Releasing a video of the mythical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with Zarqawi calling President George W. Bush a liar is an obvious and transparent piece of psychological propaganda. It kills, as it were, a number of birds with one stone. First, of course, we see a clear and reasonably high definition image of an unmasked person who we are told is Zarqawi – ‘he exists!’ the propagandists are shouting, ‘Here he is in all his glory’ they implore us to believe. This is expected to dispel any myths surrounding his existence and the doubts that surround the myths – especially after having been told that some of the claims made by the US military about Zarqawi had been ‘exaggerated’.[1] Well, now he’s done it. Now everybody knows exactly what he looks like. And with tens of millions of dollars bounty on his head, how’s he going to get away? He’s certainly made it difficult for himself to hide anywhere. Could he really be that stupid? Or could it be that the propagandists simply hadn’t fully thought through the implications of such exposure.
As for calling Bush a liar[2], now that is clever. If such an ‘evil killer’ as Zarqawi calls Bush a liar it can only mean that Bush actually isn’t. In the minds of the dumb and gullible only the opposite of what Zarqawi claims can be true – after all, is he not the ‘master of evil’?
All this comes just days after the tape of Zarqawi’s boss, Osama bin Laden, re-resurrected yet again from the dead in order to perpetuate yet another myth, is ‘released’ to the world. Like the man said, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time…’
Are there any people out there really that dumb and gullible or is it just the propagandists themselves that are just so dumb that they expect people out there will actually believe this garbage?
ENDNOTES
[1] Adrian Blomfield, ‘How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind’, Telegraph, 4 October 2004. Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml Accessed 27 April 2006. See also: Sebastian Rotella, ‘US Casts Fugitive as a Super-Villain: Critics say an accused terrorist’s role in Iraq attacks is exaggerated, noting weak evidence’, Common Dreams New Center, 7 March 2004. Available online: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0307-02.htm Accessed 27 April 2006.
[2] Karen DeYoung, ‘Zarqawi emerges from shadows to call Bush a liar’, Sydney Morning Herald, 27 April 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/zarqawi-emerges-from-shadows-to-call-bush-a-liar/2006/04/26/1145861419275.html Accessed 27 April 2006.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
HAVE THE WARMONGERS, LIARS AND DECEIVERS FROM WEBDIARY REALLY MOVED BLOGS?
Harry Heidelberg, alias David Davis, or is it David Davis alias Harry Heidelberg, is absolutely beside himself with joy – especially after going through a phase recently when he thought he was completely alone in the blogosphere – as his new-found like-thinking warmongering chums flock to his blog after either deserting or having been banned (temporarily?) from Webdiary. This is excellent news for Webdiarists (hopefully) who can now concentrate on debating the stuff that really matters in the world without being distracted by right-wing liar-loving, Howard-hugging, garbage dispensers like Jay White, Geoff Pahoff (though, unfortunately for Webdiarists, Pahoff has threatened to continue hassling the debate with his ludicrous Islamaphobic rubbish) and Will Howard who, even with his first words at Heidelberg’s blog, couldn’t help himself but mention ‘Jews’, ‘Zionists’, etc.
Still, Harry’s now a happy chappie having gathered all these lunatics under the one roof. Now, if Margo can just get rid of that patronising lying brother of hers and allow folks to talk about what’s really happening in the world…
Still, Harry’s now a happy chappie having gathered all these lunatics under the one roof. Now, if Margo can just get rid of that patronising lying brother of hers and allow folks to talk about what’s really happening in the world…
Saturday, April 22, 2006
TIME FOR SOME CHANGES AT WEBDIARY?
There seems to be a few problems over at Webdiary. Perhaps Margo herself should step in to resolve the impasse. She could start by getting rid of her brother, the totally discredited and lying manipulator Hamish Alcorn. She should then get a load off her own shoulders and come clean about the threats, including death threats, which were made to her prior to her all but complete withdrawal from public life. She should then stop pandering to the right-wing and allow Webdiarists and potential Webdiarists to be able to discuss those things that the right-wing don’t want discussed but which are slowly coming out into the open anyway and are being discussed now on mainstream media blogs.
Webdiary can well do without the likes of the warmongering lunatic Jay White, and, while they are about it, could well do without the lies and deceit of the likes of Will Howard, the lies and sly cynicism of Chris Parsons, and last but not least the blatant Islamaphobia from the Zionofascist Geoff Pahoff. Apart from Margo Kingston, none of the abovementioned has any credibility left whatsoever.
Goodbye and good riddance to the lot of them. I wouldn’t give these people the time of day let alone the space to peddle their vile warmongering lies and hatred. Bring back the real spirit of Webdiary!
Webdiary can well do without the likes of the warmongering lunatic Jay White, and, while they are about it, could well do without the lies and deceit of the likes of Will Howard, the lies and sly cynicism of Chris Parsons, and last but not least the blatant Islamaphobia from the Zionofascist Geoff Pahoff. Apart from Margo Kingston, none of the abovementioned has any credibility left whatsoever.
Goodbye and good riddance to the lot of them. I wouldn’t give these people the time of day let alone the space to peddle their vile warmongering lies and hatred. Bring back the real spirit of Webdiary!
Friday, April 21, 2006
IN HOWARD’S FASCIST AUSTRALIA STUDENTS WILL BE TOLD WHAT LITERATURE THEY MAY STUDY AND HOW THEY STUDY IT
John Howard plans to take the country another step down the road toward his carefully planned New Fascist Australia. As today’s article in The Australian[1] explains, Australian Prime Minister John Howard is considering cutting funding to schools that insist on teaching literature that the Prime Minister says ‘succumbs to political correctness’.
Howard apparently doesn’t understand the way literature is being taught today. He says that it is ‘gobbledegook’ and asks what ‘does it mean to have an outcomes-based education system’. (This, mind you, comes from a man who is unable to read cables, memorandums and reports from his senior public servants and diplomats.)
In June 2004, in an earlier step in Howard’s march toward his New Fascist Australia, Howard took the education system to task over not flying the Australian flag at schools, threatening to cut funding to those schools that continued not to fly the flag. At the same time he demanded that schools ensure that children undertake at least a minimum of two hours of physical activity a week.[2] (Some may ask, ‘what’s wrong with that?’ and, of course the answer is: in itself, nothing. It’s just that it comes from Howard who is not an expert in kidz physical health but is an expert in stick and carrot fascism. In other words, it’s an attitude thing.) Howard stopped short of tying funding to the singing of Australia’s national anthem every morning at school though he did mention that he would prefer it if they did.
And in a piece today, written by Howard and published in the Sydney Morning Herald,[3] Howard makes it clear that he is likely to be around at least for the next election to ensure that Australia continues its march toward his New Fascist Australia.
ENDNOTES
[1] Steve Lewis and Imre Salusinszky, ‘PM canes ‘rubbish’ postmodern literature’, The Australian, 21 April 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18878087-601,00.html Accessed 21 April 2006.
[2] Aban Contractor, ‘PM unfurls his patriotic schools agenda’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 June 2004. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087844943682.html Accessed 21 April 2006.
[3] John Howard, ‘A road map to guide the nation into a bright future’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 April 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-road-map-to-guide-the-nation-into-a-bright-future/2006/04/20/1145344214082.html Accessed 21 April 2006.
Howard apparently doesn’t understand the way literature is being taught today. He says that it is ‘gobbledegook’ and asks what ‘does it mean to have an outcomes-based education system’. (This, mind you, comes from a man who is unable to read cables, memorandums and reports from his senior public servants and diplomats.)
In June 2004, in an earlier step in Howard’s march toward his New Fascist Australia, Howard took the education system to task over not flying the Australian flag at schools, threatening to cut funding to those schools that continued not to fly the flag. At the same time he demanded that schools ensure that children undertake at least a minimum of two hours of physical activity a week.[2] (Some may ask, ‘what’s wrong with that?’ and, of course the answer is: in itself, nothing. It’s just that it comes from Howard who is not an expert in kidz physical health but is an expert in stick and carrot fascism. In other words, it’s an attitude thing.) Howard stopped short of tying funding to the singing of Australia’s national anthem every morning at school though he did mention that he would prefer it if they did.
And in a piece today, written by Howard and published in the Sydney Morning Herald,[3] Howard makes it clear that he is likely to be around at least for the next election to ensure that Australia continues its march toward his New Fascist Australia.
ENDNOTES
[1] Steve Lewis and Imre Salusinszky, ‘PM canes ‘rubbish’ postmodern literature’, The Australian, 21 April 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18878087-601,00.html Accessed 21 April 2006.
[2] Aban Contractor, ‘PM unfurls his patriotic schools agenda’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 June 2004. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087844943682.html Accessed 21 April 2006.
[3] John Howard, ‘A road map to guide the nation into a bright future’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 April 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-road-map-to-guide-the-nation-into-a-bright-future/2006/04/20/1145344214082.html Accessed 21 April 2006.
Friday, April 14, 2006
EXPOSURE OF THE ‘ISRAELI LOBBY’ ALSO EXPOSES MAKE-BELIEVE ANTI-SEMITISM!
Ever since the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the ‘Israeli Lobby’ hit the streets there has been a discernable decrease in the fear of being called anti-Semite by those that criticise right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism. The initial reaction from the pro-Zionists and the Israeli-supporting neoconservatives in America was highly predictable – they, of course, called Mearsheimer and Walt ‘anti-Semites’. They did it so loudly and so often that it became clear that it was the Israeli Lobby itself that was doing the name calling. Problem is they went overboard with it. They did it to such an extent that it doesn’t mean anything anymore.
It’s got to a point now where people no longer care about being called an anti-Semite because they know that is just a bit of name calling that no longer has any relevance or meaning. People are now very much aware that those that criticise right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism are going to be labelled by those that are being criticised as anti-Semites, just as a matter of course. It has become expected. But now everyone knows that really they are not anti-Semites but just critics of right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism. The right-wing Zionists have clearly failed in their attempt to introduce criticism of right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism as the ‘New anti-Semitism’.
The real anti-Semites are those that have been around for centuries. These are the racists and white supremacists that have always been there. They are the ones that were totally discredited at the end of World War Two as the world realised that their blind hatred had resulted in the systematic deaths of millions of those that they hated. There are a few still around but, thankfully, not in any significant numbers. These people don’t hate because they dislike right-wing Israelis or right-wing Zionists. They just hate Jews because, well, just because they are Jews. The hatred that real anti-Semites have has nothing to do with politics. And the politics of anti-right-wing Israeli Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with race.
It’s got to a point now where people no longer care about being called an anti-Semite because they know that is just a bit of name calling that no longer has any relevance or meaning. People are now very much aware that those that criticise right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism are going to be labelled by those that are being criticised as anti-Semites, just as a matter of course. It has become expected. But now everyone knows that really they are not anti-Semites but just critics of right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism. The right-wing Zionists have clearly failed in their attempt to introduce criticism of right-wing Israeli politics and right-wing Zionism as the ‘New anti-Semitism’.
The real anti-Semites are those that have been around for centuries. These are the racists and white supremacists that have always been there. They are the ones that were totally discredited at the end of World War Two as the world realised that their blind hatred had resulted in the systematic deaths of millions of those that they hated. There are a few still around but, thankfully, not in any significant numbers. These people don’t hate because they dislike right-wing Israelis or right-wing Zionists. They just hate Jews because, well, just because they are Jews. The hatred that real anti-Semites have has nothing to do with politics. And the politics of anti-right-wing Israeli Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with race.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION DOES NOT MEAN WANTING TO BE A NUCLEAR POWER!
Recently President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran announced that Iranian nuclear scientists had made a breakthrough in enriching uranium to the point where it can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors in power generation.[1] In making the announcement Ahmadinejad made it quite clear that the sole purpose for the enrichment is for power generation, an activity that is entirely legitimate and an activity that Iran has the right to undertake under international law.
At no time has Iran even hinted at a desire to have nuclear weapons. On the contrary, Iran has always made efforts to make it abundantly clear that, despite the insistence of the US and Israel that Iran’s intention has been otherwise, their only interest has, as Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the US explains, been the pursuit of fuel for its nuclear energy generation program.[2]
Without any evidence whatsoever, the US and Israel have been accusing Iran for well over a decade of being in pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.[3] In the latest outburst from the US and Israel the Iranians are apparently intent on “confronting the West” by announcing that they now intend to expand its nuclear enrichment abilities to “produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale”.[4] This is grossly misleading. Because the mainstream media have been pushing the idea that Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons, readers associate the idea that Iran now wishes to ‘produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale’ as Iran wanting now to produce enriched uranium for nuclear weapons whereas in reality, despite Iran’s breakthrough in enrichment technology, it is still some years away to being able to producing enough fuel for power generation and even more years away from producing weapons grade enriched uranium.[5]
In the light of this one has to wonder who is confronting who. All Iran has done is achieve something that all along it has said it wanted to achieve and for no other reason than to produce fuel for nuclear power generation. For some reason the world has gone into panic mode in an effort to appease the US. Despite all the rhetoric, there is still not one skerrick of evidence to suggest that is in pursuit of nuclear weapons.[6]
The real reason for the intensity of US and Israeli lies about, and condemnation of, Iran’s nuclear ambitions is to create a climate in which Iran may be attacked in order to effect regime change – in other words, for exactly the same reason as the US and Israel accused Saddam Hussein of pursuing non-existent nuclear weapons. The irony, of course, is that it seems the world is falling for the same old lies yet again. Back in September of 2003 the IAEA found tiny traces of enriched weapons grade uranium at two sites in Iran, one of them Nantanz, Iran’s major nuclear facility.[7] The US government seized on the discovery as proof that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.[8] As it turns out, the tiny particles were found on equipment the Iranians had purchased second hand.
The nuclear issue with Iran, just as it was with Iraq, is simply an excuse for the US and Israel to confront Iraq with a view to regime change. Perhaps there are enough dumb and gullible people in the world still to fall for those lies – again.
ENDNOTES
[1] Nazila Fathi, David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, ‘Iran Says It Is Making Nuclear Fuel, Defying U.N.’, New York Times, 12 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/middleeast/12iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Accessed 13 April 2006.
[2] Javad Zarif, ‘We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program’, New York Times, 6 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06zarif.html Accessed 13 April 2006.
[3] Chris Hedges, ‘Nuclear Trail – A special report; A Vast Smuggling Network Feeds Irans Arms Program’, New York Times, 15 March 1995. Available online: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60610FF355B0C768DDDAA0894DD494D81 Accessed 13 April 2006.
[4] Nazila Fathi and Christine Hauser, ‘Iran Details Nuclear Ambitions; Rice Urges ‘Strong Steps’’, New York Times, 12 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/middleeast/12cnd-iran.html?hp&ex=1144900800&en=95109157285477d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 13 April 2006.
[5] Tony Karon, ‘Nuclear ‘Breakthrough’ May Help Iran to Compromise’, Time, 12 April 2006. Available online: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1183187,00.html Accessed 13 April 2006.
[6] Atul Aneja, ‘IAEA says no evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons plan’, Globalresearch, 2 March 2006. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ANE20060302&articleId=2055 Accessed 13 April 2006.
[7] Felicity Barringer, ‘Inspectors in Iran Find Highly Enriched Uranium at an Electrical Plant’, New York Times, 26 September 2003. Available online: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F7071EFE39590C758EDDA00894DB404482 Accessed 13 April 2006.
[8] ‘IAEA Find Uranium Traces in Iran’, Fox News, 23 September 2003. Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98292,00.html Accessed 13 April 2006.
At no time has Iran even hinted at a desire to have nuclear weapons. On the contrary, Iran has always made efforts to make it abundantly clear that, despite the insistence of the US and Israel that Iran’s intention has been otherwise, their only interest has, as Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the US explains, been the pursuit of fuel for its nuclear energy generation program.[2]
Without any evidence whatsoever, the US and Israel have been accusing Iran for well over a decade of being in pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.[3] In the latest outburst from the US and Israel the Iranians are apparently intent on “confronting the West” by announcing that they now intend to expand its nuclear enrichment abilities to “produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale”.[4] This is grossly misleading. Because the mainstream media have been pushing the idea that Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons, readers associate the idea that Iran now wishes to ‘produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale’ as Iran wanting now to produce enriched uranium for nuclear weapons whereas in reality, despite Iran’s breakthrough in enrichment technology, it is still some years away to being able to producing enough fuel for power generation and even more years away from producing weapons grade enriched uranium.[5]
In the light of this one has to wonder who is confronting who. All Iran has done is achieve something that all along it has said it wanted to achieve and for no other reason than to produce fuel for nuclear power generation. For some reason the world has gone into panic mode in an effort to appease the US. Despite all the rhetoric, there is still not one skerrick of evidence to suggest that is in pursuit of nuclear weapons.[6]
The real reason for the intensity of US and Israeli lies about, and condemnation of, Iran’s nuclear ambitions is to create a climate in which Iran may be attacked in order to effect regime change – in other words, for exactly the same reason as the US and Israel accused Saddam Hussein of pursuing non-existent nuclear weapons. The irony, of course, is that it seems the world is falling for the same old lies yet again. Back in September of 2003 the IAEA found tiny traces of enriched weapons grade uranium at two sites in Iran, one of them Nantanz, Iran’s major nuclear facility.[7] The US government seized on the discovery as proof that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.[8] As it turns out, the tiny particles were found on equipment the Iranians had purchased second hand.
The nuclear issue with Iran, just as it was with Iraq, is simply an excuse for the US and Israel to confront Iraq with a view to regime change. Perhaps there are enough dumb and gullible people in the world still to fall for those lies – again.
ENDNOTES
[1] Nazila Fathi, David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, ‘Iran Says It Is Making Nuclear Fuel, Defying U.N.’, New York Times, 12 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/middleeast/12iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Accessed 13 April 2006.
[2] Javad Zarif, ‘We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program’, New York Times, 6 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06zarif.html Accessed 13 April 2006.
[3] Chris Hedges, ‘Nuclear Trail – A special report; A Vast Smuggling Network Feeds Irans Arms Program’, New York Times, 15 March 1995. Available online: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60610FF355B0C768DDDAA0894DD494D81 Accessed 13 April 2006.
[4] Nazila Fathi and Christine Hauser, ‘Iran Details Nuclear Ambitions; Rice Urges ‘Strong Steps’’, New York Times, 12 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/middleeast/12cnd-iran.html?hp&ex=1144900800&en=95109157285477d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 13 April 2006.
[5] Tony Karon, ‘Nuclear ‘Breakthrough’ May Help Iran to Compromise’, Time, 12 April 2006. Available online: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1183187,00.html Accessed 13 April 2006.
[6] Atul Aneja, ‘IAEA says no evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons plan’, Globalresearch, 2 March 2006. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ANE20060302&articleId=2055 Accessed 13 April 2006.
[7] Felicity Barringer, ‘Inspectors in Iran Find Highly Enriched Uranium at an Electrical Plant’, New York Times, 26 September 2003. Available online: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F7071EFE39590C758EDDA00894DB404482 Accessed 13 April 2006.
[8] ‘IAEA Find Uranium Traces in Iran’, Fox News, 23 September 2003. Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98292,00.html Accessed 13 April 2006.
Monday, April 10, 2006
ARE AUSTRALIAN SAS TROOPS ALREADY ON THE GROUND IN IRAN?
Seymour Hersh in his bombshell New Yorker article has revealed that “the administration has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran”. Considering how close the relationship between President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard is and how unstintingly Howard has supported Bush in all of his ventures in both Afghanistan and Iraq by allowing the services of Australia’s elite Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) to be put at the disposal of the US government, one needs to ask: ‘Where are Australia’s SAS troops now?’
The skills of Australia’s special operations forces have in the past been highly praised by the American special forces that have worked closely with them in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also common knowledge that Australian SAS troops were involved in collecting intelligence inside Iraq before Howard officially threw Australia’s hand in with the US in its invasion of Iraq in March 2003.[1] In January of 2006 Richard Hill, the then Australian Minister for Defence, sent another contingent of SAS troops to Afghanistan as part of “Australia's broader contribution to the war against terrorism.”[2]
Part of that ‘broader contribution’ would undoubtedly be the Australian SAS’s proven ability to gather intelligence in Iran as it has in Iraq. One wonders when the fascist John Howard is going to tell the people of Australia that Australia will be involved in yet another of Bush’s illegal pre-emptive wars. When will Australia’s compliant media ask the questions, indeed, more to the point, when will Australia’s pathetic government opposition ask the question?
ENDNOTES
[1] Rafael Epstein, ‘Reports of SAS troops in Kuwait’, 13 March 2003. Australian ABC Radio National transcript. Available online: http://abc.net.au/am/content/s805790.htm Accessed 10 April 2006.
[2] ‘Afghan deployment ‘aids anti-terrorism effort’’, 10 January 2006. Australian ABC Newsonline. Available online: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545067.htm Accessed 10 April 2006.
The skills of Australia’s special operations forces have in the past been highly praised by the American special forces that have worked closely with them in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also common knowledge that Australian SAS troops were involved in collecting intelligence inside Iraq before Howard officially threw Australia’s hand in with the US in its invasion of Iraq in March 2003.[1] In January of 2006 Richard Hill, the then Australian Minister for Defence, sent another contingent of SAS troops to Afghanistan as part of “Australia's broader contribution to the war against terrorism.”[2]
Part of that ‘broader contribution’ would undoubtedly be the Australian SAS’s proven ability to gather intelligence in Iran as it has in Iraq. One wonders when the fascist John Howard is going to tell the people of Australia that Australia will be involved in yet another of Bush’s illegal pre-emptive wars. When will Australia’s compliant media ask the questions, indeed, more to the point, when will Australia’s pathetic government opposition ask the question?
ENDNOTES
[1] Rafael Epstein, ‘Reports of SAS troops in Kuwait’, 13 March 2003. Australian ABC Radio National transcript. Available online: http://abc.net.au/am/content/s805790.htm Accessed 10 April 2006.
[2] ‘Afghan deployment ‘aids anti-terrorism effort’’, 10 January 2006. Australian ABC Newsonline. Available online: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545067.htm Accessed 10 April 2006.
DON’T THE BUSH AND NEOCONSERVATIVE ZIONOFASCISTS EVER LEARN?
It seems the US is now set for a strike, possibly using a tactical nuclear weapon, against Iran’s nuclear facilities at Nantanz.[1] Apparently, the White House is pinning its hopes for ‘regime change’ in Iran on “…a sustained bombing campaign against Iran [that] will humiliate the leadership and lead the Iranian public to overthrow it’ – in much the same way, one would imagine, that the neocons were optimistic that the Iraqi people would line the highway up to Baghdad throwing roses petals at the feet of the ‘liberating’ US soldiers as they marched up it. Iran should be a ‘cakewalk’ too!
Of course, a nuclear strike against Iran is all conjecture at the moment but, nonetheless, a very frightening prospect, not just for the Iranian people but for the entire world. The Seymour Hirsh article[2] that the SMH piece refers to also suggests that hitting just Iran’s nuclear facilities is not all that should be considered as targets; after all, if one is going to attack another country to such an extent then one may as well take it a few stages further and attack that country’s ability to strike back or, as is heavily suggested and hoped for, at least hit targets that would also help any internal insurgency to rise up, or, of course, both.
Of more immediate local (Australia) concern is that part of the SMH report that says “…the administration has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran…” One wonders if Australian special forces are involved in these activities. Did the last lot of SAS troopers that we were told went to Afghanistan really go to Afghanistan? They probably did – you know John Howard wouldn’t lie to us – but where did they go to from there? Has Howard involved Australian troops in this madness with Iran as well?
Apart from the disgusting likelihood of many, many innocent lives being lost as a result of such an attack, the real stupidity is in the fact that the world is about to be taken for a fool yet again. Once more the world will allow the warmongering crazies in the White House and their neoconservative and fascist allies, respectively the UK’s Tony Blair and Australia’s John Howard, to lie yet again to us in exactly the same way as they lied to us prior to attacking Iraq.
Has no one learnt anything?
ENDNOTES
[1]‘US considering air strikes on Iran – report’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-considering-air-strikes-on-iran--report/2006/04/09/1144521196583.html Accessed 9 April 2006.
[2] Seymour M. Hersh, ‘The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?’, The New Yorker, 10 April 2006. Available online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact Accessed 10 April 2006.
Of course, a nuclear strike against Iran is all conjecture at the moment but, nonetheless, a very frightening prospect, not just for the Iranian people but for the entire world. The Seymour Hirsh article[2] that the SMH piece refers to also suggests that hitting just Iran’s nuclear facilities is not all that should be considered as targets; after all, if one is going to attack another country to such an extent then one may as well take it a few stages further and attack that country’s ability to strike back or, as is heavily suggested and hoped for, at least hit targets that would also help any internal insurgency to rise up, or, of course, both.
Of more immediate local (Australia) concern is that part of the SMH report that says “…the administration has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran…” One wonders if Australian special forces are involved in these activities. Did the last lot of SAS troopers that we were told went to Afghanistan really go to Afghanistan? They probably did – you know John Howard wouldn’t lie to us – but where did they go to from there? Has Howard involved Australian troops in this madness with Iran as well?
Apart from the disgusting likelihood of many, many innocent lives being lost as a result of such an attack, the real stupidity is in the fact that the world is about to be taken for a fool yet again. Once more the world will allow the warmongering crazies in the White House and their neoconservative and fascist allies, respectively the UK’s Tony Blair and Australia’s John Howard, to lie yet again to us in exactly the same way as they lied to us prior to attacking Iraq.
Has no one learnt anything?
ENDNOTES
[1]‘US considering air strikes on Iran – report’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-considering-air-strikes-on-iran--report/2006/04/09/1144521196583.html Accessed 9 April 2006.
[2] Seymour M. Hersh, ‘The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?’, The New Yorker, 10 April 2006. Available online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact Accessed 10 April 2006.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
MORE FAKE ‘AL QAEDA’ IN GAZA TO JUSTIFY INCREASED ISRAELI ATTACKS ON PALESTINIANS?
The pro-Zionofascist newspaper The Australian[1], owned by the Israel Lobby’s publisher and neoconservative supporter Rupert Murdoch, today spewed more of its hate filled propaganda by trying to tell readers that ‘al Qaeda’ men are now infiltrating the Gaza strip ready to launch ‘terrorist attacks’ against Israel.
One wonders if these ‘al Qaeda’ men are sourced from the same place as these ‘al Qaeda’ men were in 2002. Apparently “…"The Palestinian Authority arrested a group of collaborators who confessed they were working for Israel, posing as al-Qaeda operatives in the Palestinian territories,” according to this report cached from the Sydney Morning Herald in December 2002. [2] Or maybe it’s Shin Bet, the Israeli internal intelligence organisation, that’s doing the recruiting.[3] Or even Mossad itself according to an article from larouchepub.com in December 2002.[4]
The myth of al Qaeda is being milked for all it’s worth by Israel and her neocon/fascist allies in the West. Stand by for some more ‘terrorist’ acts against Israel – acts that no doubt will justify even more deadly attacks on the Gaza or perhaps a reoccupation of Gaza by IDF in which case be prepared to see even more deaths of innocent Palestinians and Jews.
ENDNOTES
[1] Abraham Rabinovich, ‘Israelis uncover al-Qa'ida in Gaza’, The Australian, 8 April 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18726050-31477,00.html 8 April 2006.
[2] ‘Palestinians arrest al-Qaeda 'poseurs'’, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 December 2002. Available online:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/palestinians_arrest_al_qaeda_poseurs.htm Accessed 8 April 2006.
[3] Danny Rubinstein, ‘Ibrahim, the Shin Bet wants you to join Qaida’, Ha’aretz, December 2002. Available online: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=241042&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=241042 Accessed 8 April 2006.
[4] Michele Steinberg and Hussein Askary, ‘Mossad Exposed in Phoney `Palestinian Al-Qaeda' Caper’, 20 December 2002. Available online: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949idf_qaeda.html Accessed 8 April 2006.
One wonders if these ‘al Qaeda’ men are sourced from the same place as these ‘al Qaeda’ men were in 2002. Apparently “…"The Palestinian Authority arrested a group of collaborators who confessed they were working for Israel, posing as al-Qaeda operatives in the Palestinian territories,” according to this report cached from the Sydney Morning Herald in December 2002. [2] Or maybe it’s Shin Bet, the Israeli internal intelligence organisation, that’s doing the recruiting.[3] Or even Mossad itself according to an article from larouchepub.com in December 2002.[4]
The myth of al Qaeda is being milked for all it’s worth by Israel and her neocon/fascist allies in the West. Stand by for some more ‘terrorist’ acts against Israel – acts that no doubt will justify even more deadly attacks on the Gaza or perhaps a reoccupation of Gaza by IDF in which case be prepared to see even more deaths of innocent Palestinians and Jews.
ENDNOTES
[1] Abraham Rabinovich, ‘Israelis uncover al-Qa'ida in Gaza’, The Australian, 8 April 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18726050-31477,00.html 8 April 2006.
[2] ‘Palestinians arrest al-Qaeda 'poseurs'’, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 December 2002. Available online:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/palestinians_arrest_al_qaeda_poseurs.htm Accessed 8 April 2006.
[3] Danny Rubinstein, ‘Ibrahim, the Shin Bet wants you to join Qaida’, Ha’aretz, December 2002. Available online: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=241042&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=241042 Accessed 8 April 2006.
[4] Michele Steinberg and Hussein Askary, ‘Mossad Exposed in Phoney `Palestinian Al-Qaeda' Caper’, 20 December 2002. Available online: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949idf_qaeda.html Accessed 8 April 2006.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
THE RIGHT-WING ZIONISTS AND NEOCONS PROTESTETH TOO MUCH!
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer must have touched a raw nerve with their paper ‘The Israel Lobby’ judging by the amount of totally predictable garbage coming from the neoconservative Zionist’s response to the paper.
The Australian published a couple of extracts of pieces from two of Israel/America’s leading neoconservative writers. The liar Eliot Cohen insists that both Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic and the demented Michael Ledeen insists that the universities Walt and Mearsheimer work at should be punished! Cohen’s piece appears in the Washington Post while Ledeen writes in the National Review Online. The irony is that both of these writers are themselves part of the very ‘Israeli Lobby’ that they say is a figment of Walt and Mearsheimer’s imagination thus foisting themselves by their own petard! I mean, how many writers representing lobbies have this kind of access to the mainstream international press to push their cause? Does it not prove Walt and Mearsheimer’s point?
The Israeli Lobby very much exists; indeed, many of the members of the Israeli Lobby are cross connected. The same names keep turning up in the myriad of different organisations and publications that go to make up and represent the Israeli Lobby from the American Enterprise Institute to the Project for the New American Century to the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies to the Centre for Security Policy to the writers at Commentary magazine and the editors of the Weekly Standard to the ex-Office of Special Plans at the Defence Department. Same old names, same old faces – mostly Jewish-American neoconservatives and their gentile fundamentalist Christian and assorted corporatist cohorts.
The more they deny the more they prove the point!
The Australian published a couple of extracts of pieces from two of Israel/America’s leading neoconservative writers. The liar Eliot Cohen insists that both Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic and the demented Michael Ledeen insists that the universities Walt and Mearsheimer work at should be punished! Cohen’s piece appears in the Washington Post while Ledeen writes in the National Review Online. The irony is that both of these writers are themselves part of the very ‘Israeli Lobby’ that they say is a figment of Walt and Mearsheimer’s imagination thus foisting themselves by their own petard! I mean, how many writers representing lobbies have this kind of access to the mainstream international press to push their cause? Does it not prove Walt and Mearsheimer’s point?
The Israeli Lobby very much exists; indeed, many of the members of the Israeli Lobby are cross connected. The same names keep turning up in the myriad of different organisations and publications that go to make up and represent the Israeli Lobby from the American Enterprise Institute to the Project for the New American Century to the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies to the Centre for Security Policy to the writers at Commentary magazine and the editors of the Weekly Standard to the ex-Office of Special Plans at the Defence Department. Same old names, same old faces – mostly Jewish-American neoconservatives and their gentile fundamentalist Christian and assorted corporatist cohorts.
The more they deny the more they prove the point!
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
WARMONGERING LUNATIC, FRANK GAFFNEY, EXPOSES THE MADNESS OF NEOCONSERVATISM
Frank Gaffney, the American neoconservative commentator, appeared on the ABCs ‘Lateline’ program[1] with Tony Jones on Monday evening with the end result being Gaffney making a complete fool of himself as he exposed himself for the warmongering lunatic that he is. I’m sure even some of Gaffney’s fellow travellers must have been cringing at some of the stuff he was coming out with.
At one point Gaffney told Tony Jones: “And, by the way, he [Saddam Hussein] had plans once the sanctions were lifted to put those weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons and biological agents into aerosol cans and perfume sprayers for shipment to the United States and Europe.”
Tony Jones responded with: “Except for the fact as it turns out - I'm sorry to interrupt you there - except for the fact as it turns out, he didn't have any?”
Gaffney: “No, it doesn't turn out at all that he didn't have any. It turns out we haven't found what he had. But what we did find, what the Iraq Survey Group did find, is plans to use the in place dual-use manufacturing facilities once sanctions were lifted to put chemical and biological agents in aerosol cans and perfume sprayers to be shipped to the United States and Europe. That was the plan for terrorist activity that we have confirmed was in place under Saddam Hussein's regime. You haven't heard a great deal about it. Perhaps it has not been reported adequately enough to the Australian people or, for that matter, to the American people. But it's true.”
A very confused man who clearly is delusional. Chemical and biological weapons in aerosol cans and perfume sprayers to be shipped to the US and Europe? As you say, we haven’t heard a great deal about it, Frank. In fact, we haven’t heard anything about it and I’m not sure that anybody else has either – not even the Iraqi Survey Group.
I might remind readers that Frank Gaffney is a senior neoconservative commentator who wields significant influence in Bush administration circles. His views and beliefs are not only his but are shared with many other equally influential people at the top of Bush politics. These lunatics are in charge of the ‘world’s most powerful nation’! And Howard has unequivocally aligned Australia with them!
ENDNOTE
[1] Tony Jones, ‘Pressure mounts on Iraqi PM’, Lateline, 3 April 2006. Available online:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1607592.htm Accessed 4 April 2006.
At one point Gaffney told Tony Jones: “And, by the way, he [Saddam Hussein] had plans once the sanctions were lifted to put those weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons and biological agents into aerosol cans and perfume sprayers for shipment to the United States and Europe.”
Tony Jones responded with: “Except for the fact as it turns out - I'm sorry to interrupt you there - except for the fact as it turns out, he didn't have any?”
Gaffney: “No, it doesn't turn out at all that he didn't have any. It turns out we haven't found what he had. But what we did find, what the Iraq Survey Group did find, is plans to use the in place dual-use manufacturing facilities once sanctions were lifted to put chemical and biological agents in aerosol cans and perfume sprayers to be shipped to the United States and Europe. That was the plan for terrorist activity that we have confirmed was in place under Saddam Hussein's regime. You haven't heard a great deal about it. Perhaps it has not been reported adequately enough to the Australian people or, for that matter, to the American people. But it's true.”
A very confused man who clearly is delusional. Chemical and biological weapons in aerosol cans and perfume sprayers to be shipped to the US and Europe? As you say, we haven’t heard a great deal about it, Frank. In fact, we haven’t heard anything about it and I’m not sure that anybody else has either – not even the Iraqi Survey Group.
I might remind readers that Frank Gaffney is a senior neoconservative commentator who wields significant influence in Bush administration circles. His views and beliefs are not only his but are shared with many other equally influential people at the top of Bush politics. These lunatics are in charge of the ‘world’s most powerful nation’! And Howard has unequivocally aligned Australia with them!
ENDNOTE
[1] Tony Jones, ‘Pressure mounts on Iraqi PM’, Lateline, 3 April 2006. Available online:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1607592.htm Accessed 4 April 2006.
Monday, April 03, 2006
DEFINING JOHN HOWARD’S NEW FASCIST AUSTRALIA.
Howard’s New Fascist Australia is seeking to become a ‘new’ kind of fascism. In pursuit of this ‘new’ fascism Howard cleverly transcends the stereotyped images of the ‘old’ discredited fascism of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
The ‘new’ fascism denies emphatically that it is ‘fascist’, an association which would immediately discredit it. The right-wing Howard-supporting media therefore, attempt to deflect fascist name-calling from the Left by belittling the notion using various countering techniques, including pointing out that fascism had its roots in the ideology of the Left, an argument that the commentator Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in November 2005 used to counter the increasing observation that, indeed, Howard was becoming ‘fascist’. He wrote: “Calling Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic…” and then went on to demean Bob Brown, Gough Whitlam, and Paul Keating, accusing them of all having ‘fascist’-like tendencies after having pointed out that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s beginnings were, as Bolt asserts, ‘socialist’.[1] Other right-wing Howard-supporting commentators use other forms of rhetorical countering techniques.
Gerard Henderson, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, uses the simple device of comparison, whereby he infers that Australia is not becoming ‘fascist’ because, “Real fascist societies, as in Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler, had authoritarian regimes which possessed a state ideology enforced by terror or the threat of terror.”[2]
In a similar article over a year earlier, Henderson attacked the notion of Australia becoming a fascist state from a slightly different perspective which included the patronising invocation of the memory of those that suffered under fascism. In his August 2004 article ‘Fascist Australia’ he writes, “To suggest Australia… today [is] fascist is just, well, nuts. The use of such a label in a modern context indicates a total misunderstanding of both democracy and fascism – and has the unintended consequence of diminishing the memory of fascism’s many victims.”[3]
Keith Windschuttle, the rightwing historian, attacks the accusations that Australia is heading toward fascism from yet another perspective – comparison to that of the overt kind of fascism often seen in Europe. In the 2005 Earle Page Memorial Oration, delivered at Parliament House, Sydney, on 22 June 2005, he told his audience:
"Australia in recent decades has never experienced skinheads or any other right- wing hoodlums intimidating political opponents with violence. Indeed, the only political meetings broken up have been those of the populist nationalist Pauline Hanson, where the perpetrators were not skinheads but long-haired, left-wing university students. To portray Howard as a neo-fascist is not only factually inaccurate but literally absurd."[4]
Windschuttle’s reluctance to mention that Pauline Hanson’s ‘populist nationalism’ was in itself a form of fascism merely exposes Windschuttle’s own polemics.
Since it denies actually being fascist is also the reason why it does not have the trappings, at least not overtly, of what one might usually associate with fascism. For example, there are no massed parades of black uniformed soldiers, no grossly oversized flags hanging vertically in neat rows from government buildings, there are no brown leather-coated men at every railway station, bus depot and airport asking to see ‘your papers please’ – or at least not yet there isn’t.
Howard’s New Fascism doesn’t revolve around himself; he has no desire to be a ‘dictator’ per se. He does, however, wish to establish on a permanent basis, a political structure coexisting in and hybridising our existing system, within which the vision of his New Fascist Australia can be perpetuated. As commentator Tony Kevin observes: “His [Howard’s] rule is steadily degrading the values of our society and corrupting its political institutions. The longer he stays in power, the more the checks and balances of our society will crumble. We will continue our slow slide towards an Australian model of fascism”.[5]
Howard’s vision is for a regionally strong and influential antipodean, essentially white-European Christian dominated nation that predominately is corporatist in economic structure and where its inhabitants are strongly encouraged to participate in the machinations of that corporatist economic structure. A nation where those that, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to participate are both marginalised from the system and demonised as being somehow inadequate and of little worth and therefore only worthy of being kept at barely subsistence levels.
Part of the process of creating the New Fascist Australia involves projecting the notion of a primarily white-European Christian dominant society where non-Christian values, particularly and especially those of Islam, are demonised in order to create a climate of fear within which a compliant population is nurtured and polarised toward a pro-Christian value that sees other religious and/or cultural values as being abhorrent or, at least, marginalised.
As the process evolves toward his New Fascist Australia, Howard seeks to strengthen Australia’s armed forces not just in order to defend Australia’s shores but also with weapons and equipment that will allow him to project Australia’s power and assert hegemony well beyond Australia’s shores and into, when deemed necessary, other nations within Australia’s region.
Part of this process also includes the mythologising of Australia’s military heritage and the cultivation of a militarist attitude among Australia’s youth via the promise of a career in its armed forces which could follow on from an armed forces cadetship.
Howard’s close relationship with President Bush in the light of the events of and after 9/11 has served Howard’s purpose well in terms of providing closer ties in trade and defence with a nation that has a similar predominantly European heritage and political outlook.
Australians and our neighbours, quite rightly, should be aware of Howard’s drive toward fascism and recognise it for what it is before it is too late to reverse the process. Howard’s march toward a New Fascist Australia is slow but insidious. Only last week new laws were introduced to allow ASIO and the police unfettered powers to tap innocent Australians’ phones, email and text messages.[6] Following this is the push to have an ID card issued to Australians, ostensibly for the purposes of Medicare and welfare, but clearly a back-door attempt, yet again, to introduce a form of universal Aussiecard designed to keep tabs on the Australian people. The treasurer, Peter Costello, has put his support behind the push arguing, quite blatantly, “…that anti-terrorism security measures had made people more tolerant of intrusions into their privacy,”[7] demonstrating clearly how the New Fascism’s creation of fear via the so-called ‘War against Terrorism’ then, in turn, allows them to dismantle even more of our rights, in this case, to privacy.
It is this insidiousness that is the most illusory aspect of Howard’s New Fascist Australia. It is foisted on us a piece at a time and we are lied to about the reasons or necessity for the new law or changes. Sometimes it is so insidious that even those that profess to be leftish are unable to see what is going on before their eyes. There are even some elements within the Labor party that now support many of the steps that Howard has taken having been deluded into believing that these measures are, indeed, ‘for your protection’.[8]
END NOTES
[1] Andrew Bolt, ‘Fascism puts Left foot forward’, Herald Sun, 25 November 2005. Available online: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17360614,00.html Accessed 15 February 2006.
[2] Gerard Henderson, ‘The Rise of Fascism as an Easy Insult’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 December 2005. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-rise-of-fascism-as-an-easy-insult/2005/12/05/1133631200859.html Accessed 15 February 2006.
[3] Gerard Henderson, ‘Fascist Australia’, The Age, 24 August 2004. Available online: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/23/1093246439313.html?oneclick=true Accessed 15 February 2006.
[4] Keith Windschuttle, ‘Vilifying Australia: The perverse ideology of our adversary culture’, 2005 Earle Page Memorial Oration, delivered at Parliament House, Sydney, on 22 June 2005. Available online: http://www.sydneyline.com/Vilifying%20Australia.htm Accessed 15 February 2006.
[5] Tony Kevin, ‘Howard’s 10 years – An alternative political analysis’, 2 March 2006. Available online:
http://www.tonykevin.com/Howards10Years.html Accessed 21 March 2006.
[6] ‘New phone tap powers passed’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 2006. Available online:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-phonetap-powers-passed/2006/03/30/1143441264268.html Accessed 3 April 2006.
[7] Mark Metherell, ‘ID cards an issue of tolerance: Costello’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/id-cards-an-issue-of-tolerance-costello/2006/03/29/1143441215877.html Accessed 3 April 2006.
[8] ‘For your protection’ is a slogan that can be seen on the back of a police van in the recently released film “V for Vendetta” depicting life in a futuristic fascist Britain.
The ‘new’ fascism denies emphatically that it is ‘fascist’, an association which would immediately discredit it. The right-wing Howard-supporting media therefore, attempt to deflect fascist name-calling from the Left by belittling the notion using various countering techniques, including pointing out that fascism had its roots in the ideology of the Left, an argument that the commentator Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in November 2005 used to counter the increasing observation that, indeed, Howard was becoming ‘fascist’. He wrote: “Calling Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic…” and then went on to demean Bob Brown, Gough Whitlam, and Paul Keating, accusing them of all having ‘fascist’-like tendencies after having pointed out that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s beginnings were, as Bolt asserts, ‘socialist’.[1] Other right-wing Howard-supporting commentators use other forms of rhetorical countering techniques.
Gerard Henderson, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, uses the simple device of comparison, whereby he infers that Australia is not becoming ‘fascist’ because, “Real fascist societies, as in Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler, had authoritarian regimes which possessed a state ideology enforced by terror or the threat of terror.”[2]
In a similar article over a year earlier, Henderson attacked the notion of Australia becoming a fascist state from a slightly different perspective which included the patronising invocation of the memory of those that suffered under fascism. In his August 2004 article ‘Fascist Australia’ he writes, “To suggest Australia… today [is] fascist is just, well, nuts. The use of such a label in a modern context indicates a total misunderstanding of both democracy and fascism – and has the unintended consequence of diminishing the memory of fascism’s many victims.”[3]
Keith Windschuttle, the rightwing historian, attacks the accusations that Australia is heading toward fascism from yet another perspective – comparison to that of the overt kind of fascism often seen in Europe. In the 2005 Earle Page Memorial Oration, delivered at Parliament House, Sydney, on 22 June 2005, he told his audience:
"Australia in recent decades has never experienced skinheads or any other right- wing hoodlums intimidating political opponents with violence. Indeed, the only political meetings broken up have been those of the populist nationalist Pauline Hanson, where the perpetrators were not skinheads but long-haired, left-wing university students. To portray Howard as a neo-fascist is not only factually inaccurate but literally absurd."[4]
Windschuttle’s reluctance to mention that Pauline Hanson’s ‘populist nationalism’ was in itself a form of fascism merely exposes Windschuttle’s own polemics.
Since it denies actually being fascist is also the reason why it does not have the trappings, at least not overtly, of what one might usually associate with fascism. For example, there are no massed parades of black uniformed soldiers, no grossly oversized flags hanging vertically in neat rows from government buildings, there are no brown leather-coated men at every railway station, bus depot and airport asking to see ‘your papers please’ – or at least not yet there isn’t.
Howard’s New Fascism doesn’t revolve around himself; he has no desire to be a ‘dictator’ per se. He does, however, wish to establish on a permanent basis, a political structure coexisting in and hybridising our existing system, within which the vision of his New Fascist Australia can be perpetuated. As commentator Tony Kevin observes: “His [Howard’s] rule is steadily degrading the values of our society and corrupting its political institutions. The longer he stays in power, the more the checks and balances of our society will crumble. We will continue our slow slide towards an Australian model of fascism”.[5]
Howard’s vision is for a regionally strong and influential antipodean, essentially white-European Christian dominated nation that predominately is corporatist in economic structure and where its inhabitants are strongly encouraged to participate in the machinations of that corporatist economic structure. A nation where those that, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to participate are both marginalised from the system and demonised as being somehow inadequate and of little worth and therefore only worthy of being kept at barely subsistence levels.
Part of the process of creating the New Fascist Australia involves projecting the notion of a primarily white-European Christian dominant society where non-Christian values, particularly and especially those of Islam, are demonised in order to create a climate of fear within which a compliant population is nurtured and polarised toward a pro-Christian value that sees other religious and/or cultural values as being abhorrent or, at least, marginalised.
As the process evolves toward his New Fascist Australia, Howard seeks to strengthen Australia’s armed forces not just in order to defend Australia’s shores but also with weapons and equipment that will allow him to project Australia’s power and assert hegemony well beyond Australia’s shores and into, when deemed necessary, other nations within Australia’s region.
Part of this process also includes the mythologising of Australia’s military heritage and the cultivation of a militarist attitude among Australia’s youth via the promise of a career in its armed forces which could follow on from an armed forces cadetship.
Howard’s close relationship with President Bush in the light of the events of and after 9/11 has served Howard’s purpose well in terms of providing closer ties in trade and defence with a nation that has a similar predominantly European heritage and political outlook.
Australians and our neighbours, quite rightly, should be aware of Howard’s drive toward fascism and recognise it for what it is before it is too late to reverse the process. Howard’s march toward a New Fascist Australia is slow but insidious. Only last week new laws were introduced to allow ASIO and the police unfettered powers to tap innocent Australians’ phones, email and text messages.[6] Following this is the push to have an ID card issued to Australians, ostensibly for the purposes of Medicare and welfare, but clearly a back-door attempt, yet again, to introduce a form of universal Aussiecard designed to keep tabs on the Australian people. The treasurer, Peter Costello, has put his support behind the push arguing, quite blatantly, “…that anti-terrorism security measures had made people more tolerant of intrusions into their privacy,”[7] demonstrating clearly how the New Fascism’s creation of fear via the so-called ‘War against Terrorism’ then, in turn, allows them to dismantle even more of our rights, in this case, to privacy.
It is this insidiousness that is the most illusory aspect of Howard’s New Fascist Australia. It is foisted on us a piece at a time and we are lied to about the reasons or necessity for the new law or changes. Sometimes it is so insidious that even those that profess to be leftish are unable to see what is going on before their eyes. There are even some elements within the Labor party that now support many of the steps that Howard has taken having been deluded into believing that these measures are, indeed, ‘for your protection’.[8]
END NOTES
[1] Andrew Bolt, ‘Fascism puts Left foot forward’, Herald Sun, 25 November 2005. Available online: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17360614,00.html Accessed 15 February 2006.
[2] Gerard Henderson, ‘The Rise of Fascism as an Easy Insult’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 December 2005. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-rise-of-fascism-as-an-easy-insult/2005/12/05/1133631200859.html Accessed 15 February 2006.
[3] Gerard Henderson, ‘Fascist Australia’, The Age, 24 August 2004. Available online: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/23/1093246439313.html?oneclick=true Accessed 15 February 2006.
[4] Keith Windschuttle, ‘Vilifying Australia: The perverse ideology of our adversary culture’, 2005 Earle Page Memorial Oration, delivered at Parliament House, Sydney, on 22 June 2005. Available online: http://www.sydneyline.com/Vilifying%20Australia.htm Accessed 15 February 2006.
[5] Tony Kevin, ‘Howard’s 10 years – An alternative political analysis’, 2 March 2006. Available online:
http://www.tonykevin.com/Howards10Years.html Accessed 21 March 2006.
[6] ‘New phone tap powers passed’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 2006. Available online:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-phonetap-powers-passed/2006/03/30/1143441264268.html Accessed 3 April 2006.
[7] Mark Metherell, ‘ID cards an issue of tolerance: Costello’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/id-cards-an-issue-of-tolerance-costello/2006/03/29/1143441215877.html Accessed 3 April 2006.
[8] ‘For your protection’ is a slogan that can be seen on the back of a police van in the recently released film “V for Vendetta” depicting life in a futuristic fascist Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)