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*

6 February 2013

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

toben@toben.biz

 

 

 

©-free 2013 Adelaide Institute