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