ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                   No 302




            Some people love telling lies.     

   Liars get upset with honest people.      

Through legal persecution Liars then  

    begin to defame those who refuse  

               to believe in their lies.  



Liberty No More!

By David Brockschmidt


If we hear the word Liberty most of us westerners think of freedom of expression, scientific and historical research, speaking the truth in a court room, etc. But the law tells us in some cases, like in religious and racial matters, truth is no defence. Now let the following sink in deeply into your mind. Our laws and our leaders tell us loud and clear: There never was real freedom of speech, and there never will be. We of the West, the vanguard of freedom and democracy who bring our value system to the rest of the world with fire, bombs, Wal-Mart, McJuncfood, heavy metal rock and pornography are at the same time destroying the foundation of our own society! The freedom to shop – never stop until we drop – is not the freedom our forefathers have been fighting for.


Modern capitalism has turned our society in a dumbed-down, politically correct, intellectual and moral bankrupt cesspool! The Socratic mindset has been destroyed and replaced with the Orwellian mindset – the Lie rules supreme!


We all know that there are two places in the world where lies flourish the most: 1. in our court rooms, and 2. in our history books. Quoting Orwell, “Truth-telling is now a very dangerous and revolutionary act”, and Winston Churchill said: “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it”, and “Truth is so precious that it must be protected by an army of lies”. Our society has become addicted to lies, and the truth-teller is labelled State Enemy No 1 who must be destroyed one way or another.


Surprisingly there are a few truth-tellers left in our world, like the ex-politician and former deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer. His letter to the editor of the Australian Financial Review, regarding the cowardly attack of the Israeli Air Force on the USS Liberty in 1967, the year of the dreadful so-called ‘Six-day War’, was a little reminder that the ‘eternally persecuted ones’ have a lot of blood on their hands, in this case American blood. Of course the Zionist network was activated to protect Israel through damage control mode, and fired a salvo of disinformation at Tim Fischer. Lepkin and company nearly got away with it. Political activists like Lepkin always hope that the memory of the masses is short, and they don’t know the facts anyway.


But there is always the risk of a so-called ‘wild card’, coming into the game. In this case it was Greg O’Connor, who put the record straight in defence of Tim Fischer!


Lepkin and company ended up with not so kosher egg on their face. Thank you, Tim Fischer for speaking up. Thank you Greg O’Connor for putting the record straight in regard to this horrendous Israeli war crime inflicted on Israel’s biggest ally, the USA. And a big thank you to the Australian Financial Review for publishing all these letters, thereby ignoring ‘the terrible power of the Jewish purse’, as Theodor Herzl once put it.


Fredrick Töben’s well-worn statement is also apt here: “Don’t blame the Zionists, blame those that bend to their pressure!”



Letters to the Editor

The Australian Financial Review –

Israeli attack that faded into obscurity


It is true the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper on “The Israel Lobby and the US Foreign Policy” has been found wanting, as Michael Massing wrote in “America and the Israel lobby” (Review, July 7). It has also stirred up a hornets’ nest which I will try to avoid. But I want to add to the equation a set of facts relating to the attempt by Israel to sink the intelligence ship USS Liberty in international waters on the fourth day of the Six-Day War in June 1967.

Clearly the White House and the US president Lyndon Johnson did side with Israel against United States interests over the tragic saga.

We now know it was a deliberate attack by the Israeli air force ordered by General Moshe Dayan. Thirty-four US sailors were killed and 171 wounded out of a crew of 297 on the USS Liberty. One sailor managed to get a radio SOS away to a nearby US aircraft carrier, which scrambled fighters, but they were on order a news blackout and a cover-up.

The head of the US Naval Court of Inquiry has recently affirmed that the Israeli attack was deliberate (to create an excuse to blame Egypt and build support against Egypt with the US and its world opinion leaders).

The court failed to interview all survivors. One survivor, Lloyd Painter, had his evidence later deleted, when he said that Israeli planes shot at USS Liberty life crafts as well.

This is affirmed truth, albeit arising from another complex Middle East war at the time, with Israel defending its very existence but also invading Syria.

Although the USS Liberty cover-up saga is a fact, it is a matter of opinion as to whether this ushered in the Israel-centric foreign policy of the US and its contribution to some of the atrocities in the Middle East.

Tim Fischer,

Boree Creek, NSW

Friday 14 July 2006


Israel’s tragic friendly fire

Friendly fire incidents are an almost inevitable facet of war. But Tim Fischer declares that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war was premeditated and deliberate (“Israeli attack that faded into obscurity”, Letters, July 14).

But two years ago the US National Security Agency released transcripts of Israeli Air Force radio communications intercepts that conclusively proved the incident to be a tragic case of misidentification.

During the course of the attack, two Israeli helicopters were vectored to the scene with orders to pick up survivors. But unbeknown to the Israelis, an American spy plane was monitoring the frequency being used for communication between the choppers and air traffic control.

Transcripts of the Israeli radio traffic clearly demonstrates that the Israelis were convinced that the Liberty was an Egyptian navy supply vessel.

“Pay attention,” the controller said. “The ship is now identified as Egyptian.”

But upon approaching the Liberty, one of the helicopter pilots identified an American flag flying over the stricken ship. The transcripts indicate that this news caused consternation at Israeli Air Force headquarters. The air traffic controller ordered the choppers to “clarify by the first man you pick up what nationality he is and report to me immediately”.

These tapes of Israeli radio traffic, as well as English translated transcripts, are available on the NSA’s website. And they are confirmed by Marvin Nowicki, a US Navy Arabic/Hebrew linguist who was on the American spy plane that day.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal (May 16, 2001), Nowicki wrote that the Israeli attack on the Liberty was “a gross error”.

This evidence reaffirms the original conclusion of the 1967 US Navy court of inquiry that the attack on the USS Liberty was an unfortunate case of wartime friendly fire. This material is both conclusive and easily accessed.

By resurrecting this long discredited calumny, the only thing Fischer proves is his own deep-seated bias against Israel.

Ted Lapkin

Director of policy analysis, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council

Melbourne, Vic.

Monday, 17 July 2006


The Israel lobby acts

With the ink barely dry on Tim Fischer’s letter about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 (“Israeli attack that faded into obscurity”, Letters, July 14), the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council’s ever-ready mouthpiece, Ted Lapkin, pounced (“Israel’s tragic friendly fire”, Letters, July 17).

In Lapkin’s world, Israel was once again an innocent bystander in this sorry episode, the attack just “a tragic case of misidentification”. This event has been covered in sufficient depth over many years for anyone interested to be able to make an informed decision about where the truth lies.

Suffice to say that Fischer’s version is now well accepted and there is a substantial volume of information on the public record supporting it, none of which Lapkin felt compelled to share with readers. Typically, he was satisfied to simply brand the former deputy prime minister as having a “deep-seated bias against Israel”.

But Lapkin is not just busy with events long past. With the Israel defence forces visiting atrocities upon the civilian population of Lebanon on an hourly basis, there is much to do portraying Israel – yet again – as a wholly innocent party.

The destruction of airports, bridges, tunnels, roads, power stations, and the deliberate targeting of residential districts, is being forced upon a reluctant Israel so it can protect itself. Killing of civilians on an industrial scale, including more than a few children, is simply an unavoidable consequence.

Anyone interested in understanding how the Israel lobby works should read Michael Massing’s two recent pieces, especially “How to win friends and influence Washington” (AFR Review, July 14).

While Massing focuses on the United States, it works pretty much the same here – intimidation of those who dare question Israel’s actions and motives, insinuation into the domestic political process, playing the “anti-Semitic”  and “anti-Israel” cards at any opportunity.

In this world, Israel only ever responds to acts of aggression by Palestinians and others whose actions are never explicable in terms of antecedent Israeli behaviour.

These relentless, orchestrated propaganda campaigns by AIJAC and other well –resourced apologists for every Israeli action should be called for what they are.

Greg O’Connor,

Yeronga, Qld.

Wednesday, 19 July 2006


Influence on public opinion

So now that sinister Jewish lobby has resorted to correcting errors of fact. Thank heavens we have Greg O’Connor (Letter, July 19), to bring this sneaky behaviour to our attention. But they don’t stop there.

Other nefarious activities include trying to influence public opinion. Of course, plenty of other interest groups do exactly the same, but I guess that’s beside the point.

The information on the public record that O’Connor cites (or actually doesn’t cite) to argue that Israel knew the Liberty was a US ship preceded the declassification of the transcripts cited by Ted Lapkin to prove the Israelis thought it was Egyptian.

O’Connor seeks to blame “antecedent Israeli behaviour” for the attacks on it, but the antecedent behaviour to the acts of war from Hezbollah and Hamas which caused the present violence  was to withdraw from all of Gaza and previously all of Lebanon. Clearly the Israelis should have known better.

Danny Samuels,

Armadale, Vic.

Friday, 21 July 2006.


Liberty response falls short of the mark

Danny Samuels (Letters, July 21) takes me to task over my response to Ted Lapkin’s recent attack on Tim Fischer for daring to canvass the 1967 Israeli attack on the intelligence ship USS Liberty.

He indicates that the transcripts, which were declassified and released by the National Security Agency in 2003 following a contested freedom of information action, changed everything. All of a sudden, the Israeli position was confirmed, and that’s that.

Not so. It is stated very clearly at the head of the main transcript: “This activity deals solely with the aftermath of the attack by Israeli jet aircraft and torpedo boats on the USS Liberty. There are no communications intelligence reflections on the actual attack itself.” That is, these are transcripts of communications with two helicopters at the scene well after the attack took place. Why the NSA did not release transcripts from the earlier attack itself, when that is what was specifically sought under the FOI action, has never been explained.

In any event, interested readers can make up their own minds by reviewing the wealth of material on the public record, including the NSA transcripts.

A good place to start might be the article “Friendless Fire” in the June 2003 edition of Proceedings, the journal of the US Naval Institute

Hardly a hotbed of left anti-Israel sentiment, the USNI publishes titles such as “War Footing – 10 steps America must take to prevail in the war for the free world”  by a host of prominent United States establishment right-wingers, including Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and Michael Rubin. This article is a useful analysis of the positions of the “mistake” school – basically the Israeli position – and the “deliberate” school – that of the survivors and later researchers.

Also useful is the report submitted by the USS Liberty Veterans Association to the Secretary of the Army in June 2005 This report alleges the commission of war crimes by the Israeli military and requests the secretary to “convene an investigatory body to undertake the complete investigation that should have been carried out 38 years ago”.

Anyone interested in this issue can easily access more information via these and other sources so they can determine where doubt exists about the circumstances, and where facts end and propaganda begins.


Greg O’Connor

Yeronga, Qld

Monday 24 July 2006.



The damned and the merely deluded

Terry Lane, The Sunday Age


So the Man of Steel is going to spend $8 million on establishing an institute of Islamic studies at an unnamed Australian university. The idea is that nice Muslims will be invited to teach, countering the effects of the nasty Muslims. And who, we are entitled to ask, will be separating these particular sheep from these particular goats? Will we have a new Ministry of Religious Wackiness charged with issuing teaching certificates to the approved deluded?

But why stop there? Why not an institute of Jewish studies? An institute of Christian studies? After all, the madness and mayhem perpetrated by Muslims is mere delinquencies compared with what Christians and Jews get away with. The problem, of course, is obvious. Would we staff the Jewish studies institute with the members of Peace Now or would we prefer to take them from the Ariel Sharon school of Smiting Hip and Thigh? Would we staff the Christian institute with Quakers or with adherents of George the Smaller’s dreamers of the Second Coming and Armageddon?

Seeing that our new Ministry of Religious Wackiness is prepared to come down on one side or the other in Muslim intra-faith debates, they should have no trouble in deciding who are the good guys and who are the bad in the ranks of the other two Chosen Peoples.

From time to time, the three institutes might come together to discuss the meaning of 1 Samuel chapter 15 where Saul falls out of favour with God for being unduly merciful.

Samuel, who was privy to the Lord’s thinking, said to Saul: “The Lord sent you with strict instructions to destroy that wicked nation, the Amalekites; you were to fight against them until you had wiped them out. Why then did you not obey the Lord?”

You see, the Lord’s orders were clear and unambiguous. “Spare no one. Put them all to death, men women and children and babes in arms.” And what was the crime of the Amalekites? The bastards resisted the invading Hebrews coming out of the desert with designs on their lands.

Saul had a reasonable defence. He had slaughtered every man, woman and child but he kept the sheep and oxen. He said that it was his intention to offer them up as a sacrifice to the Lord, but then he would say that, wouldn’t he?

OK. Here’s the topic for the three institute seminar. If God says kill everything that breathes, is it all right to keep the booty?

For both Jews and Christians, this event is recorded in the book of Samuel, which is part of the canon of both faiths so it must be both true and instructive. God may be merciful, but once He gets his dander up. He can wax extremely wrathful.

Perhaps the institute of three faiths could put their wisest scholars on to answering the question: Will there ever be peace in the Middle East? The answers might be: “Yes, when every last Palestinian is dead” or “Yes, when Israel is destroyed” or “Yes, when our Lord returns and the battle of Armageddon is over and the survivors have either become Christian or been sent to hell”.

Or, as a wise Christian, who had lived in Lebanon and knew Israel well, once said to me, it only needs two things to bring peace – that the Palestinians accept defeat and displacement with grace and that the Israelis show magnanimity in victory.

In other words, the answer is no.



Unpublished Letter to the Editor, TIME Magazine

Israelites and Palestinian solution, 17 April 2006


Why have borders? The main problem hardline politicians on both sides seem to have is the location of borders. Before some eager Zionist had the idea that the Jewish people should have a Jewish state all tribal groups living in the area got on fairly well; they had their differences, even some small wars, but none were in need of financial support from the international community to keep their feeble economies going, nor did they have enough money to waste on extravagant and excessive military equipment which in the end would only harm their own people. Israelites’ atomic weaponry is powerful enough to blow the whole area to kingdom-come and possibly make the whole global area un-inhabitable for human beings, and as all ‘Israelis’  constantly demonstrate a policy of “An Eye for an Eye!” Israel most likely would not hesitate under certain difficult circumstances to use nuclear weapons.

Throughout history the Jews have been an independent religious tribe in all countries they settled in. It was only after the results of the Second World War that the need for different borders became a necessity, but the results proved that this was a very murderous, expensive, and difficult way to achieve it.

Lothar Schultejohann –



Robert Fisk: The Great War For Civilization – The Conquest Of The Middle East, 2005

A Review by Lila McIntosh


This is an account of Robert Fisks’ many years as a correspondent for the British Independent newspaper. It is a very weighty, detailed and depressing book of over 1300 pages.

The reader is taken back to the colonial policies of France and Britain after World War One, the treachery of the Balfour Declaration, the formation of the Israeli state and the forced exodus of Palestinian Arabs.

There are many topics covered and these include the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Fisk’s meeting with Osama Bin Laden, the Armenian genocide, the Algerian war of independence, the first and second Gulf wars, US policy in Afghanistan, and the Palestinian occupation.

On Iran, we read about the CIA ousting democratically elected Mossadeq, the cruelty of the Shah’s secret police, and the eight year war with Iraq, where atrocities were committed on both sides, with subsequent suffering by the innocent. Let us hope present US policy does not lead to more of this for the people of Iran.

Fisk is very aware that US foreign policy is controlled by pro-Israeli neo-cons and that much of the world media is either biased, or lacking in courage in reporting the truth. He confronts the reader throughout with graphic descriptions of the horrors of war.

He shows clearly the complete disregard for human life by all sides.

Most heart-wrenching are his observations of Iraqi children suffering disfiguring cancers thought to be the result of American use of uranium depleted shells. United Nations imposed sanctions meant that treatment was limited, and one can feel the helplessness of the medical staff. This book should therefore be compulsory reading for all heads of state and their minions.

Reading it, one begins to understand the depth of hatred towards the USA and Israel. The Arabs have endured much injustice, and today they must watch it magnified in the treatment of the Palestinians – everything leading to the tragedy of ‘9/11’.

But it is a pity that Robert Fisk gives the impression he is anti-German. He had to accompany his father from an early age to the killing fields of World War One, and this may explain his acceptance without question, of the ‘6 million Jewish deaths’ of World War Two.

Nevertheless, his book covers so much, and his dedication and courage so obvious, this brief review does not do him justice. A must-read for anyone who wishes to understand what is currently going on in the Middle East.



Letter to Adelaide Institute

Leonard Banks, Melbourne, 10 June 2006


As regards the question raised in one of your newsletters, why should the German people become the prisoner of the Jewish Holocaust myth, it is obvious a result of some unpardonable and immoral circumstance in unlawful jurisprudence that ahs produced a malfunction in recognized law practice formality.

It is my belief that in the separation of powers in government procedure to the practice of political reasoning to legislate, that no government can cross the line to manipulate the known practice in ;law procedure that technically must follow recognized legal policy in law practice flowing from the knowledge of dignified procedure in the practice of moral jurisprudence. If a government does try to legislate to form an immoral law and make it formal, it can forget to plead it is a democratic institution. This is because power is the right of the electors and people, and the guardian in people power must come from the moral practice of administered law in jurisprudence.

Any German government that has processed a law making it a criminal act to protest against an accusation that the Jewish Holocaust was perpetrated by the German people in World War Two, is a government that has no patriotic pride in representation of the people who placed them in power. Protest, and the right to protest, seems to be lost in the government in power as I write, 12 June 2006, in regards to the German republic.

It’s hard to believe that the German people voted in, those seated in the government benches in representation, and there must be a great number of people who feel the same way as I do about those in power in Germany at the present time I wonder who pulls the strings when they legislate?

Allow me to say that such a restrictive law is malpractice in professional jurisprudence in placing a gag forbidding to observe righteous law formalities. When the defendant of an accusation is gagged from making a statement beneficial to his defence in known facts, which draws me to ask a question of how a judge or a number of judges can pass a sentence in punishment for a crime they refuse to hear protesting the circumstances of the accusation they are charged with perpetrating, the scales weighing up a sentence must be faulted in working properly.




An Open Letter to Judge Dr Ulrich Meinerzhagen

Presiding Judge in the Ernst Zündel case

Landgericht Mannheim, Schloss/Westflügel, D–68169 Mannheim, Germany


15 August 2006

Dear Dr Meinerzhagen

I trust that in writing this letter to you I am writing to a fellow student of history, for surely it beggars credibility to assume that some non-historian would be chosen within so eminent a European nation as Germany, to preside over the most momentous and perhaps most influential historical heresy trial of modern times, if not the most consequential for millennia. As that is my present understanding, I write this letter in the hope I can remind you of past historical events that closely fit the current pattern, and naturally and to varying extent previously, have been greatly distorted and deliberately corrupted, but which also have had a lasting but well determined bearing on the political structure of the twenty-first century.

As you would be well aware, the current heresy trials of historians and students of history in Germany and Austria have grasped the attention of people all around the world, even involving prominent leaders of the Muslim nations, such as the current president of Iran, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unable to personally believe the much publicized “Hollywood” espoused dogma of “The Holocaust”, has questioned the foundation of this dogma, and has interestingly suggested that technical archaeological experts from Muslim nations should be permitted to visit Auschwitz for the purpose of carrying out forensic examination of the alleged “gas chambers”, possibly, so that no matter what European nations care to try and inflict upon their own children’s beliefs, the Muslim nations may be able to educate their own future generations into a truer, and more realistic understanding of the historical events of this world. I must also add, I believe, to know and to disseminate the truth is a worthy objective for any administration with the interest and welfare of its own citizens in mind.

I find Dr Ahmadinejad’s suggestion the obvious answer to the question of whether certain aspects of “The Holocaust” actually took place, for surely if archaeologists can uncover the workings in ancient cities buried for thousands of years, some experienced archaeological technicians from Iran, where experienced people in such activities can be found, should be able to assist in discovering the truth in sites such as Auschwitz and Birkenau, where less than a hundred years has passed since the alleged “crime”. But stay! Has not “Judicial Notice” of “The Holocaust” been taken in your court and introduction of such questions strictly “verboten”? And has not the man standing before you in the Court, Ernst Zündel, already in the past instigated such a forensic examination, which demonstrated inaccuracies in the “Official pronouncements”? Has not this finding, now known as The Leuchter Report, been widely circulated throughout the world, and never to my knowledge been scientifically refuted? Where in the historical records can we find a precedent for such “legal” restriction on a defendant? To find a precedent for such “legal” phenomena, I believe we must re-trace our steps to the Spanish Inquisition, under the Jewish Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada! Many people like myself, are, by this, now encouraged to re-examine the horrors of fifteenth century Spain, and compare incidents in the current Thought Crime Trials in Germany to the practices recorded of the Spanish Inquisition. Can we find a case for comparison? It seems there is much to compare.

The Spanish Inquisition – Tomas de Torquemada

Was the “Law” applied, during the Spanish Inquisition and resulting in many people being burnt at the stake, “estimated at 2,000”  estimate taken from: Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) 15th Edition Christian Law, or Jewish Law? If my memory still serves me well, much blame over the centuries has been placed by various historians on the Church at Rome, so avoiding mention of the Jewish influence in this crime against civilized humanity. But if such blame is in any way justified, was the Roman Church the only, or even the main body responsible? The Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th Edition has the following to say:

“Torquemada, ironically of Jewish descent himself, in 1492 persuaded the rulers to expel all Jews who refused to be baptized, causing about 170,000 Jewish subjects to leave Spain.” – My underline.

It seems reasonably conclusive that the first grand inquisitor in Spain. Whose name has become synonymous with the Inquisition’s horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism (EB), Tomas de Torquemada, was a Marrano, and if that was the case, he would be inclined to adopt the Jewish Law, in preference to Christian Law whenever possible, for the Marranos, despite their proclaimed belief, were still Jewish at heart. However, the Encyclopaedia Britannica does not report that any Jews were actually burnt at the stake by Torquemada; the Jews were frightened, or driven out of Spain so as to operate in other parts of Europe. It was those Christian “heretics” that perhaps questioned the inroads of Old Testament, and hence Jewish doctrine, into the basic tenets of “Christianity” who, tied to the stake, ended up in the flames.

Jewish Law versus Christian Law

What I am about to write is very likely material you have studied long in the past, for you are the highly trained legal man, whilst I am not. You must be one of the most highly qualified Judges in Germany to be awarded such an important task as to preside over a trial the result of which will, like the decisions of Tomas de Torquemada, resound down centuries yet to come. It is my understanding that the Christian Bible — English King James Version — contains two complete and opposing political and legal systems, and that the Bible has, over the centuries, laid the foundation for “Western” and “European” Law systems. The written Jewish Law is found in the Torah, often referred to as the Books of Moses, or The Mosaic Law, being the first five books of the “Old Testament” of the modern Christian Bible. The oral Jewish Law, and hence more secret, is, I understand, to be found mainly within the Babylonian Talmud. The Christian Law on the other hand is found within the New Testament. What then is the basic difference?

The “Old Testament as found in The Ten Commandments is mainly negative: “Thou shalt not…” do this – “Thou shalt not …” do that. We can easily see that this can be extended to such demands as: “Thou shalt do exactly as you are told!” and “Thou shalt think precisely as you are instructed!” Can this be the historical and philosophical root of Thought Crime, so aptly described by Eric Blair – George Orwell – in his famous novel Nineteeneightyfour? The concept is certainly the death-knell to individual initiative, and creative invention in engineering and science!

The New Testament law on the other hand is two-fold and positive: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. The extension of this concept is “Seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; and knock and it shall be opened.” This is the philosophical root of creativity, of scientific invention, and individual initiative! I understand this positive concept is the basis of ALL civilizations, and may go a long way to explain why no Jewish civilization, based on negative law, and necessitating cruel punishment to enforce compliance, has ever to my knowledge been properly and lastingly established. Muslims have built civilizations, and so have Christians, but never Jews! The above, it seems to me, clearly explains the reason.

From Tomas de Torquemada to Francis Bacon

The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno at Rome on 17 February 1600, combined with the estimated 2,000 burned at the stake through the decisions of Tomas de Torquemada in Spain during the late 15th century, could possibly be rightly described as a century of Holocaust, for holocaust is defined as: whole burnt offering; wholesale sacrifice or destruction [Gk. Holos whole + kauston burnt – Oxford Dictionary]. This I understand produced a pronounced adverse reaction and horror within civilized European society, inspiring writers such as Francois-Marie Arouet – Voltaire – to write The Question of Zapata in 1766. However, most importantly was the adverse reaction spreading throughout Europe to these Witch Trials with their rush to false conclusions, which was generated through the horror of this ferocious behaviour. Perhaps this reaction found its permanent outlet in the immortal works of Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum, his greatest work produced in 1620. This is not very long after the oppressive tyrannies of Torquemada, and I would be very much surprised if the crimes of the Inquisition were not in some way contributive to the inspiring of Francis Bacon’s lasting work.

I will transcribe what I believe to be two of the most relevant and important aphorisms from Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum:


There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.


Both ways set out from the senses and particulars, and rest in the highest generalities; but the difference between them is infinite. For the one just glances at experiment and particulars in passing, the other dwells duly and orderly among them. The one, again, begins at once by establishing certain abstract and useless generalities, the other rises by gradual steps to that which is prior and better known in the order of nature.


[I will copy and enclose with this letter the material in Bacon’s Novum Organum prior to the above aphorisms, so allowing these aphorisms to be seen within the context of his work.]


In comparing the trials and tortures of the Spanish Inquisition with the modern Holocaust Heresy Trials in Germany and Austria I find an extraordinary resemblance, which has become even more clarifies to me whilst researching for this letter. All that seems necessary to complete the picture are the faggots, the stake, and the torch.

1. Both trials have been instigated by Jewish organizations.

2. In both cases the movement of the Jewish population has been desired by the Jewish hierarchy. In Torquemada’s day it was from Spain to other European nations such as Germany and Holland. In the twentieth century the desire movement was from central Europe to Palestine. In neither case did the Jewish population, like recent Jewish families in Gaza, have a desire to elave their homes. Therefore for the purpose desired by the Jewish Kehilla, they had to be up-rooted. I have great sympathy for any families forced from their homes, be they Jews or Gentiles.

1. In neither case did the Jewish leaders accept the blame for persecuting their own people. In Torquemada’s day the blame was cast on the Roman Catholic Church; in the twentieth century it was the Third Reich.

2. In each case the heretics brought to trial were not Jews, but genuine truth seekers, such as Giordano Bruno, Voltaire’s “ZAPATA”, and now Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Siegfried Verbeke, and others!

I have reports of people in Australia, previously uninterested in the subject of “The Holocaust” who now openly inquire why Thought Crime is now such a Big Thing in Germany. Their interest has been aroused because, considering the subject is one for debate, debate in this case has seemingly been rejected!

On 8 March, 2006, I wrote to the Australian Prime Minister, the Hon John Winston Howard, in support of Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “excellent proposal” in which I wrote: “May I suggest you now give the Iranian President’s proposal for a forensic examination of Auschwitz your full support”.

You certainly have an important and interesting historical heresy trial on which to make your judgment.

Yours sincerely

John David Sterling Barton

11 Barwon Street

Collarenebri, NSW – 2833




A Stuttgart court fined a German company that specializes in anti-fascist paraphernalia adorned with swastikas for using the constitutionally banned symbol.

How far can individuals go in using a symbol banned by the German constitution?

It was just this question that the Stuttgart district attorney's office wanted clarified when it brought a case against Nix Gut, a mail-order company that offers left-wing garb adorned with modified swastikas.

The swastika is banned as a symbol of an unconstitutional organization, but German law allows its use if it is clearly in a form indicating opposition to National Socialism.

A crossed-out swastika reminiscent of a no-parking sign or a stick person throwing a swastika into a garbage can are images often used by the left-wing movement in Germany.

But a judge ruled on Friday that the use of the Nazi symbol by the company violated the law and fined the owner, Jürgen Kamm, 3,600 euros ($4,500).

Officials fear that neo-Nazis could skirt the banBildunterschrift:

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Officials fear that neo-Nazis could skirt the ban

"It is not always so easy to recognize that these symbols are being used against Nazis, especially for foreigners," said Bernhard Häussler, the district attorney said.

Circumventing a ban

Up to now, the justice system in the state of Baden-Württemberg, where the case was tried, handled this problem differently, on a case by case basis. But Stuttgart wanted legal clarity, fearing that if leftists could get away with using the symbol, then neo-Nazis might also find a way around the ban. Thus, the district attorney brought the suit against Kamm.

"There's a danger that the use of swastikas, even in a modified manner, will not be removed from our society," said the prosecutor. "So neo-Nazis could use them for their own means and this shouldunder no circumstances be the case. We want to avoid a situation where the use of these symbols once again becomes normal."

But Kamm has defended the use of the symbol saying that it is clear they are being used in a manner that is opposed to right-wing extremism. He added that he will appeal the case to the Federal Court of Justice.

Leftists will have to pick a more neutral symbol

Bildunterschrift: Leftists will have to pick a more neutral symbol

Green party leader Claudia Roth called the case "counterproductive." She had previously reported herself to the police for wearing a button featuring a crossed-out swastika after the case was initially made against Kamm.

A Hitler salute

It isn't the first time that left-wing supporters have been criminalized for their actions aimed at protesting against neo-Nazis.

Last year, a student in Tübingen was fined for wearing an anti-Nazi button on his backpack. The local court had argued that a Japanese tourist would only see the swastika and wouldn't recognize the crossed-out symbol as an anti-fascist pictogram. The student subsequently won his appeal before a regional court, which ruled that he was clearly expressing his anti-fascist attitude by wearing the button.

In another case, Nigerian soccer player Adebowale Ogungbure, who plays for Sachsen Leipzig made a mock Hitler salute to fans in Halle after being subjected to racist taunts. The player was charged for the action, but prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, because he had been provoked and hadn't understood the gesture was illegal.

Earlier this year, however, authorities in Berlin allowed filmmaker Dani Levy [Jewish – ed.] to display swastikas during the filming of a comedy about Hitler.

DW staff (jb),,2189625,00.html?maca=en-bulletin-433-html



Sent: Tuesday, 3 October 2006 11:33 PM



Robert Faurisson stood trial this past July 11 for an interview he gave on Iranian TV early in 2005.

The court's judgment/sentence came today. Faurisson was sentenced to three months imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of E7500 (1E = $1.27). In addition he must pay E1 in damages to each of the three organizations that brought charges against him, and E1500 in legal expenses to each.

Faurisson considers this a light sentence but he will appeal nevertheless. He wishes that numerous supporters attend the hearings next year, at which he will stand even more firm and uncompromising than earlier.

Objet : Je suis très légèrement condamné

Ce 3 octobre, le tribunal de la XVIIe chambre correctionnel de Paris a rendu son jugement dans l'affaire de l'interview qu'on me reprochait d'avoir accordée à un journaliste de Sahar 1 (station de radio-télévision iranienne). L'audience avait eu lieu le 11 juillet (compte rendu ci-joint).

Je suis condamné à 3 mois de prison avec sursis, à 7 500 euros d'amende. Je devrai en outre verser 1 euro de dommages-intérêts à chacune des trois associations venues plaider contre moi ainsi que 1 500 euros à chacune d'entre elles pour frais d'avocat.

Ces peines sont légères mais j'interjetterai appel et je vous invite à venir nombreux à l'audience d'appel, en 2007. J'y serai encore plus ferme et encore plus net qu'en première instance.

Les magistrats de Paris sont décidément à la gêne avec ces procès pour délit de révisionnisme. Pas moi. Ni Me Eric Delcroix, mon avocat, que je remercie de sa prestation et que je félicite pour sa bravoure.         

Brief piece just released to the mainstream press

Robert Faurisson condamné pour révisionnisme -- par Pierre-Antoine Souchard—

AP | 03.10.06 | 14:51


PARIS (AP) -- Le tribunal correctionnel de Paris a condamné mardi Robert Faurisson à trois mois d'emprisonnement avec sursis et 7.500 euros d'amende pour des propos niant l'extermination des juifs par les nazis tenus en 2005 sur une chaîne iranienne.

Le ministère public avait requis une peine d'emprisonnement, assortie ou non de sursis, contre Robert Faurisson, 77 ans, universitaire à la retraite, poursuivi pour "complicité de contestation de crime contre l'humanité".

Lors de cette interview réalisée par téléphone le 3 février 2005 sur la chaîne iranienne Sahar 1, accessible en France sur Eutelsat, Robert Faurisson avait notamment déclaré qu"'il n'y avait jamais eu aucune tentative d'extermination des juifs par les nazis", encore moins "de politique d'extermination physiques des juifs".

 Robert Faurisson a maintenu ses propos lors de l'audience en juillet dernier. Pour sa défense, il a assuré que cet entretien ne devait pas être diffusé en France ou en Europe.

Cette émission de Sahar 1, intitulée "Le monde en question", était consacrée à "l'holocauste", soixante ans après la fin du régime nazi et son "instrumentalisation" à des "fins politiques".

"Les propos (...) poursuivis caractérisent le délit poursuivi avec une parfaite évidence (...) en ce qu'ils nient, sans la moindre ambiguïté, la réalité du plus grave des crimes dont le régime nazi s'est rendu coupable", note le tribunal dans son jugement.

Me Eric Delcroix, avocat de Robert Faurisson, a déclaré qu'il allait réfléchir avec son client à l'opportunité de faire appel. "Je suis toujours pour la liberté d'expression et de recherche. Je regrette cette condamnation", a-t-il précisé après l'annonce de la décision de justice, réprimant, selon lui, "un délit d'opinion".

"Le délit commis par le prévenu (...) constitue une des formes les plus condamnables du racisme antisémite", poursuit le jugement.

Robert Faurisson devra également verser un euro de dommages-intérêts à chacune des trois associations qui s'étaient constituées partie civile: la Ligue des droits de l'homme (LDH), le Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (MRAP) et la Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA).

Cette condamnation est la cinquième de Robert Faurisson pour des propos contestant l'existence de crimes contre l'humanité. AP




Top | Home

©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute