From Fredrick Töben
19 February 2005
In view of today's news report that 10 persons carrying Australian Passports left Beirut airport soon after the massive bomb killed former Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri, and upon arrival in Sydney were sniffed at by dogs who smelled something, but were released - thereby deflecting from an immediate conclusion they were Mossad agents involved in the detonation of the Beirut bomb
- and considering the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat that was kept quiet for two weeks by Howard and Downer's office, a man who may have been involved in the New Zealand Passport rackets, as modelled on Mossad's Canadian passport rorts
- and considering the Cornelia Rau case that also involves the use of a false passport
- and considering the fuss made over alleged 'terrorist' and Guantanamo Bay prisoner, and Australian citizen, Mamdouh Habib's assertions that Australian personnel witnessed his torture, and Howard's, Downer's, Hill's and Ruddock's denial, and their passive attitude towards David Hick's continued imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay
- and considering the fact that I am again receiving threatening post-midnight telephone calls, something that is a regular occurrence when things go bad for Israel
- indicates that Revisionists will most likely be given media prominence again - so as to take the heat off the Jews involved in this matter, and thereby directing public fear, anger and hatred upon the Revisionists.
The following matter will give comfort to anyone coming into the Jewish/Zionist/Anglo-American firing line to stand firm and remain strong and resolute - and to see the thing through. The historical pattern is clear, and it is taken from Germar Rudolf's forthcoming book: Lectures on the Holocaust:
Z: I cannot imagine that for 50 years Germany’s leading citizens, be it in business, publishing, culture or politics, have only been fearful and ignorant, or enemies of the German nation. How can so many people slavishly and blindly follow such nonsense?
R: Let me explain this apparent problem with an historical parallel that was first suggested by Dr Arthur Butz, and which I shall summarize here.
This historical parallel will also indicate how matters will develop for us. I make reference to the so-called ‘Donation of Constantine’. It must be the most successful documentary forgery in European history. Around 800 AD the Catholic Church asserted that King Constantine I , after converting to Christianity, handed over his worldly empire “the city of Rome, all Italian provinces, towns, as well as the western regions” as well as “the four large holy places of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople” to the Pope, and granted the Pope some further privileges. So as to eliminate any doubt about this matter it stated that Constantine would transfer his own capital city “in the province of Byzantium” where a city shall emerge that shall be named after us”, i.e. Constantinople.
Z: But Byzantium – that was Constantinople’s first name – had existed long before Constantine was converted.
R: Well noted. This is one of the two main points of evidence that the document is a forgery. The second is that according to all available evidence the imperial society in Italy continued under Constantine and Sylvester, as well as under their successors. Although the forgery was so blatant, the authenticity of it was not questioned until the 15th century, this in spite of the power and the massive misuse of that power by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Only in 1433 there appeared a justified critique of it written by Johann von Kues, alias Cusanua, the former deacon of St Florinus in Koblenz. His work De concordanticatholica did not cause consternation, perhaps because it was written in a dispassionate style. This serenity, however, lasted until 1440 when the passionate and detailed work of Lorenzo Valla appeared – De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatioe. He was the one who for the first time used forensic methods that exposed the forgery by, for example, looking at Roman coins after the Constantine era, which were produced not in the name of the Pope but in the name of the emperor. Valla’s critical revisionist method was at that time revolutionary. With the rise of book printing at the end of the 15th century Valla’s writings were distributed far and wide, and it formed one of the pillars on which Martin Luther and his supporters based their Reformation. Martin Luther declared that Valla’s work had convinced him that the pope was the embodiment of the Anti-Christ.
This historical example throws up two questions that also arise in the Holocaust-Lie matter:
1. If the lie was so blatant, why was it not quickly exposed as such?
The answer lies primarily in the power that the church at that time possessed. It decided what was permitted to be discussed, and it also decided what information people received. The actual learned individuals, who could have tackled the topic critically, were also honored members of the church, if not of the church then certainly dependent upon the church. Thus the prerequisites for “politically correct” stupidity had been fulfilled.
2. If a fearless and enquiring intellect can recognize so easily the Donation of Constantine, then why was a detailed work such as Valla’s needed, an argumentative over-kill, in order to eliminate the myth?
Vallas’s work contained intellectual material of such quality that the breakthrough could not be stopped. Collectors of coins gained prominence, specialists of Latin language and grammar felt encouraged to participate in the debate, experts on Roman history felt involved, church historians wanted to add their bit. In summary, voices from all sectors of society began to be heard amidst a massive political upheaval.
The analogy to the “Holocaust” legend is striking:
a) Academics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, who did not see the obvious, remind us of the academics of our time. In view of the draconian social and criminal threats against dissidents, there is hardly anyone who has broken free of the Pavlovian conditioning and is prepared to become a martyr.
b) The legend of the Donation was exposed as a forgery at a time when the Papacy was subjected to strong criticism, when it was fashionable to criticize the Catholic Church. Similarly the “Holocaust” lie will be exposed when those upholding the post-World War II order and Zionism do not need it any more.
c) A further parallel is the excessive attention to detail on Valla’s part, much like that of the Revisionists. In both cases one can speak of “overkill”. The people of the Renaissance simply didn’t realize that the handing over of power from emperor to pope never happened, and we don’t seem to notice that the Jews after World War II are still there, and that alone indicates the “Holocaust” never happened.
Apparently we have to investigate all possible details, which may appear fanciful to our successors. For example, we are not satisfied that the Zyklon B allegedly used to kill Jews in Auschwitz was a mere pest control compound. No, we even have to exhaustively analyze the chemical aspects of this question!
In time we shall see how all this impacts upon the Palestinians, but Revisionists showed the way!
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute