ISSN 1440-9828
April 2003
No 188

By Mohammed A. Hegazi

[A paper prepared for the first NGO’s Congress in Support of the Palestinian People, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran 1-3 February 2003. Mr Hegazi was Adelaide Institute’s delegate to the first congress of the International Union of Non-Government Organisations Supporting the Palestinian People. The Institute was among the founding members of the Union and Mr Hegazi participated in the discussion that preceded the ratification of the Union's constitution.]

The two words "Israel" and "Palestine" cause much confusion for the average person in the West. The word "Israel", as used to indicate "The People of Israel", is an ancient concept that refers to a group of twelve Hebrew tribes, who it is claimed have existed more than two thousand years ago. It is a notion deeply enshrined in religious mythology.

However, the word "Israel", as a reference to "The State of Israel", is a relatively new concoction, coined in 1947-1948 by the same evil forces that are still trying to control our destiny.

The word "Palestine" is what you would have seen on pre-1948 maps as a smallish Arab country surrounded on all sides by other Arab countries and the Mediterranean Sea. In 1948, the word "Israel" was superimposed on the map to replace the word "Palestine". Since its inception, the borders of the newly created state of Israel have been shifting back and forth, after every war between the hostile Jews, predominantly East European, and their Arab neighbours. Turmoil has subsequently engulfed the region and a chronic problem has festered ever since. Israel is probably the only country on the globe with no defined borders, on virtually all sides.

From a Zionist viewpoint, the fact that Palestinian Arabs have constituted the overwhelming majority living in Palestine for the last 2000 years is irrelevant. The futility and irrationality of this argument is quite obvious. If we apply such Zionist logic, or lack thereof, to the rest of our miserable planet, further drastic changes should then be made. For example, according to such Zionist system of “applied history”, Americans should become refugees in tent camps over the borders with Canada and Mexico. White Australians should be shipped back in bulk to the United Kingdom.

Recent changes to the world’s geopolitical map were never based on ancient historical claims. Changes in South Africa or Zimbabwe, for example, were aimed at improving the socio-economic conditions of the native black population, after centuries of exploitation at the hands of white immigrants.

The corrections were aimed at relatively recent anomalies. No one in his right frame of mind would think of historical claims of 2000 years. But that is the kind of Zionist mentality we have to deal with, if we were to believe in the viability of negotiated ‘peaceful’ solutions.

Ironically, Zionist Jews also argue about the impossibility of changing “facts on the ground” that are fifty years old or less. They argue that ‘conquering’ other people’s land and occupying it by force should be a permanent irreversible feature. It is the kind of twisted argument by which a Zionist Jew would like not only to have his proverbial cake and eat it; he would like to have it, eat it and maybe also negotiate about selling it.
A second Zionist argument is the Biblical myth that God, the Almighty himself, has given them the exclusive rights to the land. Even Jews themselves realise the futility of this argument, since the early Zionists considered lands as disparate as Uganda and Uruguay as possible home venue for Jews, before deciding on Palestine. Upon doing so, they began glorifying the notion of the “Promised Land”. Fanatic Jews do indeed have an argument for all seasons.

The demographic composition of Palestine over the years refutes any Jewish claims to ownership of the land of Palestine. While a scarcity of data kept during the reign of the Ottoman Empire makes accurate statistics hard to come by, it is not hard to arrive at sound conclusions about the demographic distribution of Jews in Palestine over the centuries.

The Ottomans allowed some immigration by Jews into Palestine, and the movement continued after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the British in World War I. There was already a small number of Jews who had been

living in Palestine at the time of the first waves of Zionist immigrants. They did not share the objective of an independent Jewish state. They were content with their state of affairs, where they enjoyed an affluent life style and had no problems with their Arab neighbours. It is those Eastern Jews who are now second-class citizens among their own people.

Palestine's Jewish population, mostly European Jews fleeing Europe, was under 8% of the total population in 1914(1). Jewish land ownership in Palestine was then under 2 per cent. Despite active British Mandate assistance to the Zionist movement between 1918-1948 (based on the commitment Britain made to the Zionist movement in the infamous “Balfour Declaration”), Palestine's Jewish population in 1947 increased to only 33 per cent of the total population (2). Jewish land ownership in Palestine was under 7 per cent in 1947(3).

Half a century later, The Zionist entity has achieved little. The total number of Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine adds up to 8.2 million. The number of Jews in Palestine is 4.5-5 million. The ratio is still the same as it was in 1947, 2 to 1 in favour of the Palestinian people.

However, Jewish land ownership is increased by intimidation, land confiscation and an institutionalised process of gradual ethnic cleansing. Today, 80 per cent of the Palestinian people are out of their homes, out of their country, out of the land upon which they lived and under which their ancestors are buried.

Jews in every Western country try their hardest to push the concept of multiculturalism, with all its notions of equality and harmony among all ethnic groups, Yet, when it comes to Israel they want a "Jewish State", and above all to maintain its "Jewish character". Such arrogance is being fostered by an increasing Jewish grip on the governments and institutions in Western countries.

Jews want to win each-way. They want a liberal global attitude towards race and ethnicity in all other countries, in order to creep freely on to positions of power in those countries. But when it comes to stolen Palestine, they want a “Jewish State” with a “Jewish character”. Deceit, arrogance, greed and dishonesty are not alien to an extremist Jewish thinking and way of life.

So, why was Israel established on 14 May 1948? Why did the world community, as represented by the United Nations, condone such a crime against the Palestinian people? A crime that lingered for more than half a century and will linger on until the racist Zionist entity is dismantled and the land is reclaimed by its rightful owners, the Palestinian people.

At the time, in 1948, the creation of Israel had the backing of the two rivals, the United States and the Soviet Union; an amazing concurrence during the cold war. Jewish intrigue and control of governments has no barriers.  Super powers may differ on all contentious issues, but they will readily agree on anything their Jew masters dictate The biblical myth of the “Promised Land” flourished in Europe only after the Second World War. The British in mandated Palestine either failed or turned a blind eye to the flood of thousands of Jewish hordes that entered the country prior to 1947. Europe was more than happy to get rid of them, since the isolationist way of life of Jews was a major factor in generating hatred toward them in Europe. Palestinians never hated Jews until they robbed them of their country.

The early intentions for Palestine can be illustrated by what Chaim Weissman said in 1919(4):

“We have agreed to accept the original stipulation of the British Government as follows: It is clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status of Jews living in other countries. You see, our aims for the present are modest and cautious. Later, an Independent Government of Palestine will be a natural outgrowth of the new circumstances and conditions”.

The element of Zionist deceit and intrigue was there from the beginning. The promise of not prejudicing the civil and religious rights of the Palestinians was never kept. Instead, a gradual process unfolded by which

Palestinians were evicted from their homes to make room for more Jewish immigrants.

“Transferring" European Jews to Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people out was the main theme of the Zionist movement. Ben Gurion stated in 1944:

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . .and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (5)

The process continued unabated. The more concessions the Palestinians made, the greedier the Zionists became. While Palestinians eventually agreed to divide Palestine between themselves and the racist Jewish invaders, the latter refused and started building Jewish colonies in the Palestinian section earmarked for a future Palestinian state. Namely: Gaza and the West Bank. Is that a gesture of good will? Jews sat in mock peace negotiations talking concessions while building more Jewish colonies in the West bank. Everybody, including the UN, appear to view the original 1947 partition plan as dead. The plan was stillborn anyway; Zionists had their own plans.

Western corporate media invented the cliché "Israel's right to exist". Who gave such a right to a parasitic racist entity that was carved by force in 1948? It is no coincidence that Arabs surround Israel on all sides. The land on which Israel was created belonged to the Palestinian Arabs. Palestinians lived in Palestine on a land that has layers upon layers of their ancestry. The majority of Jews in Palestine are no more than hordes of East Europeans and others, who have no roots or any association with the land.

In order to understand thoroughly the changing geographical landscape of the region, we have to go as far back as the end of the First World War when the Turkish Ottoman Empire totally disintegrated. Palestine was then among the former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain, under the Mandates System adopted by the United Nations pursuant to Covenant Article 22.

All the "Mandated Territories" became fully independent states except Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice", the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The Balfour Declaration is best described by a famous Arabic quip, "He who did not own gave a promise to those who did not deserve."

During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, Britain turned the blind eye to illegal large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe. The numbers swelled in the 1930s with the alleged Nazi persecution of Jews. Hitler used to drive truckloads of Jews to be dumped over Germany's borders. Many years later myth had it that he used to kill them in "gas chambers" and roast the corpses in pizza ovens. It has been a great dollar-earner for all Jews expelled from Germany, who later called themselves "survivors", but that is another story about which revisionist scholars have written volumes. The German people have no blood on their hands. It is the Jewish gangsters in Palestine who have their hands soaked in Palestinian blood, which they continue to spill for the sake of a fanatic project that is doomed to failure.

Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration were never heeded by Britain. The British government, like many other European governments, has always been under Jewish control. This led to a Palestinian rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing violence between the indigenous Arabs and the migrating Jewish squatters.

What used to be called “Great Britain” had a devilish policy of leaving behind disputable regions and border problems among newly independent countries. Examples that would come to mind are Kashmir between India and Pakistan, three tiny islands between Iran and the Arab Emirates and an undefined border between Qatar and Arabia. Immediately after World War II, Great Britain tried to implement various formulas in order to further complicate the situation in Palestine. In 1947, after contributing to the creation of a murky mess, Great Britain turned the problem over to the United Nations.

Various alternatives were examined by the UN. Eventually, it proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalised. (Refer to Resolution 181 (II) of 1947.)  Time was then ripe for the execution of the Zionist grand scheme. The partition plan was then only a vision with no clear plan for its execution. "Israel" unilaterally declared its independence. Palestinians and their Arab neighbours, detested the idea of slicing Palestine into two sections. War erupted in 1948.

Zionist and extremist Jews spare no effort to offer a distorted record of historical facts. They nurture a fondness for sweeping generalisations like, "Those Palestinians were offered a state in 1947, but they refused. They fought us and lost." It is this kind of distortion that exploits the complexity of the issue in order to propagate similar lies. Some revision of history is required here.

All Arab countries were then under the rule of puppets appointed by or loyal to foreign powers, mainly British or French. Royal families, usually of dubious Jewish origins, were erected in several Arab countries. An Albanian family from the times of the Ottoman Empire continued to rule Egypt. Such rulers and governments of mixed loyalties mounted a farcical war in 1948 against the hordes of "Zionist" squatters in Palestine. Corruption and outright treason by Arab rulers prevailed.  The Egyptian Army fought with faulty weapons, bought in shabby arms deals by corrupt politicians. The Iraqi army did not fire a single bullet because they “had no orders” (The famous Arabic cliché “maco awamer”). The lame effort resulted in the expansion of "Israel" to occupy 77 per cent of the original territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. The invading squatters went on an orgy of wanton massacres and intimidation. It resulted in forcing more than half of the indigenous Palestinian population out of Palestine.

So, to claim that the Palestinians rejected the partition plan, fought and lost, must be qualified by a statement that incompetent Arab governments were the main party that rejected the partition plan and contributed to the mess that followed.

According to the original UN partition plan, what may now be termed the "occupied territories' were previously the "West Bank" then occupied by Jordan, the Gaza strip occupied by Egypt and the land in between, occupied by the newly formed "Israel". Israel also occupied half of Jerusalem. So, in 1948 Israel was established on the territory suggested by the partition plan and, in defiance of that plan, also occupied parts of the suggested Palestine and half of Jerusalem, which was supposed to be internationalised.

Zionist Jews of Israel subsequently inspired Zionist Jews of the US as early as 1967, when they introduced the concept of the "pre-emptive strike", which was later often mentioned in the ramblings of George Walker Bush, as a means of protecting the US against its assumed enemies. Needless to say, the US is working hard on making such enemies via a bankrupt foreign policy.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of the original Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This also included the remaining Eastern part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The Israelis also occupied the Sinai Peninsula, which was part of Egypt. Sinai was an important part of the blueprint for the Zionist grand scheme of "Greater Israel". The "six day war" in 1967 brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at about half a million.

Security Council resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict. Like all other such UN resolutions, it was never observed. Israel continued to defy the world, under the protection of the Zionist Jews controlling the US government. Instead of forcing Israel to abide by the decisions of the world community, it continued to pour financial aid into the coffers of the Israeli government. Israel has had governments headed by terrorists and war criminals from David Ben Gurion to Ariel Sharon.  But that never worried the “friends of Israel” in the White House.

In 1973, another war erupted. I am not going to bore you with the known details of the conflict, but I would like to posit a theory of my own. It is a historical fact that Anwar Sadat of Egypt was an agent of the US. It was revealed by CIA declassified documents that he was on their pay roll, together with the late King Hussein of Jordan. It follows that Sadat must have had some level of co-ordination with the US.

The US did not come to the rescue of Israel until after three days of fighting, during which time the Israeli army was devastated. Was it some punishment from some quarters of the US, to avenge the attempt by the Israelis at sinking the US spy ship ”Liberty” in 1967? It is obvious that the war was conducted by Egypt within certain imposed limitations that did not allow the Egyptian army to push on for a comprehensive victory while it could. Who knows? We might wait for another thirty or forty more years before the facts are known, if ever. Sadat killed his army generals, who knew all the facts, in a staged helicopter crash, where the only survivor was the helicopter pilot.

Sadat himself was later killed, most likely at the instigation of the CIA, and the blessings of his successor. Unfortunately, dead people do not say much. But as far as we know, Sadat made his pre-rehearsed “surprise” visit to the Israeli Knesset and drove another nail into the coffin of Arab unity against Israel, their common enemy and the enemy of humanity.

In 1974, the UN General assembly once again affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, independence, sovereignty and the right of return. Israel, to this very day, denies such rights to the Palestinians, while giving the right to any Jew on Earth to migrate to Israel, in order to live on stolen Palestinian land.

In 1975, the UN established a “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” The PLO was given observer status in the Assembly and all UN conferences.

The period that followed saw little activity until June 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon in pursuit of the PLO. When a truce was arranged, PLO fighters withdrew from Beirut to neighbouring countries. Unarmed Palestinian refugees fell victim to Lebanese militias loyal to Israel, in the large-scale massacre of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, for which the war criminal Ariel Sharon was responsible.

In September 1983, the “International Conference on the Question of Palestine”, which was widely attended, adopted the “Geneva Declaration” containing the following principles:

“The need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognised boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

But that is all talk and no action on the part of the UN. We all know that Israel has never paid much attention to UN resolutions. Besides, one country after another, including the US, did or are contemplating the idea of moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; thus approving of its annexation by Israel in defiance of UN resolution 181 of 1947.

In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (The First Intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population. In October 1991, The Madrid Peace Conference was convened. Negotiations were carried out along two parallel tracks:

Between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians.

The basis for negotiation was Security Council resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973. Mutual recognition resulted between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). The parties signed the “Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government”.

Arrangements in September 1993 resulted in a partial Israeli withdrawal and the election of the Palestinian Council and the president of the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians took over the administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule.

In real terms, Palestinians were assigned the dirty job of rounding up the militant elements amongst them, for the benefit of the enemy. It was a formula that later proved divisive and disastrous.

The UN General Assembly welcomed the Declaration of Principles and reaffirmed that "the United Nations has a permanent responsibility with respect to the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy.” Does this empty rhetoric amount to much? Very little indeed, other than giving Israel more time to procrastinate while maintaining the status quo, as a precursor to further violation and expansion.

During the past few years, there has been some concern at the stalemate in the peace negotiations. Arab governments find refuge in empty, futile negotiations as a means of dampening the anger of their people.  The world is concerned about acts of violence against civilians, the actions of the government of Israel with regard to Jerusalem, the so-called settlements, land confiscation, demolition of Palestinian homes and other acts of collective punishment of civilians. Much has been said, but very little was done to put Israel on leash.   

The events in the US of 11 September 2001, and the subsequent phoney “war on terror”, have obscured the situation and given Israel’s war criminals a free hand to reoccupy the remainder of Palestine, but at a price. Continued “Shahada Strikes” (martyrdom) by courageous Palestinian youth are followed by reprisal counter-strikes from the Israeli Army.

Israel has been on an extended state of emergency for the last couple of years, as a result of the “Second Intifada”. This is crippling the Israeli economy. Every able Israeli is supposedly ready for active army service, further disrupting civilian life and the economy.

Now, I arrive at the main point I am trying to make. Why is Israel doomed? Young Palestinians are willing to die for their country, using the only weapon available to them, Shahada bombing strikes. Western media learnt what the term “Intifada” meant.  It is high time it knew what ‘Shahada” is. It is the noblest form of self-sacrifice. Palestinian young men and women, as young as sixteen, do not fear death. The level of their courage defies Western logic.

The concept of Shahada is alien to Western mentality. They call it “suicide bombing”.  American Jewish media cynically call it “homicide bombing”. The idea of self-sacrifice is so incomprehensible to the materialistic Western mindset that they can only see it as an act of desperation, of someone with no interest in living. It cannot be seen as an act of self-denial ; a sacrifice by one for the sake of all. It is a unique concept that has no parallel in Western culture. Therefore, it has to be looked at as an abnormal phenomenon.

Westerners cannot understand the idea that an individual dies in order that his family and his people may live. Palestinians suffer no shortage of young people willing to sacrifice their own lives for their stolen country.

According to the Palestinian centre for Human rights, more than 50% of the population is under 19 years of age and population growth is about 5%. So, there will be no shortage of Shahada strikers. Zionists will always be up against a weapon for which there is no defence.

The growing hatred of Jews is not confined to young Palestinians. Young people all over the world are coming to grips with the facts about Jewish atrocities in Palestine and the Jewish danger in their own countries. A recent survey by the Institute of Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco gives us indications that the world is waking up to the danger of extremist Jewish supremacists, who want to control us. The Washington Post, which is a Jewish-controlled newspaper, is sounding the alarm to all Jews. It published the findings of the survey in an article on 21 January, 2003 saying:

“Anti-Semitism may be increasing in the United States as more young adults express bigoted views about Jews than do middle-aged Americans, according to a national poll. On question after question, researchers found that the proportion of Americans ages 18 to 35 who held anti-Semitic views was consistently higher than the percentage of middle-aged Americans who shared those attitudes.

For example, nearly one in four young adults, 23 percent, ­­agreed with the statement that Jews were a ‘threat’ to the country's ‘moral character’, a view shared by 15 percent of Americans between ages 45 and 54.  And 20 percent of young adults agreed that Jews ‘care only about themselves’, compared with 12 percent of middle-aged Americans.”.

In my opinion, such awakening is due to the ease of obtaining information via the wonderful flow of the Internet. Gone are the days when the BBC or CNN were the main sources of news, dissipating misinformation and shaping public opinion. I recall an anecdote at the time of the qualifying games for the Soccer World Cup of 1998. Iran had been demonised by the Jew-controlled Western media for years; still is being demonised by George W. Bush and the Jews in control of the US administration. Australia played Iran away in Tehran on 22 November 1997. The amazed Australian soccer commentator “Les Murray” could not help express his astonishment at the difference between the real Iran he was witnessing and the distorted image the Jewish American media painted for him. He couldn’t help frequently reiterating that sentiment during the relay of the match to Australia. He was amazed and impressed by the discipline and sportsmanship of the crowds and the general way of life as he saw it.

By the same token the Jewish Western media has depicted the Palestinians as savages who kill themselves because of their ‘fanatic Moslem indoctrination’ and the promise of a lavish lifestyle in Heaven. This level of distortion is no longer possible. The Internet is choking the filthy Jew-controlled mass media. I receive stacks of e-mail messages and addresses of Internet sites showing profound understanding of the global Jewish conspiracy, which is not just a theory. It is a fact unfolding before our very eyes.

Palestine lies in the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, not on the disjointed bits offered in phoney perpetual peace talks. Historical precedent dictates that Palestinians will free their land. Until then, there will be no respite in the letting of blood on both sides. Jews have only themselves to blame.

My prediction that Israel is a doomed project is not based on my own wishful thinking; it is based on historical precedent. History tells us that whenever you have an oppressed people willing to stand up and fight for their freedom, the end result is victory for the disenfranchised.

The French were driven out of Algeria. The indigenous blacks of South Africa freed their country from the white apartheid regime. History has a habit of repeating itself. Peoples and nations also have the bad habit of not heeding the lessons of history.

To my mind, the freedom of the Palestinian people from their Zionist oppressors may be much closer than the freedom of their fellow Arabs from their backward, corrupt rulers.

(1) Righteous Victims, Benny Morris, p. 83

(2) Ibid, p. 83

(3) The Birth of the Palestine Problem 1947-1949, Benny Morris, p. 170

(4) Chaim Weissman, chairman of the British Zionist Committee,

      New York Times, 28 February 1919.

(5) Expulsion of the Palestinians, Nur Masalha, p. 159



Geoff Muirden and his politically incorrect Book Reviews

Keith Windschuttle: The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume 1;Van Diemen's Land, 1803-1847

Sydney, Macleay Press, 2002. hard cover. ISBN 1876492058. 472 pp. $A49-95

This book has generated a fierce debate within the pages of The Australian newspaper, especially the Weekend Australian. Dec. 28-29,2002. It deserves attention by all who are politically incorrect enough to want the truth, and to rescue the white race from factually incorrect charges of genocide. Many people know political correctness is the opposite of factual correctness. Windschuttle targets Left-wing writers such as the 2 Rs: Ryan and Reynolds, despite the fact that historian Attwood, claimed they did not believe in genocide claims. Nevertheless, Windschuttle cites Lyndall Ryan, in her book, The Aborigines of Tasmania (1981) 2nd ed., as saying that Tasmanian aborigines were victims of a conscious policy of genocide. Clive Turnbull’s 1948 book, Black War, said that “Extermination policies were not exclusive to Nazi Germany” (Windschuttle, p. 13)

Lloyd Robson refers to the Tasmanian conquest as “an impressive example of extermination.(A History of Tasmania, Vol.I) and Rhys Jones and Tom Haydon suggested in The Last Tasmanian that it was ‘a holocaust of European savagery.”

Windschuttle has been called an Australian revisionist, and so he is about the aboriginal scene, but he is not a so-called “holocaust denier” because he does not challenge the Holocaust orthodoxy. He even labels one chapter 'The Final Solution' with its customary connotations of “termination.” His claims are taken seriously enough for a writer, in The Australian, 30th December, 2002, to suggest that Australian museum exhibits should be modified to accommodate Windschuttle’s claims, whereas there will be a long wait before an Australian museum modifies exhibits to suit a European Holocaust revisionist.

In some ways, Windschuttle draws on the work of previous historians, such as James Calder’s The Native Tribes of Tasmania (1875) who suggested    most claims of extermination are vastly exaggerated about the numbers involved, a theme Windschuttle endorses throughout the book. Windschuttle claims that more whites were killed than blacks, 187 whites (p. 352) to 118 blacks (p. 397) out of a total black population at time of colonial settlement of about 2,000. 

It is a feature of Left-wing political correctness that deep moral concern seldom is shown for white deaths. Instead, political correctness concentrates on black deaths, as if the lives of whites did not count, an interesting attitude coming from whites. As Windschuttle shows, the notion of attributing ‘Heroic guerrilla warfare’ to the Tasmanian blacks during the 19th century creates an attitude they did not have. The Tasmanians were also a nomadic people with no sense of a “national purpose” the same as aborigines in Australia at time of white settlement. Windschuttle argues against the validity of Land Rights claims, and complains that historic sites given to blacks have been contemptuously allowed to fall into ruin (p. 411).

He also extensively analyzes a major political figure of that era, George Augustus Robinson, whom Leftist black-arm band historians love because he contrasts the ‘poor, helpless, forlorn, oppressed blacks” with the “merciless whites” (p. 249) Windschuttle said that it served Robinson’s purposes to understate black murders and to suggest that conciliation with natives be encouraged, since he got a nice profit from herding natives into areas, earning bounty money, and presenting himself as the natives’ protector. He acquired the reputation of a great humanitarian and at the same time profited by his business. Robinson was not a disinterested observer.

Windschuttle does not cite one writer, Patricia Cobern, writing “Who really killed Tasmania’s  Aborigines?” in The Bulletin, Feb. 23, 1982,(pp.32-4) who arrives at conclusions similar to his own, and believed Tasmanian natives were starting to die out at settlement and would have become extinct if the whites had arrived later.

Like Windschuttle, she cites an eyewitness of the times, James Erskine Calder, who noticed warlike habits and treachery of natives. He mentions their raids on isolated farms and the way in which they would feign friendship towards whites and then, when they were within range, would flick spears from between their toes and impale the luckless whites. It’s racist to say this, of course, but if present-day whites in Tasmania had to endure this kind of reception themselves, they might not have been so enthusiastic about black preservation. But in spite of this, Windschuttle suggests that, not only was the policy of the Tasmanian government against extermination, but very few colonists themselves supported it. 

Cobern cites several causes of Aboriginal decline: (1) their eating habits, which involved gluttony, sometimes of rancid food;(2) hazards of birth, such as unsterilised implements to cut the umbilical cord;(3) lack of hygiene; (4 tribal prostitution, which encouraged V.D. and cut the number of new births for the tribes; (5)infection from ritual wounds;(6) exposure to the harsh climate, a key motive for stealing the whites’ blankets.

Cobern concludes that “the killer that stalked the Tasmanian Aboriginal tribes was the practices and customs of the race, its face was not white.”

Many of these are good explanations, but Windschuttle places more emphasis on the isolation of the tribes from other cultures. On venereal disease, Windschuttle mentions that the tribes encouraged it by selling their wives to the whites for provisions or dogs. The last full-blooded aborigine to die in Tasmania was Truganini, but some half-breeds have survived since.

Windschuttle mentions that this volume is only one in a series to challenge the politically correct view of Australian Aboriginal history. It is not yet clear what his subsequent volumes will say, but some themes may be suggested by books such as Anthropopagitism, by JamesCooke, RN, Rtd, showing widespread cannibalism among Australian tribes, and books such as Cape York, The Savage Frontier, by Rodney Liddell, which suggests such politically incorrect messages as the fact that the present-day Aborigines are not, as often suggested, the original inhabitants, but they displaced, and “holocausted” the previous Papuan race; that many so-called rock paintings” are frauds; that Aboriginal occupation cannot be as old as suggested; and that black tribes were rent by tribal wars, frequently over seizure of women. Like Blainey, it mentions that Australian aborigines were nomads, with no sense of  a unified ‘nation.’ It also documents the way in which castaways unfortunate enough to be wrecked on Cape York, were murdered in horrific and brutal ways. It was no “island paradise” that was taken over by whites. 

It remains to be seen whether Windschuttle will take up themes such as this, in his own high-powered, heavily concentrated and strongly academic style. In the meantime, he has given a hearty blow to the fashionable anti-white racism. 





Trouble in GAT — Gulag Americana Talmudistan,


 United States of America (USA)?

Has Bush A Flea In His Ear?

[From a German-American supporter]

Everyone knows what a bug is: A device for secret service agents to eavesdrop on unsuspecting people. There is an old German saying: To put a flea in someone's ear — einen Floh ins Ohr setzen; i.e. to feed someone with strange thoughts.

By the same token, a FLEA is a device for people who need to be told what to say. It works like a hearing aid, but in place of a microphone it has a tiny wireless receiver. Such gadgets are nothing unusual because that's what modern technology is all about. But who needs such a device?

Most ordinary people receive their messages loud and clear through radio or TV, the smart through the Internet, and it works well. Television professionals, like news readers, etc. read their messages/instructions from a screen near the camera they are looking into. Easy! Even President Ronald Reagan did that when he gave his speeches to the nation from his Oval Office. But such system is unacceptable for distinguished V.I.Ps who have to stand and speak in front of an awed Congress, United Nations diplomats, or, worse of all, press reporters. Everyone knows that.

But that is exactly the problem presently confronting President George W (W stands for Warmonger) Bush. President Dubya has become the butt of all jokes about his intelligence or rather the lack of it. It is said he is run by his Vice and Zionist secretaries. Worse still, Canadians have called him a 'moron', and their press exploits that remark to the hilt. Even an Australian MP said Bush is a 'clown (we do not subscribe to derogatory hype).

Just think, how can a super rich fellow of the Skulls and Bones, elevated to the highest office in the world, next to God — who is watched and listened to daily by hundreds of millions of people — how can he afford to utter the wrong word, a wrong sentence? That would be a disaster, a bloody disaster in its true sense. 

Bush rarely reads his speeches (which refutes rumours he can't read?) Nowadays he speaks freely, and yet how does he prepare and control his words as no other man? The fate of our whole humanity depends on the utterances of President Bush, but not on his intelligence, i.e. if somebody else thinks for him.

Well, understood, problem solved? Of course, if somebody else thinks for him, then there is only a FLEA necessary to prompt George W's speeches, without anyone noticing it. Right? Not quite. We wonder why President Bush speaks one sentence at a time, then always makes a long pause? Of course he listens to his FLEA to give him the next words he has to say in public. 

What seems to be a peculiar habit of Bush junior is a simple human problem: He can't listen while he talks! Watch now our great President of the Jewnited States of America at his next public address.

It isn't amazing: Does a FLEA explain his genius? 

It's not a miracle that Bush became President because his Jewish assistants keep him on top, so long as he listens to the flea in his ear. 

What values will flow from a Middle East War? Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. We are asked to believe that an Arab, Moslem terrorist group attacked the USA on 11 September 2001, one of the greatest conspiracies in recent  times. The current US government asks us to believe in this conspiracy. We say, no Mr Bush, you are part of a far larger conspiracy that actually caused the tragedy. Please read Thierry Meyssan's book that claims no plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Mr Bush, go ahead, start the horrible war because NUREMBERG is waiting for you and your accomplices!

And further: Did you know that before the Civil War in Texas, within a number of communities there was a dividing line: east-west. The east supported slavery while the west didn't. Why? The Germans who settled in Texas before the Civil War did not support slavery. Why not? Because Germans would not be satisfied with the quality of slave labour! Germany's legendary drive for meticulousness, for quality, perfection, and general uprightness did not fit into the slave-mentality that pervaded the USA. The question to ask is: Who was engaged in the slave trade? In order to eliminate German values as a world civilising force, the Holocaust industrial complex propagates the lies that allegedly strip Germans of such civilising influences. Remember though the Jews who migrated to Palestine before the war. They were imbued with German values, such as uprightness, cleanliness, hard work, sense of duty, honesty and integrity, honour. etc. 

Top | Home

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute