ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                           No 239

A Geoff Muirden Book Review

EXACTITUDE: Festschrift for Robert Faurisson to his 75th Birthday. 

Edited by Robert H. Countess, Christian Lindtner and Germar Rudolf. Theses & Dissertations Press,

PO Box 257768, Chicago, Illinois, USA 60625, Published 2004. 138 p. ISBN 1-59148-004-3. paperback $US15.


This book, written by leading revisionists worldwide, in honour of Robert Faurisson, gives ample and sympathetic treatment to this man who has been a "guiding light" for revisionists and has suffered much for his principles. "Exactitude" is an excellent title, giving Faurisson's regard for accuracy without emotional distortion. The writers concede that Rassinier was the man who was the father of revisionism, but Faurisson provided principles to build on his foundations. Nevertheless, Faurisson gives tribute to his fellow revisionist: "Rassinier, who died in 1967, had already said EVERYTHING of the essentials." (p.122) It is an act of generosity and integrity to acknowledge the contribution of a fellow "labourer in the vineyard", and Faurisson does so.

Some of Faurisson's concepts have an elegant simplicity: "show me or draw me a gas chamber" draws attention to fundamentals that can be neglected in more elaborate theories. His quip, "no holes, no holocaust", disproves the allegation that the demolished remains of Crematorium II in Birkenau have holes through which Zyklon-B pellets could be poured.

The modern saying: "Keep It Simple, Stupid" (KISS) emphasizes the need for simple ideas on which more complex understanding can be built. These basics are the foundation stones on which buildings can be constructed, and the more elaborate the structure, the more solid the foundations must be. Faurisson has never lost sight of this and he has conveyed this to his pupils.

Faurisson functions mainly as a "facilitator" of other peoples' research and is not just a lone researcher. If it were not so, he would be "a voice crying in the wilderness". His work is synergistic because he has inspired other people to follow his example. He cannot be judged by his own work alone, but also, like a good teacher, by those he has inspired to carry on the work

All the contributors acknowledge Faurisson as mentor, one who can be personally amicable but hard on sloppy thinking and emotional appeals that cloud "hard evidence". He has a feeling for the physical situation, trying to visualise how the claimed "gas chambers" would have worked in practice, and rejects emotional appeals based on lurid fantasies. This approach is one that has appealed to a variety of individuals.

Dr Christian Lindtner writes an excellent introduction championing free enquiry as part of a liberated and wholesome state of mind, unchained by superstition, but aware of the struggle it takes to correct the multitude of false beliefs and thus tolerant of others' difficulties in climbing out of the intellectual mire. It is true, as he says:  "who, apart from a very small minority, cares about radical freedom for the mind, after all?" (p. 10) This minority makes breakthroughs which most people will misunderstand or reject, but this is the (heavy) price of   progress.

Dr Lindtner writes a chapter claiming that Buddhist ideals underly the New Testament Gospels, and suggests that the Greek language of the Gospels is derived from Sanskrit originals, a  revisionist thesis bold enough to face an uphill battle for acceptance from theologians, although he is less likely to be imprisoned and accused of "anti-Semitism" for this viewpoint. His thesis is unpopular but less hazardous than those querying the "Holocaust".

Arthur Butz is the author of the classic: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which covered the essentials of the Holocaust story in lucid prose, (now issued in a revised edition with a new preface.) He pays homage to the continuing inspiration of Faurisson, recognizes the extent of his ongoing contribution but calls for more adequate understanding and compilation of his work. This is less of a problem now that Faurisson's work for 1974-1998 has been issued in French in four volumes (awaiting translation?)

Reality itself is multi-faceted, and each contributor to this volume has something distinctive to offer. A picture is worth a thousand words, so Germar Rudolf is right to enliven us with cartoons that say more than words alone. Maybe most powerful is the sketch of the lone revisionist "black sheep" going against the tide of sheep who rush forward to plunge, lemming-like, to their destruction (p. 104) symbolic of where our society is headed.

Carlo Mattogno writes how Faurisson helped inspire Italian revisionism and states that "Faurisson's significant contribution has been to supply (revisionism) with a method and a scientific base."(p.61) This Italian writer welcomes individual clashes among individual revisionists as a sign of healthy dissent, without which revisionism would become ossified. Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf have made significant contributions to improving the Leuchter Report, itself a pioneering work recommended by Faurisson, but which requires "fine tuning" to satisfy "exactitude".

Revisionists, as a minority, have to face the opposition of imposed majority opinions, not limited to the "Holocaust". Carl O. Nordling mentions some accepted "dogmas" that have become so well established that dissent is difficult, such as the "Big Bang" theory among astronomers; the general rejection of the possibility that someone else wrote "Shakespeare"; academic acceptance of Margaret Mead's false "sociology" about the "promiscuous" life of Samoans; and suggests that despite historians' image of Stalin as "peacemaker", Stalin  signed a "Peace Pact" with Hitler to mislead the German leader into believing that there would be no war over German invasion of Poland, since Hitler  thought England and France would not declare war without the support of Russia. Stalin nevertheless operated in the full knowledge that German  invasion  would lead to war and that, as the combatants became

exhausted, Stalin could invade Europe to seize it without resistance. Dr Nordling's thesis on Stalin is strengthened by recent writings showing that  when Hitler invaded Russia it was  to forestall a pre-emptive strike by Russia which he knew was coming.

Dr Toben is the contributor that I personally know the best and his penchant for philosophy and scientific analysis shines through.  A disciple of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperitive, Dr Toben advocated it despite the attempt of an opponent, Jeremy Jones, (the Jew with the "goy" name), to substitute Categorical "Hurt Feelings". He speaks against a Cartesian mind-body split and wants to unify both into an integrated whole as part of his methodology, combining it with Faurisson's "exactitude". He combined the theoretical with the practical when he scrambled under the ruins at Birkenau, in vain, to see if the missing "holes" could be found. Dr Toben  knows that slavery of the mind is as pernicious as slavery of the body. He says, "any thinking person is a revisionist."(p.121). But one must be free to think.

Ernst Zündel writes from his prison cell to announce that he became a "Faurisson disciple" and remained one.  Considering that Zündel has been held for two years without charge, with threats to his health, and reduced to writing with a pencil stub, his tone is remarkably jaunty and indicates that his head is bloody but unbowed and he retains his respect for his mentor. Robert H. Countess documents the significance of the Zündel case.

A man, such as Robert Faurisson, who  can inspire such influence and respect from such a variety of different individuals worldwide must indeed be extraordinary. He is an illustration of the fact that one person can make a difference, if he can inspire other people to follow his lead. He put the "vision" in "Revisionism". And without a vision, revisionism will perish.



Sally Neighbour, ABC Four Corners Journalist. 10 February  2005 

While Australia’s attention has been focused on tsunami-ravaged Aceh, elsewhere in Indonesia – in the capital Jakarta – the trial of the accused terrorist mastermind Abu Bakar Bashir has been unfolding….and is now nearing an end.

Last week Bashir took the stand to present his defence, denying any knowledge of the terrorist attacks he’s charged over – the October 2002 bombings in Bali and the attack on the Marriott hotel in Jakarta in August 2003.

Bashir’s self-serving denials are familiar….but the fact is that after more than three months of testimony, the Indonesian prosecutors have come up with no hard evidence that he was involved in these attacks. As a result, the leader of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah may soon once again be a free man.

The case against the JI chief – on the main charges that he incited the bombings – looked tenuous from the start. The best evidence the Crown has on Bali is a conversation Bashir supposedly had in 2002 with the infamous grinning bomber, Amrozi, now on death row. Amrozi is said to have asked Bashir, “what if my friends and I were to hold an event in Bali?”….and Bashir is said to have responded, “It’s up to you, you’re the ones who know the situation on the ground.”

It’s hardly prima-facie evidence. And when the man who supposedly witnessed the conversation was brought in to recount it, the story evaporated. The witness – a friend of Amrozi’s called Mubarok, who’s serving life – would not give evidence at all. Instead he stood silent in the witness box, refusing to testify against his leader.

It was just one in a series of blows for the prosecution, which have seen the trial descend into near farce at times. One after the other, JI witnesses have withdrawn their statements, recanted their evidence and refused to incriminate Bashir.

Amrozi’s brother Ali Imron, another of the Bali bombers who’s also serving life, was supposed to have been a star witness. But as Ali Imron arrived to testify, Bashir strode across the courtroom to kiss him and shake his hand. Ali Imron then took to the witness box and insisted repeatedly that Bashir had had no role in or knowledge of the bombings.

The strongest evidence so far has been the testimony of one of his former lieutenants, who described a visit Bashir made to JI’s military training camp in the southern Philippines, when he allegedly presided over a graduation ceremony for JI recruits, spoke of having met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and urged his followers to wage jihad. But like those before him, this witness too, was unable to link Bashir directly with acts of terrorism.

While some of the witnesses may well be lying, the evidence overall is consistent with what we know about Bashir’s role as spiritual leader of JI. Over the years his role seems to have become less hands-on. At his first trial in 2003 there was compelling evidence that Bashir had personally approved earlier operations, such as the bombings of dozens of Christian churches across Indonesia on Christmas Eve in 2000 and a plan to kill the former president Megawati. But as JI’s operations chief Hambali gained the ascendancy, it appears that Bashir himself became less directly involved in the planning and execution of attacks, perhaps in part for his own protection.

The person who would best know wether Bashir sanctioned the Bali Bombings is Hambali himself, who was arrested in Thailand in 2003 and is now a prisoner of the United States. Regrettably, despite repeated requests from the Indonesian authorities, the US has refused to hand him over, either to testify or stand trial.

So how will this landmark case end? Indonesia’s notoriously corrupt and arbitrary justice system is always hard to predict. But on the evidence so far, Bashir may well be acquitted again and set free. Perhaps more likely, he may be found guilty on the lesser charge of leading JI and sentenced to a few years.

If he’s convicted of terrorism, it will merely confirm the belief of his supporters that the case has been a set up all along, the result of pressure from the US and Australia, which Bashir has branded the “enemies of Islam”. And Bashir’s status will be elevated even further, to that of a man seen to have been unjustly convicted and imprisoned for his beliefs.



The Dei today

The Independent, Jan. 17, 2005, Peter Stanford,

It wields huge influence in the Vatican yet is condemned as a sinister and ruthless Catholic sect. Now the fundamentalist group is taking control of a British parish for the first time - and one of its members is in the Cabinet. Peter Stanford gains rare access to the closed world of Opus Dei

From the outside, Netherhall House in Nutley Terrace is a bland 1960s student block, tucked away in one of the maze of streets that tumble down the hill from London's leafy Hampstead Heath to the A41 dual carriageway. But behind the unassuming facade, Netherhall House is one of the few public faces of Opus Dei, the secretive Catholic sect regarded by many outsiders as sinister and misguided.

Last week, for the first time since the organisation was founded in 1928, Opus Dei was given its own parish by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster. And in April, Father Gerard Sheehan - one of 17 British Opus Dei priests in Britain - will take over pastoral care of St Thomas More Church in Swiss Cottage, north London.

But this respectability within the Catholic Church has been achieved against a background of controversy. With the publication of Dan Brown's bestseller The Da Vinci Code last year, Opus Dei emerged as less trustworthy than Satan and about as welcome in the wider church as the serpent in the garden of Eden. The publicity helped to transform this corner of north-west London into a tourist destination. You can now book (for around $3,000 including flight from the States and accommodation) Da Vinci Code tours.

"We've had coaches of Americans turning up outside, standing there staring through our windows," says Jack Valero, a Spaniard with a Kilroy tan in his early forties. Valero is the public face of Opus Dei in Britain. "You can imagine what they must think is going on inside, but I'm afraid they'd be very disappointed if they could see what you're seeing."

Valero is taking me on my own private tour of Netherhall House, and, as he implies, there's not a dead body, a scheming albino monk to rival The Da Vinci Code's Brother Silas, or a lost descendant of Mary Magdalene in sight. Indeed there are no women at all because this is an all-male facility. Opus Dei likes to keep the sexes apart - save for when Netherhall needs cleaning, when female members are permitted to come in to tidy up after the chaps.What you do see a lot - in the chapel, in the library, in the meeting room - are sugary portraits of Opus Dei's founder, Monsignor Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, a Spaniard who died in 1985 and was declared a saint by Pope John Paul II in 2002.

The Polish pontiff evidently has a very different impression from The Da Vinci Code readers of this 85,000-member-strong international organisation started by Escriva in the time of Franco. For John Paul it is a bastion of true Catholicism, accorded by him the unique status of a personal prelature, putting it in effect above Catholic law and structures, dependent solely on the Pope. There is an irony in an organisation that prides itself on following to the letter Catholic teaching being in effect given its own Get Out of Jail Free card.

Yet from the Vatican's point of view, it represents an extremely good deal. In Opus Dei it has found, to its evident relief, a strong, mainly non-clerical (only two per cent of members are priests) voice echoing its own opposition to contraception, sex outside marriage, abortion, condoms and stem-cell research amid a chorus of indifference or downright opposition to such teachings from most Western Catholics. When these a la carte Catholics demand reform of the official line, the Pope has only to point to Opus Dei to show that not everyone rejects the set menu.

And John Paul is not alone in his appreciation. Ruth Kelly, the new Secretary of State for Education, is reportedly an associate of Opus Dei. She is certainly listed (alongside William Dalrymple, Rocco Forte and Stephen Pound MP) as one of the guest speakers in the Netherhall House annual report.

In the face of protests that her links with such a conservative religious body make her unsuitable to be Britain's headmistress, Kelly has so far remained silent. Opus Dei meanwhile refuses to give out information about its members - exacerbating the impression of a Mason-like secrecy - but those who have met Kelly in private confirm that she is enthusiastic in her praise for the organisation, anxious to put her associates in touch with it (part of the duties of members is to recruit among their social contacts) and utterly humourless when challenged about its more bizarre practices. Some numinaries, as members are known, choose for example to wear a medieval metal chain with spikes round their thigh, with the spikes sticking into them, as a way of mortifying their sinful flesh.

Part of the extreme reaction to Kelly's connection to Opus Dei recalls the suspicion that lasted long after the Reformation that Catholics can never be loyal servants of the crown, that they are in hock to an overseas power with an agenda to force their extreme views on the rest of society. Today, a mention of Opus Dei, thanks in no small measure to The Da Vinci Code, plays readily to those age-old fears. It is foreign, Spanish to boot, so virtually a second Armada. It is secretive. It is part of the Pope's inner circle. And it has an apparently bottomless purse for buying up prime locations around London.

It all chimes with the worst stereotypes of Catholic subversives from Guy Fawkes onwards. In his obituaries, it was claimed that Cardinal Basil Hume, the gentle Benedictine monk who was head of the English Catholic Church until his death in 1999, had lain to rest such ghosts, but the Kelly affair shows they still seem to have some life in them.

However, it is around Opus Dei's recruitment measures that the most pressing concern is felt. Netherhall House, opened in 1967, offers upmarket accommodation to male students at London universities. Its residents come from 30 countries and only half are Catholics, Valero tells me proudly, as if producing the killer fact that disproves every allegation against Opus Dei. Yet this is accommodation with strings attached. First, there's the sort of Catholic regulations in force that turned Ireland against the church in the 1960s. No girls above the bottom stair (unless they've got a mop in their hand).

And then there's the odd, antiseptic feel to the place, as if all life has been drained out of it. Given that this is a student hostel, it is unnaturally quiet and tidy. I can't help thinking that it looks as if it has been arranged to look normal when really it is concealing terrible secrets. But I've clearly been reading too many Dan Brown books. Valero, for his part, makes no bones that the hostel is a kind of bait. Fishing is a term commonly used within Opus Dei for its crusade to attract young Catholics into its arms. Give them a comfortable place to live, show them Catholicism at its best and hope that the experience will inspire grateful residents to join up. "We hope simply being here and living as we do will enthuse them," is how he puts it.

For Opus Dei this is simply good old-fashioned evangelisation and they have no intention of apologising for it. Catholicism, they point out, was founded as a missionary faith, even if most modern mass-goers overlook the imperative to spread the Good News. For others, though, such activities are what gives the organisation, and by association the rest of the church, a bad name. Cardinal Hume was so concerned at its activities in Westminster diocese in the 1980s that he issued it with four recommendations. These demanded that no one under 18 should be allowed to join, that all recruits should discuss fully their decision beforehand with parents or guardians and be free at any time to leave without pressure, and that all Opus projects be clearly identified as such. Hume was a cautious man and would only have risked such a public clash with the papal cheerleaders if he had clear evidence that Opus Dei was doing all the things that he outlawed. My own experience in the 1980s was of meeting several youngsters who had arrived in the big city, felt utterly lost and were therefore vulnerable enough to rush into the arms of the Opus Dei student who had befriended them and offered them a friendly place to live, only later to regret it and embark on a damaging struggle to get free. It turned them off Catholicism for life.

Valero pooh-poohs such tales. He is a polished PR man. Before dedicating himself full-time to Opus Dei, he ran a successful computer company. He insists that all the mistakes of the past are now history, that Opus Dei has changed, but the opportunism certainly remains. So, for instance, when the Da Vinci Code trippers turn up outside, they are now invited in for tea. Officially it is to dispel the caricature of Opus Dei produced by Dan Brown - the courts might have been a more effective route - but you cannot help but see the potential for a bit of fishing in such apparently casual encounters.

Tour over, Valero ushers me into a side room with plush green leather chairs, and produces coffee and biscuits while swatting away with a smile the list of charges made against Opus Dei. I state these boldly, just in case he has his fishing rod hidden anywhere. It is said, I suggest, that you have too much money. He hands me a set of published accounts for one of the Opus Dei trusts in the UK showing receipts of ?2.5m last year and reserves of ?12m. It is a lot, he admits, but there is a lot to do.

What about the $50m office block you have just built in downtown New York with separate entrances for men and women, I ask. Nothing very secret about that, he counters, and looks straight into my eyes.

Only twice during our conversation does he avert his gaze. The first comes when we get on to the founder. Some who knew him say that he was a fraud who lied about everything from his real name to the extent of the Holocaust. His diaries, they say, were written with a view to presenting himself as saintly when the reality was that his actual interest in life was power and advancement in the church, a process completed by his followers after his death when they spent a lot of money on fast-tracking his cause for canonisation in record time.

"Nothing makes me angry any more," Valero says, staring out of the window, "but this thing about the Holocaust still does. It is all based on the account of one man. I don't know of anyone else who heard the founder say such things. It is a lie." The one man, it should be pointed out, is an ex-Opus Dei member who left and is now a senior priest in Westminster diocese. And one reason why the charge has stuck down the years is the context of Escriva's life and work. Opus Dei rose to prominence first in Spain under Franco's Fascist regime. Several ministers were closely linked with it.

Later I ask Valero about his own route into Opus Dei. His father was a member, he says, and at 15 he visited Rome and heard Escriva speak. It made such a powerful impression on him that at 18 he joined. He is not a priest, but has taken a vow of celibacy. Why, I ask. Again he is staring out of the window. "Because it leaves me free to travel where I am needed." But couldn't you do that with a family? "Not at short notice."

I cannot decide if my questions are unnecessarily prying, or perfectly reasonable in an effort to understand the strange world of Opus Dei. Its very name means work of God, and for members, life, work and relationships are all tools of evangelisation. Every encounter is a chance to make a new convert. You can see how a family would get in your way. And how prized a Cabinet seat will be.

So, saints or schemers? Good people under attack for being out of step with an increasingly secular society, or a cult-like sect with an ever-increasing network of well-placed members aiming to subvert the church and society? It may disappoint the sightseers, but it's probably neither.

Manipulative? Yes, especially in recruitment. Zealous? Undoubtedly, and that always unsettles us in such live-and-let-live times. Sinister? Probably more like unpleasant and sly in its casual sexism and determination to convert. Dangerous? Only in the same way that an overactive teenager is dangerous. Too much enthusiasm, too many black-and-white answers, too little tolerance. But teenagers grow out of it, and compared to the Opus Dei I knew back in the 1980s, there are certainly fewer pimples.

Peter Stanford was editor of The Catholic Herald from 1988 to 1992.


[History of Art professor at Oxford University, Dr Martin Kemp, claimed that Da Vinci “hated mystical mumbo jumbo, and would have no taste for this” fictional account of his life as presented by Dan Brown in his book, The Da Vinci Code.

In 2006 Professor Kemp will be presenting an exhibition that attempts to show the universality of Da Vinci’s mind: The Universal Leonardo Project, ABC RN, 10 February 2005.

- Brown considers the Star of David the ultimate male-female symbol, and Catholicism as denying the feminine, all a response to Mel Gibson’s The Passion?

- and thanks to Christine for lending me your copy of Brown’s book, which I shall return presently – Fredrick.]



Taboo topic Eugenics

Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization, Chapman & Hall, London 1925, pp.238-245.

"If social stability can be maintained and a cataclysm averted, there is every reason to believe that our world will soon take a decided turn for the better. The new biological revelations is already accepted by large numbers of thinking men and women all over the civilized world, and when it becomes firmly fixed in the popular consciousness it will work a literally amazing transformation in the ordering of the world's affairs.

For race betterment is such an intensely practical matter! When peoples come to realize that the quality of the population is the source of all their prosperity, progress, security, and even existence; when they realize that a single genius may be worth more in actual sovereigns than a dozen gold-mines, while, conversely, racial decadence spells material impoverishment and cultural decay; when such things are really believed we shall see eugenics actually moulding social programmes and political policies.

And, as already stated, there is much evidence to show this may happen sooner than is now imagined. Many believers in race betterment are unduly pessimistic. Of course, their pessimism is quite natural. Realizing as they do the supreme importance of the eugenic idea, its progress to them unconscionably slow.  To the student of history, however, its progress seems extraordinarily rapid. Only twenty years ago eugenics was virtually unknown outside of a few scientific circles. To-day it has won a firm footing with the intellectual élite of every civilized land, and has gained the interested attention of public opinion. History shows that when an idea has reached this point it tends to spread with ever-accelerating rapidity. In my opinion, then, eugenists, whether labouring in the abstract field of research for the further elucidation of the idea or engaged in enlightening public opinion, may one and all look forward hopefully to the operation of a sort of “law of increasing return” that will yield results as surprising as they are beneficent as the next few decades roll on.

The one deadly peril to the cause of race betterment is the possibility of social disruption by the anti-social elements – instinctively hostile to eugenics as they are to every other phase of progressive civilization. If this peril can be averted, the triumph of race betterment is practically certain, because eugenics can “deliver the goods.”  When public opinion once realizes this, public opinion will be not merely willing but anxious that the goods be delivered. When society realizes the incalculable value of superior stocks, it will take precious good care that its racial treasures are preserved and fostered. Superior stock will then be cherished, not only for its high average value, but because it is also the seed-bed from which alone can arise those rare personalities of genius who tower like mountain peaks above the human plain and to whose creative influence progress is primarily due.

The people which fosters its superior stocks will be thus twice blessed. In the first place, such sticks will produce, generation after generation, an unfailing supply of men and women of ability, of energy, of civic worth, who will leaven society and advance every field of human endeavour. And, in addition to all this, those same stocks will from time to time produce a “genius” – one of those infinitely rare but infinitely precious minds which change man’s destiny and whose names reverberate athwart the ages.

“Every race requires leaders. These leaders appear from time to time, and enough is now known about eugenics to show that their appearance is frequently predictable, not accidental. It is possible to have them appear more frequently; and, in addition, to raise the level of the whole race, making the entire nation happier and more useful. These are the great tasks of eugenics. America needs more families like that old Puritan strain which is one of eugenics’ familiar examples:

‘At their head stands Jonathan Edwards, and behind him an array of his descendants numbering in the year 1900, 1,394 … ‘.

Such is the record of the Jonathan Edwards strain. Now compare it with the Jukes strain. Edwards vs. Jukes! Faced by such evidence, can public opinion remain much longer blind to the enormous innate difference between human stock …

The eugenic ideal is thus seen to be an ever-perfecting super race. Not the ‘superman”  of Nietzsche-that brilliant yet baleful vision of a master caste, blooming like a gorgeous but parasitic orchid on a rotting trunk of servile degradation; but a super race, cleansing itself throughout by the elimination of its defects, and raising itself throughout by the cultivation of its qualities.

Such a race will imply a new civilization. Of course, even under the most favourable circumstances, neither this race nor this civilization can come to-day or to=morrow – perhaps not for many generations; because, like all really enduring creations, they will be the products of a progressive, evolutionary process, not of a flaming revolution or numbing reaction.

Yet this evolutionary process, however gradual, must ultimately produce changes almost beyond our dreams. Every phase of human existence will be transformed: laws and customs, arts and science, ideas and ideals, even man’s conception of the Infinite.

How shall we characterize this society of the future? I believe it may be best visualized by one word: Neo-Aristocracy. The ideal of race perfection combines and harmonizes into a higher synthesis the hitherto conflicting ideas of aristocracy and democracy. I am here referring not to the specific political aspects which those ideas have at various times assumed, but to their broader aspects as philosophies of life and conduct.

Viewed in this fundamental light, we see democracy based upon the concept of human similarity, and aristocracy based upon the concept of human differentiation. Of course, both concepts are, in a sense, valid. Compared to the vast differences between mankind and other life forms, human differences sink into insignificance and mankind appears a substantial unity. Compared with each other, the wide differences between men themselves stand out, and mankind becomes an almost infinite diversity.

If these distinctions had been clearly recognized, democracy and aristocracy would have been viewed as parts of a larger truth, and there might have been no deep antagonism between them. Unfortunately, both concepts were formulated long ago, when science was in its infancy and when the laws of life were virtually unknown. Accordingly, both were founded largely on false notions: democracy upon the fallacy of natural equality: aristocracy upon the fallacy of artificial inequality.

Thus based on error, both democracy and aristocracy worked badly in practice: democracy tending to produce a destructive, levelling equality; aristocracy tending to produce an unjust, oppressive inequality. This merely increased the antagonism between the two systems; because one was continually invoked to cure the harm ascribed exclusively to the defeated party, instead of being diagnosed as a joint product.

For the past half century the democratic idea has gained an unparalleled ascendancy in the world, while the aristocratic idea has been correspondingly discredited. Indeed, so complete has been democracy’s  triumph that it has been accorded a superstitious veneration, and any criticism of its fundamental perfection is widely regarded as a sort of lese-majesté or even heresy.

Now, this is an unhealthy state of affairs, because the democratic idea is not perfect, but is a mixture of truth with errors, like “natural equality, “ which modern science has proved to be clearly unsound.

Such a situation is unworthy of an age claiming to be inspired by that scientific spirit whose basic quality is unflinching love of truth. In a scientific age no idea should be sacrosanct, no fact above analysis and criticism.

Of course, criticism and analysis should be measured and scientific – not merely outbursts of emotion. Traditional ideas should receive just consideration, with due regard for the fact that they must contain much truth to have established and maintained themselves. In like manner, new ideas should also receive just considerations so long as their advocates strive to persuade people and do not try to knock their brains out. But, new or old, no idea should be made a fetish – and democracy should be thoughtfully, even respectfully, considered, as something which contains a deal of truth, and which has done much good in the world. As a fetish, democracy has no more virtue than Mumbo-Jumbo or a West African ju-ju.

The fact is that modern science is unquestionably bringing the democratic dogma under review. And it is high time that scientists said so frankly. Nothing would be more laughable, if it were not so pathetic, than the way scientists interlard their writings (which clearly imply criticism of the democracy philosophy) with asides like: ‘Of course, this isn’t really against democracy, you know.’”

The David Hicks affidavit, December 10, 2004

This is the full text of the affidavit lodged by Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks asserting that he has been tortured during his detention:


DAVID M HICKS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


1. I am David M Hicks, a Petitioner in the above-captioned action, and I make this Affidavit, submitted under seal (*), in support of my Amended Complaint, and my applications for injunctive relief.


2. I am a native and citizen of Australia, born in Adelaide August 7, 1975. I have completed the 9th Grade in the Australian school system.


3. This Affidavit provides an outline of the abuse and mistreatment I have received, witnessed, and/or heard about since I have been detained by the United States in Afghanistan, aboard US Naval vessels and US military aircraft, and at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (hereinafter "Guantanamo Bay"). I have been detained by the United States Armed Forces from December 2001 until present. I arrived in Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. I do not detail all of the abuse I have received, or witnessed, or heard about, but merely sketch some of it. I have been careful to specify what happened to me, what I saw happen to others, and what I have heard about. During the course of my interrogations, I have repeatedly asked for a lawyer and why I am not being treated as Prisoner of War.


4. Since I do not have access to either a typewriter or computer, this Affidavit has been prepared by my attorneys based on information I have provided to them. I have reviewed the Affidavit carefully, and verify that it is completely accurate.


5. I have been beaten before, after, and during interrogations.


6. I have been menaced and threatened, directly and indirectly, with firearms and other weapons before and during interrogations.


7. I have heard beatings of other detainees occurring during interrogations, and observed detainees' injuries that were received during interrogations.


8. I have been beaten while blindfolded and handcuffed.


9. I have been in the company of other detainees who were beaten while blindfolded and handcuffed. At one point, a group of detainees, including myself, were subjected to being randomly hit over an eight hour session while handcuffed and blindfolded.               


10. I have been struck with hands, fists, and other objects (including rifle butts). I have also been kicked. I have been hit in the face, head, feet, and torso.


11. I have had my head rammed into asphalt several times (while blindfolded).


12. I have had handcuffs placed on me so tightly, and for so long (as much as 14-15 hours) that my hands were numb for a considerable period thereafter.


13. I have had medication - the identity of which was unknown to me, despite my requests for information - forced upon me against my will. I have been struck while under the influence of sedatives that were forced upon me by injection.


14. I have been forced to run in leg shackles that regularly ripped the skin off my ankles. Many other detainees experienced the same.


15. I have been deprived of sleep as a matter of policy.


16. I have witnessed the activities of the Internal Reaction Force (hereinafter "IRF"), which consists of a squad of soldiers that enter a detainee's cell and brutalize him with the aid of an attack dog. The IRF invasions were so common that the term to be "IRF'd" became part of the language of the detainees. I have seen detainees suffer serious injuries as a result of being IRF'ed. I have seen detainees IRF'ed while they were praying, or for refusing medication.


17. I was told repeatedly that if I cooperated during the course of interrogations, I would be sent home to Australia after the interrogations were concluded. I was told there was an "easy way" and a "hard way" to respond to interrogation.


18. Interrogators once offered me the services of a prostitute for fifteen minutes if I would spy on other detainees. I refused.


19. Failure to cooperate meant the loss of the ordinary necessities of living, such as showers, sufficient food, relief from the prospect of IRF'ing and other regular abuse visited upon non-cooperative detainees, access to reading material, and social contact (including receiving mail).


20. During Ramadan, food was withhold from detainees after the break of the daily fast in order to coerce cooperation with interrogators. Detainees who refused to cooperate were punished regularly, and denied the ordinary necessities of living.


21. I have been told that strobe lights and extreme cold were also used to disorient detainees in order to soften them up for interrogation. I have also heard that religious detainees were exposed to pornography, and were dragged around naked in order to break their will.


22. Detainees were not allowed to know the date, day, year, or time. We were deprived of any and all information and news from the world. Detainees were permitted very little exercise.


23. At one point during 2003 alone, my weight dropped by 30 pounds (and I was not overweight to start).


24. Other detainees also informed me that interrogators attempted to turn them against me by spreading rumors about me. In any event, due to the way interrogations were conducted, and the physical layout of the camps, it was obvious to all of the detainees who was being interrogated, for how long, and whether that detainee emerged abused or not (with the latter signifying cooperation). Thus, any detainee would know who was cooperating with the interrogators.


25. The interrogation process ruled the detention camps and the lives of detainees.

Cooperation with interrogators offered the only means of relief from the miserable treatment and abuse the detainees suffered. Those who failed to comply suffered abuse until they gave in.


26. My conditions changed after I was moved to Camp Echo (as did the treatment afforded me by the military personnel on duty there) July 9, 2003, and then again after the visits from my attorneys began. However, at Camp Echo, I have been held in a solitary cell and have been so since arriving at Camp Echo. I was not allowed outside of my cell in Camp Echo for exercise in the sunlight, from July 2003 until March 10, 2004.


27. As noted earlier, the above catalogue of abuse and mistreatment is not complete. It is but a summary of some of the abuse I suffered, witnessed, and/or heard about since my detention began. I would be able to provide further information and detail if the Court so desires, but a complete account would require a substantially longer document. In fact, at my request and due to the persistence of my lawyers, I have recently met with US military investigators conducting the probe into detainee abuse in Afghanistan. Also, this is not the first time I protested my mistreatment, since on several occasions - in Afghanistan, and later at Guantanamo Bay - I informed representatives of the International Red Cross of the abuse.


WHEREFORE, it is respectfully respected that

the Court grant the relief sought in my Amended Complaint, and for any such other relief that the Court deems proper.



Sworn to before me this

5th day of August, 2004.


MD MORI, Major, United States Marine Corps, Judge Advocate


…and, yet another prediction?

December - The Christmas plastic money bonanza.
January -
They can't pay.
February -
Penalty interest rates introduced for late payers to hasten their demise.
March -
Massive default.
July  -
August -
Domino debt defaults.
October 2005 -
Banzaiiiiiii - THE CRASH




Fredrick Töben Adelaide, 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! 




In Brief


Right-of-Reply: multiculturalism a dangerous failed experiment everywhere in the world

For health reasons, I try to avoid the glib platitudes of your pretentious, self-righteous, chardonnay-sipping, pseudo-socialist fifth columnist. However, his latest article (August 21-22) in which I get a mention has been drawn to my attention and requires a response. Poor Phillip Adams is so consumed by his own estimation of his brilliance that he sees anyone who holds a different view as racist, or any other epithet that suits the moment. I believe that the policy of multiculturalism is a dangerous experiment that has failed not only in Australia, but everywhere in the world. It is a policy forced on the Australian people against the wishes and good sense of the vast majority. While Adams did not originate this policy, he has been one of its most pugnacious pushers. He probably realises, but obviously does not care, that immigration mistakes are big mistakes. I believe it is in our interests and in the interests of Third World countries that we halve our immigration and double our foreign aid. I believe this is common sense, not racism, and I await Adams’s sophist arguments to the contrary. Graeme Campbell, Kalgoorlie, WA, The Australian, 4-5 September 2004.

Göring’s suicide explained The West Australian, 8 May 2005. A former United States Army private who was a guard at the Nuremberg trials says he gave convicted nazi war criminal Hermann Göring the cyanide capsule he used to commit suicide two hours before his scheduled hanging. Entire books have discussed how the heavily guarded nazi leader managed to evade justice.  While Herbert Lee Stivers’story cannot be proven, several experts on the era have said it rings true. Mr Stivers, 78, a retired sheet-metal worker, was 19 when he was one of the guards who escorted nazi defendantsto and from court at the post-World War II crimes trials. He said he agreed to take medicine to a supposedly ailing Goering to impress a flirtatious local girl who approached him on the street, according to the Los Angeles Times newspaper.  She introduced him toa  friend who eprsuaded him tot ake notes hidden inside a fountain pen to Goering. The third time, the man put a capsule in the pen. Mr Stivers returned the pen to the young woman after delivering the capsule and never saw her again. Two weeks later, on October 15, 1946, Goering committed suicide. “I guess she used me,”Mr Stivers said. “I would have never knowingly taken something in that I thought was going to be used  to help someone cheat the gallows.” AFP

Dr Claus Nordbruch: The twin pillars on which the current German political order rests: 1. Germany started the war, 2. Germany exterminated European

Jewry. Both propositions are not contestable and are protected by law in Germany. Why?


Was the 9:11 tragedy a scam, an inside job?

Of course it was!

New York's World Trade Center is hit by the second of two planes on September 11, 2001.

New York's World Trade Center is hit by the second of two planes on September 11, 2001.

Insurers to pay double on WTC

By David Levitt, New York, December 8, 2004 – Bloomberg

A New York jury has agreed with World Trade Centre leaseholder Larry Silverstein that the attack on the twin towers by a pair of hijacked planes was two insurable events, requiring nine companies to pay out as much as double their policy limits. Of those exposed, Allianz had covered a single event for up to $US355 million, Industrial Risk Insurers up to $US237 million and St Paul Travelers up to $US210.6 million.

Australia's QBE Insurance, one of the smaller underwriters to the WTC with a $US12.4 million property exposure, yesterday confirmed it was unaffected since it was part of an earlier and separate court finding that the attack was one event.

Westfield Holdings, which held the lease over the mall in the basement of the World Trade Centre, is also unaffected. It sold out to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 6.5 hectare site. The win opens the door for Mr Silverstein, 73, to get up to $US1.1 billion ($A1.4 billion) more on top of a minimum payment of $US3.55 billion. The developer said before the trial it would cost about $US7.5 billion to replace the entire complex lost in the September 11 attack.

Mr Silverstein's exact recovery is to be decided in an arbitration that would set the value of the 110-storey twin towers and two smaller buildings nearby at the time of their destruction, an effort that is under way already. A negotiated settlement was likely, said David Wood, a San Francisco attorney who represents corporate policyholders against insurers. "If it's two occurrences instead of one, then he (Silverstein) controls the evaluation," Wood said before the verdict.




The Advertiser, 14 February 2005


Fire engulfed the 105m-high 32-storey Windsor Building in downtown Madrid yesterday. Three firefighters were treated for smoke inhalation. It is believed a short-circuit in the upper-half of the building caused the blaze.


Before the fire                                                                              After    the two-day fire                

And now the scam exposed. Why is this burned building still standing? Because the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Remember to ask: What brought down Building 7? – and where is the evidence about the Pentagon plane crash? –and, and…




Issue 70 – October 1998,


"Holocaust Denial" [...] Excerpt:


France, Belgium and Germany among other countries have laws that make denial of the Holocaust a criminal offence. Denying the existence of God may be worthy of punishment, but are we so attached to the Holocaust that we want to give it the same treatment? The correct attitude to the Holocaust should be that it is not too late to deal out proper punishment to our enemies who are in fact the enemies of God. But who are our enemies? All those who deny that the Holocaust took place...Denying the Holocaust is denying an historical truth like saying the sun does not give us heat and light. Anyone in the above categories must be regarded as if he had taken part in the Holocaust himself. He walks about with a death sentence on his head. If our enemies can be made to experience the loss of 6 million people themselves they would no longer claim that the Holocaust did not take place. Seeking to punish the deniers through the courts; Isn't this terrorism? Not at all. We are not picking on anyone. Only those who identify themselves as enemies of God will receive their punishment. We are not threatening anyone."

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute