ZIONIST ISRAEL'S ROLE IN THE WORLD DRAMA

by Eric D. Butler
Several years ago British historian David Irving was bold enough to express the opinion that Zionist Israel was doomed to self-destruction in the foreseeable future. Such a view has become increasingly prevalent as internal developments inside Israel indicate an intensification of conflict between groups. There was before the creation of Israel a Jewish minority living in relative harmony with an Arab majority of Palestinians, many of these Christians, as so graphically described in the moving book Blood Brothers. Most of the Zionist invaders were of Russian and Eastern European background, Ashkenazim Jews.

From the beginning of the establishment of Israel there have been tensions between the different groups of Jews. Because of their background and historical association with the Palestinians, the Sephardic Jews generally have been more receptive to compromise proposals concerning the dispossessed Palestinians. And there is the entry of a new factor into a growing turbulent Israel: a massive flood of Russian Jews, most of these with non-religious backgrounds.

It is of interest that in spite of Jews being allegedly persecuted in Russia during the Soviet regime, a majority of the Russian Jews are highly qualified technically. It is the influx of Russian Jews, and the expansion programme of the Israeli Government to house an increased population, with a further annexation of Palestinian areas, which have resulted in a new international crisis in the Middle East, with the American and British Governments attempting to pressure Israel into a withdrawal from the West Bank.

A headline in The Weekend Australian of May 8th-l0th reads: "ISRAEL DEAF TO US PULLBACK PLEAS". A superficial observer might well respond to the reports of alleged Western pressure on Israel by suggesting that with an estimated 90 percent of senior official positions in the USA being in the hands of Jews, the Clinton administration is not sincere in its claims that it is trying to broker a Middle East peace programme. The reality is that from the beginning of the Zionist invasion of Palestine, this invasion was, in the words of one senior Zionist, merely a peg on which to hang a "far reaching" programme.

C.H. Douglas commented that the general presentation of Zionism was as some type of romantic scheme to bring a "chosen" people back to their alleged homeland. But in reality it was designed to foster events, which could then be exploited to advance a programme designed to take mankind towards a World State.

From its beginning, Zionist Israel has been a creature of an international Zionist movement, which has used the non-Zionists to advance the Zionist programme. The millions of Jews living in the Soviet Union were regarded as reserve forces, which could be used to further an international programme.

The Australian Zionist-Jewish press has claimed that Australia has, in relationship to its population, taken more Russian Jewish immigrants than any other country in the world, which may help to explain why both the Labor Party and the Coalition Parties have flinched at any suggestion that they are "anti-Semitic". Prominent Zionist Jews have been in the forefront of the campaign to promote "multiculturalism". Any politician who deviates from the pro-"multicultural" programme is treated like a social outcast, as witnessed by the campaign against Pauline Hanson. This campaign has little to do with Pauline Hanson as such, but is designed to attempt to intimidate all those Australians who disagree with the immigration and other policies, which have been imposed by all the major political parties.

The anti-Christian philosophy of the Zionists manifest its true nature with the persistent campaign to stage "war crime" trials in Australia. The campaign continues, carefully orchestrated, and demands that the Latvian Konrad Lalejs, recently returned to Australia from Canada, be tried as a war criminal. In an article in The Sunday Age of May 10th, Michael Kapel argues that the Government could still act against "Nazi war criminals". There is much stress on the necessity for "justice", but like all Zionist writers, Kapel, editor of the Australia Israel Review, writes of "a man who killed 30,000 innocent civilians 54 years ago".

No court of justice in any part of the English-speaking world has found Lalejs guilty of such a killing. Even Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett has observed that disturbing old men or women from their suburban tranquility "was not exactly in keeping with the Christian attribute of mercy". It should be noted that not one "war criminal" tried in a Common Law country has ever been found guilty of the charges made against him.

It is impossible to understand what drives the Zionist movement without understanding the Anti-Christian philosophy of Judaism. With few exceptions Christian leaders have been unable to find the moral courage to deal with this issue. It has been left to a number of courageous Jews to draw attention to the deep philosophical cleavage between the religion of Judaism and Christians following in the footsteps of the famous Jewish scholar Dr. Oscar Levy, who wrote that "The question of the Jews and their influence on the world, past and present, cuts to the root of all things and should be discussed by every honest thinker".

Prominent among those Jews who are honestly trying to cut through to the core of the Jewish problem is the distinguished Professor Israel Shahak, Emeritus Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has been described as "one of the most remarkable individuals in the contemporary Middle East". His knowledge of music, sociology and history is profound, as witnessed by his work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion. In the first chapter of this major work, Israel Shahak writes,
"Historical Judaism and its two successors, Jewish orthodoxy and Zionism, are both sworn enemies of the concept of the open society as applied to Israel ... There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism exist and on an honest examination of the attitude of Judaism towards the non-Jews."

Christians who wish to defend the essence of the Christian tradition, which stresses that institutions exist to serve individuals, would do well to study what Israel Shahak and like-minded Jews are saying. Israel Shahak is blunt: "Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred towards Christianity."

While it is true that throughout history the will-to-power has manifested itself in many nations, the key to understanding the "Jewish question" is the Jewish claim to have been "Chosen" to plan the whole world. Zionist strategists see the State of Israel as a major factor on an international chessboard, but one, which can be if necessary sacrificed to advance a long-term strategy.

I recall how after discussing the "Jewish question" on a national New Zealand TV programme, subsequently meeting two of New Zealand's top criminal lawyers, one making the observation that the basic value system of the Christian nations had been undermined by an aggressive Jewish philosophy, with even the traditional judicial system being Judaised. It appears probable that the Zionist State of Israel might disintegrate as a result of internal friction.

But those who welcome this prospect are making a major mistake if they believe that some justice for the Palestinians will solve the basic problems of mankind. A Zionist-Jewish dominated USA is today the major promoter of economic and political globalism. The only answer to this threat is a genuine nationalism based upon the Christian value system. Distinguished Jews like Israel Shahak offer some hope for the future. They should be encouraged in every possible way.

MELBOURNE CONFERENCE EMBRACES GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

by David Thompson
It is still a fact of life that any reference to the impending spectre of global government is regarded as a case of paranoia, to be either gently set aside as a mental aberration, or derisively dismissed. It is incredible, for example, that while a major newspaper like The Australian can deride the League as a conspiracy theorist group from the political extreme, as it did in an editorial on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment last Monday (May 11th), when the same newspaper has just co-sponsored a major conference embracing global government.

For the first few days of last week, The Australian reported on the Australia Unlimited conference, held in Melbourne, and proudly sponsored by The Australian and something known as The Global Foundation. The major international figure to address the conference was the managing director of the IMF, Mr. Michel Camdessus. In his own way, Mr. Camdessus made things plain enough. The IMF, he said, has a newer, more intrusive" role, in which it pushes financial reforms, demands changes in governance, greater national accountability and feels free to attack features of government that it doesn't like. Further, he made as strong a case as possible for the introduction of a goods and services tax to be introduced in Australia, and praised the Coalition workplace relations legislation, in which enterprise bargaining replaces the centralised wage-fixing system.

Other speakers at the conference were even more specific about the future than Mr. Camdessus. For example, Mr. David Hale, and economist with the Zurich Group, urged the achievement of a "truly global economy". But it became clear that he was referring to more than just the economy in his address, "Globalisation or Globaphobia?" when he said: "... if the process was to be kept on track, new forms of global governments such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation - should be created." Such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, no doubt!
David Hale also offered gratuitous advice on the dock dispute, suggesting that we invite the IMF to sort it out, as they were doing for Thailand, Korea and elsewhere!
The Australia Unlimited conference was sponsored by a multinational corporation - Mr. Rupert Murdoch's News Limited.

The big players in global government - Michel Camdessus - are invited to tell Australians what is required of them in this new world government. Mr. Howard and Mr. Reith receive a "tick" for their industrial legislation, together with a veiled warning. Camdessus also said: In the "globalised economy, wage rates and labour-market practices cannot be insulated from market conditions". What does this mean? It means that if we are to remain competitive with, say, Communist China in the global market, then our working conditions and wage rates will have to begin to compare with those of a Chinese coolie.

The warning is clear. The Reith legislation, while "a step" in the right direction, does not go far enough. The Treasurer, Mr. Costello, received a big 'tick' on the GST. The IMF requirement on taxation is quite clear: adopt the GST. Or else. Sure, Camdessus acknowledged that it would be difficult; but in the end we would accept it, as other industrialised economies had eventually done. The Canadians pushed it through on IMF advice, as did the New Zealanders. The last attempt to foist it on Australia was by Dr. John Hewson, a former consultant with the IMF.

Those who have so far derided the warnings of others who have seen the shape of the proposed global government must be blind not to see the unmistakable signs that it is now almost here. The truth is that Australia, like Indonesia, etc., now has an IMF programme of "reform". The fact that it wasn't "imposed" on us is only a measure of the political betrayal of Australian sovereignty.

Mr. Camdessus said that the 70% rise in fuel prices in Indonesia was "indispensable" ( Weekend Australian, 9/5/98). After introduced, two days of riots resulted in six dead in Sumatra. Obviously not the IMF's fault. The Australian reforms will eventually be just as far-reaching. The fact that they have been voluntarily adopted will have no bearing on the ultimate result.

HOW THE GST "GROWS" ON YOU

There is no doubt that the 1998 budget will prepare the way for the proposed introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) as a key Coalition election policy. Much will be made of the benefits of a consumption-based tax as a trade-off for "huge" income tax cuts. Somehow a GST rate will have to be chosen which is not offensively high, but is still credible enough to deliver impressive income tax cuts. The rate being tipped is ten percent, with few, if any, exemptions.

But for how long would an Australian GST remain at ten percent? It is at this point that politicians adopt pained expressions and attempt to restrain themselves from saying, "Trust me". The record elsewhere is that, like all taxes, consumption taxes grow. A survey published by The Sunday Telegraph (10/5/98) provided the figures, which indicated that it is a rarity for the GST not to grow. In 23 of the 25 countries surveyed, the taxes increased, some by as much as 150%.

The National Tax and Accountants Association undertook the survey, and warn that the GST would be a disaster for most Australians, since it impacted more on the lower paid than the wealthy. In Denmark, GST was introduced at 9% in 1962. It is now 25%. In New Zealand, what was 10% in 1986 is now 12.5%, and in Japan, the GST has risen from 3% to 5% since 1989. The British VAT started at 10% 25 years ago, and is now 17.5%. South Africa had 12% GST in 1991, which is now 14%. In Thailand and Norway their GST has increased 3% since introduction, and in Sweden, the GST has doubled to 20% since 1969. Canada is the only case in which the tax hasn't increased. Yet.

WTO WIELDS BIG STICK

The institutions of global governance are now beginning to impact directly on Australia and Australians. Tasmanian salmon producers must now face Canadian Atlantic salmon imports, since the WTO has decreed that the Australian quarantine regulations are actually trade barriers to protect our own market. The quarantine officers insist that the regulations are to prevent about 20 diseases out of our fish stocks. Too bad, said the WTO; the level playing field has now arrived. A similar ruling would have been likely so far as pork importing is concerned.

As Graeme Campbell insists in a recent press statement (unpublished so far), unrestricted importing of Canadian and Danish pork is destroying local producers, who cannot produce pork for the $1 per kilo that overseas producers are being paid. "Australian pig meat exported to Denmark attracts a $1000 per tonne tariff. In Canada there are about 20 subsidies for Canadian producers.
The government (here) talks about a level playing field. It isn't. . .The industry is facing a national crisis. Primary Industries and Energy Minister Anderson must act now and impose a 12-month embargo on all imports of pig meat. If he doesn't, the industry is going to go down the gurgler," Mr. Campbell said.

LEAGUE 'BLAMED' FOR MAI FLAK

Now that the negotiating process for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment has stalled internationally, the immediate future of the MAI is in doubt. The Australian committee inquiring into the MAI has received a lot of submissions hostile to the proposal, and it appears that the 'chattering classes' in Australia are looking to accuse "conspiracy theorists" of misrepresenting the intentions of the OECD and the Australian Government for pursuing the MAI.
They accuse the League of inciting a campaign against the MAI, to which we plead 'guilty'. But even the committee is highly critical of those charged with promoting the cause of the MAI in Australia.

The signing of treaties is formally the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, but the MAI has been negotiated by the Treasury. Treasury becomes irritated when DFAT wants information on the treaty; DFAT is resentful that Treasury is encroaching on its territory. Neither have bothered to brief the Parliament, explain their enthusiasm of MAI to the public, or account for themselves through the press.

We congratulate those who have sent in submissions on the MAI. We have seen many, most of which are of a high standard. We note one curious requirement of the committee, received by some who lodged submissions: "…for reasons of parliamentary privilege, a submission made to a parliamentary committee cannot be disclosed to any other person until such time as the committee has authorised the submission's publication. . . you should check with the committee secretariat before disclosing your submission to any other person."

The committee will continue with public hearings, and produce an interim report. The MAI is still expected to be completed and signed by Australia in due course. But the grassroots are restive, and the opposition to MAI should continue.

FRASER ON ONE NATION

It would come as no surprise that former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser is one of the high-profile Liberals who insists that Pauline Hanson and One Nation must be placed last on ballot papers. Fraser claims that giving One Nation preferences ahead of Labor would be "equivalent to the Menzies Liberal party giving preferences to the League of Rights."

Mr. Fraser seems to have some sort of fixation about the League. He has claimed that it is not Pauline Hanson that is a danger to Australia, but those who "masterminded" her election: the dreaded League of Rights! Perhaps Mr. Fraser's mental processes are beginning to fail him, or he would be aware that Menzies never had the opportunity to give preferences to the League, since we have never fielded candidates. Has Mr. Fraser forgotten this?

On the other hand, Mr. Fraser himself once sought assistance from the League while plotting to seize the reins of the Liberal Party. We have previously reported on his rather cordial luncheon with Eric Butler at the home of mutual friends and neighbours of the Fraser's former property "Nareen". Even at the time, a considerable number of his senior party colleagues were League sympathisers, and friends of Eric Butler, if not outright supporters. One day the entire story can be told.

Perhaps Fraser forgets that, such is the Liberal Party of today, before his death Sir Robert confirmed that he ceased voting for the Party he helped to create. No doubt this had something to do with the way people like Malcolm Fraser had abandoned the party's original principles.

WHAT IS GENUINE TRADE?

Mr. Ron Fischer, of Talbot, Victoria, continues his non-stop flood of letters to the Australian press. He demonstrates "the power of one". If actionists see one of Ron Fischer's letters in their local paper, let him know. His address is 95 Old Ballarat Road, Talbot, Victoria, 3371.

The following is a letter, which appeared in The Ballarat Courier of April 4th: "Dear Sir; "The item in the Courier (April 6) headed 'Global recession refuted' highlights the absurdity of tying our economy to Asia. That part of Asia known as Japan is so big economically that if he sneezes, the cliché goes, we get pneumonia. "Your item reported Australia's Industry Minister (John Moore) playing down 'fears that Japan, Australia's biggest trading partner, was heading for an economic collapse that could trigger a global recession'. "What (or who) is a partner? A partner is a sharer - an associate who shares the risks and profits of an activity. There is no such thing as a trading partner - it's dog eat dog in the global field 'til there is only one dog left. Then what?

"What is trade? Trade is barter, the swapping of surplus goods for another's surplus. It has, however, come to mean the selling overseas of goods at any price. This type of trade generates friction between nations, where 'markets' are poached from one nation by another. Note the animus between Australia and America over their attempts to sell into our agricultural 'markets'.

"The problem arises because economists can't figure out how to make economies work on a national basis. Their current ploy is to rely on 'growth'. They cite 4% growth as being the level at which things will hum along comfortably. "A growth rate of 4% means that consumption will double in 18 years. A growth rate of 3% means a doubling in 24 years. Can we ecologically afford this?

"It is becoming increasingly evident that the economic framework needs more than cosmetic surgery, like depending on growth and manipulating interest rates. Nations need to be able to function internally, trading only genuine surpluses. "Yours truly."

FROM THE PRESS

"Dabbling in our affairs.
"Comments by International Monetary Fund chief Michel Camdessus that the Australian labour market requires more 'reform' (IMF Chief Hails Tax, Labour Reform, 6/5) are not only ill-timed, but also constitute an unnecessary interference in the political and socio-economic affairs of an independent nation-State.
"I have had serious reservations about the impact of globalisation on the ability of our governments to exercise discretion in the formation and execution of public policy. My reservations have been warranted. "It is one thing to prescribe economic medicine for economies bordering on collapse. It is a completely different matter to start dabbling in the affairs of a modern industrialised State - particularly during a time of heightened domestic tension. Butt out."
Ken Dobson, Centennial Park, NSW, The Australian, 8/5/98.