From the Archive:
Conspiracy, coincidence, or merely bureaucratic stuff-up?
Subtle Elimination Process
By Fredrick Töben 24 September 2002
Throughout my peregrinations I met a number of individuals who have impressed me by their candid, fearless and refreshingly honest approach to life. They had constructed for themselves a world view within which I could breathe easy. There was no envy, no excessive pursuit of any material possessions, but a determined will to see that justice and mercy prevailed. They were no angels either, but they had not lost their humanity, something I find so lacking in those individuals who now attempt to silence me because I seem to pose a threat to their held world-view.
Interestingly, the following Australians all topped that proverbial three score and ten years by another decade at least, and remained mentally alert until they passed on.
Sir James Darling was an educator who practised what he preached; Sir Edward Barber was a practising legal eagle whose sense of justice and compassion benefited many individuals. It was Sir Edward who managed to get a small settlement for the then widow of former University of Tasmania philosophy lecturer, S S Orr; Sir Douglas Wright was a man whose moral and intellectual integrity remained in-tact.
When in September 1990, The University of Melbourne Gazette, celebrated its own Sir Douglas, I wrote the following:
“In 1961 Sir Douglas Wright wrote a Prologue to the disturbing W H C Eddy book Orr. This Prologue has provided many victims of conspiracies with much-needed moral support because it offers a succinct analysis of this subtle elimination process.
Sir Douglas identified its elements thus:
- Defame the victim’s professional competence, mental balance, truthfulness, etc.
- Reward collaborators from the victim’s group.
- Weld together the pack of prosecutors.
- Proclaim authority of the corporation.
- Spread defamation through the victim’s personal links and loyalties.
- Isolate the victim by giving him the silent treatment.
- Usually this leads to the victim’s resignation which is taken as proof of guilt. Dismissal occurs if the victim refuses to resign.
- A strong victim highlights the moral standards of society.
- People in authority perpetuate their own types because no one wishes to be shamed by his successor.
- Employees are as courageous as their security of livelihood and reputation permits.
- A governing body of an institution devoted to truth and justice is corrupt if it obstructs enquiry into its stewardship.
Sir Douglas concluded his analysis with a timeless warning: ‘Such state of affairs is the antithesis of democratic processes and places the society in imminent danger.’
It is in this sense that I personally ask: Where are our present-day Wrights?”
Sir Roy Douglas Wright (1907-1990)
When I reflect on the legal process that gave rise to the 17 September 2002 Federal Court of Australia judgment – Jones v Toben (includes explanatory memorandum)  FCA 1150 – and more here, then it is clear to me that there is a great dearth of ‘Wrights’ within the legal profession, and elsewhere within our community. Mention the ‘Holocaust’ and individuals go to seed.
Some years ago, Australia’s grand-daddy of Revisionism, lawyer John Bennett, walked along a Melbourne street and a QC, later to become a judge, came towards him and spat on the ground before Bennett’s feet.[Notice that we have deleted the judge’s name for the sake of avoiding legal action. But anyone wishing to know the name, is welcomed to ask.]
Only recently, the fellow who operates www.crikey.com.au was quite pleased to run an add for John Bennett’s Your Rights, a valuable legal primer that has passed the 20th edition mark. Admittedly, Bennett paid for this service, but was surprised that an offer came his way that the add would be run twice more without charge.
Then suddenly, it all stopped. The gentleman operating the website didn’t want to know Bennett anymore. He had received emails that defamed Bennett with the usual shut-up words: ‘hater’, ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘antisemite’, ‘racist’, ‘neo-Nazi’.
Here we have another example of a man who bends to the Zionist pressure without exercising his moral and intellectual integrity to the full.
Yet, in all fairness to those who do bend, as Professor Robert Faurisson pointed out to me, imagine the pressure under which our public figures are to tow the line on this ‘Holocaust’ nonsense.
I have now begun to talk about the heap of feces that has been placed in my lounge and that I have been poking a stick at these past nine years, failing to dislodge it.
Recently workmen broke into my home and put this heap of feces in a wooden box, then nailed this box firmly to the floor. There is now a notice on the box that says I must never touch the box, let alone attempt to remove it. I think I have to move house!