THINK ON THESE THINGS
Welcome back from our non-break for the festive season. Individuals all over the world continue to talk about the Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers in a most absurd way without any opposition. That this is pure German hatred is not addressed in today’s world mainstream media. By crying ‘racism’ the factuality of the Auschwitz story is blended out. Fredrick Töben, et al, cannot respond because they are legally restrained from doing so by court orders that protect those who tell stories that are not subjected to a truth-test! These are feast days for the fabricators of history and one can only hope that hubris will kick in to help set the record straight. Professor Robert Faurisson clarifies matters by challenging the world to either put up or shut up: “Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chambers – the ‘Holocaust’ is a lie!” To date Faurisson towers above all those who are faint-hearted Revisionists, and above those who would rather wish to believe than wish to know the truth about the accusation leveled against Germans, i.e. that during World War Two they exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz. It is legitimate to ask: Why does this gassing story need legal protection? One answer is that it pays to be a victim in today’s litigious society – you take things literally, feel hurt and victimized, then litigate and hope for a financial settlement. It is amazing how money seems to fix up some emotional or mental hurt! Perhaps a sensitive study of this phenomenon may explain why Germans themselves have gone along with the gassing story for so long without asking those difficult questions that any assertion of an historical fact brings with it.
Soccer fans' increasing racist taunts raise concerns. Recent racial incidents in Europe's soccer stadiums have prompted heated debate, reviews of the game's rules, even legal action against fans.
By Keith B Richburg, Washington Post Service, Miami Herald, FL,USA, December 15, 2004, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10418409.htm?1c
PARIS - Europe's soccer stadiums, long known for boisterous, drunken fans and hooligans, have lately become fertile fields for a continent-wide problem: racism.
Professional soccer teams, their national and international governing bodies and anti-racism groups have been grappling with a number of incidents around Europe over the last month. They have prompted reviews of the rules, legal action against some fans and heated debates on sports pages and Internet chat sites about whether the stadiums have become the new preserve of racists, anti-Semites and xenophobes.
Among recent incidents:
• In France on Nov. 13, two black players for the Bastia team, from Guadalupe and Congo, along with their family members, were abused and roughed up after a game, following a team loss. The incident prompted French players, coaches and referees to don ''No to Racism'' T-shirts for their next game.
• In England, about a week later, a black Birmingham player confronted two men in the stands who harassed him during his pregame warm-up by making monkey noises and imitating a monkey's scratching. One of the men was fined $1,900 and banned from soccer stadiums in England and Wales for five years.
• In the Netherlands last month, a referee for the first time invoked a new rule and stopped a game in The Hague. The crowd had become hostile, chanting, ''Go to the gas chamber!'' and calling the referee ''the whore of Hamas,'' referring to the Palestinian extremist group. When the Amsterdam team Ajax plays, fans of rival teams often make a loud hissing noise, to simulate Nazi gas chambers -- a reference to the team's supposedly Jewish origins.
• In Spain on Nov. 17, two black players for an English team were subjected to racist slogans chanted by thousands of fans. England protested, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was ''very disappointed.'' Spanish officials waited a full day before condemning the incident and the Spanish media downplayed the incident.
• In Italy, Lazio -- already fined for racist incidents -- was sanctioned by European soccer's governing body, the UEFA, on Friday after a Cameroon player for Partizan Belgrade was subjected to a torrent of monkey noises from Lazio fans in the stands whenever he had the ball. Lazio was ordered by the UEFA to play its next European home match in an empty arena.
For some soccer fans, writing to newspapers and websites, the incidents are not a sign of racism, but rather of diehard fans rooting for their teams and finding new ways to insult their opponents.
But to others, including FIFA, the game's international governing body, and UEFA, as well as politicians, coaches and anti-racism groups, the recent incidents reflect a worrying trend across Europe. At a time of heightened tensions because of growing nonwhite immigration to Europe, and with overtly racist speech being largely proscribed in polite company, racists and xenophobes appear comfortable airing their views in the anonymity of huge and crowded soccer stadiums -- where they find support, and an echo.
''There's basically a public debate, because Europe is undergoing change,'' said Piara Powar, president of the group Kick It Out, which was started in England to combat racism in soccer. ``In places like Italy and Spain, there's a very one-sided debate about the issue of immigration, and that's been combined with a fear-mongering post-9/11.''
With intolerance growing in places such as the Netherlands, where the Nov. 2 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, allegedly by a Moroccan immigrant, started a wave of retaliatory attacks on mosques, ''all of these public debates will spill over into other arenas, like football,'' Powar said.
30% of players black
The demographics of the sport also play a role. Kick It Out estimates that in professional soccer, about 30 percent of the top-level players in England are black, with the figure slightly less for the rest of Europe. There are only a handful of black coaches, referees and front-office staff members, however, and across Europe, very few black fans are season-ticket holders. While Europe is increasingly black and Arab, most fans at stadiums are working-class whites.
Frank Huizinga, a spokesman for the Royal Dutch Football Association, said his organization two months ago passed regulations allowing a referee to stop a match because of excess noise or abuse from fans.
Germans tend Holocaust survivors
Associated Press, Maalot-Tarshiha, Israel, December 15, 2004, http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1153500,00050003.htm
Franz Feibel spent five years in Buchenwald concentration camp, helplessly watching the ashes of Jewish prisoners spew out of the crematorium smokestack. Today, aged 93 and in a nursing home, he is cared for by Oliver Raag, a German geriatric nurse whose grandfather transported disabled Jews and other Germans to a gas chamber. Raag is one of more than 100 Germans doing volunteer work in Israel at any given time to atone for the deeds of their parents and grandparents.
"The more I learned about that period in German history, the more I wanted to come here to show that there are other Germans who are not like the Nazis," said Raag, 30.
The relationship between the Germans and the elderly Israelis is often ambivalent. Some of the survivors still can't bear to hear German spoken, while others say their idealistic young caregivers are a comfort.
The ties between Israel and Germany are also complex. Germany is one of Israel's most vocal defenders in the European Union and a leading trade partner. Since the 1950s, Germany has paid some $80 billion (euro60 billion) in reparations to Holocaust survivors worldwide, including some 250,000 living in Israel today. Some younger Israelis dreaming of settling in Europe are urging parents and grandparents to reclaim their German citizenship, while some older ones still refuse to visit Germany or buy its products. Tom Segev, an Israeli historian, said the Nazi genocide of some 6 million Jews will shape the German-Israeli relationship for years to come.
Siegfried Verbeke libéré!
Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:58 AM
Following his arrest on November 27, 2004, in his shop in Courtrai, Belgium, (ref: our message of December 5 titled "Arrest of Siegfried Verbeke, an active Flemish revisionist"), Siegfried Verbeke was kept in jail in Ypres awaiting deportation to Germany who had requested his deportation. However he was released on Friday December 10 at 1 p.m. on grounds of a European law that caused the German judiciary to make an apparent mistake. If we understood correctly, his lawyer found that, in the European Union, a national, or a citizen, of one country cannot be deported to another country of the EU if there are already laws in his own country which make it possible for him to be charged for the same reason in his country. That is at least what the Belgium court of Courtrai upheld, and Germany accepted that decision.
BNP BOSS REMAINS DEFIANT
The leader of the British National Party remained defiant tonight after being questioned on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.
Nick Griffin claims his arrest this morning was part of a government campaign to "demonise" his party. "This is an electoral scam to get the Muslim block vote back to the Labour Party," he said after being bailed. He added: "The police have nothing to do with this. The CPS, David Blunkett, John Prescott, Tony Blair are having a go at a dangerous political rival." West Yorkshire Police arrested the 45-year-old at his home in Wales around 6.15am. He was taken to Halifax Police Station where he was shown video recordings of some of his speeches. The arrest came as part of an investigation into the BBC programme Secret Agent. The documentary featured covertly-filmed footage showing BNP activists confessing to race-hate crimes. Mr Griffin said he had not been charged with any offence but must report back to police in March. :: Three Bradford men, aged 29, 33, and 23, were charged with racially aggravated intentional harassment as part of the same investigation. The trio is due to appear before Leeds Magistrates' Court on December 16. A few days before John Tyndall was also arrested.
Bailed: Nick Griffin
Truth will always emerge – when the liars are removed from power!
Walter Lüftl’s unpublished letter to the Wien Kurier.
Your article of August 8, 2004, on the NKWD-Special Unit’s mass murder at Katyn in 1940 falsely claims that “in Katyn 15.000 officers were shot”. At Katyn “only” 4.173 (other sources state 4.156) polish officers, bureaucrats, police officers, land- and factory owners, etc., that is “class enemies”, were murdered from the camps Mednoje, near Kalinin, and Pjatichatki, near Charkow. You correctly state that this deed was blamed on the Germans. Unfortunately you do not mention that for these Soviet crimes – more like genocide – German officers were condemned and most of them executed by the perpetrators, i.e. judicial murder. After clarifying who was responsible for this deed, I now seek the re-habilitation of the murdered German officers Stuffeling, Remmlinger, Bohm, Sonnefeld, Janike and Geherer. I don’t know if the officers sentenced to 20 years survived their forced labour – real slave labour: Vogel, Skotki and Dierer. It may not be a consolation for those unjustifiably murdered, but it is of significance for the widows and descendents of those murdered as ‘war criminals’ or as ‘judicial murder’. You should write about this topic, but I assume you will consider this letter as not ‘political correct’ and thus not publish it. But now at a later date you cannot claim “Gnade der späten Geburt – copyright Kohl – that you didn’t know. Now you know! Sincerely, Your subscriber Walter Lüftl, 1180 Wien.
[Engineer Walter Lüftl is the author of The Lüftl Report, another refutation of you know what! Letter published in Anzeiger der Notverwaltung des Deutschen Ostens, No.5, Sept./Oct. 2005, transl.FT]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:58 PM.
Subject: Raided by State Police
Dear Friends - I have just been raided by the State police who had a search warrant to look for copies of the "For Police Eyes Only" video the about Port Arthur massacre. They took my only two copies. BUT, just in case that video was disguised under a different title, they took ALL my videos. 558 videos confiscated!!! Those of you who have asked for a copy of my newest video from America - "911 in Plane Site" will have to wait awhile until my copy is returned. For those of you who do not know that I have that great film, please contact me for details if you are interested in getting a copy. The police took me to the police station in the city and questioned me in front of video camera. They are interested only in the Port Arthur tape. I'm sure the other 558 videos will soon be returned. At the police station I was not backward in coming forward with information about what I know really happened at Port Arthur!!! Olga Scully, 14 Thelma Street, Launceston - 7250, Tasmania. Fredrick Töben comments: I wish they would raid my place and take away all my videos and files!
High Court denies Demjanjuk's citizenship
By: Marilyn H. Karfeld Staff Reporter Cleveland Jewish News
John Demjanjuk is one step closer to deportation since the U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to review his denaturalization case.
The Supreme Court action allows a lower court decision to stand affirming Demjanjuk's loss of U.S. citizenship. The court's refusal to hear Demjanjuk's case means the government can soon begin deportation proceedings.
"It's better late than later," says Zev Harel, a Holocaust survivor and professor of social work at Cleveland State University. Some argue that the government is abusing the justice system by pursuing a 27-year-old case against an old man. But Harel says it should make no difference that Demjanjuk is now 84. The case has dragged on so long because the U.S. and Israeli judicial systems took their time making sure that he was part of the machinery that guarded concentration camps.
John Demjanjuk is one step closer to deportation since the U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to review his denaturalization case.
Last April, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the government proved "through clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence" that Demjanjuk was ineligible for citizenship because he served as a Nazi concentration camp guard and lied about it to enter the country.
In February 2002, Judge Paul Matia stripped Demjanjuk of his citizenship because he served at the SS-run Trawniki guard-training camp, as an armed guard at Sobibor death camp and at Majdenek and Flossenburg concentration camps. The Justice Department's Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations, based its case against Demjanjuk on seven documents showing he served at the camps.
Most prominent among these is the Trawniki identity card, which bears a photo of Demjanjuk and a physical description. Defense lawyers argue that Demjanjuk's cousin, Ivan, is the man pictured in the photo. They also claim that the signature on the card does not resemble any attributed to Demjanjuk. That is the basis for a separate appeal still pending before the Sixth Circuit.
Shortly after his denaturalization order, Matia ruled that the government could not begin deportation proceedings until Demjanjuk exhausted his appeals. Prosecutors will have to ask Matia to lift that stay.
One Cleveland immigration attorney doesn't think that will be an issue. The Supreme Court ruling permits the government to pursue deportation, says David Leopold. A pre-trial deportation hearing probably could be scheduled within the next six months.
However, if the Demjanjuk case is treated no differently than others, deportation will take years because the process is so backed up, Leopold says. Right now, cases are being set for hearings in 2006. Demjanjuk also has the right to appeal the immigration judges' decision.
"This isn't over yet," says Leopold. "Even though the result is pretty clear: those who assisted the Nazis in their atrocities are clearly deportable from the U.S. But it will take a while to move through the system, perhaps 3-1/2 to 4 years."
Most likely, an immigration judge will attempt to deport Demjanjuk to his native Ukraine or to Germany, where he lived before entering the U.S. If no country will take him, he would be declared stateless and could live here under an order of supervision for the rest of his life, Leopold says. Many individuals, including a number of Palestinians, are unremovable because no country will take them. First stripped of his citizenship in 1981 for being "Ivan the Terrible," the brutal gas chamber guard at Treblinka, Demjanjuk was extradited to Israel. He was imprisoned there from 1986 to 1993, when the Israel Supreme Court set his conviction aside, citing evidence that cast doubt on his identity as Ivan.
Demjanjuk returned to his suburban Seven Hills home and his citizenship was restored in 1998. Prosecutors filed new charges and a trial was held in June 2001.
Leopold, the son of a Holocaust survivor, disagrees with those who say the government should just leave the old, frail man alone. "How many old and infirm Jews were thrown into the gas chambers?" Leopold asks. "Were they given any compassion because of their age?"
Romania yields to the blackmail of Jewish organisations
The press of the whole world has rung with the news: Romania, after persistently saying that it had incurred no personal responsibility in what is conventionally called “the extermination of the Jews” (or “the Holocaust” or “the Shoah”), has at last seen the error of its ways and is set to do penance. In France, Le Monde recently headlined “Romania formally acknowledges its participation in the extermination of the Jews” (article by Mirel Bran, 17 November 2004, p. 7).
Yet, if there is one country that protected its Jews during the Second World War, that country is Romania. This truth could still be articulated twenty or so years ago. Today, we are bidden to conceal it, and so to lie.
On the reality of the Romanian Jews’ fate during the war, let us first quote, by way of a foreword, a testimony published by L’Express in 1979 under the title “Les Roumains et les Juifs” (“The Romanians and the Jews”), then, for a more in-depth consideration, look closely at a 1982 report in Le Monde juif, the review of the Centre de documentation juive contemporaine (CDJC) in Paris, under the remarkable heading “La Roumanie sauvée de l’Holocauste” (“Romania saved from the Holocaust”).
“The Romanians and the Jews”
Here is the letter signed by one Constantin Mares that appeared in L’Express (week of 10 to 16 March 1979):
I am a Romanian living in the Federal Republic of Germany. I am 51 years old. When Hitler died I was 17. — I read with bewilderment in L’Express n°1440 that in Romania, during the Second World War (source cited and taken up without objection), 425,000 Jews are alleged to have died or disappeared, in other words 50% of a Jewish population of 850,000 (in 1939). — This is a grave error, a veritable slander directed at a people who have suffered far too much, who have never practised hatred, political or racial mass killing or invasion of territories belonging to other peoples. It is also the occasion to remind your readers that, during the Second World War, Romania was not led by a Fascist party but by a marshal who committed some errors, but who waged a struggle of invaded territories. — It is my duty to specify that, during the Second World War, my Romanian compatriots of Jewish origin were not made to wear the star of David, that they had schools, that, in the capital of the country there operated a [Jewish] secondary school (the “Culture”) and a [Jewish] theatre (the Baracheum), the latter being attended by all inhabitants of Bucharest, Jewish or non-Jewish. In those years, on the stage of the Romanian national theatre, the play “Star without a Name”, written by the great Romanian playwright of Jewish origin Mihail Sebastian, brought full houses. In all Romania there existed no concentration camps for the Jews, with Marshal Antonescu having personally opposed Hitler’s request [to establish them], and, consequently, none of my compatriots were handed over to the Nazis.
Let us chiefly note three strong points of this brief testimony: the Romanian Jews, unlike, for example, certain French Jews, did not have to wear a star of David in public, were not put in concentration camps and were not handed over to the Germans for deportation to Germany or Poland.
“Romania saved from the Holocaust”
(presentation of the Popescu report by Le Monde juif)
Bearing the signature of Josif Toma Popescu, the report entitled “La Roumanie sauvée de l’Holocauste” (Le Monde juif, January-March 1982, p. 1-2 and 3-11) is all the more important as it received the approval of the CDJC, whose director was Georges Wellers, sworn enemy of the revisionists. The presentation by Le Monde juif (p. 1-2) of the report (p. 3-11) is laudatory and rather honest. It is careful to recall that the Romanian government did not incur responsibility in the fate that may have been experienced by the Jews of certain territories that had been stripped from the country between 28 June and 30 August 1940 in application of the German-Soviet pact and of the treaty of Vienna imposed by Hitler and Mussolini. In the space of two months, northern Transylvania was annexed by Hungary, Bessarabia and northern Bucovina were annexed by the Soviet Union and southern Dobruja was annexed by Bulgaria. Consequently, to impute to Romania responsibility for the fate of the Jews in all of those regions amounts to a swindle. What is true is that in 1941 the Romanian government, allied with Germany, was to recover Bucovina and Bessarabia and then transplant many Jews of those provinces in Transnistria (the western part of the Soviet Ukraine) with the intention of sending them to the Urals should circumstances allow. The project of a transfer and settling of those Jews was to meet with disaster and, one year on, those of them who had avoided death from typhus, hunger and the cold — the main killers in the tragedy — were taken back to Romania. The team of Le Monde juif specify: “The responsibility of the Romanian government in these hardships is a heavy one, although it is not easy to distinguish it from that of the German officials [Romania’s allies in the crusade against the Soviet Union]. Le Monde juif condemns the existence of ghettos (!) in the rest of the country and the anti-Jewish laws whilst adding that, on the other hand, there were no deportations to the camps in Poland or Germany. It goes so far as to acknowledge that general Antonescu (who became Marshal in August 1941), deputy prime minister Mihai Antonescu (an Anglophile), the Queen Mother and some high authorities of the orthodox church responded favourably to the numerous interventions by the chief rabbi of Romania, Dr Alexandre Safran. As for Iuliu Maniu, former prime minister and president of the National Peasants’ Party, he played, in his relations with Marshal Antonescu, a decisive role in favour of his Jewish compatriots.
“Romania saved from the Holocaust”
(the Popescu report itself)
At the time, J. T. Popescu was a practising barrister in Bucharest. His report is rich in precisions confirming that, thanks in particular to Marshal Antonescu’s government, the Romanian Jews saw themselves spared all sorts of hardships inflicted on the Jews of various other European countries. A certain number of these Romanian Jews showed their sympathy for the cause of the Soviet Union, which was fighting Romania. At the beginning of the war, in the town of Iasi, a Romanian military formation, marching to the front and passing through a narrow street, had been attacked by some Jewish communists: there ensued an engagement that cost lives on either side as well as amongst the population; only the Jewish losses, considerably inflated by legend, have been recorded in history. J. T. Popescu does not bring up this affair but he does call to mind an illustration of it: the Romanian Jews were not mobilised in the Romanian army and thus did not take part in the Russian campaign, which was to cause Romania terrible losses. As compensation for this privilege, Marshal Antonescu had foreseen “a special contribution imposed solely on the Jews, considering that they were not participating in the military campaign” (p.7). Nonetheless, upon one of the many interventions of I. Maniu, the projected measure was abandoned. The Popescu report also mentions an astonishing Jewish privilege: the granting, with retroactive effect, of an old-age pension to foreign Jews who, having worked in Romania, had neglected to satisfy the formalities of naturalisation within the stipulated time. With illegal Jewish immigrants flocking to the country from Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, the government in Bucharest looked to take measures for the internment and forcible repatriation of such persons but ended up, once again, abandoning the idea. On 23 August 1944, when the fortunes of war had turned, Marshal Antonescu was arrested by order of King Michael I and handed over to the Soviets, who executed him in 1946.
The figure of Marshal Antonescu
For their part, the Romanian people after the war were to experience the rigours of communism (1947-1989). Then, after the fall of communism, they set about erecting statues here and there of their former “Conducator”. Far from appearing as a “fascist”, Antonescu at the time assumed the traits of a nationalist who, in 1941, had, at the extreme right, violently put an end to the Iron Guard movement and, at the extreme left, taken up arms against communism. With respect to his German allies he had proved to be fiercely independent both in his refusal to hand over the Jewish communists in his country for internment in camps in Germany or Poland and also in the facilities that he accorded to the Jews, at the height of the war, in order to let them reach Turkey.
Today the Romanian Jewish community and its friends in the international community protest against the homage paid to the memory of the Marshal who was shot by the communists. In December 2000, a right-wing leader, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, who received 28% of the votes cast in the presidential election of that year won by Ion Ilescu, stated: “I do not dispute the Holocaust, but I don’t think that grief should be exploited as a business. […] In [the case of] Romania, figures are exaggerated so as to claim a maximum of financial compensation […]. The Jews are asking us to demolish the statues of Antonescu as the Talibans have done with the Buddha’s” (Mirel Bran, “L’autre mémoire roumaine”, Le Monde, 8 March 2002, p. 8).
Romania is a candidate for membership in both the European Union and NATO. But the first condition imposed on candidate countries is, as we know, the payment of an entrance fee to benefit the international Jewish organisations. The amount of the fee is not negotiable: it is directly proportional to these organisations’ tally of Jews who, they allege, perished during the war in the country in question. This kosher tax will have to be paid, cash on the nail, as the Swiss have paid theirs, even though they were not asking anything of anyone, and certainly not membership in the European Union or NATO.
Kneeling and penitence
The Romanian government has bowed low, got down on its knees and made its act of contrition. “Under the pressure of the Jewish community of the United States, Romania, a candidate for NATO, has ended up reconsidering its past. In March , a new law notably prohibited […] statues of Marshal Antonescu. Three of these have already been dismantled”, announced Mirel Bran with satisfaction (Le Monde, 17 July 2002, p. 5). The said law, in its anti-revisionist provision, punishes “any public denial of the Holocaust” with five years’ imprisonment (in France the tariff is one year). In an open letter signed by Hillary Clinton, senatrix from New York, Romania has been summoned to remove the Marshal’s portrait from the gallery of portraits of all Romanian prime ministers. Octogenarians of Romanian origin, having become United States citizens since the war, have been declared former war criminals by American courts, stripped of their American nationality and handed over to Romania for trial and conviction there. Elie Wiesel has personally inaugurated a monument to the “Holocaust” in Romania and warned president Iliescu and social democratic prime minister Adrian Nastase: “Do not turn your back on the past. […] Integrate it into your life and you will flourish. Forget it and you are doomed” (New York Times, 31 July 2002). Slightly less than a year afterwards, on 12 June 2003, the Romanian government, in an ephemeral movement of rebellion, declared: “This Government encourages research concerning the Holocaust in Europe — including documents referring to it and found in Romanian archives — but strongly emphasizes that between 1940 and 1945 no Holocaust took place within Romania's boundaries", which was accurate. Five days later, “yielding to international pressure”, to the wrath of the State of Israel and to the indignation of the Yad Vashem Institute in Jerusalem, Bucharest rectified its position and, on 17 June, issued a statement confessing that the Antonescu government “was guilty of grave war crimes, pogroms, and mass deportations of Romanian Jews to territories occupied or controlled by the Romanian army”, adding that the wartime regime had employed “methods of discrimination and extermination that are part of the Holocaust”
(http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/06/4-SEE/see-180603.asp). On 14 February 2004, the press announced the repentance of the “far-right” politician C. V. Tudor: “I am asking for forgiveness from all Jews. I've changed”. He stated his intention to “lead a group of [Greater Romania] party members to the site of the Auschwitz camp in southern Poland this year. He also promised that if he became president, he would introduce the study of the Holocaust in schools”
Thus, as we have seen, Le Monde of 17 November 2004 was able to trumpet in a three-sentence headline: “Romania formally acknowledges having participated in the extermination of the Jews. President Ion Iliescu assumes ‘the full responsibility of the State’ for the Shoah during the Second World War. About 400,000 Jews and 11,000 Gypsies were killed.” The latter figures obviously do not correspond to any historical truth; they constitute a mere indication of amount of the bill that will be presented to the Romanian taxpayer. The article recalled that, in the recent past, Ion Iliescu had tried to “minimise the tragedy of the Jews in Europe and especially in Romania” to such a degree that “the Jerusalem Post had called for the isolation of the Romanian head of State on the international scene, likening him to the Austrian extremist leader Jörg Haider”. The Israeli interior minister, Avraham Poraz, himself born in Romania, had declared the Romanian president “persona non grata”. The Le Monde piece ended with the confirmation of three news items: a memorial to the Shoah is to be built by the Romanian government, then a museum of the “Holocaust” and, finally, “this dark episode of Romanian history will be incorporated in the school textbooks”.
If Georges Wellers were to return to this world and reiterate in Bucharest the remarks made in Le Monde juif of March 1982, he would incur on the spot a five-year prison sentence: the fact stands as a firm indication that that, year after year and from one country to another, the conquering character of Shoah Business and the “Holocaust” industry is growing ever more forceful. Over this subject there reigns an entente, and a cordial one, of master blackmailers between the State of Israel, the Jewish diaspora and the American superpower.
Note: Today Romania is accused of having killed 400,000 Jews and, if one is to believe the press, she is also accusing herself. Yet, according to the most highly regarded Jewish historians, the number of dead (and not only of the killed) was quite smaller. Gerald Reitlinger proposes a total of from 210,000 to 220,000 dead, whilst specifying that “owing to the lack of reliable information at the time of writing, these figures must be regarded as conjectural” (The Final Solution, Jacob Aronson, North Vale, New Jersey, 1987 , p. 497, 501). Lucy Dawidowicz puts forth the figure of 300,000 (The War against the Jews, 1933-1945, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975, p. 403) and Raul Hilberg that of 270,000 (The Destruction of the European Jews, New York, Holmes and Meier, 1985, p. 1220). Leni Yahil, for her part, refrains from giving any figure; her conclusion on the fate of the Romanian Jews is, in certain places, qualified to the point it amounts, if one may say so, to a defence of Romania (The Holocaust, the Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945, translated from the Hebrew, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990 , p. 344-348). For an interesting debate between two revisionists (Serban C. Andronescu and Mark Weber) on the subject of the Romanian Jews during the Second World War and for some quite different mortality figures, one may consult The Journal of Historical Review (Summer 1982, p. 211-223; Fall 1982, p. 233-238; Winter 1982, p. 357-358, 479).
[Professor Robert Faurisson broke his association with the director of the Institute for Historical Review, Mark Weber, because Weber refused categorically to state: “The Holocaust is a lie – the gas chambers are a lie!” – FT]
Precisely when times are darkest, the Jewish soul shines its most brilliant light. In moments of our deepest despair, we have refused to give in to the Gloom, instead exhibiting a remarkable resiliency, resourcefulness and spirit of renewal.
This was true in the throes of the Egyptian exile; it was true following the destruction of Jerusalem in Temple times; it was true in the aftermath of the Inquisition. When it appeared that our flame had flickered for the last time, we sprang back and rebuilt ourselves, much to the amazement - or chagrin - of the world at large. One does not have to read ancient history to discern the irrepressible Jewish spirit. We can see it reflected in the eyes of anyone who lived through the Holocaust. No one could have predicted that these tortured remnants of European Jewry would emerge from the ashes of Auschwitz to forge new lives, let alone build a State of Israel and defend it against all odds. Their heroism is the collective story of millions of individual acts of courage and hesed.
My mother-in-law, who survived Auschwitz, relates how the women in her barracks would greet new arrivals in the camp, some of who had travelled more than 20 hours in cramped rail cars without food or water: While German guards watched their every move, they would kiss the newcomers on the lips, transferring a mouthful of water they had saved for them from their meagre daily rations. [Emphasis added - here we have the unique form of pelican behaviour - FT]
In the hopeless squalor of the ghetto, the Jews of the Shoah maintained schools, clinics and heders until the very last moment. Parents insisted their children continue music lessons, and strangers were invited to share every centimeter of livable space. In the most hellish of circumstances, we never lost our hope, our dignity, our mentschlachkeit. [Of course this word is derived from the German Menschlichkeit - humanity. So much for Yiddish!- FT]
The law of the jungle never became our law. But we don't even have to go back a half-century to see the light that has come pouring out of dark corners. Just look at all the amazing expressions of spirit exhibited by victims of the Palestinian Terror War. While some of the bereaved families have understandably been immobilized by depression and sadness, the vast majority of victims have chosen to build, create, and enlighten other lives in memory of their martyred loved ones. A small sampling:
A suicide bomber in Tel Aviv blew up Yoni Jessner, a Scottish medical student studying in Israel, in September 2002. In his memory, scholarships are given by his family to other medical students to spend a year here to study. [In Australia thousands of youngsters suicide because our society permits individuals to self-destruct; but woe be to those who dare criticise the systems that cause an individual to snap. Dying for a cause is frowned upon, but not so in the Islamic world where martyrdom is a part of being a Mensch - FT.]
Young, beautiful, talented Malki Roth was murdered in the Sbarro massacre. In response, the Roths created Keren Malki, providing home care for seriously disabled children. Koby Mandell was only 13 in 2001, when his severely battered body was found in a cave in the Judean desert. Camp Koby now hosts hundreds of terror victims each summer.
The Gideon family made aliya in 1988. In the course of their perilous journey from Ethiopia to Israel, nine of their 12 children perished. One of their only two remaining sons, Malato, joined the Nahal brigade's elite Palchan unit, and was killed in the 1997 helicopter disaster.
His family built a synagogue in his name in Lod, and is now dedicating a Torah scroll in his memory. I would be remiss if I did not mention the efforts of my own wife, who directs the packaging and sending of food and gifts to IDF soldiers in the field in memory of our son Ari, also a member of the Palchan unit, who was killed two years ago in a raid on Hamas headquarters in Nablus.
Jews who have faced tragedy and death know better than anyone how precious life is, and how short time in this world can be. And so an amazing percentage of those who have suffered most have decided to ease the sufferings of others and try to make this world a better place.
In spite of - no, because of - all we have endured, we desperately want to create new sparks of humanity where others were extinguished. Not so our enemies, alas. While our suffering breeds love, theirs generates hate. Spurred on by cynical leaders, caught up in a culture of revenge, they revel in the violence and scream for more.
It is telling that the Palestinians, despite all the billions taken in during their intifada, have not built a single hospital in any of the territories they control. Hospitals prolong life, an item that has not been high on their leadership's agenda. Ultimately, we will prevail in this battle of wills because, as Hanukka so clearly proclaims, even the smallest candle can dispel a multitude of darkness. The writer is director of the Ohel Ari Jewish Outreach Center in Ra'anana - email@example.com
Ladies and gentlemen, let’s be of good cheer. There’s evidence to suggest that much of Australian history is a success story.
You might not think so, if you listened to the black arm band theory of history in fashion among the elite that David Flint talks about in his book, Twilight of the Elites. We’ll get to that later.
But the point I want to make now, is that, in order to discredit Australia as a success story, the black arm band mob and the elite have to lie in their teeth. They have to falsify evidence, which they do continuously. Optimism stems from the fact that so many of the dismal history tales being told are false or exaggerated.
At a time when there is pressure for a republic, it is surely grounds for optimism, that the 1999 referendum to foist a republic on us did not succeed, and this was itself a healthy sign of distrust for politicians. As the saying goes, you can’t trust a politician, you never know where they’ve been. But also that this year a lot of public interest was shown in the marriage of a Tasmanian woman to a Danish prince. It was a sign that many appreciated the mystique of monarchy, and that they were not just ideological robots who would dance to the tune of the manipulative elites.
The triumph of Australian inventiveness is celebrated in the "Australian" newspaper(12 August, 2004) in a section commemorating 40 years of Australian Innovation. But of course, Australian innovations can be traced further back than that, to the stump-jump plough and the MacKay Harvester. The "Australian" liftout also mentions the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, celebrating 125 years of innovative change in technology.
By and large, Australia is a success story.
That’s not just my opinion. It’s the opinion of some leading Australian historians who have examined the evidence.
One of them is Max Hartwell, a former professorial fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford and former editor of the Economic History Review, writing in the Australian magazine, Business Review Weekly, dated Dec. 18,1987-Jan 14,1988 under the heading "First entrepreneurs flourished in freedom" (pp. 58-62)
He mentions the work of a black arm band historian, Robert Hughes’ book, The Fatal Shore , highlighting the worst features of the convict system but points out that, in spite of this dismal version of history, overall, the history between settlement in 1788 up to the Gold Rush was "a remarkable success story".
About the book, The Fatal Shore, it may be commented that it is a classic case of the "black arm Band" system, since it presents Australia as the world’s first totalitarian state.
It’s true there were injustices in the convict system, but in terms of settlement in Sydney and more accurate and less sensational work is D.R. Hainsworth’s book, The Sydney Traders, which shows that convicts became active in Sydney’s life and by 1790 were largely controlling it. When the terms of the original convicts expired, only 7% wanted to go back to England. Many convicts were able to succeed more in Australia than in England.
In general, the Australian colonies were flourishing under what historian Edward Shann called "the free activity of the free". Settlers worked without too much government interference, and created a prosperous and growing society.
The British Empire was generally seen as a beneficial influence, and Australians were generally happy to work within it up to the Second World War.
An attempt was made to undermine this generally optimistic vision of Australia in 1939, when Brian Fitzpatrick produced a vision of Australians as manipulated and oppressed by British interests. The Fitzpatrick thesis was rejected by most as implausible, and it gave no credit to the British for establishing principles of democracy and personal autonomy which applied in Australia, so the generally optimistic view of history won out at this time. Hartwell concluded that Australian history was "a success story of individualism and enterprise in a free society."
Max Hartwell is not the only Australian historian to see Australia as a success story. Geoffrey Blainey, published in Quadrant, Vol. XXXVII, # 7-8,July-August, 1993, from his Latham Memorial Lecture, commented that he was raised on the "Three Cheers" view of history, which saw Australian history as mainly a success,a view which prevailed until the 1980’s but acknowledged the attacks on this view, which he called the Black Arm-Band History, his first use of this phrase.
Later he developed this theme in an article published by the Samuel Griffith Society volume 12, Chapter 11 titled "A Black Arm-Band for Australia’s 20th Century?" (http://www. samuelgriffith. org.au/ papers/html/volume%2012/v12chap11.htm
Here, Geoffrey Blainey suggests that "the nation’s successes, in its first century as a federation, outweigh its failures by a large margin." He stated: "it was almost certainly the first nation in the world in which women possessed both the right to vote and to stand for Parliament. During its first century as a united nation Australia solved its internal disagreements and disputes by discussion and debate, not by force, Measured by the modern and non-Athenian sense of the word "democracy", it was the world’s first."
"Along with New Zealand, Australia was a pathfinder in the welfare state and the idea of caring for those who, largely through no fault of their own, could not care for themselves...Australia’s relatively small population achieved a remarkable sporting record...in the 20th century, as in earlier decades, the nation could take pride in its inventiveness...in the global history of metallurgy, which is one of mankind’s most valuable skill, the three or four great innovations of all time would include the flotation process. Mainly invented and applied at Broken Hill in the years 1902 to 1914(this process) is now used on a large scale in every corner of every continent to extract minerals."
He speaks of the outstanding record of Australian fighting men during WWI and WWII, and concludes that "Australia since 1901 has been more of a success story than a failure."
This is out of fashion to the black arm-band historians, who whine and moan about Australia’s terrible past.
Part of the basis for this is the form of political pathology called "political correctness". Neither Blainey nor David Flint seem to have mentioned that it derives from the Communist basis of the Frankfurt School, a neo-Marxist group that developed in the 1930’s and has spread since, that seeks to undermine capitalist society by emphasizing race conflict and real, or invented, wrongs done to other races, to imply that they operate from a high moral tone. The fact that so much of what they say is an exaggeration or a lie, and is designed to give power to the control freaks, is what we need to be aware of. They are not concerned about truth and accuracy. They are concerned about moral denunciation as a method of control. A view of a flourishing capitalist ethic did not go down well with Communists determined to undermine it.
Blainey mentions the elitist claim of his critics that the term "black arm-band" was "racist", allegedly derived from the Aborigines as a derogatory phrase. In fact, Blainey did not borrow it from Aborigines and did not intend it to be anti-Aboriginal. It was converted into an anti-Aboriginal phrase by commentators who tried to discredit Blainey and ever since then, it has been widely used.
Blainey says he took the term from the custom in Australian Rules Football, of players wearing a black arm-band to honour a player or official who had died. This symbol of mourning was used by white, not black, Australian traditions.
The term was given prominence when it was used by John Howard, soon after he became Prime Minister in 1996, in the annual Sir Robert Menzies Lecture at Monash University.
In terms of the treatment of Aborigines, Blainey’s view is that Aboriginal and British cultures were so far apart, that misunderstandings were inevitable. One factor was that the British realized that Aborigines were a nomadic people, a fact documented by Blainey in his Triumph of the Nomads. For this reason, they were not seen as owners or cultivators of the land, so no treaty could be made with them. Nor can it be said that the Aborigines lived an idyllic life, as they were frequently at war with each other, and used some customs such as infanticide and cannibalism, which now have to be concealed and swept down the memory hole. In the fighting that went on between the whites and blacks, the elite want us to bemoan the loss of Aborigines, but not to shed a tear for the whites, whose families were destroyed.
It has been widely publicised that, until 1967, Aborigines did not have the right to vote. Many Aborigines had the vote in the 19th century and many Aborigines had the right to vote in the first federal election.
Not many Aborigines did vote in these late 19th and early 20th centuries, but they were not alone. In 1900 most adult people in Australia did not have the right to vote. When the Commonwealth Constitution was shaped, most women, whether white or black, could not vote. Aborigines were not singled out as unable to vote as an act of discrimination against them alone.
In the first Commonwealth electoral Act of 1902 many white civil servants could not vote. However, some concern was shown to give welfare rights to fullblood Aborigines. This historical evidence is replaced by a falsified assertion that aborigines were denied the vote until 1967 and this was "racism".
We are then told that the White Australia Policy was "racist" and a criminal act. This is done nowadays by the ALP who were initially key exponents of it. But there is a remarkable silence on so-called "racist" policies of other countries, such as Malaysia, which has a "bumipatra" policy favouring Malays. There is no mention of the way China and Japan have immigration policies favouring their own kind, which must be "racist" nor any mention of the apartheid wall built in Israel, which creates a barrier between Jews and Arabs.
Whereas it is never politically correct for whites to use any term derogatory of Aborigines, it is OK for whites to be denounced. Just as long as the Double Standard continues to apply.
Doubt has been cast on the black arm-band claim that whites were responsible for killing off the blacks in Tasmania, by historian Keith Windshuttle in his book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, which suggests that the Aborigines there were already dying out at white settlement, that they were few in number-maybe 2000- and that stories of white massacres have been greatly exaggerated and in many cases, actually invented. But he notes that there were far more murders of whites by blacks seeking food and goods.
Some of the evidence from books such as Cape York-The Savage Frontier, by Rodney Liddell; The Aborigines of Australia, by J.W.Bleakley; A Despised Race, by F.R. Gribble and others. Rex Gilroy, Director of the Pre-Aboriginal Research Centre, PO Box 202, Katoomba, NSW 2780, mentions archaeological research but also Aboriginal traditions, that the Aborigines killed off a former white-skinned race and a race of giants, just as the Maoris killed off the race occupying NZ before they arrived there. The Aborigines massacred the Tasmanian type of Aborigines, pushing them over to Tasmania.
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.
The fact that this is still very much a "live issue" is shown by a recent article from "The Australian".
I’ll read extracts from it. It seems that Windschuttle has become a "Shrek": an historian’s "ogre".
The Australian 22 Jul 2004, Page 9"Who's still afraid of Keith Windschuttle" by Ean Higgins
"Academics are busily gearing up for yet another battle in the history wars"( writes Ean Higgins )
(I might interpolate here that the very phrase "History Wars" is from a book by Stuart MacIntyre published in 2003 which fully recognizes the clash between the Left-wing versus the so-called Right wing in Australian history.)
"As the elite of the nation's academic historians met in the stately rooms of the Newcastle Town Hall, fear and loathing lurked the corridors.
"The Australian Historical Association spent virtually an entire day trying to work out strategies to deal with the menace. Would there be safety in numbers if academics stood together? What should be done when the terror struck again? How could anyone survive when the mass media was in on the conspiracy?
"Over 18 months after Keith Windschuttle published his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, the academic world is still anguishing over its impact. It is terrified of what he will do next. Windschuttle struck at the heart of the accepted view of Australian colonial history in the past 30 years -- that the settler society had engaged in a pattern of conquest, dispossession and killing of the indigenous inhabitants. The facts, he said, did not stack up.
"The Sydney-based writer, among other things, questioned the references used by academic historian Lyndall Ryan to justify her claims that the British massacred large numbers of Aborigines in Van Diemen's Land in the early 1800s. Her footnotes supporting the claims did not do so, he wrote.
"He also took on Henry Reynolds, the venerable historian of the Left, whose depiction of a brutal British conquest of Tasmania had been the accepted norm.
"Reynolds's work on the concept of terra nullius -- that the British seized Aboriginal land based on a policy that it was owned by no one -- developed such currency that it is believed to have influenced critical High Court judgments on land rights, including the Mabo decision. The thrust of Windschuttle's thesis was that political correctness had triumphed over historical fact.
"With the passage of time, the academic history profession is far from over the history wars. An extraordinary number in its ranks believe they have been been damaged by populist history propounded by Windschuttle. They are searching for a way out. Only a few seem brave enough to speak up, arguing that freedom of expression is the primary issue.
"At the recent conference, Ryan made some effort, though ultimately unsuccessful, to avoid media coverage for a talk she gave entitled "How the Print Media Marketed Keith Windschuttle's The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Implications for Academic Historians"
"She said the media had taken up Windschuttle as representing the real history of colonists' relations with Aborigines, grabbing the view that Australians had been hoodwinked by the academic left-wing historians' version. ``I don't think the media owns free speech,'' Ryan said. She had also been shocked, she said, that Stuart Macintyre, the influential left-leaning University of Melbourne historian, had appeared to criticise her over footnote inaccuracies.
"She did admit to five footnote errors, but said the primary sources verified her thesis and ``the simple fact is that footnote errors do occur''.
"Her abstract said: ``The AHA and universities need strategies and protocols in place to address future assaults on academic historians.''
"Ryan was not alone in promoting the Windschuttle-media conspiracy. The AHA president, David Carment, said the The Australian had deliberately timed the publication of its review of Windschuttle's work for the summer of 2002. During holidays more academics were on leave, Carment said, and ``less able to defend themselves,'' and it was ``a time when people were reading newspapers''. (In fact, newspaper circulations fall away over summer holidays.)
"It might be time, Carment said, for the association to ``defend its people on the basis of their professional integrity'' while not taking sides in the debate.
"Carment also raised, though he did not fully support, the concept put forward by West Australian historian Cathie Clement for a code of ethics that would gag historians from criticising the integrity of their peers in public. Several in the audience said everyone had to be ready to counter-attack when Windschuttle came out with his next book.
"Richard Waterhouse from the University of Sydney, said academics took Windschuttle too seriously. ``Sometimes we have tended to treat him as an intellectual equal,'' Waterhouse said, adding that sarcasm might be more appropriate. (Windschuttle earned a first-class honours degree in history from the University of Sydney in the 1960s, lectured in the subject, earned a masters in politics and left Macquarie University in 1992 when he set up a publishing house.)
"There were a couple of muted mutterings from the audience about how it would be necessary to learn media skills, and not attempt to look like academics defending their own cabal. But nobody at the session publicly asked the key question which was in some of their minds: was the academic historians' fear of Windschuttle and newspaper opinion pages absolutely paranoid?
"Greg Melleuish, from the University of Wollongong, says he is intimidated by the pack mentality of the Newcastle meeting. ``I was quite astonished,'' he says. ``It was like `let's get a group of people together to ambush Windschuttle'. I think they feel under threat and that's why they concoct these conspiracy theories.''
"Other historians have expressed alarm at the attitude of their peers, including classical studies historian Ronald Ridley at the University of Melbourne. ``The way they have shut down the debate, if they have made some errors, is really appalling,'' he says.
``I don't think any historians of Greek or Roman history would make these mistakes. And when you deal with issues such as indigenous history, the politics are red hot. You don't just have to be a competent historian, you have to be top class.''
"The question is why academic historians are so concerned about the impact of Windschuttle.
"Macintyre, while he does not accept Windschuttle's suggestion of a fabrication, does warn that mistakes can have a broader effect.
``There is an understandable public concern about the accuracy of historians' work,'' he says. At the same time, Macintyre maintains, Windschuttle fits with a conservative agenda to lift a burden of national shame from Australian shoulders over the Aboriginal issue.
"Macintyre told the conference the history wars fitted in with broader ``political dimensions'' of the Howard Government's ``abandonment of reconciliation, denial of the stolen generations, its retreat from multiculturalism and creation of a refugee crisis''.
``Windschuttle was the first conservative intellectual to base his case on substantial historical research,'' he says.
"Windschuttle says this is precisely why the academic community is still so scared of him. ``There is a whole generation who have invested not just their academic capital but also their political capital in the Henry Reynolds view,'' he says. And, says Windschuttle, he has made Australian history interesting again for high school students who are more likely to go on to study it in universities.
"While not referring to the Windschuttle debate, NSW Premier Bob Carr, a longstanding history buff, said much the same thing at the conference.
``History is an argument and the more argument there is in it the more young people will read it,'' he said.
THE WINDSCHUTTLE CASE
In his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Keith Windschuttle revisited the British colonisation of Tasmania, and found that ``the academic historians of the last thirty years have greatly exaggerated the degree of violence that occurred''.
"Examining the primary sources cited by historians, including Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan, Windschuttle said ``much of their case is poorly founded, other parts are seriously mistaken, and some of it is outright fabrication''.
"Among other contentions, he argued that claims of large massacres of Aborigines in the early 1800s were not supported in the evidence. Conflict was sporadic and not systematic, he said.
"Windschuttle said British colonisation of Australia was ``the least violent of all Europe's encounters in the New World''.
"His work was taken up by conservatives who argued against the ``black arm-band'' view of history that promoted national guilt." (from Australian article)
Now, as they say in a certain advertisement, There’s more, but that will give you some of the flavour. They’re very worried. Part of the elite historical lies have been exposed. At the same time, an interest is being taken in Geoffrey Blainey.
In the latest Quadrant, July-Aug.,2004,there’s an article by Rafe Champion, which mentions a new book about Blainey entitled The Fuss That Never Ended: The Life and Work of Geoffrey Blainey published by Melbourne University Press.
The article notes the rise of Left-wing ideology since the 1980s and mentions, as examples of the fight against it, "Pauline Hanson, then Paul Sheehan’s Among the Barbarians, then Keith Windschuttle and most recently David Flint’s The Twilight of the Elites."
Comments like this help to put Twilight of the Elites in context and to recognize it as part of an ongoing attack on the elites.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s often customary to dismiss warnings about hidden influences in society working to impose their policy behind the scenes as "conspiracy theory". This is the tiresome catch phrase that’s so often used, as if it were a sufficient dismissal, and it’s used even in the face of hard evidence. It’s an attempt at academic sleight of hand to imply that the warning is coming from people that don’t really have the insights that those of superior wisdom have. And the elite are good at portraying themselves as mental giants.
This kind of arrogant non-reply, dishonest though it is, is harder to use in the case of David Flint. He was educated at the universities of Sydney, London and Paris, and is an emeritus professor of law, he was chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority until this year (2004) , Associate Commissioner of the ACCC, National Convenor of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1987-1997 and Chairman of the Australian Press Council. With a background like that, he’s been put in a good position to analyze subjects with full academic understanding.
In view of his qualifications and experience, David Flint was well qualified to write his book, Twilight of the Elites, with its thesis that there is a group of insiders with influence in government that are pushing an elite viewpoint which is anti-democratic and tries to push an agenda that is Left-wing and subversive, pursued by surreptitious and dishonest means.
Some of his comments haven’t worn well: for example, his support for the invasion of Iraq and the hunt for so-called WMD. By now, most people recognize the WMD chase as a complete farce, and are not impressed by the whitewash job, when Prime Minister Howard was able to pass the buck to alleged intelligence failures in the security forces, which is another farce in itself.
But in many ways his comments are spot on. It is part of a cause for optimism that there are still men of this kind willing to stand up for the truth. Not only has he written a thought-provoking book, many of his points have remained valid. For example, he points out that Howard was right to move against the "Tampa" incident to prevent a mass invasion of immigrants which, if it had been allowed to continue, could have led to a "Camp of the Saints" situation.
He also mentions the dangers of a plebiscite as a gimmick to introduce a republic and is well aware that Australian Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of a plebiscite to create a deceitful and lying con job on voters who were expected to be asked a question and be given the details later. The Founding Fathers had done their homework well and knew it would be possible to foist a totally misleading policy on voters, who were entitled to know all the details first,instead of signing a political blank cheque.
He’s a lucid writer and one of the contributors to the Samuel Griffiths’ Society, a think tank that has kept alive a tradition of free speech and debate in society. Its papers on various issues are generally presented very clearly and thoroughly from its offices and from its website.
His comments on the Australian Constitution show that he doesn’t feel a need to set it in stone, but at the same time, he fully appreciates the desire of the Founders to make any changes only after proper consideration and with the consent of the people. On pages 215-216, he tentatively suggests 10 changes that could usefully be made to the Constitution.
For one thing, he’s in favour of a monarchy rather than a republic. He wrote a book called The Cane Toad Republic, which could be counted as a factor, which led to a public rejection of a republic in the 1999 Referendum. But if there’s one thing the politicians in general don’t want, it is a monarchy. Despite the fact that the 1999 Referendum rejected a republic they have not, for a single minute, accepted that finding as the end of the matter.
Behind the scenes, illegitimately and unconstitutionally, they have called for a republic. They decided, for the "grassroots", that it was not really that they didn’t want a republic , it was just that the model chosen was the wrong one, and they will now help them out by choosing the right one, as an act of generosity on their part. The fact that the public acted against this has not influenced their decision one bit, nor does it worry them that this make a farce out of the peoples’ will, supposedly the basis for a so-called "democracy". Nor does it bother them that they deeply offend those in our society who want to preserve Anglo-Saxon roots with a monarchy that brought white society into being in this country.
And this is part of the mentality behind the group that Dr Flint calls "the elite" who are the Hidden Hand behind what is going on. They have been responsible for a group of policies, of which the republic is only one. Mostly Left-wing, they govern behind the scenes where their policies will not be subjected to electoral scrutiny, and they use cheap tactics, such as labels of "racism" and other politically correct buzzwords to discourage dissidents. They want to use so-called democracy as a cloak to mask their activities.
And, where their policies inconvenience themselves personally, they keep out of areas where they will be affected.
In his chapter "Any Republic,Whatever It Takes", he understands that political niceties are to be discarded in the rush to create a republic for its own sake, without any concern for preservation of what remains of our liberties.
David Flint mentions the elitist manufacture of the "guilt industry", for the hoax that all whites today have a huge collective guilt for all the evils visited upon the Aborigines to the present day, leading to such aberrations as "Sorry Day." We’re not supposed to have a "Sorry Day" for whites killed by Aborigines. The rule is to be applied always in a one-sided way, always aimed against whites.
In his chapter on "A Treaty for the Dissolution of Australia", he rightly sees the danger of ATSIC, which he labelled a "bureaucratic monster." Since his book was written, ATSIC has been officially abolished. Tom Pearson wrote his explanation in The Guardian, April 21, 2004 and came up with the usual Left-wing explanation, it was abolished because of "racism"! Indigenous Affairs Minister Amanda Vanstone made a public announcement on May 28,2004, in which she denied this charge and said she had visited several Aboriginal communities and had heard no complaints against the abolition of ATSIC. She said that a taskforce of 10 ministers had been formed to co ordinate services for Aborigines, and this will form the basis for a new body, the National Indigenous Council (NIC)
David Flint rightly sees the dangers of moves for an Aboriginal Republic but he seems not to be aware of the fact that Geoff. McDonald wrote long ago in Red Over Black, that this was a well-established Communist policy to divide Australia and take control.
The general policy of David Flint is clear: he is a man dedicated to a popular recognition of the debt we owe to our forebears, who devised a very effective and workable constitutional system and who understands fully the need to fight to preserve it. I think that is a matter he can’t take up alone. We need to take out of this room the determination to strive for the truth while we still can and realize how much each of us can do to promote it. In the end, it comes down to us. We can take comfort from the achievements of those who built Australia, in many ways successfully, and acknowledge the strength of the swing against the black arm band historians.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute