|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Memo
from Dr Fredrick Töben – Adelaide – toben@toben.biz Re: A
MATTER OF VALUES Truth-telling
is a moral virtue, not an Antisemitic Act! *Remember
– on 5 February 2013 at 15.10 hours at its first Commonwealth
Parliamentary Question Time The Hon Julie Bishop, reinforced by The Hon
Christopher Pyne, directed a question at the new Attorney-General, The
Hon Mark Dreyfus, about the illegality of West Bank settlements but the
Speaker dis-allowed the question! No wonder Israel has just arrested
Palestinian West Bank Parliamentarians* Dear On
4 February 2013 ABC TV’s 4 Corners program
featured an in-depth investigative story about US bike-riding champion
Lance Armstrong’s decade-long lying about his drug-taking and
race-fixing activities. Then, a day later, Europol announces that a
corruption investigation is under way about extensive European football
match fixing. From
personal experience I am quite familiar with a similar pattern of
conspiratorial deception, lying and legal bullying; in my case, it is
for the sake of suppressing the truth about an historical event. For
twenty years now I have investigated the alleged truth content of
statements made about the historical event known as ‘Holocaust-Shoah’. Since
1996 I have been legally persecuted under the Racial Discrimination Act,
especially under that notorious section 18.c where a Complainant’s
‘hurt feeling’ is enough to prove and action and find a Respondent
guilty of an offence. My
submissions to the Parliamentary Enquiry into the Exposure Draft of the
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 details this legal
persecution. My submission is numbered 560 and it has been declared Confidential.
I
now release my two submissions for your consideration. Yours
sincerely Fredrick
Töben, DPhil, MACE. Adelaide,
South Australia M:
0417088217 __________________________________________ From:
Dr Fredrick Töben Adelaide
toben@toben.biz SUBMISSION
to the Parliamentary Enquiry into the EXPOSURE DRAFT of the
HUMAN RIGHTS and ANTI- DISCRIMINATION BILL 2012 16
December 2012 1.
Introduction The
philosophical underpinnings of any discrimination ideology need to be
illuminated and clarified, which is lacking in the DRAFT. For example,
any thinking person discriminates because the act of thinking is itself
a discriminatory act, which indirectly is acknowledged by the much-used
concept of ‘choice’, i.e. giving individuals choices when acting
upon a matter. Thinking
is thus a critical activity that clarifies basic human values wherein
the universal ‘battle-of-the-wills’ is resolved, hopefully, in a
civilised way. The
criteria that are legally protected from criticism – race, religion,
sex, disability, et al, encompass fundamental human values. Any legal
sanction that prevents an open discussion on any fundamental human
matter on grounds that such a discussion is discriminatory has the
potential to turn the discrimination ideology into a blunt political
instrument. For example, if the DRAFT advocates criminal sanctions, then
a public debate on some political issue such as objections to Israeli
fruit imports to Australia can lead to a criminal conviction. An
aggrieved person who develops ‘hurt feelings’ because another person
objects to such imports and expresses such objection in strong language,
will receive legal protection under the DRAFT. The protester, however,
has no defence against the accusation that his protest is ‘offensive
and insulting’. The
very political nature of such public protest acts will inevitably reveal
behind-the-scene machinations that flow into any subsequent legal action
contained in the DRAFT. This is because a Complainant need not prove the
quantum of hurt by any objective means, for example by submitting a
medical certificate The fact that anything can be deemed to be offensive
– from the verbal to the non-verbal glance, to the outright physical
attack – is an accepted fact, and which a victim mentality mindset is
able to exploit. It is interesting that a successful discrimination act
will in most instances be resolved through monetary compensation. This
means that a psychological state is assessed and comforted
materialistically, which is problematic. 2.
A 17-year legal battle – a practical example of injustice emerging
from an application of the RDA - DRAFT The
fact that since 1996 I have been legally persecuted under the RDA,
especially its notorious Section 18c – “reasonably likely to offend,
insult…” is reason enough for me to submit a brief informative
narrative of my long battle for your consideration. It is important for
lawmakers, such as our political representatives, to know about and be
aware of the practical effects such unjust laws have on individuals
whose behaviour is based on sound principles and lofty ideals. I say
this as a teacher who has lived by his cherished belief that the most
precious gift with which we can imbue our next generation is the ability
to discern truth from lies and deception. For
17 years Mr Jeremy Sean Jones, Executive Council Australian Jewry,
pursued me first before HREOC, then in the Federal Court of Australia. HREOC’s
attempt to be a mediator in our differences of opinion on matters
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ failed because the complainant Jones could not be
forced to attend a conciliation meeting, and he refused to even indicate
he had an interest in doing so. When
the matter proceeded to the FCA it was clear that Jones’ intention was
not to settle the dispute amicably but to have a court ruling that
placed a gag on open discussion about matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’. He
claimed that the material we published on Adelaide Institute’s website
was causing not only him great hurt and anxiety but also all the
‘Holocaust’ survivors and their descendants living in Australia, yet
neither Commissioner McEvoy nor Justice Branson ever asked Jones to
submit a medical certificate that proved his mental state was being
affected by what we had published. In effect it was his word against
mine. Also,
my contention before the Commissioner and in the FCA was that the RDA
legislation under which we were appearing was fundamentally flawed
because TRUTH was not a defence, and ‘hurt feelings’ of only
particular complainants, such as those claiming to represent Jewish
interests, were protected. The recent Andrew Bolt case that cost the Herald
and Weekly Times over a million dollars to defend publicly clarified
this legal injustice. To
counter the Jones attack I submitted a complaint to HREOC wherein I
stated that anyone who canvassed matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’, in
particular stating that during World War Two Germans systematically
exterminated in homicidal gas chambers, especially at Auschwitz
detention centre, European Jewry, then as a German-born Australian I
take it as my right to ask the question: ‘Was my father a mass
murderer, were the German people responsible for the death of six
million Jews?’ I
also stated that I am deeply hurt and offended when I hear this kind of
war-time propaganda, and so I ask questions and I conduct research into
the allegation. My research trips in 1997 and 1999 resulted in my
claiming that I consider the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ to be a massive
historical lie because technically/physically Germans could not have
done what is claimed they did. Instead
of discussing the contentious matters objectively all I received from
Jones and the media was defaming abuse. The words that are designed to
stifle debate on this contentious historical issue are: HATER, HOLOCAUST
DENIER, ANTISEMITE, RACIST, NAZI. 3. Dangers within
the RDA – modelled on Germany’s Section 130 In
this context it must be remembered that when the Soviet Union was
established in 1917 two words were criminalised: ANTISEMITE and
REVISIONIST, and anyone labelled by the former word was shot while the
latter attracted banishment to the GuLags. Through
this current legislation we are again, by stealth and high-minded
rhetoric that claims to protect a person’s well-being, moving into the
Soviet-era style of legislation where uppermost Jewish interests are
protected. This focus on a minority’s self-interest disregards the
mental well-being of the majority in whose interest it is not to be
living on a state-enforced ideological lie. There
are legal practitioners who consider my views ‘abhorrent’ and when
they conduct a case in the FCA, they make it clear to the judges they
are towing the official line on matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’, i.e. so
they cannot be labelled ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘antisemite’, or
horrors-above-horrors a ‘racist’. This
stifling public/social effect means that the RDA is modelled on the
notorious German Penal Code’s Section 130 that criminalises
‘defaming the memory of the dead’. This has the effect that any
matter concerning the factual details of World War Two are off-limits in
any public discussion. In other words, a section of history has been
mythologised and is set in legal concrete. If
something is offensive, then we have defamation laws that can be used to
seek redress but this RDA legislation is a watered-down version of
defamation law. There is also the political agenda marked by the
Talmudic-Marxist class dialectic of win-lose. This perverse dialectic is
driving a social agenda that will, as in the Soviet Union’s case,
ultimately self-destruct. But in the meantime millions of individuals
suffered injustices as vested interests, such as the Jewish-Zionist
lobby, push their personal agenda along at the expense of mainstream
Australian society. 4. No Legal Aid
– leading to bankruptcy At
the basic matters-of-fact stages the issues before the court are fleshed
out, but in my case I could not afford legal representation and both
Commonwealth and State Legal Aid Services refused to assist. This meant
I had to do all the legal matter myself – but my academic training has
been in literature and philosophy where sound moral principles and
ideals are my guide. I developed the maxim: ‘Do I tell the truth or do
I obey the law? The Talmudists-Marxists will state: ‘Obey the law’
while I use the Hegelian dialectic and state: ‘Do both’. However,
if a law is wrong and unjust, then it is my duty to navigate gently
through this injustice so that I can still obey the law and tell the
truth. That is what most concerned citizens do, and only in extreme
cases would anyone directly challenge unjust laws. Unfortunately the
Canberra lawmakers are aware of this and so the legislation is subtly
formulated to reflect the sincere concerns of those who do need social
protection for whatever reason. Fortunately British Common Law still has
basic safeguards that rest on tried legal principles such as Natural
Justice, which I certainly did not receive. It
was only at the matters-of-law stage that I gained pro-bono
representation, but then it was already too late. In this respect
Australia is also following the Canadian model in persecuting
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ matters under the false ‘racist’ concept. In
fact, the RDA is primarily designed to catch and to protect the official
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative, which is Israel’s primary propaganda
weapon that justifies its ethnic cleansing of Palestine. In
my case the judges involved in my matter were not Jewish but they bent
to Jewish pressure, which enables me to state they became morally and
intellectually bankrupt. The
consequences of my long legal battle led to its final conclusion when on
24 September 2012 I was declared a bankrupt. In November 2010 Jones had
asked for $56 000 court costs and I offered him about $30 000, which he
rejected. The law firm negotiating the settlement stated that Jones
doesn’t want the money but seeks my bankruptcy, which lawyer Steven
Lewis confirmed in July 2010 when he, as hopeful Labor Party candidate
for Wentworth, addressed a political meeting of the NSW Jewish Board of
Deputies and claimed for the past four years he had done good service to
the Jewish community by sending Töben to prison for contempt and
‘we’re about to bankrupt him’. I
sold my home of 17 years to raise the necessary money. Then this year
another court cost claim was made for $175 000, and that I could not pay
and so I was declared bankrupt for three years. The
list of orders against me is a long one: Federal
Court of Australia Judgments against Töben 1. Jones
v Toben [2000] HREOCA 39 (5 October 2000) Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;
5 October 2000; 2.
Toben
v Jones [2002] FCAFC 158 (21 May 2002) Federal
Court of Australia - Full Court;
21 May 2002; 3.
Jones
v Toben (includes explanatory memorandum) [2002] FCA 1150 (17 September
2002) Federal
Court of Australia;
17 September 2002; 4.
Toben
v Jones [2003] FCAFC 137 (27 June 2003) Federal
Court of Australia - Full Court;
27 June 2003; 5.
Jones
v Toben (Corrigendum dated 20 April 2009) [2009] FCA 354 (16 April 2009)
Federal
Court of Australia;
16 April 2009; 6.
Toben
v Jones [2009] FCA 585 (2 June 2009) Federal
Court of Australia;
2 June 2009; 7.
Toben
v Jones (No 2) [2009] FCA 807 (30 July 2009) Federal
Court of Australia;
30 July 2009; 8.
Jones
v Toben (No 2) [2009] FCA 477 (13 May 2009) Federal
Court of Australia;
13 May 2009; 9.
Toben
v Jones [2009] FCAFC 104 (13 August 2009) Federal
Court of Australia - Full Court;
13 August 2009; 10.
Toben
v Jones (No 3) [2011] FCA 767 (8 July 2011) Federal
Court of Australia;
8 July 2011; 11.
Toben
v Jones [2012] FCA 444 (3 May 2012) Federal
Court of Australia;
3 May 2012; 12.
Toben
v Jones [2012] FCA 1193 (31 October 2012) Federal
Court of Australia;
31 October 2012; 5. Free Expression
in danger The
most precious value we have within our democratic framework is free
expression because without it our thinking processes are stifled and
suppressed – often through fear of legal consequences. If dissenting
voices are silenced, then a society loses the value/quality of trust and
personal relationships fall apart. This
phenomenon I witnessed at first hand while travelling through the Soviet
Union during the early 1970s. The country, as its Eastern European
dependencies, lacked ‘soul’. There was security control everywhere
– much of what we now see happening in Australia as government
agencies barricade themselves from public intercourse under the pretext
of security concerns. Likewise
at universities the situation is of some paranoia flowing into expressed
administrative concerns. One of the prime reasons is that educational
courses on matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ at school and university level
do not permit dissenting voices to express unorthodox or speculative
view-points. Lecturers threaten students who ask probing questions with:
‘Your question borders on the offensive.’ Such
anti-intellectual stance is not conducive to our students’ moral and
intellectual development and the HR&ADB 2012 does nothing to
safeguard an individual’s free expression, which is the hallmark of
our Australian democracy. In
fact, even in the USA where the First Amendment has been securing free
expression for all Americans, it has come under attack by notorious
Zionist, Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has split free expression into:
‘free speech’ and ‘hate speech’. Anything offensive to Jewish
interests is considered to be a ‘hate crime’, as is matters
‘Holocaust-Shoah’. This
trend is now manifesting itself in Australia, and the HUMAN RIGHTS
and ANTI- DISCRIMINATION BILL will give legal force to the word
‘hater’, and also to the word ‘denier’ as we have witnessed in
the Climate Change debates. When individuals run out of arguments and
their overarching narrative does not accord with the physical facts –
thereby creating an ideology such as we witnessed in the Soviet Union
and its Marxism-Socialism – then the word ‘denier’, for example
will be used to silence any opposition, which for example claims strict
objective scientific criteria can never produce an ‘absolute’
result. Science is not absolute and there is always a margin of error
involved in any research results. When
some public figure claims, for example, ‘the science is in, it’s
beyond debate’, then that is someone trying to sell a product. It may
be politically expedient to talk like that but a scientist knows all
results are subject to a margin of error and to revision as soon as new
information comes to hand – which is inevitable. The quip is still
current: ‘There are liars, bloody liars, and statisticians’, and one
may add to that – ‘and politicians’. 6. Publishing and
Internet Censorship As
regards DRAFT Division 5 Clause 53 ‘Publishing etc. material
indicating intention to engage in unlawful conduct’ is a subtle but
vicious way of stifling debate. In 2002 Mrs Olga Scully was found guilty
in the FCA for publishing and distributing material that clarified
matters about her Russian background and how significant Jewish
influence was in setting up the Soviet Union government. Justice Heley
rejected her defence that she was acting and doing things ‘reasonably
and in good faith, to publish or display material’. The
proposed legislation will continue to be used by those who oppose and
suppress a public airing of historical matters involving Jewish
interests. I always wonder what these suppressors of public debate have
to fear! Truth is a powerful weapon but in the case where the RDA
operates and the proposed modifications come into effect, truth will not
be a protective shield from legal persecution because the sword formed
by the words hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist,
Nazi, will continue to slay free expression, and that
mercilessly. The
current public discussion about Israel’s treatment of the
Palestinians, and the 29 November 2012 UNGA vote granting the
Palestinian Authority observer status, is a prime example where these
usual words are used to stifle an open debate on this contentious public
interest topic. I
have endured such verbal abuse for almost two decades now and I have had
no recourse publicly to counter those who engage in such abuse because
the print and electronic media outlets ride on the same platform. The
Internet has given me the opportunity to freely express my views –
though this did not protect me from being incarcerated three times in
three different countries – Germany, England, and Australia. Although
the FCA found me in contempt of court the Australian regulatory
authority gave our websites an ‘M’ rating, which again upset Jeremy
Sean Jones. We do not deal with pornography nor do we incite hatred. However,
as stated above, under the DRAFT any point-of-view expressed that
challenges an official narrative can be regarded to be in breach of the
Act. For example, before the hypothesis HIV=AIDS had been legally
anchored in legal concrete and thus globally protected, the dissenting
voices who dared state that the hypothesis needs to be
‘re-evaluated’ were drowned out and sidelined by powerful interest
groups. Dr Peter Duesberg and Elenie Papadopolous-Eliopolous have been
waiting since 1984 for upholders of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to show HIV
in isolation. Their claim that other factors are causing AIDS,
especially life-style issues, and this is unacceptable and offensive to
those who have embraced the orthodoxy HIV=AIDS. Dissenting voices were
vilified as ‘AIDS deniers’ – end of discussion. 7. Innocent until
Proven Guilty The
fact that Clause 124 throws overboard a basic British Common Law
principle is enough reason to designate this attempt at legislating
alleged social protection for the vulnerable as a devious attempt to
change Australia’s basic legal tradition and enforce an unacceptable
societal mix. If
Complainants do not have to prove their case anymore, then the ugly
trend already seeping through the legal back door will become a flood
– individuals spending time in prison without being charged. This
is making retroactive law enforcing child’s play – but the health of
our society will suffer, as it already is by having laws that are
filling our gaols to the brim on account of social support mechanisms
breaking down because we are celebrating hedonistic materialism to the
full. As
indicated above, overseas precedents of discrimination have been
followed in matters ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ to successfully muzzle open
enquiry and thereby protect one view of this historical narrative. We
don’t need this kind of historical censorship because our society is
mature and tolerant enough to embrace the overarching moral principles
embodied in truth-telling. Without this quality/value our society loses
the element of trust, which then rots relationships and draconian
controls need to be applied. The DRAFT suggests that the value of
‘trust’ is already eroded and hence the need to implement the DRAFT! 8. Conclusion This
is in the form of three questions to the lawmakers: 1.
Will the dictatorial implications contained and activated in the DRAFT
be limited in legal proceedings by an application of basic concepts such
as Truth and Justice? 2.
Will the proposed new Human Rights Act accord me the human right to
question certain aspects of history without being labelled and defamed
as a ‘hater’, ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘antisemite’,
‘racist’, ‘Nazi’? 3.
Will Legal Aid be available to those brought before the courts so that a
competent legal defence can be mounted at the matters-of-fact stage of
proceedings? ________________________________________ From:
Dr Fredrick Töben Adelaide
toben@toben.biz M:
0417088217 _________________________ SUBMISSION
to the Parliamentary Enquiry into the EXPOSURE DRAFT of the
HUMAN RIGHTS and ANTI- DISCRIMINATION BILL 2012 Senators
Trish Crossin, Susan Boyce, George Brandis, Mark Furner, Garry
Humphries, Louise Pratt, Scott Ryan, Penny Wright. __________________________
To:
Enquiry Secretary Ms
Jackie Morris - Jackie.Morris@aph.gov.au FURTHER
SUBMISSION: 27 January 2013 Dear
Committee Members I
had the benefit of attending both your sessions - in Melbourne on 23
January and in Sydney on 24 January 2013. I
noted that not a single submission insisted on including the concept
TRUTH as a fundamental guiding principle when enacting human rights
legislation. On the second day of the hearing I approached Committee
Deputy Chair Senator Garry Humphries requesting permission to address
the Committee. Both he and the Chair, Senator Trish Crossin, discussed
the matter and the Enquiry secretary Jackie Morris advised me of their
decision, i.e. it was not appropriate for me to be given such an
opportunity. Later
Senator Humphries advised me that I should send in another submission on
this matter of Truth that I was worrying about, which I now do in the
following: 1.
During the various submissions I noticed that whenever he could Senator
George Brandis made much of Andrew Bolt’s legal case having activated
Section 18c of the RDA. However, Senator Brandis failed to stress that
Justice Mordecai Bromberg’s judgment against Bolt rested on a
precedent set by my case before Justice Catherine Branson in the FCA on
17 September 2002, confirmed on appeal on 27 June 2003. Only Senator
Scott Ryan mentioned in passing that not only did Andrew Bolt get caught
by the RDA but also ‘Holocaust deniers’. 2.
It must be noted that in 2009
Senator Brandis ‘finished-off’ the President of the Human Rights
Commission, Catherine Branson, when he grilled her about the Australian
Human Rights Commission having attended the UN Durban II conference as
observers, which Brandis saw as a contravention of Australia’s
political stance adopted against the political agenda embodied in the
UN’s Durban Conference. Branson did not see out her five-year contract
and departed in the middle of 2012 at the end of her fourth year to
spend more time with ‘family’. 3.
At our 2010 annual national
conference of Australian College of Educators in Sydney the President of
the Human Rights Commission, Catherine Branson, delivered a keynote
address about bullying in schools wherein she stressed the importance of
teaching human rights in schools. During question time – and only two
questions were allowed – I asked her where the Truth concept is to be
found within the human rights legislation. I stressed that TRUTH is one
of the most important concepts on which the foundation of our
civilisation rests. She could not answer my question and made some
personal remarks about my case, which was quite irrelevant. 4.
I recall that it was Justice
Branson who gave me the FCA gag orders forbidding me to question the
pillars of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative: Six million, systematic
extermination and existence of homicidal gas chambers, which was however
welcomed by Senator Brandis who appears to be enamoured by the prospects
of sniffing out ‘antisemites’ and ‘Holocaust deniers’ through
any legislation enacted by Parliament. 5.
On numerous occasions it was necessary for Senator Crossin, who chairs
the hearing with Senator Humphries, to admonish Senator Brandis’
interjections, especially when the news of the day detailed how Senator
Crossin has been sidelined by her Prime Minister as a senate candidate
for the Northern Territory at the next election. As a former teacher I
could empathise with Senator Crossin who must have thought she was back
in the classroom where a naughty boisterous and active mind interjects
and impedes a free flow of ideas by monopolising the discussion. 6.
During my teaching years I
always delighted in firmly confronting such ‘naughty boys’ by giving
them the opportunity to extend their mental prowess but then also
setting moral limits and requiring that manners be observed. Today this
lack of manners is in part taken up indirectly through ‘political
correct’ thinking processes, i.e. we should not in these verbal
exchanges of the battle-of-the-wills become rude or insulting, i.e. we
need to remain civilised. That is what I essentially discerned during
the submissions, especially by individuals who because of their
sexuality do not need additional problems of social
victimisation-bastardisation. 7.
Such demand for manners
transcends any of the categories that are now deemed in need of
protection, something the legislators fail to understand because they
have rejected the concept of morality and truth as a guiding light in
settling human disputes. These dialectic materialist-rationalists claim
that TRUTH is a social construct, i.e. there is no such thing as TRUTH.
Yet, if a person does not tell the truth under oath, in effect tells
lies, then they still consider such an act an indictable offence. 8.
This twisted ideological stance
rests in large measure on the success of the language philosophers
having displaced the moral philosophers that then gave the Marxist
ideologues open-ended space to introduce their absolutist ideology of
dialectic materialism – which in the Soviet Union until the late 1950s
filled the GuLags with political prisoners who refused to embrace the
Marxist ideology. That Australia can easily slip into such absolutist
mindset is not too farfetched and fanciful a notion especially if it is
borne in mind that these hearings are testing the water so see if the
social climate is ready to establish a new Australian Human Rights Act. 9.
I am reminded of the clash that occurred during the 1950s between Ludwig
Wittgenstein and Karl Popper when the latter invites the former to give
a talk at Cambridge University. Wittgenstein, a language philosopher,
introduces Popper to the seminarians by stating that ‘all our problems
will disappear, if only we correctly analyse our language’. Popper
asks: ‘What about moral problems?’, to which Wittgenstein, standing
next to the fire place, agitatedly responds by picking up the fire poker
and waving it about exclaiming: ‘There are no moral problems.’
Popper responds: ‘What about the moral problem of a host threatening a
visitor with a fire poker?’ Although
the ending remains controversial, Popper himself informed me that
Wittgenstein threw down the fire poker and stormed out the room. 10.
This exchange is an example of
two grown men having a public dispute, which one settles by developing a
huff-and-puff attitude, then running away. In regard to today’s legal
mindset, and bearing Jeremy Sean Jones’ behaviour in mind, and the RDA
activated, Wittgenstein would have redress by claiming what Popper said
was a provocation and ‘reasonably and likely offended him’. 11.
This is the situation I faced in 1996 when Jeremy Sean Jones claimed my
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ research offended him. Interestingly, although
each time when I was ordered to removed so-called offensive material
from our Adelaide Institute website, which I did, it was not the
material cited in the HREOC findings nor in the FCAS judgment that
are now on public record. The material objected to by Zionist Jeremy
Sean Jones was specific ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ material that contradicted
his ‘official’ narrative, i.e. that during World War Two Germans
never killed anyone in homicidal gas chambers – which is an outrageous
war-time propaganda lie that he wanted protected on that nonsense claim
his feelings had been hurt. All the non-Jewish judges involved in my
case bent to Jewish pressure, thereby throwing TRUTH out the proverbial
legal window. 12.
At no time was Jones prepared to
discuss our differences, i.e. my personal research at Auschwitz and
Treblinka where I could not find any evidence of mass gassings. He did
not wish to conciliate because his aim was to implement the Zionist
agenda of criminalising and legally protecting the official conspiracy
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative that served the racist Zionist State of
Israel so well against its battle with the original first people, the
Palestinians. 13.
Sadly, my ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ research conclusion remains unaltered
since my first visit to Auschwitz in April 1997, i.e. that technically
the official ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative has become a legal fiction
– and I refuse to remain silent on this matter because as an
Australian of German ethnic origin it is hurtful to be confronted by
such continuous barrage of lies. 14.
Now that the New South Wales
public school system has been forced – its bureaucrats and politicians
let themselves be forced – by Jewish-Zionist interests to make
‘Holocaust Studies’ a compulsory subject, I find it outrageous that
young Year Nine and Ten students’ minds are forced to be exposed to a
horrendous and gruesome Jewish propaganda story that is not true:
Germans did not systematically exterminate European Jewry in homicidal
gas chambers. 15.
Why should this myth be legally
protected and why, in most so-called ‘free and democratic western
nations’ is an open enquiry into the actual physical details of the
murder weapon not permitted? 16.
Of course, this ‘Hoax of the
Twentieth Century’ is now fading slowly into oblivion, but the new
Jewish-Zionist racist supremacist narrative has already had ten years of
legal construction, namely, the 9/11 narrative, i.e. that a bunch of
Arabic-speaking individuals perpetrated a ‘terrorist attack’ on the
USA. 17.
As with matters
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ this 9/11 Hoax of the Twenty-first Century
cannot stand having its official conspiracy narrative subjected to
forensic analysis. In both instances the natural laws of nature need to
be suspended in order for the ‘official conspiracy narrative’ to
stand up to logical and empirical analysis. 18.
The latest intellectual fraud is
the Global Warming – carbon tax scam. Any scientist knows that
scientific investigation never produces absolute results, something
philosopher and quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg taught us when in
1927 he formulated his indeterminacy/uncertainty principle. 19.
I conclude with a thought from
Iran where it is generally held that humans are fallible-imperfect, only
God is absolute-perfect, which makes the idea itself an absolute. In
western democracies it is permissible to deny the existence of God but
not to deny the existence of, for example, matters Holocaust –
homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. 20.
Also, today, on Holocaust
Memorial Day, it became a world news item that Italian politician
Berlusconi stated that besides the bad laws enacted against Jews during
World War Two Mussolini was not a bad man! Is it not time to also
welcome rational and balanced debate on matters Adolf Hitler and focus
on why his memory is still with us? Perhaps it is instructive to revise
our views thus: German
racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race,
re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble
ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it
was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and
wished that all other races did the same for themselves.
– Waffen SS General Leon Degrelle. 21.
As I am almost reaching my
three-score-and-ten years I find it shameful to see Australia join other
so-called western nations in introducing the Jewish-Zionist
‘Holocaust-Shoah’ narrative, together with the ‘9/11’ narrative
as a tool into political debate that is not in Australia’s
self-interest but serves only the racist, Zionist state of Israel.
Globally this furthers the political aim of ‘Eretz Israel’ much to
the detriment of the Palestinians who have lived in the Middle East as
the Felestin people since before our A.D. calculations. 22.
Permit me to close my
deliberations with the following thought: In
the first half of the 19th Century, Honoré de Balzac, 1799-1850,
pointed out that there are two kinds of world history. One is official,
falsified and designed to be taught in the schools, while the other is
the real and secret history that accurately depicts world events. Balzac’s
appraisal illuminates the fact there have always been powerful groups
that direct politics from behind the scenes and make certain that the
great majority are kept ignorant of their machinations. When
truth-seekers present evidence of deception and bring the true story to
light, they are dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ who are not to
be taken seriously - and they are always persecuted in one way or
another. Submitted
for your consideration. Dr
Fredrick Töben Adelaide
|
©-free 2013 Adelaide Institute