THE
Rudd Government should boycott a major UN anti-racism conference,
senior
South Australian federal MP Christopher Pyne says.
CHRIS
PEPPER, POLITICAL REPORTER, September 14, 2008 12:30am
Mr
Pyne, in his Sunday
Mail
column today, predicts next year's summit will be hijacked by anti-West
and anti-Israel propaganda. The Liberal MP for Sturt is demanding the
Australian Government refuse to attend the event, the Durban Review
Conference. It is a follow-up to the controversial UN World Conference
Against Racism, held in South Africa in 2001. "Most people would be
surprised to hear an anti-racism conference degenerated into a slanging
match," Mr Pyne said.
During
the 2001 meeting, Mr Pyne said:
STATEMENTS
were
released that were regarded as blatantly anti-semitic.
A
SESSION on
Holocaust denial was cancelled after police could not guarantee the safety
of participants.
PAMPHLETS
were
distributed by non-government organisations arguing "it was a pity
Hitler didn't win".
The
then US secretary of state, Colin Powell, refused to attend the event,
claiming draft conference documents identified Zionism as racist and
denounced Israel.
In
his column, Mr Pyne writes: "The Australian Government (and others)
were dismayed by the appalling racism of the conference. "Many
fair-minded countries and non-government organisations rightly expressed
dismay at the way the conference evolved and are warily approaching a re-run
of the event in 2009."
Mr
Pyne wrote Australia's participation would add to the event's credibility.
"In my view, by attending, we tacitly sign up to a warped view of
racism."
The
president of the Australia–Israel Chamber of Commerce, Mr Allen Bolaffi,
said he agreed with Mr Pyne's concerns. But, stating his personal opinion,
he said Australia should attend on the proviso it did not become an
"Israel bash".
"If
you're not at the conference, you can't have any input into it," he
said. "What happened last time was unacceptable. Why would you go and
get your head beaten?"
Canada
is planning to boycott the Geneva event, while on Thursday the Jerusalem
Post reported Israel felt it was unlikely it would attend the event.
Pakistan
has said the conference should not "turn into an exercise of
anti-Semitism".
The
current EU President, Nicholas Sarkozy, has warned Europeans will not
tolerate a re-run of the so-called "hate-fest". Our European
partners share France's concerns," the French leader said in February.
In
his column, Mr Pyne pointed out the summit, organised by the UN Human Rights
Council, is chaired by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Iran, which
takes the vice-chair, is vehement in its hostility to Israel.
"The
portents for a fair approach to Israel aren't good," Mr Pyne writes in
his column. "We should take the lead with Canada."
Dr
Peter Gale, senior lecturer in Australian studies at the University of South
Australia, said a boycott would be a mistake.
"Any
attempts to bring as many nations together to address racism, all the
better," he said. "I can't understand anyone who would take the
position that there isn't a benefit in seeking to reach points of agreement.
"I think the premise that international forums have been hijacked isn't
a true reflection of what's been achieved in past conferences."
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24343219-2682,00.html
CHRISTOPHER PYNE
: Why We Must Boycott This Hatefest
September
14, 2008 12:30am
THE
Federal Labor Government's approach to foreign policy so far has been a
mishmash of errors, overreaching, diplomatic insults and unilateral actions
that betray a new Government with little cohesion in its approach to
Australia's relationship with the rest of the world.
In
the next few months it will need to make a decision that will have
far-reaching consequences as to how it is viewed among our traditional
allies and friends. That decision is whether or not Australia attends the
Durban II conference in April 2009.
Durban
II is shorthand for the Durban Review Conference, the follow-up meeting of
the UN World Conference Against Racism, which was held in Durban in
August/September 2001.
For
those not familiar with this conference, a brief history: The Durban
conference in 2001 was supposed to be a meeting about combating racism
throughout the world, bringing together countries from across the globe. The
only problem is, it turned into a hatefest.
The precursor meeting of non-government organisations (which flowed
into the general meeting) degenerated into a vicious attack on the state of
Israel.
The
language of the statements from the meeting was regarded as blatantly
anti-Semitic. A session on Holocaust denial was cancelled as the police
couldn't guarantee the safety of participants. Pamphlets were distributed by
non-government organisations that depicted Israelis as Nazis with fangs and
claws dripping blood. A leaflet was distributed arguing it was a pity Hitler
didn't win!
The
meeting was hijacked by anti-West propaganda and anti-Israeli emotion that
prompted Colin Powell, the then US Secretary of State, to walk out. It was
so disjointed even Mary Robinson, the former Labor Party President of
Ireland, and the then UN Human Rights Commissioner, refused to be party to
the ceremony where the conference findings were tabled.
The
Australian Government and Australian non-government organisations were
dismayed by the appalling racism of the conference, and in the years since
our UN delegates have had to fight hard to ensure history is not rewritten
to give undue credibility to Durban I or its findings.
Many
fair-minded countries and non-government organisations rightly expressed
dismay at the way the conference evolved and are warily approaching a re-run
of the event in 2009.
Australia
needs to seriously consider whether it adds its not inconsiderable
international prestige to this event. Our long-time friend, Canada, has
already indicated it won't attend. The current President of the European
Union and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said the Europeans will not
tolerate a re-run of the hatefest that passed for an anti-racism conference
in Durban. Israel has refused to attend. The US will need to await the
election of its new president before finally deciding what it will do.
The
2009 conference is being organised by the UN's Human Rights Council. Readers
might be surprised to know the UN's highest level human rights body is
chaired by that paragon of respect for freedom – Libya. Iran is a
participating country. Iran's stated objective is to wipe Israel from the
map. The portents for a fair approach to Israel aren't good.
The
UN is our best hope for a world at peace, but it needs to be viewed through
the lens of reality and not fantasy – the UN isn't always free from
criticism. Pretending otherwise hinders reform of the UN, not vice versa.
The
question of boycotting or not boycotting such a conference is a vexed one
for countries such as Australia.
One
school of thought is that by participating, we can temper the worst excesses
of those contributors who are hell-bent on excluding Israel and engaging in
anti-Semitism and race-hate. This school of thought says that if we are
there we can steer the conference to a more moderate position.
The
other school of thought is that by participating Australia (being a
well-respected liberal democracy) lends weight to the conference and its
findings – that we cloak it with a veneer of respectability.
Extremists
crave the respectability of a country like ours being involved – when they
are criticised for the outcomes of conferences like Durban I they can say
"Look: Australia was involved, and Australia would never be party to
extremism."
Canada
has taken the latter view. They are making a stand.
Often,
it's not only what you say or write that counts, it's what you don't say or
write. In other words, even if Australia attends and manages (with other
moderate countries) to temper the language of any statements from the Durban
II meeting in 2009, what will we have achieved if the meeting also fails to
include a denunciation of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism in order not to
offend countries diametrically opposed to the existence of Israel? Precisely
nothing.
In
my view, by attending, we tacitly sign up to a warped view of racism. We
should lead with Canada and make a stand against extreme, unacceptable
attitudes to any country in the world, whether it be the target for
anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and not go.
Our
jet-setting PM, Kevin Rudd, is travelling to the UN, New York, in two weeks'
time – a perfect opportunity to make clear the Government's opposition to
the racism and anti-Semitism inherent in the Durban conference.
Christopher
Pyne is the federal MP (Liberal) for Sturt and Opposition spokesman on
justice and border security.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24343221-5006301,00.html
________________________________________
Mark
Glenn:
High-Level
Assassination–The Staged Event To Bring About War With Iran?
With
attention being drawn to the contradictions and outright lies by the US
government surrounding the events of 9/11 (as well as renewed interest in
previous false flag events such as the attack on the USS Liberty meant to
draw the US into Israel’s dirty wars) it may very well be that the
powers-that-be have decided the event ushering in the next phase of war
against Israel’s enemies will come from be a high-level assassination
involving democratic candidate for president Barack Obama.
As
FDR himself once quipped, “If
something happens in politics, you can be rest assured it was no
accident”. Therefore, persons wise to the ways of the world of
Zionist intrigue can assume the recent spate of news stories pairing the
idea of “assassination” with the name ‘”Barack Obama” cannot be
mere coincidence. Nor should the fact that out of all the individuals the
powers-that-be could have chosen as a candidate for President that the one
they settled on was a black man with a distinctly Muslim name.
The
outcome of such an event is as obvious as it is frightening. The first black
candidate for president from one of America’s two major parties being
gunned down by “Islamic terrorists” tied to Iran (who will no doubt be
aligned with “white nationalist/neo-Nazi types“) would result in an
American public howling for war against Iran, to say nothing of the civil
unrest that would erupt in America’s cities as well as a virtual police
state being inaugurated.
As
far as the evidence itself indicating that such plans are afoot, one need
look no further than some of the stories coming out of the mainstream news
these days. Beginning with Hillary Clinton herself who, when asked why she
was not dropping out of the race for the democratic nomination remarked on
the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian
‘terrorist’ said to be angry with RFK because of his support for Israel.
What she was intimating in her comments was that an Obama assassination was
enough of a possibility that she still had a chance of winning and had
decided therefore to stay put.
Next
there are certain carefully-placed news stories and Op-Ed columns to
consider. In a New York Times piece arch-Neocon and slavish, slobbering
supporter for Israel Edward Luttwak directs the collective American
attention towards a future Obama assassination in a piece entitled
“President Apostate” where he points out that under Islamic law,
Obama’s Muslim father means that Obama himself is also a Muslim, and that
willful conversion to Christianity would be deemed apostasy, the penalty for
which is death, usually by beheading. Of the dozens of Islamic countries
Luttwak could have mentioned, he lists only two where such a death sentence
might be issued–Saudi Arabia and Iran. Given the fact that Saudi Arabia is
a puppet of the US and Israel and is not on the ‘axis-of-evil’ list like
Iran, any ‘lone nut’ assassin would therefore by implication come from
Iran, the same nation from which the infamous death sentence against
anti-Islamic writer Salman Rushdie was proclaimed for his book ‘The
Satanic Verses’.
More
recently there is the spate of stage-prop news stories portending the
presidential candidate’s possible upcoming date with the grim reaper. In
early June, a story detailing the arrest of a man outside Obama’s hotel
entitled ‘Fear for Obama’s Safety After Knife Arrest’ features one
Davit Zakaryan arrested by Secret Service agents when found with an 8-inch
knife in his possession. Of particular interest is the man’s name (and
more importantly the last part of it ‘Aryan’) as Zionist groups such as
the ADL and their tentacles throughout the mainstream news media are now
trying (as they did with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma city) to establish a link between ‘Muslim Extremists’ and right
wing/white nationalist/domestic terrorist types. Relevant to this are the
stories appearing in mainstream news recently detailing the testimony of
Mike McConnell, director of National Intelligence claiming Al Qaeda is busy
‘recruiting white Europeans into its ranks’ for attacks on the US, and
more importantly–‘just prior to the elections’.
The
possibility of collusion at the highest levels with such a conspiracy is not
helped out by other events taking place recently. A story appearing in the
Dallas Star-Telegram entitled “Police concerned about order to stop
weapons screening at Obama rally” reveals that Obama’s Secret Service
detail decided to stop screening people for weapons an hour before he was to
appear at a large rally in Dallas and how that city’s police chief
questioned the wisdom of such a decision. The obvious relevance of the word
assassination being paired with the city of Dallas and John F Kennedy
obviously adds even more intrigue to the issue.
And,
last but not least, there is the most recent event taking place at the time
of the Democratic convention in Colorado, where 3 men were arrested with
high-power rifles and other pieces of equipment in what police said was a
plot to kill Obama. The men (one named–surprise, surprise–‘Adolph’)
admitted to planning to kill Obama at his acceptance speech and were tied
with–surprise surprise again–white nationalist/neo-Nazi groups.
The
other obvious advantage to such a scenario taking place for the Neocons is
that it would allow them to clean house’ within the US
defense/intelligence establishments. Intimating (or outright charging) that
the assassination was ‘helped along’ by elements within the highest
echelons of America’s defense and intelligence establishments would give
JINSA the pretext for the witch hunt she has wanted to conduct for some time
now. With this in hand, those persons, and particularly those of
considerable influence who have up to this point hindered the attack on
Iran, would be removed, giving Israel and her insatiable war machine a
clear, open road to do whatever she wants.
Those
who doubt that Israel and her traitorous dual-loyalty surrogates working at
the highest levels of the US government would be willing to carry out such
an act need to think twice, and particularly against the backdrop of
history. As investigative reporter Michael Collins Piper aptly proved in his
book Final Judgment, it was Israel’s Mossad who had the greatest reason,
motive and opportunity to kill not only John F Kennedy, but also his brother
Robert and his son JFK junior. Besides this there is the testimony of
Margaret Truman, daughter of president Harry S. Truman who wrote that
Zionist assassins tried to kill her father through the US postal service. As
recent as 2003, Israel announced officially that she would ‘resume’ (as
if she ever truly refrained from) assassinations on the soil of ‘allies’
(which includes the US) in the interest of ‘fighting ‘terror’, and
given the fact that the Jewish state sees the US being involved in fighting
her wars, this obviously means anything done on the furtherance of this
policy is justifiable. More important though are the words coming right out
of the horse’s mouth, in this case ex-Israeli intelligence officer Victor
Ostrovsky in his book ‘The Other Side of Deception’ who had the
following to say concerning Israel’s planned assassination of George H.W.
Bush at the Madrid Peace Talks in 1991–
“Since
the Mossad had all the security arrangements in hand, it would not be a
problem bringing the killers as close as they wanted to President Bush and
then staging his assassination. In the ensuing confusion, the Mossad people
would kill the ‘perpetrators,’ scoring yet another victory for the
Mossad. With the assassins dead, it would be difficult to discover where the
‘security breach’ had been, except that several countries involved in
the conference, such as Syria, were regarded as countries that assisted
terrorists.”
To
think the day would come in America when rational persons were justified in
considering the possibility that their own government–working in collusion
with agents of another power–would be willing to assassinate one of the
frontrunners for the office of president in order to start a war that could
destroy the nation seems surreal. However, the sad fact is this–Such
questions being asked is not only justified, but warranted. After all, lest
it be forgotten, it was the US government–and in particular one Michael
Chertoff, current head of Homeland Security–that after 9/11 sent back to
the Jewish state hundreds of Israeli spies, some caught red-handed in
circumstances as incriminating as filming the towers coming down and
cheering.
And
given these events, concerned Americans should keep a watchful eye on what
takes place in the coming weeks and months with respect to the health and
welfare of one Barack Hussein Obama, calling to mind the motto of Israel’s
Mossad “By way of deception, thou shalt do war”.
©
2008 Mark Glenn
_______________________________
THE
RELIGION REPORT: Critical
Terrorism Studies
Dr
Mervyn Bendle of James Cook University in Townsville was one of the first
people to warn of the dangers associated with Saudi Arabian funding coming
into Australian universities. Last week he was the guest speaker at the
annual Quadrant magazine dinner, and he focussed on the rise of a new
academic field - Critical Terrorism Studies - which treats terrorism as a
construcrt of the Western imagination, or else as a rational and justifiable
response to Western evil.
Stephen
Crittenden: Welcome to the
program.
At
the annual Quadrant magazine dinner in Sydney last week, the keynote speaker
was Dr Mervyn Bendle, senior lecturer in History and Communication at James
Cook University in Townsville. He's one of the first people I'm aware of to
warn about the danger of Saudi government funding coming into Australian
universities. So there's a thematic connection here with last week's program
about the Channel 4 documentary on Wahabi activity in London's Regent's Park
Mosque.
In
his speech on Thursday night Dr Bendle focused on what he says is the rise
of a whole new academic discourse in our universities, known as Critical
Terrorism Studies. As much as possible it avoids mention of the religious
roots of terrorist groups like al-Qa'eda. Instead, it sees terrorism as a
construct of the Western imagination, and at the same time, paradoxically,
as justified by Western misdeeds.
'In
fact', he says, 'such arguments are based on a Manichean view of the world
that has prevailed in the West for some 50 years, according to which the
West is inherently evil and only the non-West is good, a great amorphous,
but intrinsically benign 'Other' condemned to suffering by Western
wickedness. Consequently the West deserves to be destroyed and has no moral
right to fight back or protect itself.'
Well,
in a week when Abdul Nacer Benbrika and six others have been convicted on
terror offences in the Victorian Supreme Court, Merv Bendle says in the war
on terror, our universities have become a major new battleground, and it is
in the universities that the war of ideas is being lost.
Mervyn
Bendle: Yes, well it
certainly seems to be the case, Stephen, teaching in the universities and
reading all the material that is coming out of the universities for some
time now, I've become aware of the fact that people in the universities have
more or less aligned themselves with what I call the 'radical orthodoxy'
about the nature of the war on terror and the nature of terrorism. I think
it reflects complacency amongst academics that one really doesn't want to
see.
Stephen
Crittenden: What is this
radical orthodoxy you're talking about?
Mervyn
Bendle: Well the radical
orthodox position has pretty much been that the war on terror is more or
less a bogus type of activity, that the emergence of al-Qa'eda and related
terrorism is little or nothing to do about religion or their jihadi beliefs,
but is really just another version of previous global liberation movements,
focusing on global injustice. What they've done is they've pretty much
assimilated the emergence of al-Qa'eda and related terrorism groups to the
old neo-Marxist view of national liberation movements around the world, so
they tend to see the whole thing in terms of an old paradigm.
Stephen
Crittenden: And you say
that we've seen the emergence of a new field of study, called Critical
Terrorism Studies, with its own units, springing up inside Australian
universities to take advantage of the extra funding available since
September 11; that it's got its own journals, and that it features work by
post-modern theorists who have little discernable expertise in actual
terrorism.
Mervyn
Bendle: Yes. Most things
in academia these days, whatever they are, seem to spawn almost like a
vampire-ic, sort of parasitic sort of growth, a critical study version of
themselves, and whereas we've had terrorism study as a legitimate area of
academic enterprise for decades.
Stephen
Crittenden: Now we have
critical terrorism studies.
Mervyn
Bendle: Now we have
critical terrorism studies.
Stephen
Crittenden: And what's the
difference?
Mervyn
Bendle: Well critical
terrorism studies associates itself with post-modernism, deconstructionism,
discourse theory. It tends to see reality as primarily a social
construction. It's got a cultural-relativist epistemology.
Stephen
Crittenden: And you say
critical terrorism studies talks about terrorism as a construct of the
Western imagination.
Mervyn
Bendle: Exactly. It's
really quite interesting reading the literature, because so often the term
'terrorism' is put in scare-quotes as if it's not a real thing. Critical
terrorism studies tends to see terrorism not primarily as an act of
murderous violence like we witnessed in Bali that occurs in the real world
but merely is what they call a signifier in a discourse; a myth that's been
generated to cause fear and to mobilise the population behind what critical
terrorist theorists would say are just conservative political figures and
political movements in the West.
Stephen
Crittenden: Well you call
it radical orthodoxy, but is it actually something much more marginal? Are
these academics being taken seriously by governments and policymakers in
Canberra?
Mervyn
Bendle: That's a very
interesting question because one of the complaints that's come out from
within the various think-tanks that have emerged in Australia, is that this
critical terrorist approach in the universities has made the universities
irrelevant. The Director of the National Security Project at the Australian
Strategic Policy Institute, Dr Karl Ungerer, recently complained that
there's a radical pacifism reigning in the university departments, and that
it promotes an extreme hostility to sovereign states like Australia, the UK
and the US.
Stephen
Crittenden: And he says
it's making the universities irrelevant.
Mervyn
Bendle: Exactly. Because
this radical orthodoxy isn't an orthodoxy. It's spread throughout the
university and it's so dissociated from the real world that it's making
itself irrelevant to the formulation of policy and the conduct of useful
research.
Stephen
Crittenden: Yes, but on
the other hand, in your speech the other night, you seemed to be arguing
that we have to take this kind of approach seriously, that it's not
irrelevant, when it's being taught at somewhere like the Australian Defence
Force Academy in Canberra.
Mervyn
Bendle: Yes, it's really
quite alarming, and quite surprising. I'm at a loss to understand it, and
Karl Ungerer, who I just mentioned a moment ago, he's at a loss I gather,
too, to understand how this has occurred. But one of the leading figures in
critical terrorism studies is an Australia chap called Dr Anthony Bourke,
who's just been made an Associate Professor at the Australian Defence Force
Academy. He's been very successful in publishing his books and he's got
quite a high profile in the area, but there's no question, amongst anybody
who's been following what's been going on for the last few years, that his
views are well to the left, and it is really quite surprising that he's been
appointed to that position; not so much because perhaps he doesn't deserve
it, he may well deserve it on academic grounds, but it's just that his
ecological orientation does make it surprising. Dr Ungerer described it as
'eyebrow raising', which I think is an exercise in understatement. If
somebody has got a radical pacifist view of things, of national security and
international relations and terrorism and so on, well what's the fit between
that person and a position at the ADFA. It might be a perfectly good fit
somewhere else, and good luck to Dr Bourke, but these are just interesting
developments that do make you wonder what's going on.
Stephen
Crittenden: Merv, you're
one of the first people in Australia that I'm aware of to warn of the danger
of Saudi government funding coming into our universities. You see that as
something that's compounding the ideological problems we've just been
discussing. Do you agree with the proposition that the universities here in
Australia, in the UK, in Europe, have become the new front line in the
battle with Islamic extremism?
Mervyn
Bendle: Absolutely. I
don't think there's any question at all about that, and I think that
everybody who's involved in this situation on all sides, including the
security agencies, political analysts, but also the jihadists and the
leaders of the terrorist groups themselves, I think everybody recognises
that the universities are very much the front line now.
Stephen
Crittenden: But you're not
just talking about the recruitment of Muslim students, or their
radicalisation by Saudi students who are coming here, you seem to be talking
about, well, the complicity of academic culture.
Mervyn
Bendle: Yes, well
complicity is a difficult term to sort of deploy, because it does imply
there's some level of agency and even betrayal involved in the activity of
these academics.
Stephen
Crittenden: You're not
saying that.
Mervyn
Bendle: But, having said
that, just putting that proviso, one does have to look fairly sort of
cold-bloodedly at the situation and wonder what it is that motivates these
people to align themselves with what are really extremist ideologies that
are quite explicitly against everything in the West that we hold valuable,
including the very freedom of speech that these people in our universities
enjoy.
Stephen
Crittenden: Do you think
there are factors that make universities uniquely vulnerable?
Mervyn
Bendle: Well there are
factors in the universities, especially in Australian universities, that
make them uniquely vulnerable, and this can really be traced back to the
1960s when there was an enormous expansion in tertiary education, both in
Australia and overseas, but certainly in Australia. That corresponded to a
time when there was a real upsurge in radical ideology, and a lot of people
who found their way into positions in the universities at that time, have
clung to those ideologies, and consequently they want to see the world
through this paradigm which is now 40 years old, and when they see al-Qa'eda
attacking the US, they sort of mentally think, Oh, this is just another
example of the sort of anti-colonial, anti-American imperialist movements of
the 60s, when in fact it's got nothing at all to do with that; it's an
entirely new thing that needs to be seen anew. But they're not seeing it
anew, they're seeing it through this old paradigm. What's actually happened
in the universities, especially in the social sciences and the humanities,
has been a gradual decay if you like, in the quality of the work that's
being done. It's almost a form of intellectual decadence. What's really
noticeable is how little has been published in the scholarly journals by
people about terrorism in Australia and when it is being published, what's
really noticeable about that is how it reflects this so-called critical
terrorism studies viewpoint.
Stephen
Crittenden: You in fact
say one of the hallmarks of the kind of stuff that's being published in this
post-modern vein, is that much of it tends to avoid mention of Islamic
terrorism. You mention a recent history of terror whose only mention of
Muslims in the index was under the headings 'Stereotyping of', and 'Violence
towards'.
Mervyn
Bendle: Well that's right.
This is an example of the sort of political correctness that we've just got
to get past. I don't think Muslims mind people talking about the threats to
Australia, because they've got a stake in preserving the national security
of this country, and they don't want to see their own communities
infiltrated and subverted by what really are quite crazy, militant
organisations. So I think we've got to get over being coy and cute about the
whole thing and just call a spade a spade.
Stephen
Crittenden: Is another
aspect in all of this that makes universities vulnerable, the kind of
neo-liberal paradigm that sort of gutted the universities of funding in
recent decades and turning them into businesses?
Mervyn
Bendle: Absolutely. And I
think you yourself have probably done a fair bit to highlight this with some
of the work you've done on the situation at Griffith. There is a species of
academic that rises to leadership positions in Australian universities, that
don't really appear to have much going for them, apart from the fact that
they hold these positions. And this whole neo-liberal thing is really
associated with a very faux entrepreneurialism that gets us all involved in
sort of rinky-dink marketing efforts at the universities which is all
really, really pretty pathetic. And the funny thing about it is, it just
really brings cynicism amongst students, because they pretty quickly wake up
to the fact that all this gloss and all this marketing hides a really
ramshackle system.
Stephen
Crittenden: Now Merv, I
want to try and get you to pull all of this together by telling us about
'fourth generational warfare'. We've mentioned the idea that the
universities are the new front line in the war on terror. What is 'fourth
generational warfare'?
Mervyn
Bendle: This type of
warfare is dominated by ideological battles, cyber-warfare, terrorist
networks and franchises and various forms of what they call 'leaderless
jihads', operating on a global scale, and everybody again, on all sides of
the conflict, the terrorists and the national security people, and the
researchers, will all recognise that this type of struggle involves a
systematic recruitment, and mobilisation of university-trained knowledge
workers, and that's becoming an increasingly important factor in the whole
thing.
Stephen
Crittenden: Now in your
speech at the Quadrant dinner the other night, you referred to a document
that only came to light a couple of years ago, allegedly produced by the
leadership of the Muslim
Brotherhood ,
indeed it's thought that it was written by the father of Tariq
Ramadan , and its
title is 'Towards a World Strategy for Political Islam'. Is that an example
of a blueprint for fourth generational warfare?
Mervyn
Bendle: Yes, well I mean
this is a really good example of where we're playing catch-up. It was
actually very interesting sort of family relationships that Tariq Ramadan is
the coming generational representative of; he's the grandson of Hasan al
Banna, who was the founder of the ultra-fundamentalist Islamist movement,
the Muslim Brotherhood; and he's the son of Said Ramadan who was al Banna's
private secretary and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, based
in Switzerland. Said Ramadan is believed to be the principal author of the
document you mentioned, which is commonly called The Project. It was
prepared in 1982 by the Muslim Brotherhood as a blueprint for their global
strategy for Islamists, what they saw as Islamist supremacy. And it was only
discovered when a police raid was carried out on the Bank
Al Takwa in
Switzerland in November 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. And access to
the document was limited to Western intelligence agencies for quite some
time until a Swiss investigative journalist was able to gain access to it,
and then he wrote a book about it called 'The Conquest of the West -
Islamists' Secret Project', which at the moment is still only available in
French. But the project itself is online. You can find that online
.
Stephen
Crittenden: Right. It
strikes me that what you're asking us to think about perhaps goes back to
the Cold War and the time when we used to think in terms of The Comintern
and Communist
fellow travellers; you seem to be describing an Islamintern and perhaps in
some of these university departments, fellow travellers in a similar way?
Mervyn
Bendle: There is some sort
of parallel. It's interesting that various calculations have been made, and
these indicate that Saudi funding at the moment is currently running at
twice the rate that the Soviet Union spent on global propaganda during the
Cold War. So that gives you an idea of the scale of Saudi funding. The one
thing that is different is that the current fourth generational form of
warfare, has moved away from the highly hierarchical system of the Comintern,
where there was a sort of a dictatorial situation in Moscow which was laying
down policy for the world's various national -
Stephen
Crittenden: Centrally
directed.
Mervyn
Bendle: Centrally
directed. What we've got now is what they call 'leaderless jihad' and even
what they call 'franchises', these are characterised not by centralised
leadership but by a high level of decentralisation, and what holds them
together is adherence to this jihadist ideology. And it's this jihadist
ideology that's being promoted in the universities that's mobilising
alienated young people and attracting them in many cases into terrorist
activities, and it's this ideology and the role it plays amongst knowledge
workers in the universities and elsewhere, that's the real problem at the
moment. I think predominantly it's passive and unconscious and it really
reflects the complacency of our intelligentia here. They could have made the
leap post-9/11 and recognised that this was a threat that transcended the
dichotomy between left and right in politics; it really represented a threat
to the very essence of Western liberal democratic society. So it could have
made that leap, but they chose not to; in the end they just chose to
assimilate the war on terror to the old paradigm.
Stephen
Crittenden: That's Dr
Mervyn Bendle from James Cook University in Townsville, and an article based
on his speech appears in the September issue of Quadrant magazine.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2366575.htm
_____________________________________
From:
zapdaddy.arthur@gmail.com. Sent:
Friday, 1 August 2008. Subject: Re: U.S. agents can reportedly seize
travellers' laptops:
Do
we need to wonder who the “private entities” will be?
On
8/1/08 7:08 AM, "Adelaide Institute" info@adelaideinstitute.org
wrote: U.S.
agents can reportedly seize travellers' laptops Fri
Aug 1, 2008
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - U.S. federal agents have been given new powers to seize
travellers' laptops and other electronic devices at the border and hold them
for unspecified periods the Washington Post reported on Friday. Under
recently disclosed Department of Homeland Security policies, such seizures
may be carried out without suspicion of wrongdoing, the newspaper said,
quoting policies issued on July 16 by two DHS agencies.
Agents
are empowered to share the contents of seized computers with other agencies
and private entities for data decryption and other reasons, the newspaper
said. DHS officials said the policies applied to anyone entering the
country, including U.S. citizens, and were needed to prevent terrorism.
The
measures have long been in place but were only disclosed in July, under
pressure from civil liberties and business travel groups acting on reports
that increasing numbers of international travellers had had their laptops,
cellphones and other digital devices removed and examined.
The
policies cover hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers,
beepers, and video and audio tapes -- as well as books, pamphlets and other
written materials, the report said. The policies require federal agents to
take measures to protect business information and attorney-client privileged
material. They stipulate that any copies of the data must be destroyed when
a review is completed and no probable cause exists to keep the information.
Reporting by Paul Eckert, editing by Alan Elsner.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKN0126069520080801?feedType=nl&feedName=ukmorningdigest
________________________
The
Jewish problem/Question and general matters
Al
too often when it gets to the Jewish problem individuals all too often bend
to Jewish pressure, for whatever reasons. It needs to be remembered, though,
that the mindset calling itself Jewish is only as good as the host nation
within which it finds itself. The flower of Jewishness occurred within the
German cultural environment that enabled individuals to partake of a
sophisticated cultural environment, that permitted it to continue to behave
parasitically because Germans could endure such energy sapping behaviour on
account of them deriving their own energy from the soil. After World War Two
the shift for the Jewish mindset was to the USA. The Jewish parasitic
mindset has now exhausted itself within the USA environment and now must
move on, lest it suck dry its host, which also would spell its own demise.
The Neocons formed the pinnacle of this parasitic behaviour – and their
mindset’s contribution to world knowledge has been zero. For what it’s
worth, some quotes, below, illustrate frustrations felt by those who love to
quote from someone or some book to make a point:
*
"The
Montefiores have taken Australia for their own, and there is not a gold
field or a sheep run from Tasmania to New South Wales that does not pay them
a heavy tribute. They are the real owners of the antipodean continent. What
is the good of our being a wealthy nation, if the wealth is all in the hands
of German Jews?"
–
W. HUGHES, Premier of Australia, Saturday
Evening Post, June 19, 1919
*
"Under
this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild -- a name famous in
every capital of Europe and every division of the globe. If you like, we
shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James
[Rothschild], and one for you, Lionel [Rothschild]. Napoleon will do exactly
and all that I shall advise him."
–
Reported to have been the comments of Disraeli
at the marriage of Lionel Rothschild's daughter, Leonora, to her cousin,
Alphonse, son of James Rothschild of Paris.
*
Let
us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among
the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all
become attentive to the grounds and principles of government, ecclesiastical
and civil.. Let us study the law of nature; search into the spirit; read the
histories of ancient ages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and
Rome; set before us the conduct of our own ancestors, who have defended for
us the inherent rights of mankind against foreign and domestic tyrants and
usurpers against arbitrary kings and cruel priests, in short, against the
gates of earth and hell...
-
John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,"
1765
*
A
man in no case has liberty to tell lies. In fact, if a man have any purpose
reaching beyond the hour and day, what good can it ever be to promote lies?
The lies are found out; ruinous penalties is exacted for them. No man will
believe the liar next time even when he speaks the truth, when it is of the
last importance that he be believed. A lie is “no-thing”; you cannot of
nothing make something; you make nothing at last, and lose your labour into
the bargain.
–
T Carlyle: On Heroes & Hero Worship, Lecture 6, 1841.
*
Time!
The corrector where our judgement err,
The
test of truth, love – sole philosopher,
For
all beside are sophists, from thy shrift
Which
never loses though it doth defer
Time,
the avenger!
-
Lord Byron, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, Canto IV CXXX
____________________________
From:
Amy Aremia AAREMIA@nc.rr.com
Sent:
Tuesday, 19 August 2008 10:09 AM
Subject: Comment on Charles
Zentai’s political and legal persecution
In
human affairs, excluding religion, we have seen and learned, it is not so
important whether a thing is true or not, but that people believe it is true
and act on that belief. So the hunt goes on and on, encouraged by the
hate that goes on and on. What should be hated, is hate itself, and
the evil it continues by the bending to unfair pressure creating
more and more hatred, and pressure to which Courts should not
bend. Hate should be a crime when it becomes an object of
detestation and used for inspiring hatred that only stirs more hatred-
- - a violent emotion that if not stilled becomes more
detestable, despicable as it is used by obnoxious people in
dangerous countries possessing weapons of mass destruction, and eager
to keep this unrest going for ill-gotten monetary gains, and to hold
evil power over the world. Yet, we clearly see in the courts of
law, a fair system of justice has been abolished.
As
long as questions which revisionists have brought up, are not addressed
and answered, an end must be made by the courts to try such
cases....And as long as civil courts, which should have nothing to do with
allegedly wartime crimes, base their justice on bias will
continue to be one sided, and unfair. What is so difficult
for countries to understand that this should be put to its final rest.
Only through a concerted effort by honest, and fair judges to stop such
cases of "wartime incidents", will these crimes end in all
countries...
Why
were not the killings of more than 18 million non-Jews and Christians by
Jewish commissars during the Bolshevik Revolution considered a crime of
genocide, and those guilty hunted down and brought to justice and to give
restitution to their families?? Why was not China made to pay for its
crime of killing millions, and millions of people? Why not make all
wars a crime, and them maybe there will be no more barbaric wars in our
highly civilized world...
Was
not the United Nations to be an organization to keep peace in the
world?? It now has a membership of nearly 180 nations. What has
it done except to extort money from the rich, western countries??
One
of the principal reasons for the slow but constant triumph of (Jewish
Imperialism) evil in the last 2000 years has been the short memory of
Christians as well as pagans, who were always inclined to forget the past,
and did not take into consideration history is the instructor of life. (The
Plot Against the Church, page 331)
Truth
is not relevant, it never changes.
______________________
70
years on, children who fled Nazis for U.K. to receive German pensions
A
historic amendment to British law will now allow hundreds of Jews who
escaped Nazi Germany as children on the eve of World War II to receive
German National Insurance pensions.
"After
many years of struggle, we have solved the legal entanglement that prevented
[those who were part of the] Kindertransport from receiving the
payments," Herman Hirschberger, 82, of London, who spearheaded the
campaign, told Haaretz last week. "It's a breakthrough. Justice has
prevailed."
Following
a Haaretz query, the German government is now checking to see whether the
several hundred Jews who left Germany with the Kindertransport and who now
live in Israel will also eligible for German pensions.
The
Kindertransport ("children's transport" in German) was a rescue
mission that brought about 10,000 children, most of them Jews, out of Nazi
Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia to safety in Britain on the eve of World
War II. The children, aged 3 to 17, left their countries, homes and families
and sailed to Britain between December 1938 and September 1939, where they
were received by Jewish organizations.
Britain's
Jewish leaders had obtained Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's consent to
take them in, provided they paid for the refugees' travel and absorption
expenses.
Until
now, people who left Germany as part of the Kindertransport could not
receive full German pensions, because they stopped paying German National
Insurance fees upon arriving in Britain.
The
German government offered compensation only for the years spent in Germany
before the escape.
Hirschberger
saw this as an injustice, since the children had migrated to Britain against
their will. Had they not been persecuted, they would have remained in
Germany and been eligible today for full National Insurance pensions.
Following
the amendment to British law, some of the National Insurance fees the
Kindertransport members paid Britain will be written off retroactively.
Germany agreed to consider this period as one in which the survivors paid
German National Insurance fees - and will increase their pensions
accordingly. The average
German
pension is four times greater than the average British pension.
This
breakthrough followed a long persistent struggle Hirschberger launched 15
years ago.
"Most
of the time I was alone. Everyone had given up and thought it was
impossible. Even my wife told me it would never happen," he said.
Hirschberger
arrived in Britain from Germany in March 1939 at the age of 13. His parents,
who were stuck in Germany, were murdered in Auschwitz.
"We're
doing justice to this group of people, many of whom lost their families in
the Holocaust and survived only because they were brought to Britain as
children," said Mike O'Brien, British Minister of State for Pension
Reform. The legislation is expected to be approved by the Queen in the next
few months. With its enactment, the members of the Kindertransport will join
other organized groups, such as former inmates of forced labor camps, who
demanded and received pensions from Germany for the time they spent in labor
camps out of Germany as well.
An
estimated 150 people who came on the Kindertransport are still living in
Britain. The government will act to locate them and has set up a hotline -
+44-199-218-7777 - in the Department for Work and Pension.
"I'll
be very surprised if I get anything," said Inge Seden, 78, in her
apartment in Jerusalem last week. "I haven't received anything from the
Germans, except 1,000 pounds because my studies were interrupted."
Seden
left home in Munich at the age of 9 and was brought to a village in England
a few months after her brother and sister. English soon became her new
mother tongue and remains so to this day. Seden is one of 3,000
Kindertransport children who immigrated to Israel after the war. She applied
for German citizenship a few years ago, but changed her mind after a visit
to Yad Vashem.
Hundreds
of the Kindertransport children are still alive today, mostly in old-age
homes. And in the wake of the British amendment, they are now wondering if
they, too, might benefit from the increased German pensions.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012844.html
________________________________________________________
Judea
Declares War on Germany
Judea
Declares War on Germany
is an ultra offensive documentary created by Australian Dr. Frederick Töben
of the Adelaide Institute. Mainstream media and “scholars” have vilified
both Töben and the Adelaide
Institute as “holocaust deniers.” Mr. Töben
has spent his career attempting (and in some ways succeeding) to debunk
certain facts and details centered around what today is called “the
holocaust.” Töben’s low budget
documentary Judea Declares war on Germany takes an in depth look at
Dr.Töben’s findings. Since
“the holocaust” is a faith and dogma based historical event, Dr. Töben
has decided to take a critical look at all the facts surrounding the only
historical event that Europeans are forced to believe to the very least
detail by law. Dr. Töben (and
other historians) has been jailed for this research.
It
is no surprise that Judea Declares War on Germany has been banned in
many parts of the world. The documentary features the swimming pools, post
office, library, theaters, and other luxury services provided by the Germans
at Auschwitz “Death Camp.” The documentary also goes into detail about
how international Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933 via global boycott
which cutoff 2/3 of Germany’s food supply (which was imported). No one
wonder why citizens of Israel have compared Judea Declares War on Germany
to “pornography” and “pedophilia.” After all, the Israelis should
know as they (and their international brothers) are the biggest producers
(and promoters) of both porn and it’s underage illegal molested
stepbrother (kiddy porn).
Footage
of a real NAZI DEATH CAMP during World War II
The reality of “the holocaust” is that any research done on it contrary
to the “Russian” Bolshevik postwar propaganda is automatically labeled
anti-Semitic, denying the holocaust, and Nazis. Ad Hominem's
attacks are very typical of modern academia and it’s "scholarly"
supporters. Faith has always been more powerful than the actual facts. In
the documentary, Dr. Töben visits
the most barbaric of the death camps and talks to experts on the methods
used by the Nazis to exterminate Jews. Dr. Töben
also brings up how international Jewry tried to claim that Jewish prophecies
in the Torah claim that 6 million Jews are supposed to “vanish” before
the state of Israel can be established. That being said, without the
holocaust Israel would have never been recognized as a Jewish state in 1948.
This is in despite the fact that most of the original Zionists founders of
Israel are atheist Jews that base Judaism on “Jewish blood” and not
religious beliefs. Essentially, “the holocaust” and the “six million
dead Jews” are a kabbalistic (and
scriptural) reasoning for the existence of Israel.
Dr.
Fredrick Töben
Historians
should never cease studying and critically researching historical events.
This should be especially true for historical events that are promoted
everyday on MTV commercials, Hollywood movies, and are forced parts of the
curriculum in American public schools (despite Jews making up only 2 % of
America‘s population). After viewing Judea Declares War on Germany,
I can see that it is easily more scholarly (despite it’s lack of
production values) than most documentaries and books I have read on “the
holocaust.” The media has done a great job portraying international Jewry
as the eternal passive “victim” despite how Israelis shoot Palestinian
children like it’s target practice on a daily basis. It’s odd how the
same people that promote the official “holocaust” story also promote
drug use, pornography, abortion, materialism, hedonism, greed, ignorance,
and weakness. Hollywood really is full of a bunch of virtue promoting do-gooders.
Judea
Declares War on Germany
is an interesting documentary that I recommend for anyone looking to see
that other side of the argument. Dr. Töben
does not try to “deny” the holocaust. He merely argues with the Soviet
invented details centered around it. I can’t say I agree with everything
featured in the documentary, but I most surely don’t believe in the
Hollywood version of the “holocaust” either. Especially considering the
“liberating” allies killed up to 11 million (4 million ethnically
cleansed throughout eastern Europe, 5 million starved to death in occupied
Germany, and 2 million soldiers died in slave labor captivity) Germans after
World War 2 and then boast about morals. Around 72 million people (the
majority being civilians) died in World War 2, yet we are only expected to
recognize 6 million. Funny how World War II caused the destruction of Europe
(all empires and nations fell) and the birth of Israel. World War II really
had a nice monetary and power return for those notorious international
bankers.
Watch
Judea Declares War on Germany
-The
Ghost of Varange
