THE ZIONIST FACTOR IN THE U.S.A. ELECTIONS

by Eric D. Butler
Only a minority, possibly the biggest in history, of the electors of the U.S.A. will elect the next President, almost certain to be Mr. Bill Clinton. Although multicultural U.S.A. continues to disintegrate internally, it is still a major factor in international affairs, militarily and economically. Australians concerned about long term national survival must therefore take heed of what is happening in the U.S.A.

Although Western European nations, particularly France, are indicating signs of adopting foreign policies at variance with those of the U.S.A., as witnessed by French President Chirac's bold pro-Palestinian stance, the Howard Government has indicated a slavish willingness to endorse America's Middle East policies. Those policies have been consistently pro-Zionist.

A Zionist rejection of a last minute desperate effort by Republican Bob Dole to gain their support, leaves no doubt that Democrat Bill Clinton is the current favourite of the powerful Zionist-Jewish internationalists. A study of the Zionist Jewish media in the U.S.A. provides striking confirmation of this fact. For example, consider a review of the Chicago Democratic Convention, in the Washington Jewish Week of September 5th.

Not without significance the review was written by Neil Sher, former head of the Denazification Office of the Justice Department. Sher was a key figure in the campaign which had John Demjanjuk sent to Israel where, with the collaboration of the Soviet K.G.B., the unfortunate Ukrainian was found guilty of being "Ivan The Terrible" of a German concentration camp. Only the persistent support of courageous American journalists like Patrick Buchanan, and the dedication of Demjanjuk's family and a last minute miracle forced the Israelis to reluctantly concede that they were proposing to kill the wrong man.

But back in the U.S.A. the Zionist terror machine continues to persecute Demjanjuk. Sher has never apologised for his part in this outrageous affair. Sher writes in his Washington Jewish Week article that "....Campaigning for dramatic changes in American society since 1968 (the last time there was a Democratic Convention in Chicago) I cannot help but think of the evolution and maturation of Jewish political activity....on both sides of the aisle. Nothing could underscore that more than the strong Jewish presence in Chicago....a reflection of the unprecedented close ties that our community has with this administration.

That Clinton has six Jewish Cabinet appointees and has elevated two Jewish judges to the Supreme Court is nothing short of extraordinary. Add that to many advisers in senior positions. Although it's usually dangerous in politics to advance generalities, it's a pretty safe bet that the 1996 Jewish vote will go overwhelmingly for the President. By and large that support stems from his (Clinton's) being in sync with the consensus community views on most domestic issues as well as the unflinching support and encouragement that he and his administration has given to Israel....

Jewish support for the Democrats has also been fueled by concerns over the influence of the Religious Right (as exemplified by the Christian Coalition and Pat Buchanan) have on the Republican Party. Chicago was a heady time for Jewish Democratic leaders as they accelerated work for the re-election of the administration in which they have unprecedented faith and trust."

According to the Washington Jewish Week, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest registered pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.A., worked with both Democratic and Republican committee members in drafting the respective party policies. Washington Jewish Week comments that these platforms will be useful for "educating" new Members of Congress.

Australians must understand that Clinton is willing to do everything possible to advance internationalism. So long as he can continue to do that he will have the full support of the Zionist movement. But Clinton will find himself expendable if he deviates from what is required of him.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the "pin up girl" of the Zionist Jewish lobby until she stumbled badly by starting to question the very Common Market she had previously endorsed.

Occasionally there are unrehearsed events, which influence the human drama. Recently returned from an overseas tour, Alan Woods, The Australian's economic editor, found himself in the Australian national storm stemming from the Pauline Hanson factor. Woods reports that Pauline Hanson is reflecting a global trend, with growing revolts everywhere against multicultural and economic rationalism. But, says Woods, governments must ignore the Pauline Hansons, the Pat Buchanans, the Winston Peters and others who are reflecting the growing revolt against centralisation everywhere.

Zionist leaders themselves are expressing concern. The Israeli people are becoming increasingly uneasy about their future. Mr. Isi Leibler, Chairman of the World Jewish Congress governing board, along with other Australian Zionists have expressed their concern about the "Hanson factor", as well they might: Zionist leaders have been prominent in the campaign to create a multicultural society and have never ceased to smear the League of Rights for having consistently opposed multiculturalism and economic rationalism.

Displaying a remarkable capacity for a form of double-talk, Isi Leibler says he is concerned about the growing number of Jews who were "marrying out". The Melbourne Herald Sun of October 24th quotes Isi Leibler as saying that his desire to see Jews marry one another was not based on a feeling of group superiority but a concern that the Jewish community survive because it had a lot to offer.

Those Australians who believe that they might also have something special to offer mankind by maintaining their own traditional way of life and believe that they best do this by resisting ethnic mixing and multiculturalism, are, of course, labeled as "racists" and "extremists". And if they advocate that the policies advanced by Isi Leibler have much to commend them, they are likely to be called "anti-Semites"!

The re-election of a Clinton administration dominated openly by Zionist Jews, aggressively promoting multiculturalism and internationalism, is moving the whole world towards an increasingly volatile and explosive situation.

'EDUCATING' PAULINE HANSON

by David Thompson
The self-righteous moral outrage in which the press continues to wallow concerning the views of Pauline Hanson (and her substantial following) is an interesting comment on the press itself. The attempt to re-educate Hanson is, by definition, an attempt to re-educate hundreds of thousands of Australians who identify with what she has said.

In the old Soviet Union such a person as Hanson, and then those who agreed with her, would be sent off to the mental health wing of the gulags. The present day equivalent of the Soviet Gulags is to cast the holder of incorrect views into outer social darkness with the epithet of "racist", etc.

The chattering classes have exposed themselves in their continuous attempt to direct the thinking of the entire nation through the press, rather than serve the nation by reporting what actually happens in the press. More objective journalists, like those who report on sport, for example, offer an interesting insight into modern professional journalism. An award winning sports writer for the Fairfax press made the revealing comment that when reporting social or political issues, journalists do so against the background of their own agenda. When reporting on sporting events, journalists report what took place.

But what took place is of little interest to an ideologue attempting to sustain a predetermined agenda. One such ideologue writing in The Weekend Australian (26/10/96) is Beatrice Faust, a feminist intellectual. She peppers her column last weekend with "Hanson must learn that ..." and "She must learn…" What must Hanson learn? What Faust thinks is correct! She concludes her column with the sentence: "For goodness sake, don't let's leave the education of Hanson to the League of Rights or Australians Against Immigration!"
The difference is that the League could not pretend to Ms. Faust's arrogance in "educating" Pauline Hanson.

Michael Warby, writing in The Australian (25/10/96) summarises the point: "Hanson represents the dreadful, public, statement that the commentators are being ignored, that the majority of people out there not only do not agree with them, they do not bother to pay attention....Being ignored is the worst insult one can inflict on the chattering class. The constant demand that the Prime Minister, John Howard, respond to Hanson is really a demand that he respond to the febrile concerns of the chattering class, that he respond on their cue, that he shows that they really are masters of a carefully policed, public domain....

'AMPLIFYING THE WHISPERS'

Another columnist of the "chattering class", Hugh McKay, compares Hanson to Hitler in the effect he had on Germany. "He is the loudspeaker which magnifies the inaudible whispers of the German soul until they can be heard by the German's unconscious ear." In the case of Pauline Hanson, McKay has a good point. She has struck a chord deep in the psyche of many Australians, which if examined realistically, amounts to the identification of a basic instinct that has been deliberately suppressed. That instinct is one of self-preservation.

It is the instinct to "discriminate" in favour of one's best interests. The difference is that McKay (and others) who have been perceptive enough to identify this phenomena make the mistake of casting it as dangerous: "Should we be frightened? Yes, but not of Ms. Hanson herself. We should be afraid of the whispers in our own souls which might be magnified by loudspeakers like her" (The Weekend Australian, 26/10/96)

This is what Malcolm Muggeridge would have described as "the great liberal death wish". If Pauline Hanson serves to put Australians in touch with instincts of self-preservation, it is perhaps the greatest service she could presently perform for a nation in decay.

THE EUTHANASIA DEATH WISH

Amid the discussion surrounding the issue of euthanasia, a number of key factors have been ignored. The first is that the construction placed on the issue has been to view "euthanasia" as an answer to intolerable pain in old age as death approaches, and an answer to the burdening of society with a "useless" and medically expensive person. Such an attitude is met with horror by astute professional palliative care nurses who claim that technology has advanced so far that there is no longer any need for patients to be suffering such pain, and that to be denied the care that they need is a matter of neglect.

While every attention is given to "the right to die" (which has never previously existed in civilised societies) little attention is given to provisions which will trim 10% off palliative care budgets in Victoria, leading to a closure of perhaps eight of the 55 care agencies which presently exist. It can only be a judgment on the entire nation that millions of dollars can be squandered on hosting a sporting carnival in Sydney in the year 2000, while elderly Australians are placed in a position where they now need to consider doing away with themselves because they are a "burden on the community". This is the inevitable result of passing euthanasia legislation.

In the past, terminally ill patients were not confronted with the dilemma of having to decide whether to choose to die, or not. But contemplate a future with the euthanasia option available. Community attitudes are readily and easily shaped by an all-pervasive mass media, and commonsense is often suspended in deference to what is acceptable as being "politically correct" behaviour. If the prevailing wisdom for a person with, say, cancer or AIDS, is to choose to die, since the orthodox medical profession has no reliable answer to these diseases, how could an elderly person in pain and loneliness choose to live?
For a "Christian" community to force such a choice on a patient in such a condition (or his family) is a manifestation of evil.

FORCING PRAYER OUT OF N.S.W. SCHOOLS

The multicultural society continues to challenge the original spiritual basis of Australian society - which is specifically Christian. It happens in small ways that, on their own, may well pass unnoticed. Last week a headmaster of a State School in N.S.W. (Como West Primary in Sydney's south) felt obliged to discontinue the use of the school prayer, because a parent complained that it was a breach of the State's commitment to secular education. The Education Reform Act 1990 stipulates that all public education is to be secular, with no child to receive religious education if parents object.

The prayer, which was recited at assembly each morning, is hardly a hard-line fundamentalist Christian statement, but God is mentioned. Although the Parents and Citizens Association is protesting that a minority group is dictating the terms for school behaviour, the law prevents the prayer, and as a result, will probably lead to all prayer being eliminated from N.S.W. State Schools.

Opposition education spokesman, Stephen O'Doharty claims that there is "definitely a place for prayers in schools". Would a Coalition Government change the legislation so that prayer was permitted in State Schools? How would a Coalition Government handle the question of the "rights" of children of non-Christian backgrounds in a multicultural society, in which "discrimination" is illegal?

AUSTRALIA'S U.N. 'DEBACLE'

The intelligentsia with delusions of grandeur expressed horror at Australia's defeat in the contest for two United Nations Security Council seats. The diplomats had assured us that Australia's election was "in the bag", as promises of support had been received from enough countries to ensure an Australian victory. But the response from many "ordinary" Australians at this country's exclusion has been "good show".

Why should Australia indulge in what amounts to an international attempt at social climbing to the top of the Tower of Babel? Until we can solve Australian problems, why pretend to be able to solve even bigger ones? Especially as we Australians have not yet learned from the big mistakes made in other places like the former Yugoslavia. The policy that produced civil war, etc., in Yugoslavia is one we pay ritual lip service to here: multiculturalism. Perhaps Australia should consider a little-noticed element of Pauline Hanson's Parliamentary speech: that we review our membership and funding of the U.N.

Some of the reasons for Australia's exclusion from the Security Council are interesting. It has been suggested that one of our successful rivals, Portugal, actually "bribed" some third world nations, by paying their (unpaid) U.N. dues. And that many African nations, having promised to vote for Australia, changed their minds. Perhaps that "eminent person", Mr. Malcolm Fraser, who served with the Australian delegation, might like to explain this for us? Perhaps Mr. Fraser could put in a call to his good friend, that "world statesman", Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and ask him what went wrong?

FROM THE PRESS

Well out of it - The Australian (25/10/1996)
"I was parliamentary advisor to our United Nations delegation in 1973 (when we were on the Security Council) and 1989 and am pleased that we have not been elected for the next term. Whilst it may seem a prestigious position it means that we would have to express a view on a multitude of issues. "Basically, Australia's attitude to such issues as Cyprus, Bosnia, the Middle East, Rwanda, etc., should be 'a plague on both your houses', but on the Security Council we would be forced to take sides. "Now we can join most other countries by making sanctimonious noises.
R. KLUGMAN (Parramatta, N.S.W.)

A redneck - The Australian (22/10/1996)
"What is a redneck anyway? I always thought they were agricultural labourers but that's obviously no longer the case. "I understand 'rightwing extremist', 'anachronistic', 'reactionary', 'neanderthal', 'troglodyte' and 'male chauvinist pig'. I know that anybody who talks about immigration is 'xenophobic', about Aborigines a 'racist', about Jews an 'anti-Semite' or 'neo-Nazi'. I even know that anybody questioning the feminist agenda is 'sexist' and that anybody finding sodomy distasteful is a 'homophobo'. "But 'redneck'?
"It's time the New Left published a dictionary of its terms of abuse. What's the use of calling people names if they don't know what they mean?
GRAHAM STRACHAN (Jimboomba, Qld.)