CLINTON BOMBING SERVES ZIONIST STRATEGY

by Eric D. Butler
President Clinton came to office with the enthusiastic support of the leaders of the American Jewish community, and never before in American history have Jews occupied more key positions in the American administration than they do today. Zionist spokesmen everywhere have endorsed Clinton's missile attack on the sleeping Baghdad at two o'clock in the morning. No warning was given.

The motive for this attack was allegedly because an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George Bush had been discovered. It has been claimed that Bush was to have been assassinated while visiting Kuwait. While it is conceivable that there was such an assassination plot, the American record of making such allegations against Middle East leaders is not over impressive.

Generally forgotten is that the air strike against Gaddafi in 1986 was justified by the allegation that Gaddafi was plotting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, and that his agents were responsible for the murder of American servicemen in the then West Germany. It was subsequently revealed that the terrorists responsible for the West German killings were almost certainly based in Assad's Syria. But Assad, previously isolated internationally, was miraculously rehabilitated when the American policy makers required his support against Saddam Hussein.

And now, tucked away in only a few papers, is the report that arch villain Gaddafi has also been rehabilitated, with the Federal Opposition Spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Andrew Peacock, announcing last week that the Opposition was endorsing the Government moves to lift commercial restrictions on Libya, pointing out that they had little effect on Gaddafi. The Government has decided to restore trading relations because it was felt that the 1986 restrictions were "outdated" and were now working against Australia's economic interests.

Exports to Libya had declined from $25 million a year in 1986 to $6.6 million last year. Libyan students are also to be allowed back into Australia. The charge that terrorists based in Libya were responsible for the PAN AM air disaster in Lockerbie, Scotland, appears to have been quietly forgotten.

Saddam Hussein of Iraq apparently remains the main bogeyman of the Arab world. But what have President Clinton and his advisers achieved by demonstrating that they have the technological capacity with air strikes to hit targets they like with little risk to themselves? If the strike against Baghdad, which obviously killed none of Saddam Hussein's senior officials, but some innocent civilians, was designed primarily to boost Clinton's sagging domestic support, it can only have limited success.

America's mounting economic and social problems will not be solved by air strikes against Iraq. But such attacks increase support for Saddam Hussein right across the Moslem world, and intensify still further growing anti-Western feeling amongst Moslems everywhere. The Moslems have noted that American airpower is not being suggested to assist their fellow Moslems in Bosnia.

The main short-term beneficiary of the Gulf War was Zionist Israel. But the long-term future of Israel must grow increasingly bleak unless practical steps are taken to head off the growing extremism of younger Palestinian refugees. The more perceptive of the Israelis are beginning to realise that time is running out for them. Instead of trying to use the "big stick" against those Arab States it does not like, the U.S.A. should be applying pressure to Israel to force it to make genuine peace arrangements with the Palestinians.
But for any American administration to do this, it must free itself from the deadly Zionist influence inside the U.S.A. Zionist fanatics have demonstrated time and time again that they are prepared to sacrifice the best interests of rank and file Jews in order to attempt to achieve their objectives.

Anyone who doubts that the Keating Government, like the Clinton administration, is strongly pro-Zionist should have noted how Foreign Minister Gareth Evans lost no time in endorsing the Clinton attack on Iraq. At the same time Evans has revealed "Australia is checking, at the request of Israel, the possibility of (Israel) establishing relations with four or five Muslim States in Asia".

Clearly Australia is not pursuing an independent foreign policy designed to put Australia's long-term interests first, but is being dragged along at the heels of an international programme dominated by the International Zionists. That influence was demonstrated when a reluctant Liberal-National Party Coalition eventually agreed to the obscene War Crimes trials and, before the last Federal elections, to the Keating Government's banning of British historian David Irving.
The Opposition could start to redeem itself by supporting the admission of Irving to Australia, by disassociating itself from Gareth Evans' foreign policy, and by strongly opposing the proposed Racial Anti-vilification legislation and the Mabo madness, both strongly backed by Zionist spokesmen.

A SIDELIGHT ON THE LAND RIGHTS ISSUE

It is beyond argument that the enormous sums of money allocated to the Commonwealth Aboriginal Affairs Department have done little to solve the basic social and other problems of those Australians of Aboriginal background. The Rev. Cedric Jacobs, the genuine Aborigine the media does not want to know about, has urged that the Commonwealth Department should be closed down - black bureaucrats being just as bad as white bureaucrats - and the money allocated to local communities.

The West Australian Government has advocated that the States should take over the administration of funds currently made available by the Commonwealth. Such a policy would be a major step towards introducing some realism into the renewed land rights controversy following the Mabo decision.

There are lessons from the past, which it is time to recall. Students of the Marxist revolutionary movement among Australian Aborigines will recall the white activist in Western Australia, Don McLeod. He led the 1949 strike of the 800 Aboriginal stockmen on the Strelley station, a major milestone in the development of the land rights movement.
Strelley is today one of the five properties which the West Australian Government is seeking to have reclaimed, pointing out that the Pilbara stations are in a state of total disrepair, buildings vandalised, windmills not working, road overgrown and few cattle left. Though it appears that the properties have been abandoned for at least two years, enormous sums of money continue to have been poured in to the communities supposed to be administering the stations. The Strelley station is reported to look more like a rubbish tip than a working cattle property.

Strelley Aboriginal elder Bill Thomas has told the West Australian press that one problem was that the station was too close to Port Hedland and a ready supply of alcohol. He said that the younger members of the community were running backwards and forth, generally drunk and creating damage. Another local elder said that many of the young people were deserting station life for the temptations of alcohol in Port Hedland. He is quoted as saying, "The grog's destroying culture and it's hard to bring the young people back."

Paul Keating might care to take a little time off from abusing white Australians for what they have allegedly done to Australians of Aboriginal background and explain how the type of problem mentioned above is going to be solved by his programme of "reconciliation". Surely the Government of Western Australia might have some more realistic suggestions than the moonshine coming out of Canberra?

BRIEF COMMENT

We carried an item in our last issue (O.T., July 2nd) of the finding by Britain's National Radiological Protection Board that recent "findings" concerning the dangers to mankind of the Ozone Hole were exaggerated and alarmist. There have been other reports of the new "Earth Care" industry, which have been given prominence. There have been as many opposite reports, which throw doubt on the veracity of such "Earth Care" assertions. For example, in May last year (1992) a Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S.A.), attended the Australian Coal Conference on Queensland's Gold Coast. He told delegates "most climate experts did not believe that any global warming was caused by human factors. Debate on the subject had been hijacked by vested interest groups".

Please note Professor Lindzen's further comment: "hysterical debate in recent years had caused scientists who failed to support 'popular theories' to lose funding, while scientific journals refused to publish articles critical of these theories". The media reports of the above can be found in The Australian (16/7/92) and The Age (Melbourne), (13/5/92).

Then there is the American scientist, Dr. Robert C. Balling, who is Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. He has written a book, "The Heated Debate", which forecasts that the alarmist views of global warming will dissipate. He says, "the debate over global warming comes down to whether you believe in the models of the empirical data". More, "There is nothing to make me believe that half a degree of warming over the past hundred years since the 1890s is not correct. If anything, half a degree, in my eyes, is on the high side." Dr. Balling has the opinion that "climatologists lost objectivity in the rush to share the spoils of greenhouse research". We are all too human!

CENSORSHIP OF HISTORY

from A.C.L.U. Newsletter No.102, by John Bennett, President, Australian Civil Liberties Union

Some questions about the Holocaust
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself being silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing." (George Orwell) "Unmeasured vituperation, employed on the side of prevailing opinion, deters people from expressing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who express them." (John Stuart Mill) The noted British writer Auberon Waugh asked recently, writing in the London Daily Telegraph, 'Are the truths on which the Holocaust relies so flimsy, that the need smears to protect them, coupled with prison sentences like those now imposed in Germany, Austria, and France, on any historian who ventures to challenge any aspect whatever of the Holocaust?'

Why is David Irving, whose books have been favourably reviewed in mainstream publications such as the New York Times and the London Times, by heavyweight historians such as Hugh Trevor Roper and A.J.P. Taylor, subjected to such vituperation, and why was he refused a visa to visit Australia when the Immigration Department, A.S.I.O., all civil liberties groups, and editorials in all major newspapers said he should have been given a visa?

Why has there been so much publicity about the Jewish Holocaust, and so little about other "Holocausts", such as the Ukrainian Holocaust, the greater Chinese Holocaust, and the Holocaust bombing of German cities, which was described in the U.K. magazine, The Spectator, as the greatest war crime of the Second World War? There have been over 400 feature films since 1945, dealing with the Jewish Holocaust, but only one feature film about the bombing of German cities ("Slaughterhouse Five"), and no feature film about the "ethnic cleansing" of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1945, in which Germans were expelled, leading to more than one million deaths (the greatest "cleansing" this century apart from the barbarous attempt by the Nazis to "cleanse" Europe of Jews). Why is there this imbalance?

Why is the Jewish Holocaust referred to literally daily in the media? Is it partly because, as Professor Rubenstein has stated, "the Jewish Holocaust is Israel's number one propaganda weapon"? Why is there such a concerted attempt to censor, silence, or imprison revisionists, including Jewish revisionists who query the extent of the Jewish Holocaust? Why have France, Austria and Germany passed laws making it illegal to query the extent of the Holocaust?

Were courts set up at Nuremberg and other places by the victors with judges appointed by the victors (neutral countries refused to supply judges), "Kangaroo Courts leading to victors' history"? Were the courts set up because the original proposal to arbitrarily shoot 60,000 Nazis seemed too extreme?

In view of the increasing number of Jewish revisionists, why are revisionists often described by believers in "victors' history" as anti-Semitic? Was Noam Chomsky correct in stating that it is not anti-Semitic to query the existence of gas chambers? Is the Jewish historian Arno Meyer who states, "sources from the study of gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable", anti-Semitic? Why has the interview on video by the Jewish revisionist, David Cole, of the Director of Research at Auschwitz, who admitted the "gas chamber" on view for tourists was reconstructed after the war, not received publicity in Australia?

Why, if there was a continental wide campaign to exterminate Jews by gassing in gas chambers, are there no contemporaneous documents about the policy, or the gassings? Why, in the minutes of the Wannsee conference, at which the Nazi policy in relation to Jews is claimed to have been finalised is there no reference to extermination or gassings, but references to evacuation to the East and forced labour.

How could there have been an extermination policy and gassings, when the German resistance to Hitler, British Intelligence, the Vatican, and the Red Cross, were not aware of the policy or the gassings? Why is it necessary to rely on "confessions" obtained after the war, sometimes by torture, to establish the official version of the Holocaust? Is the confession by Kurt Gerstein, who was in charge of supplying Zyklon B to the camps, that 25 million people were gassed, and the bodies were "ercet" after the gassings, credible?

Is the confession by the Auschwitz Commandant, Hoss, that more than 2 million were gassed at Auschwitz, credible in view of the recent reduction in the "official" number of deaths at Auschwitz from four million to just over one million? Why did this reduction receive so little media publicity? Why are the camp records, indicating that fewer than 150,000 died at Auschwitz, mainly from typhus not accepted?

Why did the commandants of other camps such as Dr. Triete and Suhren sign confessions, admitting mass gassings, when it is now conceded that no gassings took place at their camps? Were they tortured? Why are so few people aware that Zyklon B was the main fumigant used by the German armed forces to combat disease, especially typhus, and that it was used in the concentration camps for the same purpose? Is it credible that Zyklon B was used in the camps, both as a fumigant to save one group of people's lives and as a poison to kill another group of people?

Is eyewitness testimony that the crematoria at Auschwitz "spewed out" huge amounts of smoke credible, where uncontradicted evidence given in trials such as the Zundel trial, established that the technical specifications of the crematoria were such that the emission of smoke was impossible? How reliable was eyewitness testimony when the two key witnesses in the Zundel trial, who had claimed that they were eyewitnesses to gassings, withdrew their allegations under cross examination and said they were merely repeating rumours? One of the eyewitnesses had originally claimed that he could tell whether Polish or Czech Jews were being gassed by the colour of the smoke.

Could the number of crematoria known to have existed have disposed of the number of bodies of people alleged to have died in the camps? Is the fate of Anne Frank, shunted from camp to camp, and finally dying of typhus, consistent with the official version of the Holocaust? Can the number of claimants for compensation from the West German Government be reconciled with the allegations that six million Jews died in the Holocaust?

Does the survival of members of the immediate family (siblings and parents), of some of the best-known names in relation to the Holocaust (Simon Wiesenthal, Anne Frank, Elie Wiesel and Simone Veil), strengthen the claims of revisionists? If revisionist historians such as Professor Faurisson, Professor Butz, Judge Staeglich and David Irving, are clearly wrong, why cannot their arguments be dealt with in open debate, instead of by vilification and penal legislation?

Why is Fred Leuchter, described in The Atlantic Monthly as the main authority on execution procedures in the U.S.A. who found that Jews could not have been gassed by Zyklon B at Auschwitz and other camps, subjected to character assassination and economic boycott? Phillip Adams, who claims to be an "atheist", has said it is "blasphemous" to query the extent of the Holocaust. Has the "official" version of the Holocaust become a religion? Are media commentators too frightened to allow an open debate on the new religion?

Getting back to my first question. Why is there an avalanche of publicity about the Jewish Holocaust and almost none about the other, often greater Holocausts?