Frederick Toben helps Jewish Lobby to block changes to 18C Hate Speech Law
by Peter Myers, November 18, 2014
This material is at http://mailstar.net/Toben-Carr-Lobby-18C.doc
Bob Carr, Australia’s former Foreign Minister, recently announced himself a Friend of Palestine; decades ago, he had helped inaugurate Friends of Israel.
In his Memoirs, he alleges that Australia’s Gillard Labor government had subcontracted MidEast foreign policy to Jewish donors. Labor MP Julia Irwin had long complained about Labor dependence on Jewish funding.
Because of his high standing in Australia and overseas, Bob Carr was able to get away with such statements. But ordinary Australians doing so might find themselves accused of Hate Speech or Racial Vilification – a criminal act under clauses 18C & 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act.
The most controversial part of that law is the lack of any objective measure; all that’s required is that the Minority group, through its leaders, claim that it feels “Offended”. The offender is then liable to criminal prosecution by the police and courts. Frederick Toben, a Holocaust Denier (or Revisionist, as he calls himself) had been successfully prosecuted under that Act.
The new Government of Tony Abbott had promised to change clauses 18C & 18D
to provide for an objective measure.
Australia’s Jewish lobby came out against the changes, quite early. “Jewish community opposes changes to 18C racial vilifcation laws”, read a Sydney Morning Herald headline of April 29, 2014: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jewish-community-opposes-changes-to-18c-racial-vilifcation-laws-20140429-zr14a.html
Later, Aboriginal and Muslim groups join the campaign to block changes.
Toben asserted that the Jewish Lobby would be able to block the changes.
However, some powerful forces backed the changes – Attorney-General George Brandis, ABC Chairman Jim Spigelman, and Quadrant Magazine.
Writers from Spiked Online were published in the major media; Spiked is an online magazine, the successor to LM Magazine, which has always had a lot of Jewish writers, eg Frank Furedi and Melanie Phillips. They are Zionists, but support Free Speech and oppose the Culture War being waged by the Green Left.
It looked as if the changes would go through. But the Lobby was saved by its adversary Frederick Toben.
Toben couldn’t keep his mouth shut. He insisted on making submissions to the public Enquiry and publishing them on his website. They were featured on the front pages of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age: “Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis’ plans for discrimination law” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/holocaust-denier-frederick-toben-backs-george-brandis-plans-for-discrimination-law-20140513-zrbnx.html
Toben argued that, whilst Brandis and the Australian public thought that the issue was about Free Speech (exemplified by the case of Andrew Bolt), section 18C had been designed by Jewish interests and “the sole aim of this section has always been to legally protect … the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.”
Toben congratulated Attorney General George Brandis for his proposed changes to a “flawed law, which only benefits Jewish-Zionist-Israeli interests”.
Brandis had stated that Bigots should be tolerated for the sake of Free Speech. Now, here was Australia’s best-known Bigot, bold and brassy, at the centre of the debate.
The debate had shifted, from one about Free Speech to one about the Nazi Holocaust – and Toben.
That was the end of it; a few weeks later, Tony Abbot abandoned the changes.
On August 6, 2014, the Times of Israel ran an article headed “Australian Jews block change in local race-hate laws”; the story was sourced from JTA:
Here was confirmation from the horse’s mouth, of Toben’s claim that the Jewish Lobby was the force behind 18C & 18D.
Toben says that his prediction, that the Lobby would be able to block the changes, was vindicated. Yet a more objective assessment would be that Toben himself was the best assistant the Lobby could have. If he had kept his mouth shut, the changes would probably have got through.
Why did he enter the debate? He surely knew that the Lobby would make use of him. Whatever his reason, he has a different agenda from the rest of us. Because of him, we still don’t have Free Speech in Australia.
Thinking that Toben might have an open mind, I suggested to him that he read the books of Otto Strasser, which had awakened me to Hitler’s true nature.They are available at my website. But Toben had no interest. This was the second time I’d raised the matter with him, and I came to see that, unlike scholars who read all sides of a debate, Toben is more like a missionary – a Nazi Missionary.
Just as the Green Left movement was infiltrated by Trotskyists, Radical Feminists and Gay activists, the Dissident movement has been penetrated by Nazi Missionaries, especially since 9/11. Even Leftist people who are not Nazis by any stretch of the imagination have come out for Holocaust Denial.
It doesn’t help that Israel is committing a genocide of the Palestinians, which we are not supposed to notice as we keep our focus on what Nazis did to Jews 70 years ago.
Is Hitler really a savior from the Netanyahus of this world, as Toben would argue?
Or was Hitler just another kind of Netanyahu? That’s what I hold. I have tried to get behind the Nazi defences, to focus on Hitler’s genocidal policy towards Ukraine and the Slavs.
That genocidal policyis expressed in HITLER SPEAKS, an account of conversations with Hitler in the years 1932-34, recorded by Hermann Rauschning, who was Governor of Danzig. When it was published in 1939, few believed that Hitler was the extremist depicted there.
Nazi Missionaries like Mark Weber dismiss it as a forgery. But the genocidal policy towards Slavs is also articulated in Hitler’s Table Talk, a record of conversations and monologues of Hitler from 1941 to 1944, authenticated by Hugh Trevor-Roper and David Irving.
In Table Talk sessions from 17 September 1941 to 5th July 1942, Hitler says,
“The Slavs are a mass of born slaves, who feel the need of a master. …It’s better not to teach them to read. … The real frontier is the one that separates the Germanic world from the Slav world. … If these people are allowed … to multiply too quickly, it will be against our interests …Our interests demand just the reverse …”
In Hitler Speaks, he says, “We are obliged to depopulate … as part of our mission of preserving the German population. We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I mean the removal of entire racial units … surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin! … It will be one of the chief tasks of German statesmanship for all time to prevent, by every means in our power, the further increase of the Slav races.”
These texts demolish the heroic image of Hitler cultivated by his missionaries.
Who does the Jewish Lobby prefer, Bob Carr or Frederick Toben?
For them, Toben is an asset, a bogeyman who scares the public into sacrificing their Free Speech; the person they really fear is Carr, because he’s both credible and unassailable.
From an Australian and former Catholic turned Atheist-Marxist-Trotskyist-Holocaust Believer who claims to be an intellectual
Perhaps of interest:
Peter Myers, with his lack of a moral imperative, would never understand my maxim: Don’t only blame the Jews, but also blame those who bend to their pressure.
The below text highlights the flawed use Myers makes of his beloved atheistic-Talmudic-Marxist death dialectic, which does not solve any of our moral problems because Myers’ mind functions only in win-lose categories, never in compromise. In this way he embraces intellectual hubris, which was one of the hallmarks of the Nietzschean philosophy of hedonistic inversion.
Myers would shudder at the thought of introducing the Hegelian life-giving dialectic of compromise, which Wagner so admirably introduces into his musical creations. The battle there is one between power and love and how to attain the balance between these two fundamental human impulses. It is also not one where a trivial version exists in the form of “the power of love”.
Of course, for Myers there is no such thing as LOVE, only sexual exploitation a la Talmudic-Marxist ideology, of which he has been a good practitioner.
____ Rather a strained logic on their part, that 18C stayed the same because you reminded them of why it was there in the first place ! But I note with interest, that the argument then - sleight of hand, somehow slips away from the usual - once again, Holocaust affirmation, to Hitler's musings about the Slav peoples, as now being in themselves unspoken justification for retaining 18C as is. The tenor of it all is that they are all but ready to concede that the official Holocaust, were it to be introduced as even a supporting narrative in a 18C court case, would sound too caricaturish in the present day, given the accumulating weight of the mini holocausts of even just the last 13yrs. M.M. ____
Blaming the victim? Maybe the best friend the Jewish lobby has is you. As I recall you believe the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ fairytale. I, as always, am prepared to consider any forensic evidence to support it. But I have to see the evidence – and “Auschwitz” is not evidence of a ‘Holocaust’ anyway. I’ve been waiting a long time.
All that matters (to me) is the truth, which Fredrick speaks in respect of the ‘Holocaust’ and its legalistic protections.
Interesting collection on an arcane subject from Peter Myers. In Russia, many unusual people (perhaps freaks for their opponents) are excited about Arkaim. Personally I do not believe we know the origins of nations and tribes – because these theories change every year. Maybe we shall know one day, but meanwhile all that is guesswor.
Peter Myers also publishes a response by Toben.The verdict of our moderators (shamireaders) is surprisingly for Toben. Myers effectively claimed that Toben must keep his mouth shut for everything he says is counterproductive as Jews hate him. This is very poor claim for it gives the Jews a right to veto anyone of us
Hitler himself was part-Jewish and part-African, according to DNA tests of his family:
Toben himself hardly looks “Nordic”. I look more so than he does.
Peter, do you really believe that nonsense about the DNA test? One thing I learned from studying the history and philosophy of science is that scientific results are never absolute and are always subject to interpretation. This is so especially if we follow the Marxist ideology that celebrates dialectic materialism where truth has no home, where truth is what you want it to be because, so it is falsely claimed, natural processes are all socially determined, etc.
If you look more “Nordic” than I do, the difference then is one of “mentality”, of moral and intellectual values. You have embraced the Talmudic-Marxist death dialectic, which is life-denying and thrives on parasitic thought structures rather than on a developing of the inner “Godly” potential that all individuals innately strive to do.
I call this process conceptual “class-driven rational hubris” where LOVE has no home and where the slave mentality of master-servant thrives. Our consumer society has further developed this trend by relying on predatory capitalism’s own internal logic – of unlimited growth maxims and principles of usury.
You may have the look of a “Nordic”, whatever that means, but your mindset has driven you into a cul-de-sac where hatred and envy thrive in the form of hedonism and nihilism. And if that doesn’t settle your feverish mind, then you can always play the victim of my conspiratorial mindset!
With best wishes.
PS: For what it is worth, below I am copying material about this matter, which may clarify your thrustings that attempt to get a Jewish angle on the whole issue, and I do this in the knowledge that I have, not as yet, read MEIN KAMPF:
Hitler’s Revolution Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs
By Richard Tedor, 2013, Chicago, Ill. USA. ISBN978-09883682-0-0
…. Under Gross, the Racial Policy Office walked a thin line between the more relaxed criteria envisioned by Günther and many of his contemporaries, and the “blond rapture” they cautioned against. In 1934, Gross’ colleague, Wolfgang Abel, published generalizations of Germany’s ethnic tribes: the Nordic, Pfalzish, Eastern Baltic, Dinaric, Alpine, Western Nordic, and Western Mediterranean. He described physical characteristics, illustrated with camera portraits resembling mug shots, and collective personality traits of each. Abel offered for example, this profile of the Nordic type: “The least spontaneous, he surpasses all other races in steadfastness of purpose and cautious foresight. Thinking ahead, he subordinates his driving impulses to long-range goals. Self-composure is perhaps the most distinguishable trait of the Nordic race. In this lies a significant part of the ability to create civilizations. Races lacking this quality are incapable of following through and implementing long-term realizable objectives.
Pfalz Germans were “more steadfast than pliant, more grounded than adaptable, more level-headed than daring, more freedom-loving than power seeking.” The Western Mediterranean German “takes life less seriously. Empty formula courtesies and insincere gestures play a major role, such as promising gifts and extending invitations he doesn’t really expect people to accept. His inclination toward truthfulness and ethics is weaker than the Nordic person’s.
Hitler disapproved of such comparisons. He especially opposed reference to physical contrasts of stature, coloring, or physiognomy among German ethnic groups. In 1930 he told an aid, “Discussions about the race problem will only divide the German people further, incite them against each other, atomize them, and in this way make them inconsequential with respect to foreign affairs.” He admonished senior officials of the party to avoid the subject of ethnic diversity in speeches and articles: “Everything that unifies and welds the classes together must be brought forth, what divides them, what re-animates old prejudices, must be avoided … They are the surest way to destroy a community.” He remarked that people should be selected for leadership roles “not according to outward appearance, but by demonstrating inward ability.”……… p.31-32
Related Stories: Australian Jews block change in local race-hate laws