[important]MEMO FROM FREDRICK TÖBEN 9 May 2014[/important]



The immoral/amoral label the act of truth-telling an ANTISEMITIC act.

German philosopher Martin Heidegger, among other things, stated the following, which most commentators, some even with moral indignation, claim reveals Heidegger’s deap-seated ANTISEMITISM:

The Jews, with their marked gift for calculating, live, already for the longest time, according to the principle of race, which is why they are resisting its consistent application with utmost violence.

So, what’s the problem? Oh, please, don’t bring along that weary and deceptive concept ANTISEMITISM in order to explain what Heidegger means when he wrote this sentence. The meaning of what he wrote, and of what he meant, is quite clear. Heidegger refers to Jews who, as a collective, when it gets to the inevitable battle-of-the-wills, pull out all the stops and more to forge shields and swords in order to win over their opponents. The “Antisemitism” charge is a powerful tool with which one is able to stop discussions especially those that focus on Jewish behaviour. And it is Jewish behaviour that causes individuals to make comments just as anyone makes comments about any other group or individuals, and so such comments apply to anyone – and then the test whether such comments are true, have truth-content or are a fabrication, a lie even, is made in a defamation action, not via some rubbish legal construct called Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

For example, in its submission to the Attorney-General re Section 18C the ECAJ per its current head, Peter Wertheim, claims this section protects Jews from being abused. Sahra Whyte’s 30 April 2014 Sydney Morning Herald article “Jewish community opposes changes to 18C racial vilification laws,” sums up the situation:

The largest Jewish peak body in Australia says Attorney-General George Brandis’ planned changes to the 18C racial vilification laws are fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has pointed out that former prime minister John Howard, who now publicly backs the changes, used the 18C law to win a Holocaust denial case in 2003.

The Howard government used the 18C law to defeat Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben, who had been ordered by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to remove material it considered racial hate speech from his website. “It is ironic that, while Mr Howard now says he supports Senator Brandis’ plans to change 18C, when he was prime minister the Commonwealth intervened to vigorously defend the act’s validity, including the specific words “offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate”, to defeat Toben’s challenge,” said Peter Wertheim, executive director of the council, who also worked on the court case.

Earlier this month, former prime minister John Howard threw his support behind the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, telling a Liberal Party gala dinner in Melbourne the changes were in line with the classical liberal tradition. “Australia is not a racist ­nation but rather one that respects and cherishes an open and tolerant society, which should therefore uphold freedom of speech,” Mr Howard told the audience.

In its submission to the Human Rights Policy Branch on Tuesday, the council wrote that the changes were “artificially designed”, in its attempt to remove the liability of “hurt feelings”. “Acts of violence begin with words,” the submission said.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has also voiced its opposition against the exposure draft, saying any changes to the act has the capacity to affect the human rights of all Australians. Submissions to the proposed amendments close on Wednesday – http://www.smh.com.au/federalpolitics/political-news/jewish-community-opposes-changes-to-18cracialvilificationlaws20140429zr14a.html#ixzz30JeFYuTx.

What does it mean: “…to defeat Toben’s challenge,”? And why refer to what I wrote as: “… racial hate speech…”? The fact is there is no discussion that would lead to a clarification of issues as there is no defence under this Act because any material is likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate! Even a look can be offensive!

The fact that this 17-year court case drama bankrupted me is, of course, irrelevant to Jewish interests. In 2010 one barrister, during his ALP election speech for the seat of Wentworth, even celebrated himself by stating that among the good work he had done for the Jewish community was to work on my case and, ‘We’re about to bankrupt Toben”. His first attempt at this failed because he made a mess of the paper work, then the second attempt failed by my defeating it, but it meant I had to sell my home that I owned since 1985 so that the all-up sum of $75,000 could be raised. Then, his third attempt succeeded and in typical Shylock fashion, he didn’t know when to stop and not extract that pound of flesh, which he did by asking for another $175,000 court costs, which I had no chance of raising. Earlier this year my inheritance of $140,000 has gone to the bankruptcy trustees who will deduct it from the bankruptcy debt of $175,000.

Think about what led to my financial bankruptcy: the specific words “offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate” referred to my asking questions about matters “Holocaust”, i.e. the allegation that during World War Two Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz.

My asking questions and challenging the orthodox version of factual events and incidents of World War Two history caused the Jewish community members so much grief that it needed to silence me – never mind that it causes me grief to hear such gassing allegations levelled against my father who during World War Two served in the German army. I take it as my right to continue to ask questions and to doubt the official “Holocaust” narrative.

Interestingly, since my visit to Israel in 1971 I have become aware of the Jerusalem/Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud, the most important books for Jews. And what does TALMUD teach? It is the source of Jewish moral guidance and within its text the world is divided into Jews and non-Jews. That is the premise on which Jewish supremacism rests, and it is what motivates Australia’s Jewish community and gives it its cohesive power. This is not mere fanciful speculation on my part but rather a logical necessity flowing out of Israel as the following report suggests:


Report: Netanyahu Promises Talmud Will Be Israeli Law

Netanyahu tells Likud hareidi leader Hebrew calendar will be official calendar of state in new Basic Law, Jewish law basis of legal system.

By Ari Yashar, First Publish: 5/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly revealed at a Likud conference on Wednesday some remarkable facets of the Basic Law he submitted last Thursday, which would enshrine Israel’s status as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Netanyahu told the head of Likud’s hareidi division Yaakov Vider at the conference that he intends to make the Hebrewcalendar, which is based on Jewish law, the official calendar of Israel, reports Kikar Hashabat.

The new law also would establish the Talmud, the core work of Jewish law, as an official basis for Israeli state law.

“I’m going to personally be involved in the law defining the state of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people,” Netanyahu reportedly told Vider. “It’s a very important law that will influence how Israel will look in the future.”

“I want to anchor in this law, that it will be a Basic Law that the state of Israel arose and exists on the basis of the Torah and the Jewish tradition,” Netanyahu explained, promising to define the Hebrew calendar as the official state calendar.

Netanyahu also promised that “we will define in the law the Gemara as a basis for the Israeli legal system,” referencing the Jewish legal text analyzing the Mishnah, a legal work of the Jewish sages, which together form the Talmud.

Discussing the new Basic Law on Sunday in a cabinet meeting, Netanyahu stated “the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state does not actualize itself enough in our Basic Laws, which is what the proposed law aims to fix.”

Netanyahu stressed the law would not restrict the rights of non-Jewish citizens of Israel. He further dismissed opposition to the law by leftist MKs, foremost among them Justice Minister Tzipi Livni who pledged to block the law.

“They want a Palestinian national state to be built beside us, and to turn the State of Israel, meanwhile, into a bi-national state, Jewish-Arab, within our restricted borders,” Netanyahu argued, saying the new Basic Law would prevent such a situation.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180440#.U29eA_mSzT8


At a basic level the dialectic used is the them-us divide that Marx perfected as the death dialectic, as opposed to Hegel’s life-giving dialectic of compromise and moral maturity.

As mentioned elsewhere, part of the verbal armoury that make up the Jewish community’s sword and shield are the usual concepts: HATER, HOOLCAUST DENIER, ANTISEMITE, RACIST, NAZI, and the latest one is in the making: HATE SPEECH will be labelled ACTS OF TERRORISM.

Also of interest is, of course, the deception that goes on behind the scene. The Racial Discrimination Act aims to eliminate racial abuse within Australian society and somehow so-called HOLOCAUST DENIAL becomes an ethnic/racial matter. Since when is a so-called historical event protected by a specific act of parliament? Certainly in a democratic society where free expression is one of the fundamental pillars on which the whole social fabric rests, it is absurd to extend legal protection to an alleged historical event just of interest to Jews – and where the various state archives are still locking up the evidence, i.e. over 70 years after the alleged event.

This looks to me to be quite a corrupt process that needs exposing, but the deception does not rest here, and I now return to Heidegger’s wisdom of encapsulating a phenomenon in one sentence. There is now a Jew in England who claims to be an atheist and a Jew – Ed Miliband, as Tamara Cohen writes in her Daily Mail article of 12 April 2014: “I don’t think God exists, but faith is part of who I am, says ‘Jewish atheist’ Ed Miliband”:


Ed Miliband has professed that he does not believe in God – but says he does still have ‘faith’. The Labour leader, speaking about his religious beliefs in detail for the first time, said he would be the ‘first Jewish prime minister’ if he wins the next election. But he said his faith, which is ‘part of who I am’, is compatible with being an atheist, claiming that like many religious believers, he hopes to ‘change the world’. David Cameron, who spoke about his own faith this week, is the only one of the three party leaders to say he believes in God, as Nick Clegg is also an atheist.

But during his tour of Israel and the West Bank, Mr Miliband distanced himself from the last Labour government which, in the words of spin doctor Alistair Campbell, did not ‘do God’. Britain, he said in an interview, is a ‘Christian country’ despite declining observance, and he strongly believes religion ‘nourishes people’. He said: ‘I have a particular faith. I describe myself as a Jewish atheist. I’m Jewish by birth origin and it’s a part of who I am. ‘I don’t believe in God, but I think faith is a really, really important thing to a lot of people. It provides nourishment for lots of people.



This is an expression of the racist principle writ large!

Milliband’s words express what is common knowledge among researchers but few dare to state in open forum with Professor Kevin MacDonald being the exception here.

Now comes Heidegger who points out the hypocrisy of Jews running with the RACIST sword with which they beat down anyone who wishes to adopt a Volk mentality, as did the National Socialists in Germany and elsewhere. And as did Richard Wagner in his music wherein he celebrates Germanic tribal society, and where today’s anti-German translators of Wagner’s texts liberally use the RACE concept – where Wagner used the clan-tribe-folk concept – so as to imbue Wagner’s works with the concept RACE as a smear word that like ANTISEMITE is used to neutralise anyone who is seen as a threat to Jewish interests. That Wagner’s success in disconnecting from things Jewish has not been forgotten by Jewish interests who are still trying to make his achievements theirs – and if that does not succeed, then at least the smear-job, the defaming of Wagner’s person is in full swing.

Heidegger’s one sentence so clearly illustrates what Ed Miliband expresses above – and there we have the hypocrisy with which Jewish communities bamboozle the unwary and those who are easily intimidated by threats of legal action if an apology is not forthcoming. After all, there are two ways of killing a person – direct and indirect. The latter is achieved through the court system. In 1996 when the ECAJ took me to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-HREOC I was quite prepared to attend a conciliation session but Jeremy Jones would not, and Kirsty Gowans advised me that Jones had no interest in attending. She also said that HREOC was an instrument of international politics. His aim was to “stop me from functioning”, and this claim was investigated by Sir Ronald Wilson, and dismissed – and the ABC RN program is not archived anymore where Jones states this to Rachel Cohn, but I still have the transcript that Sir Ronald obtained from the ABC! Later HREOC morphed into Australia’s Human Rights Commission and the Federal Court of Australia judge who found against me, Catherine Branson, became its President. She didn’t see out her five year term because Senator Brandis tore strips off her when she attended the Durban II Conference that the Australian government officially boycotted. Her excuse that she was attending merely as an observer did not go down well with Brandis when he grilled her before a Senate enquiry into the matter.

At this point of my commentary I shall insert my maxim that clarifies the issue about this whole matter being an attack on Jews generally because it is not. What Jewish interest groups are doing is done by a multitude of interest groups, only that Jews do it more efficiently and ruthlessly: Don’t only blame the Jews, also blame those that bend to Jewish pressure.

As mentioned above, for whatever reason, Catherine Branson bent to Jewish pressure, as did Kath McEvoy, the Adelaide University law lecturer who as a commissioner for HREOC and who began the process, and who refused to answer my question – as did Branson as well: Is TRUTH a defence in these proceedings? – because if not, where truth is no defence, lies flourish and we have an immoral situation and I refuse to participate in immoral proceedings.

McEvoy’s conclusion was adopted by Branson and she handed down a Summary Judgment, which Justice Mordecai Bromberg used as a precedent case for his Bolt verdict. Think of this, an undefended case becomes a precedent case for Bolt who then does not challenge it in the High Court. His employer has the means to do this – so, why didn’t the Murdoch media group take the Bolt case to the High Court?

And now a few Heidegger musings from academics who have fallen into the conceptual clap-trap of pulling out the ANTISEMITIC-RACIST-NAZI-card as a sword and the HOLOCAUST-card as a shield. This is now a prime example of our western cultural decline where the Jewish perspective emerges victorious over Western culture. The last time there was an upheaval against this Talmudic dictatorship was in 1933 when the world saw one of the 20th century’s greatest freedom fighter attempt to liberate his people’s minds from foreign Talmudic occupation.

—————- A RESPONSE———————–

From: peter.sault@odeion.org

Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 8:14 PM

To: ‘Rebel of Oz’;

reporternotebook@gmail.com; ‘Adelaide

Institute’; Fredrick Toben

Cc: email@timwilson.com.au;

Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au; senator.brandis@aph.gov.au; Subject: Re: Memo from Fredrick Toben 9

May 20131


“Acts of violence begin with words,”

That is an egregious half-truth:-

1. Violence can take many forms and can begin in many ways. Violent storms begin with gathering clouds.

2. Interpersonal violence may sometimes be preceded by words and those words may be related to the violence but can never be said to cause the violence. For example, Mr A calls Mr B a “silly billy”, after which Mr B slaps Mr A’s face although, however, the violent act results not from Mr A’s words but from Mr B’s inability to control himself. Hence it is Mr B who is the social menace, irrespective of whether or not he really is a silly billy.

3. Words can themselves be acts of violence but only, for example, when shouted loudly next to the victim’s ear endangering the victim’s hearing. And many things can make loud and thereby dangerous noises, not only the human voice.

4. Imprisoning someone is an act of violence insofar as no one allows himself to be imprisoned voluntarily.

The quoted statement is a lie intended to have an emotional impact, to bypass the intellect and hit the amygdala directly. In a word, it is propaganda.

Insofar as ideas precede words it is only a short step to saying “acts of violence begin with ideas” from which we may conclude that acts of violence begin with sentience. Do we abolish sentience in order to prevent violence?


P.S. The only way that “multiculturalism” and other artificial social constructs (e.g. religion) can be sustained internally is by the manufacture of external enemies.


Read more at AI Newsletter No 768