NOVANEWS
The November 2012 Israeli reaction to the UNGA vote has been predictable – the hurried announcement that 3000 new homes are to be rushed through the planning and execution stage; never mind that such action further fractures the West Bank’s territory.
Israeli officials claimed that any problems for Palestinians arising out of the establishing of new homes can be solved by developing road over-and-underpasses. Such a suggested solution cannot brush away the image of the Bantustan fracturing of the Republic of South Africa’s territory.
However, in this example from former Apartheid South Africa, the homelands were actually tribal lands that were already well on their way to becoming viable independent mini-nations in the form of the many small countries that voted in favour of granting the Palestinian Authority non-member UN observer status.
As well, of course, the continuing Syrian crisis is escalating with NATO positioning defence weapons on its member-state Turkey’s border.
There is also talk about the Syrians using poison gas against its opposition This is a clear allusion to the 5 February 2003 Colin Powell presentation before the UN Security Council showing evidence that Iraqi ‘dictator’ Sadam Hussein had manufactured and was about to use poison gas on his enemies, which established the pretext for the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ to force regime change. Just last week in Australia a significant event occurred that was not given main media publicity – Paul Barnett established the Iraq War Enquiry Inc., which aims to look at the details of how Australian politicians slithered into the Iraq war.
While reflecting on the 5 February 2003 date it is important to remember that Revisionist Ernst Zündel was arrested at his home in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, USA and deported to Canada – and thus began his two-year ‘detention’ in Canada, and his subsequent deportation to Germany where he served another five years prison under the powers of that ridiculous Section 130 – defaming the memory of the dead. What was his crime? He refused to stop questioning the details of the narrative of what has become a massive ‘Holocaust industry’.
Fallout of Palestine UNGA Vote in Australian domestic politics
Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is a strong supporter of Israel, as are members of the Federal Liberal-National opposition party, especially its Shadow Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis.
A few days before the UNGA vote there was much consternation within the Australian Labor Party when recently appointed Foreign Minister and former Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, announced that Australia would most likely abstain from voting either for or against the UNGA motion.
As the Opposition’s on-going attack on the Prime Minister’s past behaviour as a lawyer some two decades ago is still a live issue this UNGA affair doubled the pressure on Julia Gillard. George Brandis, Legal head kicker and defender of Jewish interests in Australia, led the attack, which combined with an internal attack on her from the Labor left who clamoured for an Australian UNGA yes-vote. The fact that Australia had just secured a term on the UN Security Council indicated to many politicians that this UNGA motion should be vigorously opposed or supported.
Gillard had no choice but to abandon her no-vote and opt for the compromise abstention vote because only two of her colleagues within the Labor Cabinet supported the no-vote – Bill Shorten and Stephen Conroy, and she knew Labor Caucus would overrule her. This is because the Labor factions are mindful of the large number of Muslim Australian constituents who are all clamouring to see Palestine emerge as an independent state.
On the final parliamentary sitting day Brandis held a media conference wherein he viciously attacked Gillard on account of her solicitor time some two decades ago. It was obvious that Brandis’ venom had been formed and smithied by his hatred of Gillard for her not giving that one hundred per cent support of matters Israel.
This is the second time Brandis has had the public opportunity to kick a head and thereby send an unequivocal message to any Australian – bureaucrat and politician – who dares contemplate anything but the official Jewish line on resolving the Palestinian Al Nakba-tragedy.
Three years earlier, in 2009, Senator Brandis did likewise to the President of Australia’s Human Rights Commission, Catherine Branson. This former Federal Court of Australia judge took an Australian human rights delegation in an official observer capacity to the Durban II conference.
Brandis was furious with her because she insisted that her delegation’s presence was an obligation imposed on her by the status of her office, with which Brandis violently disagreed, and the following exchange illuminates the importance for Israel of things ‘Holocaust-Shoah’
***
Branson explained:
It [the Human Rights Commission] was there with 38 other national human rights institutions, at least two of which were also there despite the fact that their governments were not parties. I regarded as entirely separate the questions of whether Australia should attend the conference represented as a nation and whether its national human rights institution should be an observer at the conference.
Brandis: You do not think you are being a bit too much of a lawyer about this, do you? What you say is of course from a legal point of view. Technically, it is absolutely right; but surely you appreciate that there were public policy issues, issues of community standards and issues of community expectations concerning Australia’s participation in Durban II that transcend merely the technical character of your agency’s attendance at this conference?
Branson: I did not understand that.
Brandis: You did not. If I may say so, with respect, you ought to have done… I understand and support the proposition that the Human Rights Commission should have a degree of independence from government and that it should be able to maintain a view which is not necessarily the view of the government of the day in relation to issues within its statutory charter. But do you not see that where one is dealing with an international conference the situation is a little different from that?…You give the impression to other participants that Australia in fact does support the process.
Branson: I am not sure how to answer that additionally to how I have already done so. You may be aware that our decision to participate followed a discussion among national human rights institutions which took place in Nairobi in October 2008.
Brandis: What about discussions of the elected representatives of the Australian people on both sides of politics that took place in this building throughout the early months of 2009?
Branson: As I understood it those discussions concerned whether the Australian nation would be represented through its government. The Australian Human Rights Commission went to what we saw as an important international conference dealing with racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, which we see as very important issues not only internationally but also in this country.
Brandis: Applauding anti-Semitism.
Branson: I beg your pardon?
Brandis: That conference was applauding anti-Semitism.
Branson: Could you draw my attention to the record of the conference that so does that?
Brandis: The communiqué from Durban I.
Branson: Can you draw my attention to the paragraph?
Brandis: Yes I am able to.
Branson: I have read carefully the review and in particular the outcomes document from the more recent review. Each of them deplores anti-Semitism. They stress that the Holocaust is not to be forgotten and …
Brandis: Well, thank goodness for that, Ms Branson! The Holocaust is not to be forgotten. Thank goodness. [emphasis added -]
Chair: Senator Brandis, just let Ms Branson answer her question and then make some comments.
Branson: I think the outcomes document from the Durban review does not mention the Middle East at all, but does deplore anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
Brandis: I put it to you that, by its decision ensuring that Australia was represented at the Durban II conference through the relevant human rights agency – yours – entirely in the face of a decision of the Australian government that Australia was not to be represented at the Durban II conference, the Australian Human Rights Commission showed utter contempt for the Australian government and had no regard whatsoever to the appropriate conduct of Australia’s foreign policy.
Branson: I do not accept that that is the case.
Brandis: You obviously do not but I invite you to reflect carefully on it.
[snip]
Senator Barnett: And it did not occur to you at the time to reconsider your position as a commission?
Branson: Not seriously, no.
Barnett: When you say “not seriously”, what does that mean?
Branson: I cannot rule out the possibility –
Barnett: Wouldn’t you take the views of the Australian government and Minister for Foreign Affairs seriously?
Branson: I regarded them as entirely separate questions – whether the government should be a party to the conference or whether we should be there in an observer status.
Barnett: Surely you would show some respect – I will not say for your masters – for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government and the entity which funds your organisation.
Branson: I hope at all times that I treat the government with great respect. It is my intention to do so.
Barnett: They expressed a view that they wished to boycott the conference in the terms described by Senator Brandis and in the terms set out in the media release by Mr Smith.
Branson: I did not understand it as reaching to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Brandis: Ms Branson! Who do you think you were representing at this conference?
Branson: We were not represented at the conference; we observed at the conference.
Brandis: On whose behalf were you observing?
Branson: We were observing on our own behalf as one of 38 national human rights institutions present in Geneva.
Brandis: It is more than implicit, it seems to me, in what you have to say that your attitude was that you were not representing or observing on behalf of Australia.
Branson: That was my view.
Brandis: So who were you representing?
Branson: I was representing the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Brandis: You were representing yourselves?
Branson: Yes.
Brandis: But you are an Australian government, Australian taxpayer funded agency. The view of the entire parliament was supportive of the position at which the Australian government ultimately arrived that Australia, not the Australian government, in the words of Mr Smith’s letter, should not be represented at this conference – and yet you went along at taxpayer’s expense to represent who? Yourself. Is that satisfactory?
Branson: I regard it as so. I understood the minister to be speaking about Australia the nation.
Brandis: So you were not representing Australia?
Branson: No.
***
The ironic point of this exchange between Senator Brandis and Ms Branson is that it was Catherine Branson who in 2001 through a summary judgment on 17 September 2002 imposed on me injunctions that aim to prevent me from questioning the details of the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ lies, i.e. that Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers.
By imposing on me these nonsensical injunctions it is clear that Catherine Branson quite willingly bent to Jewish pressure, even sanctimoniously delighting in doing so, as the various transcripts of the proceedings reveal and the summary judgment itself testifies.
And now as President of the Human Rights Commission, a five year appointment, she had made a cardinal error of judgment by attending the Durban II conference. In July 2012 at the end of her fourth year in the post she resigned. And to think that Branson was at one time slated to become a High Court judge because of her brilliant mind. It did not save her from execution when clashing with Senator Brandis and his advocacy of ‘Holocaust.
At the 2011 annual Australian College of Educators Sydney conference she was one of the keynote speakers. There on 14 July she delivered a paper about bullying in the classroom wherein she canvassed her pet topic that of the importance for Australia to adopt a Human Rights Act and to have such rights taught in schools.
In her delivery I sensed something was missing and so during question time I asked her where in her human rights framework the truth concept is to be found. She waffled on without giving me a clear answer, claiming that in my case she merely used the Racial Discrimination Act as enacted by Australia’s parliament.
I did not press her why she had not worried about securing my human rights when I faced her in court where she subjected me to the Racial Discrimination Act under which ‘hurt feelings’ of a complainant are protected at all costs. When I was processed before her in 2001 I did not have legal representation and both state and federal legal aid refused to assist me in this matter. It became clear to me that in her mindset, and in the legislation itself, truth is not a defence. But this is nothing new for Revisionists who globally have been battling against such unbalanced legislation when questioning the taboo ‘Holocaust’ topic.
Conclusion and Afterthought
I began this review with the UNGA vote in favour of Palestinians and end with the news that Australia’s education system will make it compulsory for schools to teach ‘Holocaust’ to secondary students. I sent the following letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, and I shall not be disappointed if my letter is not published.
***
Letter to the Editor – letters@smh.com.au Study of Holocaust mandated for schools is an outrage and morally/intellectually dishonest
With interest I read Anna Patty’s report http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/study-of-holocaust-mandated-for-schools-20121207-2b10k.html#ixzz2EXwmkZ8l
– SMH 8 December 2012 – stating that in NSW schools ‘Holocaust’ studies is to become a compulsory subject for all students in years 9 and 10.
At university level students are aware that this subject is taught as an orthodoxy where dissenting versions of any narrative is not tolerated.
I know of a lecturer in Adelaide who dismissed a student’s probing and critical questions with a rebuke such as: ‘Your question borders on the offensive’.
If teachers of ‘Holocaust’ studies retain the Socratic method within a given curriculum framework, then a study of ‘Holocaust’ will automatically question and challenge the pillars-premise-physical facts on which the narrative rests: Germans systematically exterminated six million European Jews mainly in homicidal gas chambers.
However, strong evidence suggests gassings were never carried out and hence without the gassings claim Jewish suffering was no more or less than that experienced by other nations’ populations.
A final point then also needs to be mentioned to the students that in a number of countries which claim to be ‘free and democratic’ it is a criminal offence to question fundamentals of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative.
In view of the above it seems rather farcical that Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive, Mr Vic Alhadeff, claims:
‘The Holocaust is a warning to every generation about the potential for evil, especially as a consequence of racial hatred, and about the inherent evil of totalitarian regimes,’ Mr Alhadeff said. ‘It teaches us that every generation owes it to itself and to future generations to cherish and, if necessary, fight to defend the sanctity of life, dignity and freedom.’
Tell that to the Palestinians who are still suffering unabated ethnic cleansing initiated by Jews emerging from their ‘Holocaust’ some 70 years ago.
***
Let me conclude this missive by making a brief comment about my 24 September 2012 bankruptcy. As I indicated in an earlier post I may be financially bankrupt but I do not think I am as yet morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I am reminded how such a tragedy also befell other individuals in the Revisionist scene, in particular when Mark Weber, letting himself be egged on by whatever motives, succeeded in bankrupting for life Willis and Elisabeth Carto. Then Paul Grubach joined the legal persecution against the Carto enterprise as well – all because some 6-7 million dollars was at stake that those who had never made any money for themselves were now eager to claim as their own – legally! And sadly, in parts they succeeded because corrupt legal processes assisted them.
It is only recently that I learned of the full extent of the tragedy that unfolded around 1993 when the Spotlight ceased to exist and American Free Press emerged together with The Barnes Review magazine. Had things gone right and had the enemy within been subdued and made to grow up, then the Institute for Historical Review would by now have been a fully fledged tertiary institution.
Some time ago I asked Willis Carto how he managed to cope with such stress, and he replied that his attitude is, ‘It, too, will pass! It’s part of life’. I think the fact that Willis has had Elisabeth beside him throughout these decades is also a factor that cannot be ignored. And then Nietzsche’s dictum also comforts: ‘That which doesn’t kill me, strengthens me!’
My bankruptcy is due to last for three years and I think I am lucky it has come at this late stage in my life because my wants, though never lavish, are much reduced. The reason for my bankruptcy lies in the fact that I refuse to believe in the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ rubbish and this indicates how fragile the minds are that try to force on us this narrative as a global belief system – which is doomed to failure on account of its own internal contradictions.
Recently I was asked whether I felt anything towards Jeremy Sean Jones or Steven Lewis for initiating this second bankruptcy action on account of my having defeated the first action by paying all up $75,000 and selling my modest home in the process. How can I feel anger at those who cannot help themselves and who simply run true to form? Hence I still maintain my maxim: ‘Don’t blame the Jews; blame those that bend to their pressure’. It’s all part of our human ‘battle-of-the-will’ where individuals with a lesser developed moral and intellectual framework sell themselves for whatever reason to the highest bidder.
In any case, all too often it’s also a matter of an innate immaturity – the nurturing of envy and hatred and the fear of fear itself. Individuals who believe without critical analysis suffer from arrested development and often fall prey to superstitious nonsense where the truth concept has no home but where the playing of the victim is writ large.
I recall when Mrs Olga Scully’s headmaster husband was still alive she was busy defending her Russian tradition by attacking the Jewish-Talmudic Bolshevik-Marxists who had destroyed her family’s life in Russia. Then, when during the early 1990s her husband died, Jeremy Jones became active and took newly-widow Mrs Scully to HREOC, then to the Federal Court of Australia. As in my case, she lost because Jones didn’t even have to prove his claim that Mrs Scully’s activities were hurting him. He didn’t have to produce a medical certificate that he had suffered some kind of trauma when reading Mrs Scully’s literature because “ … is likely to cause offence…” – that’s how the Jews formulated the Racial Discrimination Act with the intention of excising any legitimate criticism of an individual’s behaviour. They would then claim the criticism is: HATRED, HOLOCAUST DENIAL, ANTISEMITISM, RACISM, NAZISM, etc. In Norman Finkelstein’s words this is the essence of the ‘Holocaust industry’.
Interestingly, the Director of Adelaide Institute, Mr Peter Hartung, has found the place where the Jewish Central Bank in Berlin is located …
In November 2002 Mrs Scully wished to appeal the judgment against her but she was out of time and so permission was refused. To that Jones commented: ‘This was her last avenue of appeal and marks the total end of this matter. We will act vigorously on any complaint which we receive should she continue her anti-Semitic activities … ’. By then Mrs Scully had also voluntarily declared herself bankrupt and so she did not have to pay the $110,000 court costs awarded against her.
Finally, next year Australia will set up a Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse that aims to investigate matters which occurred in religious and state institutions some decades ago. I plan to canvas a protest against kosher slaughter and male-female circumcision as forms of child sexual abuse. I reject the claim from Jewish groups that these matters are a matter of religion controlled by holy writ. That may well be but then such behaviour is still cruel. No wonder Adolf Hitler had such cruel behaviour outlawed, as it should be. It will be interesting to observe, if a boy, whether the next royal offspring will also be snipped on the eighth day, or remain intact.
And on that somewhat realistic note I shall sign off for now and wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Fredrick Töben
Adelaide
9 December 2012
