June 22nd update
- Jewish Chronicle pillories Kollerstrom and Renouf
- death threat from Canadian Zionist site
Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, a respected astronomer
and author, is the latest scientist to discover the limits of
academic freedom in the Western world.
Until recently Dr Kollerstrom was an honorary fellow of University College London. His views as a science historian were sought by scientific journals and media organisations, such as the BBC in its report on new research concerning the planet Neptune. Yet on 22nd April University College (UCL) abruptly terminated his fellowship, without any consultation or right of appeal. Dr Kollerstrom's offence was to have published sceptical views about forensic aspects of the “Holocaust” on the CODOH website, based in America.
In the objective opinion of this distinguished academic, the alleged mass murder of Jewish people by gassing during World War 2 was scientifically impossible. At no time had he promoted these views within University College, or done anything to bring the college into disrepute. Rather, it is University College London which now brings itself into disrepute by forbidding the application of normal source critical analysis to “Holocaust” history in mockery of its founding principles for freedom of enquiry.
The UCL is not the first to let itself down as London's cowardly academic establishment. One reports from personal experience of academic anti-source critical treatment when a student, from 1999-2001 reading for a post-graduate degree in the Psychology of Religion at the University of London. My college, Heythrop, the Jesuit college specialising in theology and philosophy, smeared my politely factual correction of a tutor during a seminar as “unwelcome anti-Semitism”. My offence was in clarifying that it had been established by steadfast historical revisionists and now accepted by all sides in a libel action at London’s High Court that Jewish prisoners under the Third Reich were neither reduced into “human soap” nor were their skins made into lampshades.
Yet instead of myth versus fact meeting with objective, courteous debate as one expects at a Masters level university seminar, no-one present could or would hear of this above the ensuing personal insults and uniquely universal Holocaustianity hysteria aroused by the tutor’s own misguiding lead. Instead, uncritical source reliance prevailed round that university table on faked artifacts and selective reporting by a biased media - even as one witnessed, as I had, that these pious impostures were now acknowledged in our courtrooms as war propaganda lies. Such pious (ceremonially buried) “human soap” (as commemorated in Holocaust Museum fraud) was verified as Jewish wartime myth by Mr Justice Gray and eventually by Jewish “Holocaust” historians on the Defence side during the British historian David Irving’s libel action taken against an anti-gentile Jewish racist, which was being fought in London’s High Court at the time.
One need hardly speculate whether this anti source critical ethos in seminars at Heythrop College was influenced by the fact that this Jesuit college of apparent Christian treachery had appointed an Hassidic Jewess as sole examiner with a veto on who graduates.
The London based Jewish Chronicle at the time in 2000 quoted on its front page my eye-witness dissatisfaction with the final, non-jury judgment against Irving’s civil action. It asked me as a daily court attendee over the two months’ running civil case taken by Britain’s foremost non-consensual historical bloodhound who risked and eventually lost his shirt to the fearsome wind forces of World Zionism. I saw for the first time, not knowing of Mr Irving nor familiar with Holocaust Revisionism beforehand, that so many of his source critical leads were considered “too sensitive” by Judge Gray to be pursued. Yet, surely justice must be served and alleged crimes fully and openly investigated along with all findings freely presented in our courtrooms? To my chronic astonishment as firsthand witness of these extradorinarily unfair trials, a common sense assumption of natural law is denied to each revisionist and defence attorney - and a forthcoming sequel to my dvd JAILING OPINIONS will be an exposè of JAILING THE LAWYERS. I aim for lawyers everywhere to take an interest.
In 2008 the Jewish Chronicle duly boasted of Dr Kollerstrom's dismissal on the front page of its 25th April edition.
On 7th May Dr Kollerstrom and I first became acquainted when he sought my advice (as a person vilified internationally ... yet more and more listened to for championing the normalising of historical revisionists’ free enquiry) on whether he could expect to travel safely to Germany where he hoped to present his paper The Walls of Auschwitz - a review of the chemical studies to the Berlin Conference on 15th-18th May 2008. This conference (Extermination in Gas Chambers in National Socialist Concentration and Extermination Camps) was designed to refute the revisionists' case on the alleged mass murder weapon - the WMD “gas chamber”.
From my observations in many European (and Canadian) courtrooms of revisionists facing persecution for merely expressing their individual source sceptical opinions and scientific findings, I advised that:
a) it was unlikely that the organisers would include a revisionist paper in their unchallengeable conference (as opposed to the entirely open to allcomers Tehran Conference in 2006 on The Holocaust - A Global Review in which I presented a paper on The Psychology of Holocaustianity). And to prove the case, I asked the Berlin Conference organisers whether I could be included as press, but received no response;
b) if Dr Kollerstrom were to open his scientific mouth in Germany, or in any of the ten European countries (including Israel) where it is illegal to bring forensic science in to question the “Holocaust” legend "in full or part", he would risk certain prosecution and a long term of imprisonment.
About to appear myself on a Press TV live Fine Print panel discussion - (on Israel’s 60th/Palestine’s Nakba, about which I had made a film from the British veterans’ eye-opening witness, screened in the House of Lords in 2003 to absurd howls of “anti-Semitism” from Lord Skidelsky simply because in my narration I had quoted the revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson) - I suggested to this new channel - which at last offers UK viewers a democratic choice of information sources - that they interview Dr Kollerstrom. It was surely a newsworthy story given that the distinguished academic had been persecuted by the mainstream media, and thus, in my experience of Iranian fair play balance, one could expect this channel would provide him with some redress for the vilification and libel he has recently suffered following publication of his scientific article on a U.S. website.
The feisty new channel promptly responded.
On 14th May Press TV duly filmed an interview with the science historian Dr Kollerstrom in which he honoured the pioneering work of USA gas chamber and state human execution machinery expert Fred Leuchter (an innocent professional of admirable fortitude who never cowered or compromised to the amoral Jewish tyrants' twenty years abuse of him); and Germar Rudolf the PhD chemist who graduated from the prestigeous Max Planck Institute and is currently serving a long sentence in Germany (with dignity as I have personally witnessed with a prison visit to this valiant young prisoner of conscience) for his forensic report: Dissecting the Holocaust.
Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom and Lady Michèle Renouf on set at Press TV after recording each of their interviews. Lady Renouf is holding a copy of The Rudolf Report
Having been asked by a non-combative Dr Kollerstrom to come along with him for moral support, the channel there and then invited me to provide an introductory background. That is, the stark contrast between the open democratic approach I had experienced at the Tehran Conference in 2006, as compared to the tyrannical and closed programme of that week’s forthcoming government-sponsored Berlin Conference where no revisionist was invited - though the conference was supposed to be all about revisionists and their (source) criticism.
The substance of Dr Kollerstrom's interview is his hope that a scientific journal will sponsor his own on-site chemical analysis of the walls of Auschwitz, in the tradition of the Leuchter Report and the Rudolf Report. These experts, like Dr Kollerstrom himself, came to this revisionist work, out of scientific curiosity and with no political interest.
After recording his interview Dr Kollerstrom, as I had arranged then appeared live on Press TV's Between the Headlines 14th May edition featuring presenter Jan Fossgard and fellow guest the journalist Kate Bevan.
Despite Ms Bevan's earlier hypocritical stance in favour of scepticism (during a discussion of Le Monde's recent admission that it had misidentified photos supposedly of Hiroshima after the 1945 atomic bombing) in her subsequent unthinking mandatory denunciation of revisionism one recognises at once the archetypical parroting response of the mainstream journalist, confronted by a taboo source-critical attitude towards what Jewish race supremacist historians term the "Holy of Holies".
Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom has no political links with the so-called far right - no obvious axe to grind. He merely seeks a sceptical scientific approach to the issue of Auschwitz gas chambers, but it appears that British academia will not tolerate scepticism in this area.
The alleged Holocaust of European Jewry is a uniquely privileged area of history - and not only in the ten countries where "Holocaust denial" is criminalised. And drawing on my lifelong acting expertise as a kind of propaganda tool in international advertising commercials, it is pertinent to note that “Holocaust denial” is in itself a devious propaganda tool. By this sly mispackaging term “denial”, an unwary public is dissuaded from normalising source critical enquiry into Holocaustianity - to separate religious “Covenantal burnt offering” myth from evidential forensic history. This foreclosure term “denial” falsely defines Holocaust-revisionism as denying all wartime actions taken against European Jewry and thus implying revisionists have a mendacious agenda.
Simply asking the indepth question “why” some action against European Jewry needed taking without due reference to a factor virtually never explained in our pro-Zionist media, would in itself risk abhorrence as if an immoral thought crime. World Zionist leadership gave that “why”, not least once it formally defined itself as “a state acting within a state” and declared in 1933 a total destruction, an economic war on Germany. This was both a self-identification of Jewry as Germany’s enemy within and without and, to the extend it began to succeed in restricting German exports, a guarantee that Germany would have to expand eastwards at the risk of war. Indeed, due to the media monopoly of our thus undemocratic information outlets in the “free world”, we hear nothing of an “invisible army” as declared by Jewish leaders of the period, in this devious propaganda device of simplistic “denial” rather than economic and geopolitical historical revision of one dimensional victor myths.
But even here in Britain more subtle methods of censorship (denial of debate as manifest “hate”) and intimidation (baseless smears and disinformation guilt by association with would-be “gas chamber” collaborators) are tyrannically deployed. These are patent advertising ruses by which vested interests create and control the narrative. Indeed these propaganda terms are most suitable cases for university seminars in media studies ... which I would raise if I were still lecturing in the media studies course I initiated in 1969 at the Queensland University of Technology. No need to ask nowadays for how long such a seminar would run before the tutor was miscast morally unemployable by the orchestrated behaviour of the “Swarm” (as Israel Shamir aptly describes the siren chorus before the “Holy of Holies” sting).
Fortunately there is now a media outlet which is prepared to defy the prevailing mood of surrender to this censorship and intimidation, so Dr Kollerstrom's article can be found on the website of Press TV under the section Reflections. The twistspeak case (my term for the cynical twisting or distrorting of the facts by which the culprit is made to appear the victim) to be addressed is not whether Dr Kollerstrom and the revisionists are in “denial” or regardless of whatever their alleged motivations. But rather that it is, a) academically incorrect procedure to deny revisionist findings from public and general academic scrutiny; and b) morally criminal to allow systematic terrorising by those suspect censors who deny the norm of research into the historiography of myths versus facts.
Further to Dr Kollerstrom’s TV appearance and the publication of his article on the Press TV website, the Jewish Chronicle in its page 12, 23rd May 2008 edition, adds “disgusting” from Mark Gardner, director of communications of the Community Security Trust to its columns of Jewish advertising journalism. The said Trust denies Press TV its demonstrative balance and deems “disgusting” the way this worthy Iranian-based channel does invite all sides to debate openly and fairly - as befitting a scientifically advanced nation still evidently influenced (unlike our academia today) by its historic Classical Greek tradition of scientific attitude towards history.
Could it create a mutually great fresh wind if together the academia of Europe and Iran encourage each other to breathe as much of their once common Classical heritage back into an upstanding renewal of those elegant pillars of inseparable Four Virtues: Measure, Scientific Attitude, Justice, Courage? I have far from forgotten my elected role to take the Tehran Conference on the road. Nice thing is that meantime more scientists as we see are stepping forward, and due to such Kollerstrom/Press TV raising of general awareness, more public too are getting readier to roll up.