The Blessings and Joys of the Christmass Season to all NTS Readers

FAITH AND ECONOMICS

Orthodox economics, taught in our universities, is based upon what Dr. Dobbs rather generously described as "wild and woolly abstractions". It has as its central entity a raceless, placeless, cultureless entity called "rational economic man" who is literally infinitely greedy and who attempts to maximise, with mathematical precision, an abstract entity called marginal utility. On this basis the whole of so-called microeconomic theory, such as the theory of supply and demand curves, is constructed. It is all smoke and mirrors, and is known to be so, as the advanced economic journals contain refutations of almost everything taught to undergraduate economics students. And yet the system continues as it legitimates as an ideology, the greed of corporate capitalism. If there is a "funny money" approach, it is from the side of the orthodox economics of finance, not from social crediters.

Douglas attempted, quite successfully, to verify the claims of social credit through a confrontation with reality, and he did not twist facts to fit theory - or simply ignore facts as orthodox economists do. All of the major policies of social credit - the National Dividend, the Mining Scheme for Scotland, and so on - met with concerted opposition from the establishment elites. Would a truly "funny Money" scheme which allegedly had such manifestly absurd defects have merited such intense opposition? Douglas discovered that through meeting the "top people," it was the "will-to-power" of the elites, rather than any technical defect in social credit, which had led to the blocking of social credit ideas.

Where Douglas' early work had primarily dealt with the exposition of social credit, its philosophy, policy and mechanics, his works from the Second World War onwards attempted to expose those who had made and profited from this war and what their underlying philosophy was. Programme for the Third World War, written during the Second World War, predicted another round of slaughter unless the core economic causes of war are dealt with. This exploration of "real politics" led him to a deeper exploration of questions that he was aware of in earlier works, but had not, as a matter of priority explored in the necessary depth: the Old Testament and morality, the foundations of Christianity and the Trinitarian nature of God, democracy and realistic constitutionalism and of course, the Jewish question.
Dealing scientifically, rather than politically with the Jewish question, undeservedly earned Douglas a tag of "anti-Semitism". However at no time did Douglas in his works set out to vilify anybody, and people, race or religion. He always kept fairly and squarely to the facts as he observed them. A scientist Douglas was, but beyond that, he was fundamentally a gentleman, a quality which unfortunately seems to have been lost from manhood in the present generation of decadent materialism.

The foundation of genuine science, the urge to understand the universe and religion, was the same for Douglas. In The Policy of a Philosophy Douglas insisted that religions were intimately connected with reality:
"In the sense that I am going to use it, and I think I will be using it correctly, the word religion has to do with a conception of reality. In so far as it means to bind back, to bring into close relation again, and in that sense I am going to use it, religion is any sort of doctrine, which is based upon an attempt to relate action to some conception of reality."

Religions are metaphysical worldviews or ways of life. Policies and human action are based upon such philosophies or conceptions of reality. Faith - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - is embodied in policy and the testing of the validity of the religion is just in science, by observing the consequences. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

For Douglas, unlike today's intellectual crop of trendy relativists and postmodernists (all truth is relative, there are no absolutes), there is a reality which is knowable objectively and exists outside of individual and social consciousness. In The Pursuit of Truth Douglas said: "Now it is my belief…that there is running through the nature of the Universe something that we call a "canon". It is the thing, which is referred to in the Gospel of St. John as the "logos," the "word"… The engineer and the artist refer to it when they say they have got something "right". Other people mean the same thing when they talk about absolute truth, or reality."

A canon is an objective and discoverable reality: "By their fruits ye shall know them." This inductive method of the scientist is the correct method of judging "religions" - belief systems. The destructive belief systems that enslave us today - multiculturalism, consumerism, materialism, globalism, feminism ad nauseum - are best attacked through exposing their fruits and foul fruits they are indeed. It is not "dwelling on the negative" to expose the foibles and follies of our enemies, for this is part of the scientific process of discovering what is real and true. Through our articles we hope to continue the fine intellectual tradition of C.H. Douglas and Eric D. Butler of discovery of the truth about reality. We try to expose the absurdities of our enemy's ideologies.

We live in a time of dark degeneracy where the powers of love and logic seem to be buried under the weight of a ton of "big mac's". But what the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the butterfly calls the beginning!

For some months The Australian has been permitting something of a debate on the question of intelligent design. The articles are largely favoured towards naturalistic evolutionary science - that there is no divine creator and that the laws of life are completely explicable in mechanical-scientific terms. The idea that there may be a divine creator who created the universe has not been regarded as "scientific". That which is "scientific", according to this debate, is that subject to experimental tests and observation.

Such a criterion of science would finish off evolutionary theory and cosmology, for much of these "sciences" rest on speculation and "just so stories". Science in this sense is not equivalent to truth and rationality, but is only a limited part of the rational. Proof: mathematics is not based on observation, but is surely scientific, hence science is not equivalent to that based solely on observation.
In any case the theory of intelligent design is based on observations: it gives an explanation of why there is a world. If it can be shown that a mechanistic purposeless account of the world fails - which is the research programme of intelligent design - then the hypothesis of intelligent design is supported, at least indirectly.
Philosophers and theologians have argued that where science ends, philosophy and theology begin, so why shouldn't students be able to go where humanity's greatest thinkers have gone? What is wrong with a bit of theology to stimulate the brain cells?

The opposition to intelligent design by so-called "scientists" comes not from any rational argument based opposition to the theory but to an ideological based resistance: they don't want their own religion of godless materialism challenged. Most of these scientists are pretty narrow specialists who don't have a bone of philosophy in their body.

Giving students an alternative would allow them to question received dogma and modern science, like medieval religion, is an arational paradigm that only allows questioning within carefully prescribed limits.

WHY IS DAVID IRVING IN JAIL?

by Nigel Jackson

In Melbourne the news first broke on 18th November in MX: 'Holocaust Claims: Irving in Austrian jail.' The opening paragraph read: 'Historian David Irving has been arrested in Austria for speeches he made 16 years ago in which he allegedly claimed the mass slaughter of Jews never happened.'

A misleading statement! Irving may have argued that the mass gassings with zyklon-B at Auschwitz and other so-called 'death camps' in the General Government sector of wartime Poland had not occurred, but he has never said that no mass killings of Jews of any kind occurred under the Nazi regime.

The story continued: 'If tried and convicted, he could face up to 10 years in jail as denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in Austria.' Later, some other newspapers were to suggest it might be 20 years.
Neither this report, nor subsequent reports in Melbourne's three main newspapers, The Age, the Herald Sun and The Australian, in any way intimated that imprisonment for any period of time, let alone such huge periods, for expressing dissident views about historical events is monstrously and fundamentally unjust.

Nor did they consider that, in having passed such legislation, Austria had, in that context, perhaps become a criminal state. Nor did they indicate that the phrase 'Holocaust denial' is a corruptly ambiguous term, failing to distinguish between partial rejection of the currently received story of the Holocaust and full rejection (which, of course, would be absurd). (I say 'corruptly', because I believe it is deliberately and repeatedly used in order to confuse a gullible public.)

These newspapers and other similar media outlets need to consider the possibility that, in regularly reporting such news stories in such prejudicial language, uncritically and in a deadpan tone, they are becoming accessories to hideous injustice, to something that can veritably be named as a crime against humanity.
MX went on to advise its readers that 'Irving has been banned from Austria and Germany because of his views', again failing to comment on the manifest injustice of such a disproportionate punishment, which includes restriction of freedom to research.

The newspaper cannot claim (as it might) that it had no obligation to comment critically in a mere news report, for in the last paragraph of the story it went on to make just such a comment: 'His reputation was forever tainted when he denied the existence of Nazi gas chambers and tried to distance Adolf Hitler from any involvement in the Holocaust.' That use of the word 'forever' amounts to a journalistic claim analogous to the Stuart assertion about the divine right of kings. And any such distancing related specifically to the claims about mass gassings with zyklon-B, not to other killings of Jews and others.

So even from that one little news story it is possible to observe that the major media are, for whatever reasons, the allies of Irving's opponents and are his enemies. The inaccuracies and ambiguous language constantly go one way. Analysis of the reports next day (19th November) in the Herald Sun and The Age support this observation. Indeed, The Age headline appeared to have a touch of gloating humour in it: 'Holocaust denier under lock and key in Austria'. And the 'forever tainted' of MX had become 'forever damned'. Shades of the Inquisition!

The Age made much of Justice Gray's UK High Court decision against Irving in his defamation case against Deborah Lipstadt. The major media, ever since that decision, have reported on Irving as though it had conclusively 'disgraced' him (another word used by The Age). I must confess that I have not yet read the full judgement, let alone studied it, but I have doubts about it for two reasons. Firstly, a similar UK High Court decision against Count Nikolai Tolstoy and in favour of Lord Aldington, has been heavily criticized (notably in Ian Mitchell's The Cost of a Reputation, Canongate, UK, 1998). It appears that nefarious manipulation by persons associated with the current Establishment in the UK may have led to a miscarriage of justice. It is not impossible that Irving suffered in a similar manner.

Secondly, from the time Justice Gray's decision was announced, some five years ago, the mass media in Melbourne (at any rate) do not appear to have published any detailed analysis of that judgement, even of the kind that could fairly be expected in quality newspapers as opposed to academic law journals. The public has been asked to swallow it whole.

Judgements of such prestigious courts do deserve respect but have no claim to be absolute. Only God's justice is such.

Soon Irving's situation in Austria took on a different hue. MX announced on 25th November that Irving had done a 'backflip' on the 'Nazi gas chambers'. It seems that he now admits that 'gas chambers did exist in Adolf Hitler's Germany', specifically at Auschwitz, as a result of having studied 'new research on the Third Reich'. Details of this research have not yet been provided.
This alleged change of view of Irving was extensively reported the next day (26th November) by The Australian and the Herald Sun. Irving's opponents were sceptical. 'It's an admission designed to extricate himself from imprisonment and in no way truly reflects his views', said Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, according to The Australian.

The Herald Sun reported that Irving wanted bail to get documents from his archives in Britain to help him show that his Austrian prosecutors had taken the alleged offending statements made 16 years ago 'out of context'. He has been denied bail, because his prosecutors fear he would abscond. On 3rd December The Age reported that, amusingly enough, Irving had found two of his own books in the 6400-volume library of Graz Prison, where he is being held. The head of the prison, Josef Adam, was quoted as saying: 'Now we will dispose of the books.'
It seems that The Age has no objection to such an anti-cultural act of destruction or to the absence of a sense of humour and sense of sportsmanship displayed by Mr Adam.

Irving will spend Christmas in jail and his case will be heard early in 2006. I sent letters of protest about Irving's treatment to The Age, the Herald Sun and The Australian. No such letters, by me or other writers, have appeared in those newspapers as I write (4th December), although The Australian published a letter by me on 21st November which suggested that that paper should report and condemn the mistreatment of Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf and other revisionist historians.
My letter ended: 'And can we expect from you a spirited defence of David Irving's right to speak freely in Austria and other nations? If not, why not?' To date my questions have gone unanswered.

What is the meaning of this latest episode in the saga of Irving's life? Unless evidence is brought up to disprove it, I think we can assume that Irving's headstrong nature misled him into foolishly risking a brief journey into Austria, though he knew he might be arrested. And we are entitled to share Mr Zuroff's scepticism about his conversion.

However, the episode also has meaning in a wider context.

Much of that context is outlined in an important statement, 'The UN Decides on a Universal Ban on Revisionism' published on 17th November by Professor Robert Faurisson of France. Here are some of its key passages.

'On 1st November, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted - or let be adopted - an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming 27th January "International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust". Moreover, the resolution "Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part."…

'The draft was approved by the United States in utter disregard of the guarantees of freedom of opinion provided by the first amendment to its constitution… 'All those present approved, or let pass with soft verbal restrictions, a resolution originating from the Jews that goes so far as to condemn the right of free research on a historical subject…

'The resolution will serve morally to justify and facilitate extradition measures taken against revisionists. Precedents are not lacking, what with (1) the European arrest warrant; (2) the virtual handing over of revisionist Rene-Louis Berclaz by Serbia to Switzerland; (3) the handing over of revisionist Ernst Zundel by the US to Canada, then by Canada to Germany; (4) the handing over of Belgian revisionist Siegfried Verbeke by the Netherlands to Germany; (5) the handing over of revisionist Germar Rudolf to Germany by the US…

'There is at present a bill in committee at the Knesset that will authorize Israel to request foreign governments to hand over any revisionist in order to bring him before a court, sitting in Jerusalem, that will apply the 1986 Jewish anti-revisionist law against him.'

We Australians should link these matters to the current campaign in our nation, aided and abetted especially by The Australian, to have two men in their eighties, Charles Zentai and Lajos Polgar, deported to Hungary to face what could only be political show trials on charges of 'Nazi war crimes'.

Acquiescence in such an inhumane campaign pollutes the soul of the nation.

There is, it seems clear, enough evidence available to show that something of a world tyranny, essentially Jewish in nature, is now in open operation, in defiance of traditional ideals based upon Christianity and the British law that grew from it.

National governments in Western nations, including our own, and the major media, are lackeys of that tyranny.

I see two great communities that may be able to arrest and then overturn this tyranny: Christianity and Islam. Is it not then more than a coincidence that enormous efforts are being made to bring these communities into conflict with each other at this critical time?

Nigel Jackson, author of The Case for David Irving (Veritas, 1994), is a Melbourne poet, man of letters and schoolteacher.