In his attempt to foist mandatory Internet censorship on Australians, Dr Clive Hamilton has resorted to fiction.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Story-telling can help illustrate problems and draw out unforeseen consequences and anomalies.

Clive’s literary style is rather racey. If you find sexually explicit language offensive, don’t read his story (below). Just glance at the headline and the photo…

Clive Hamilton's Grim Warning

..
I hope it’s not mean-spirited to say that I find Dr Hamilton’s cautionary tale unsatisfying. It just fizzles out. The reader is left to infer that the ending is most unhappy – but no details are provided. Perhaps they’re too gruesome to mention? Could it be that little Johnny, after finding porn on the Internet, turns into an axe-murderer?

Of course, anyone can make up stories – superblogger or not.

Here’s my own contribution to this exciting new genre, which I expect will become very popular as the ‘Debate we Apparently Have to Keep Having’ rages on (yawn).

Clive Hamilton & Johnny Normal – A Twisted Tale of Sex and Malice

Little Johnny Normal came home from school. His parents were both out.

Johnny glanced at The Australian newspaper, which was lying on the kitchen table. He wanted to check what was on TV.

The newspaper was open at a page with a headline: ‘Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians’. Johnny didn’t know what libertarians are, but thought they might play netball. He started reading.

Johnny had heard of ‘sex pictures’ before. “Maybe this isn’t about sport”, he thought. He carried on reading…

By the time Johnny got to the third paragraph, he was seeing words he’d never heard before. He was quite interested. It seemed to be a story about a boy, just like him, looking up words that had something to do with sex. A flush of pre-adolescent sexuality came over him. Little Johnny was fascinated.

Just then, Johnny’s mum came home from work. Johnny ran to give her a hug. While she made toast, little Johnny asked his mum about the funny article in the newspaper. “What does ‘dildo’ mean?” he asked.

Mrs Normal winced and asked Johnny where he’d heard that word. The grninning urchin showed her the newspaper. Mrs Normal started reading, then she blushed, aware of the innocent young eyes staring at her. “That jerk!”, she muttered under her breath, and put the newspaper away.

“It’s just a silly story by a silly man” she told Johnny. “And never you mind about dildos. I’ll tell you when you’re older. Get outside and play!

Later that evening, Mr Normal came home. After Johnny was in bed, the happily married couple chatted about the day. Mrs Normal talked about the article Johnny had found in the newspaper. They laughed about it. Then they went to bed and made love. Afterwards, they discussed Johnny’s sex education. They wanted to be sure he learnt about sex, but not too fast. That’s why Johnny was only allowed to use a filtered computer. But when do you tell a young boy about dildoes? They figured they’d work it out. Life is never boring…

The next day, Johnny came home from school early, checked he was alone – and headed for his dad’s study. He knew his dad’s password from looking over his shoulder. Johnny decided he’d get on the Internet and look up some of the words he’d found in the newspaper story.

What he saw made him blush – the same colour as his mum the day before. “Wow!”, he thought. Johnny soon learnt the meaning of the word ‘dildo’.

Because he had a little spare time, Johnny decided to browse his dad’s hard drive. He did a quick search for graphics files – and found an animated gif of The Simpsons doing things he’d never seen them do before on TV.

Bart is sexually abused (in Australia, cartoons are real people)

At school the next day, Johnny showed the funny Simpson’s animation to his friend, Boris. Unfortunately, Miss Shocked, the Librarian, caught them.

Johnny and Boris soon found themselves in the Principal’s office. “Where did you find this revolting, disgusting filth?” thundered Headmaster Harshman. He was very angry. A pupil had brought pornography into his school. Johnny wouldn’t say where he found the cartoon. Boris didn’t know. So Mr Harshman called the police. Johhny’s parents were called too.

When Mr Normal arrived at the school, he was alarmed to see two police cars parked outside. But once he realized what had happened, Mr Normal sighed with relief. He’d been worried Johnny might be in serious trouble. “Oh that!”, he said, when confronted with the rude cartoon. “Johnny must have found it on my computer at home. Come to think about it, I noticed him trying to read my password when I type it in…”

Sargeant Plod didn’t think this was a serious case, but he was obliged to call the Child Protection Squad, who searched the Normal household that evening and discovered more obscene animated Simpsons cartoons on Mr Normal’s hard-drive. As Lisa and Bart were featured in flagrante delicto, it was a clear case of possessing child pornography. They then searched Mrs Normal’s laptop and found a directory containing photos of nude couples engaged in sexual acts. One of the couples looked very young… they could easily be under 18. Taking no chances, they arrested Mrs Normal as well for possessing child pornography.

Johnny adapted, over time, to life with foster parents. He worked hard and got a university education. But he harboured a terrible grudge against public intellectuals, whom he blamed for wrecking his happy childhood.

One day, he met Professor Clive Hamilton, who had written the notorious article in the Australian all those years ago.

His first thought was to whack Hamilton over the head with a gigantic porcelain dildo, but he decided, on reflection, that would be too kind. So he devised a terrible plan.

Soon afterwards, when Professor Hamilton was at lunch, John Normal slipped into the famous man’s office. He inserted a DVD into the computer drive and put some files onto the academic’s computer. Then he left the office, as unseen as his arrival.

Two days later, the Child Protection Squad, acting on an anonymous tip-off, raided Dr Hamilton’s office and took away his computer.

Paradoxically, they found an article Dr Hamilton had just completed about the epidemic of child pornography cases – next to the folder where they also came across some of the worst material they’d ever seen.

It would cost the elderly academic his job and ensure his permanent inclusion on the Registry of Sex Offenders.

Dr Robert Faurisson

I was surprised to see the recent interview with Dr. Faurisson (below) reproduced in full at the Nizkor Project Website archives.

It is laudable that a website usually dedicated to upholding the mainstream narrative of World War Two uses its own web server to promote free speech on this contentious issue. I’ve reproduced the same article here, in full (photos and captions added):

Robert Faurisson’s Historic Testimony

[Foreword by the interviewer, Mourad Ouabass]

January 12th 2009 Interview given by Professor Robert Faurisson to the Algerian Arabic-language daily Echorouk (Dawn). English version.

“The Holocaust” is a historical lie. At the very height of the Zionist massacre of which Gaza Palestinians are now the victims, Professor Robert Faurisson states once more that there was never any genocide of the Jews during the Second World War and that the Nazis, under Hitler’s rule, never perpetrated what today is called “the Holocaust”.

Since he began expressing his convictions publicly the Jewish lobby has never ceased attacking and persecuting him for his historical research and his opinions. I first met him just over two years ago at the international conference on “the Holocaust” held in Tehran. Since then we?ve met and corresponded a number of times [1].

With Israel’s war against Gaza, Professor Faurisson has once again opposed and stood up to the Jews in disclosing and expounding on their aims, and on their baseness. I’ve asked him to grant an interview to Echorouk and he has readily agreed. In his reading of the situation, Professor Faurisson foresees, in the long term, defeat for the Jews in their occupation of Palestine; those Jews will experience the fate of all invaders. Interview conducted by Mourad Ouabass.

Who are you, Robert Faurisson?

Professor Dr. Robert Faurisson I’m about to turn 80 years of age. I was born near London in 1929 to a French father and a Scottish mother. I’m both a British subject and a French citizen. I’ve been a university professor. I taught at the Sorbonne and at a university in Lyon. I earned the agrégation (a degree obtained after the highest competitive examination) in modern and classical languages and literature (French, Latin, Greek) and hold a doctorate in literature and the social sciences (which encompass history). My two specialities have been “modern and contemporary French literature” and the “appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media)”. I have taken a special interest in Second World War propaganda.

Can you briefly inform Algerian readers of your research work, the aim of which has been to revise the history of what today is called “the Holocaust” of the Jews?

At the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a court made up of the victors of the recent war accused a vanquished Germany 1) of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews of Europe; 2) of having, to that purpose, designed, built and used weapons of mass destruction called, particularly, “gas chambers”; 3) of having, essentially with those weapons but by other means as well, caused the death of six million Jews.

How have you revised those accusations?

To back up that triple accusation, repeated for the past sixty years and more by all the big Western media, no evidence capable of withstanding serious examination has ever been produced. I’ve therefore come to the following conclusion: The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

What effects have there been of your publishing the findings from your historical research, which conflict with the generally held belief in what is called “the Holocaust”?

Dr Faurisson after a beating by unknown assailants. Was it a 'hate crime'?

My life became hell from the day in July 1974 when I was denounced by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth. From 1974 to today I have suffered ten physical assaults, I’ve had countless court cases and convictions and have ended up being deprived of the right to teach at university. In France, in order to silence the “revisionists” that we are, the Jewish lobby got a special law passed, the Fabius-Gayssot Act of July 13, 1990, modelled on an Israeli law of July 1986. Laurent Fabius is a Socialist member of parliament, extremely rich and a Jew, whilst Jean-Claude Gayssot is a Communist MP. The Fabius-Gayssot Act provides for up to a year?s imprisonment, a fine of E45,000 and still other sanctions for those who “challenge” the alleged “Holocaust”. In nearly all the Western world, with or without any special law, revisionism is severely punished. A certain number of my revisionist colleagues or friends have been or are now in prison, some for long years, especially in Germany and Austria, countries with which no [real] peace treaty has yet been signed following the end of hostilities in 1945 and whose governments remain subject to the will of the victors of the Second World War.

Has “the Holocaust” become a worldwide taboo?

In the Western world, people have the right to challenge all religions, except the religion of “the Holocaust”. One may make fun of God, Jesus, Mohamed but not of what Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel and Simone Veil have had to say about the alleged genocide or the alleged gas chambers. Auschwitz has become a holy shrine. Pilgrimages to it are organised. Visitors see the alleged relics of the alleged gassing victims: shoes, eyeglasses, hair, and steel cans that once contained Zyklon B, an insecticide presented as having been the substance used to kill the Jews whereas it was actually used for disinfecting clothing or buildings in camps ravaged by typhus epidemics. We are told that the Germans sought “the final solution of the Jewish question” in Europe and that those words concealed, apparently, their desire to exterminate the Jews. That’s false. There mustn’t be any cheating here. The Germans, in reality, sought “a final TERRITORIAL solution of the Jewish question”. They wanted to expel the Jews to a territory that would then be their own. It?s accurate to say that before the war they thought, for a time, that the territory might be in Palestine but, very quickly, they reckoned that solution would be impossible, and that it must be discarded out of consideration for “the noble and valiant Arab people” (sic! I guarantee that those were their words).

What really happened, then?

During the war the Germans, keen to neutralise the Jews, placed a certain number of them in concentration or labour camps to wait out the conflict. They put off the definitive solution till after the war?s end. During the war, and up to the last months thereof, they said to the Allies: “You marvel at the Jews, do you? Take them, then. We’re ready to send you as many European Jews as you want but on one express condition: that they remain in Britain until the end of the war; on no pretence must they go to Palestine; the Palestinian people have already suffered so much at the hands of Jews that it would be an ‘indecency’ (sic) to add to their martyrdom”.

With that you prompt me to ask you your opinion on the massacre now going on in Gaza.

Today, more than ever, the Palestinian people are enduring an appalling plight. The Israeli army, after having inflicted on them “Operation Grapes of Wrath”, then “Operation Jenin Defensive Shield” followed by “Operation Rainbow” and “Operation Day of Repentance”, is now inflicting “Operation Cast Lead” on them.

In vain! In vain for, in my view, the State of Israel will not live even as long as the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem did, that is, 89 years. Most of the Jews there will quit those lands in the same panic as the French colonists quitting Algiers in 1962 or the American army abandoning Saigon in 1975. Palestine will become once more a free country where Moslems, Christians, Jews and others will be able to live together. At least that’s the wish I myself hold, I who for 34 years have been treated in France like a sort of Palestinian. I said this on December 11th and 12th, 2006, during the conference on “the Holocaust” organised in Tehran under the aegis of President Ahmadinejad: we all have the means to help in the liberation of Palestine. These means consist in making known to the whole world the findings of revisionist research.

All credibility must be taken away from the alleged “Holocaust”, which has become the number one weapon of Zionism and the State of Israel; this lie is the sword and shield of that State. It would be absurd to try to defend against the Israelis’ military armament whilst sparing their number one worldwide propaganda weapon.

Survivor of the 2009 Israeli bombing of Gaza

I’ve recently learnt that still another court case against you looms because of your persistence in challenging as is forbidden in France – the reality of the Jewish “Holocaust”. When will your troubles in the law-courts ever end? After all, you’re about to reach the age of 80.

“Whoever allows himself to claim that the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are a historical reality is, whether he likes it or not, giving support to a horrid lie that has become the number one war propaganda weapon of the State of Israel, a colonialist, racist and imperialist State. Let whoever has the nerve to support the ‘Holocaust’ myth look at his hands! His hands are red with the blood of Palestinian children!”

[1] The first interview with Professor Faurisson was published in Echorouk on December 27, 2006 and can be found on the Internet here (in Arabic).