of expression.Today, the concept of democracy has lost all meaning.

Discrimination, in whatever context, is a necessary part of almost every human action; a mature society calls it “choice.” In a mature society, the law is grounded in ancient legal systems, tested by time.These systems are brought up to date, as circumstances demand and for the general good—not to cater to the prejudices of one section of the community only. The endeavor to criminalize thoughts and to forbid them by law has given birth to the legislation of conscience, which aberration is bizarrely reminiscent of heresy trials under the Inquisition. Such “laws” have no connection to European penal codes. In other words, they are contrary to the nature of a constitutional state.

Considering the plight of imprisoned activists and patriots in Germany—as lawyers and scientists and all educated pro-fessionals—who have been convicted of “hate crimes” or “incitement of the people,” an irony came to me. All of us from respectable backgrounds have been brought up by our parents to tell the truth and not to consort with criminals. However, if one tells thetrut htoday, one is forced to consort with criminals. I am sure this makes sense to those who make the laws, but it makes no sense to me.

In the better informed, educated and more sophisticated countries, so-called hate crime laws are being passed as fast as legislatures composed of fools and hypocrites (the same folks who urged and legalized the mass immigration of economic and often criminal “refugees”) can be influenced to pass them.

In Germany, the infamous Paragraph 130 provides an almost infinitely flexible weapon against“ “incitement of the people.” In Germany, Austria, France, Canada, among other countries, itis an offense to deny “the Holocaust. ”The maximum penalty for doing so inGermany, for example, is five years imprisonment.

(Convicted offenders often receive longer sentences than those imposed formurderandusually must serve their full sentence.)

(…)

It is difficult to understand how professional legislators could pass such inexact concepts in to law. These decrees, based alone on the insistence of a few well-funded agitators, make a mockery of the courts and the judicial process, of evidential burden, and the standard of proof. They disregard exculpatory, demonstrative and scientific evidence. On the contrary, in Germany, evidence introduced by a defense attorney is not only rejected in favour of the abstract ideas of “publicincitement” and “prejudice,” it maybe used to prosecute him too. Naturally, this threat reduces the availability of lawyers willing to defend such cases.Where cowardice and self-interest rule the courts, justice suffers.Under the confused and hazy notion of “hatecrime,” biased judges interpret the law according to the will of their political masters. These politicians, in turn, are only handy men who respond with knee-jerk alacrity to a higher authority.

There is only one way to reverse this trend.That is for citizens to understand the urgency of informing themselves, while there are still some independent, trustworthy sources of information left. The fools and the hypocrites and political prostitutes like Angela Merkel are beyond help. For the rest, those still unconvinced, dumbed down by propaganda, or radically prejudiced against common sense, but with a tendency to run off half-baked at the mouth anyway (the colloquialism seems appropriate), I respectfully recommend the following rigorous regimen: shut up—read—learn—act.

Why? Because everything you know or think you know is wrong. It’s not your faul tthat, like me,you were taught the standard versionsof major historical events. We are all, collectively, the victims of received information. But it could be our fault and mean our doom if we do not revise these impressions. It helps to ask the right questions. For instance, how and why did Cromwell come to power? What was the background to the French Revolution? Who fomented the Russian Revolution? Was Pearl Harbour an unexpected “Day that will live in infamy”? Was Hitler a madman and a monster?

Why does “history” matter? Is it not a dry, abstract body of knowledge about earlier times, from which we have (thankfully) distanced ourselves? Far from it. History is an unbroken trail that has led us to where we are today. Properly explored, history is the fascinating explanation of our individual predicaments. It concerns every one of us. It is not abstract but concrete. It is also often awkward and unpleasant.

School book history has not only become outdated, it has also often been falsified to suit the rulers of the time. Moreover, it continues to be falsified, to suit the rulers of today. Itis not only the occupation and the duty of historians continuously to revise history, as archives are opened and new information comes to light, but our duty to ourselves to learn why events occurred and how they have affected us and may affect us in the future. (…)

How does one recognise a trustworthy source? The best guides are common sense and corroborative data, coupled with unremitting scepticism. Counter-culture sources are usually the best antidote to the controlled and censored mainstream media, but even the system can be tricked into revealing truths behind its propaganda.The official accounts of every novel event, especially of atrocities, must be questioned and revised to discount bias. For instance, school massacres, whether random or instigated, serve to accelerate gun control. The reports about major outrages, like the Mumbai attacks, or allegedright-wing violence, are invariably calculated to sow prejudice. Once corporate codes are penetrated, it becomes easier to deconstruct and reinterpret reports. Key words such as “tolerance/intolerance,” “racism,” or the notorious misnomer “anti-Semitism,” usually denote “newspeak” and betray the user’s need to disseminate a view at variance with the truth.They must be given a contrary implication.

The second step is how to go about with our new-found knowledge. Each one of us has to decide how to react when faced with the undisguised historical truth. Usually, initial exposure to historical truth is so shocking that denial may be the automatic response. One can duck and run, meaning, one might look away quickly and get on with one’s life.One might accept a partial view and let it go at that. Or one might be intrigued to the point where one begins to research history, going ever further into the past. Or one might even try to make a difference.

How much truth can you take? Without it becoming a daily, even hourly burden in your life? The search for truth must go through several stages before it becomes digestible and useful. (…)

Individually, humans have many hindering characteristics, often defined as weaknesses. They can be envious, jealous, and greedy; they can succumb to the lures of sex, drugs and alcohol.These weaknesses can be and are used against them, by those who, because they occupy a position apart from society, have no stake in it and are unfeeling towards those who have. Many business and political leaders have achieved their wealth and their prominent positions by succumbing to bribes and/or blackmail. The third step towards enlightenment is therefore always to ask the question: “cui bono,” or who benefits from such manipulation?

The cliché has it that “ignorance is bliss.” Like all clichés, this one is true too.The citizen who sees nothing demeaningin being called a consumer, in amassing debts he is incapable of repaying, in wasting his free time mindlessly, may die with a blissfully ignorant smile on his face. His irresponsibility towards himself is his right.However, whether he recognises it or not, this humanoid has a responsibility within the system. His responsibility is to consume more than he needs and can afford in order to maintain and increase his country’s GNP. But, if we continue on our present path, we will owe our doom as a race of potentially free thinkers to such automatons, for, through their ignorance, they enable the manipulators to run our lives. However unwitting, they are fellow-travellers, accessories of evil.

“Evil” is a biblical word. It carries the stigma of religious condemnation. As such it also seems dated. But how else would you describe a movement that is concerned, nay obsessed, with concentrating as much power and wealth in as few hands as possible, even if this means the perpetual suffering of whole populations, the pollution of air and water and food stuffs, constant inflation, indoctrination of generations of schoolchildren, and the squandering of public money against the public good? It is in fact an intrinsic part, a willed element, of this movement, that millions should die of disease and starvation.Their numberis superfluous to requirement; they are officially called “useless eaters.” (…)

The cost of ignorance is ubiquitous.It is manifest in the governments that the so-called democracies vote for, whose corruption and contra-indicated legislation citizen sendure without protest. It shouts at us boldly, shamelessly from every television set, stares at us from every billboard. It feeds and flourishes on unhappiness and emptiness. It engenders progressive degradation.Its enemy is free thought, of the kind that is fostered by en-lightened parental guidance and independent education.To the regimes that ensure and perpetuate universal darkness of mind, the advantages of ignorance are obvious.

Lacks of parental guidance and education are only part of the problem. Even without these, a cohesive society, based on a shared culture, might function adequately. However, there are ever fewer cohesive societies, because their cultures are systematically being infiltrated and undermined by others. This disintegration of established and traditional societies is willed. A multicultural, non-cohesive society is easier to influence and to exploit and to stir up to war. (…)

Although the official justification for this “War on Terror” has been recognised as a false flag operation by the informed public, and the official “9/11” report challenged by over 190 senior military officers and government officials (“Patriots Question 9/11”), this has not made any difference to those responsible.This kind of false flag operation has been a reliable tactic ever since the sinking of the Maine (1898) which gave the U.S.imperial power, and the Lusitania(1915), and probably well before. (In 1915, a German submarine torpedoed the Cunard liner Lusitania. 28 of the 1,198 who drowned were U.S.citizens. By allowing the ship to sail without escort into an area in which British ships had recently been sunk, the British government hoped to provoke the U.S.into joining the war against Germany. Indeed, the anti-German feeling that was stirred up by this event no doubt helped to induce America’s eventual entry into World War I. In 2008, the Lusitania was confirmed to have been carrying munitions.) It is worth remarking that the cost in human lives of false flag operations has risen. Almost 3,000 had to dieon11 September 2001,to set the “WaronTerror” in train.

The question arises, of course, how in a time of news saturation, the perpetrators of such acts manage to get away with them.This mystery is solved when it becomes clear that most sources of information are owned by a very few companies, which are dominated by the same powers that have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Briefly put, they lie to us all the time. As the U.S. (in the name of democracy) and Israel (in the name of self-defense) are almost exclusively responsible, directly or indirectly, for global and unceasing bellicosity (the U.S. maintainsanywhere between 700 and 1,000 military bases around the world),and for kindling “terrorism” and the ensuing slaughters (Bali, London, Madrid), it is essential for domestic propaganda to disseminate accounts accordant with their governments’ official policies, while suppressing all news that could impinge negatively on same.In this, the U.S.government is assisted by the U.S. population, nearly a third of which is illiterate or barely literate.Their numbers are growing by an estimated two million a year. This means that these folks are unable to understand even the superficial fictions published by themainstream press.It takes an enterprising citizen to explore the internet for credible information and a sophisticated one to separate wheat from chaff.

Why do entire nations and their citizens today live in a state of perpetual debt? Why are our taxes used primarily to pay the interest on the national debt? Why is an income tax necessary at all, when independent nations could provide amply for theirown citizens?

An independent nation controls its ownmoney. It does not need to borrow from private, central banks. Before the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and, hardly coincidentally, the modern income tax was introduced, the American economy had enjoyed over a century of prosperity. There were customs and excise taxes, but there was no income tax. However, no nation is independent anymore, because all have been forced under the yoke of debt. The world has been fitted with a straitjacket. So many people owe their livelihoods to the debt economy and the few who control it have amassed such wealth that no other system is thinkable. Any national leader who even proposed to attempt to regulate his country’s money supply would be ostracized and his country subjected to sanctions until he repented, or else he would simply be assassinated, as was the case with Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy. (…)

Ordinary people, despite their overwhelming majority and wish for peaceful coexistence, cannot defeat this paltry minority, for they cannot see the truth.They simply cannot conceive of such organised malevolence, raised to the level of a religion.They cannot accept the existence of a movement committed to destroying all legitimate government, religion and nationhood and to replacing these with as o-called New World Order(cited by Bush Sr., Sarkosy and Brown), ruling the world by terror.

The only hope for a return to a mature society is for every citizen to learn to think for himself—to doubt what he is told.
“The first principle is doubt. Doubt is the beginning of knowledge. He who doubts nothing tests nothing. He who tests nothing discovers nothing. He who discovers nothing is blind and stays blind” (attr.Teilhard de Chardin).

— December 2009