Wednesday 29 August 2012

draft http://www.robinlinke.com.au/

http://www.robinlinke.com.au/


Nazi witch-hunt | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au/.../nazi-witch-hunt/story-fn558imw...Share
5 days ago – EFRAIM Zuroff's justification in pursuing Charles Zentai for alleged war crimes is flawed ("The case that broke the heart of a Nazi hunter", 23/8).





News for the australian nazi zuroff

  1. Zentai a crusade for Nazi hunter
    The Australian‎ - 6 days ago
    NAZI hunter Efraim Zuroff became more personally involved in the case ... soldiers who severely beat them," he writes in The Australian today.


    Internal Server Error - Read

    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
    Reference #3.1fdd54b8.1346218526.6cf8507

Tuesday 28 August 2012

ERIC BUTLER: USEFUL IDIOT / PATRIOT DEFENCE??



From: g87
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:42 AM
Subject: ERIC BUTLER USEFUL IDIOT DEFENCE??

Inverted cliches
In claiming ignorance of Eric Butler being eschewed by mainstream Australia of all political, religious shades as being persona -non grata at best, Adrian Kelleher Letters 28/8 uses the Manuel classical argument of ignorance: 'I know nothing.'

Devoid of the comic genious / innocence of Fawlty Towers, of course.

I can think of a number of scenarios whereby Butler would serve.

Too many.

  1. He decided to cloak himself with the Patriotic defence; perhaps to blind useful supporters and like - minded extremists.
  2. He was indeed 'big' on queen - and - country: and indeed used the patriotic defence all his life. [Refer to Samuel Johnson famous quote about rogues and patriots.] He decided that the above risk was worth the 1% risk of an early demise.
  3. Pressure to serve for those eligible? How would it look for a man with his views to have exposed himself to the criticism of trying to avoid National Service?
Waving the gun around strikes me as a reasonable synopsis.
Geoff Seidner
East St Kida

Samuel Johnson's political views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson's_political_viewsShare
On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the ...The last of these pamphlets, Taxation No Tyranny (1775), was a defence of ...


know nothing! - Fawlty Towers - BBC- YouTube




Eric Butler's service






  • The Australian 
  • August 28, 2012 12:00AM


  • I DON'T know what Eric Butler's political opinions were, nor do I know what he believed in. But I do know one thing for certain: any man who has risked his life in defence of the freedoms that I enjoy as an Australian citizen is worthy of my respect.
    For Phillip Adams to denigrate Eric Butler's military service as merely "waving a gun around" is disgraceful.
    Adrian Kelleher, Shepparton, Vic

    ########################################################################################################################################################

    The Absolute Best of Fawlty Towers (According To Nostalgicflashback)The Absolute Best of Fawlty Towers (According To Nostalgicflashback)by Nostalgicflashback37,270 views

    Monday 27 August 2012

    AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITOR NEDDY LAWRENCE, THE AUSTRALIAN JEWISH NEWS


    From: g87
    Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:46 AM
    Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITOR NEDDY LAWRENCE, THE AUSTRALIAN JEWISH NEWS


    AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITOR NEDDY LAWRENCE, THE AUSTRALIAN JEWISH NEWS
    This is being lodged on my website – where you are requested to reply: there are many people awaiting it!!
    Or you are welcome to email me.
    But you will not do either – you lack the courage!!!
    There are hundreds of people undisclosed being sent this email bcc
    Who knows who will read it on my blog!!!
    GS
    Geoff Seidner
    13 Alston Gr
    East St Kilda 3183
    03 9525 9299
    03 9525 9290
    ########################################################################################################################################################
    THESE TWO PAIRS OF BLOGS ARE THE ONES I USE CURRENTLY.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The pair of blogs below have essentially been discontinued for
    technical reasons.
    There are hundreds of entries of disparate current interest.
    BY FAR MY LARGEST BLOG WITH MUCH CURRENT MATERIAL THEREIN:
    ################################################################################################################################################################
    Dr Editor Lawrence,
    RE MY LETTER PUBLISHED TODAY IN THE AUSTRALIAN
    The matter below re THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS is of such interest to readers of the Jewish News that even the enemies – whose letters you regularly publish would agree with my sentiments.
    I vouchsafe that you may be able to republish to advantage. SEE BELOW LINKS
    As discussed with your secretary ‘Sharon’ – I request that this email and links below to my published items in The Australian – be on forwarded to your owner / publisher Robert Magid.
    I understand that this will be done.
    I look forward to Mr Magid’s comments: pathetically you allowed him to be eviscerated by our leftist enemies – on your leftist altar of freedom of press citadel of media [alleged] virtue!
    Have no doubt majority of Jews support my sentiments – and buy your rag because there is no other – and want to keep in touch even the act of keeping in touch with / via your organ leaves them contemplating cancelling their subscription! More and more will contemplate thus diminishing your journal – it is a major step – and too few are for now prepared to make the denouement.
    I ask you, Mr Lawrence: would you publish anything? Our enemies’ internicine hatred with no consideration to the implications?
    Even a theme that hitler did not kill enough of my family!???^%$^%#$%$@!!
    So – if freedom of press does not encompass this hopefully merely rhetorical flourish from my person – by what right do you publish SIMPLISTIC TRITE RUBBISH – knowing that it is impossible to debunk it in brief words?
    Furthermore - exactly how many articles attacking Islam have you ever seen in their press???????
    One more thing Mr Lawrence – do you even care that your publication is used by our enemies to HUGELY disparage Israel?
    You may be able to inform this writer and Mr Magid why you never publish me!
    I have given up – and no longer even buy the AJN since it became a vehicle for the disparate ramblings of Israel’s enemies! And worse – since my letters – representing 99% I claim of your mainstream readership – are NEVER published! What say ye – re the below letter that WAS published?

    MY letter published in The Australian today

    MY letter published in The Australian today
    [the immediately below remains as yet unpublished: 9.20 am Monday 27/8
    There were no other items published by The Oz: Merely Geoff Seidner VS Adrian Jackson]
    ##################################################################################################################################################################

    From: g87

    Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:09 AM
    Subject: Conspiracies Destroyed

    Conspiracies Destroyed

    Adrian Jackson Letters 27/8 defends a variation of the League Of Rights attack on Jews: insisting that the late, unlamented Eric Butler apparently merely loathed ''Jewish financial interests'' and was ''principally concerned with Christian interests from a Christian orientation.''

    I doubt whether any Christian deity would defend him. And Jackson's weak cliche of ''sour grapes'' does not hide the fact that my friends Rupert Murdowski and the esteemed late Kerry Pacanowski will / would not take kindly to his oblique attempted insults.

    This is the way the League of Rights are: if they are not into conspiracies about Jewish domination - financial and otherwise, then it is their successors the CEC who accuse the Queen being a drug runner, invert meaning of words into conspiracies [synarchist: see wiki definition confirmation] and generally ensure that intelligent people eschew conspiracies.

    They have a lot to answer for - the JFK conspiracy may not get off the ground today.
    The 'best' ones are laughed out of existence.

    Geoff Seidner
    13 Alston Grove East St Kilda 3183

    03 9525 9299
    03 9525 9290




    Antisemitic Organisations in Australia | B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation ...

    www.antidef.org.au/antisemitic-organisations-in.../i1001455/
    The Australian League of Rights (ALR) ... The Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (CEC), is the Australian arm of the U.S. based Lyndon LaRouche extremist ...invert words



    The 1930's Synarchist assault on Australia






    Synarchism



    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Synarchism is a term which generally refers to "joint rule" or "harmonious rule".
    Beyond this general definition, however, both "synarchism" and "synarchy" have been used to describe several different political processes in various contexts. Increasingly, the terms have been used by conspiracy theorists to mean rule by a secret elite.[1]

    ############################################################################################################



    My letter published in The Australian 27/8/12 

    Eric Butler's views





  • The Australian 
  •  
  • August 27, 2012 12:00AM

  • It is not correct that part of my complaint to the council "challenged the claim that Butler was generally anti-Semitic".
    The adjudication is more accurate in stating that I complained that Butler's views "were inaccurately portrayed as primarily anti-Semitic when in reality they were principally concerned with public service from a Christian orientation".
    My unpublished letter had specifically focused on the injustice of Adams's claim that Butler's "favourite theme" was "the evils of the Jewish race".
    An anomaly of the adjudication is its report that The Australian admitted that such might indeed not have been Butler's favourite theme. It is hard to see why the council did not accept that as vindication of that part of my complaint.
    Your onslaught on Butler and the council smacks of sour grapes. It also looks like a shield for those Jewish financial interests that were Butler's real target, not the Jews generally.


    Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
    ..................................................................................
    YOUR journalists deserve commendations for showing what the League of Rights and the Press Council stand for. The council's idea that an opinion piece in effect has to take the form of a debate in the first instance, is asinine.
    Moreover, the idea all opinions need equal merit and space in a rebuttal by aggrieved parties, is absurd. Both are inimical to common sense.
    Geoff Seidner, St Kilda, Vic

    ######################################################################################

    My letter published in The Australian 27/8/12



    My letter published in The Australian 27/8/12 
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Eric Butler's views


  • The Australian 
  • August 27, 2012 12:00AM

  • It is not correct that part of my complaint to the council "challenged the claim that Butler was generally anti-Semitic".
    The adjudication is more accurate in stating that I complained that Butler's views "were inaccurately portrayed as primarily anti-Semitic when in reality they were principally concerned with public service from a Christian orientation".
    My unpublished letter had specifically focused on the injustice of Adams's claim that Butler's "favourite theme" was "the evils of the Jewish race".
    An anomaly of the adjudication is its report that The Australian admitted that such might indeed not have been Butler's favourite theme. It is hard to see why the council did not accept that as vindication of that part of my complaint.
    Your onslaught on Butler and the council smacks of sour grapes. It also looks like a shield for those Jewish financial interests that were Butler's real target, not the Jews generally.


    Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
    ..................................................................................
    YOUR journalists deserve commendations for showing what the League of Rights and the Press Council stand for. The council's idea that an opinion piece in effect has to take the form of a debate in the first instance, is asinine.
    Moreover, the idea all opinions need equal merit and space in a rebuttal by aggrieved parties, is absurd. Both are inimical to common sense.
    Geoff Seidner, St Kilda, Vic
    .................................................................................

    Saturday 25 August 2012

    John Lyons is a disgraceful anti semite!! GS


    John Lyons is a disgraceful anti semite!!
    He has 'form' on three of my blogs.
    I will get around to doing something....
    GS
    ########################################################################################################################################################
    Israeli soldiers break silence on abuse
  • From:The Australian 
  • August 25, 2012 12:00AM

  • Palestinian youth
    Troops arrest a Palestinian youth for throwing stones. Source: AFP
    TESTIMONIES by 30 former Israeli soldiers and commanders portrayed a culture of violence and abuse in the Israeli Defence Forces towards Palestinian children, according to a report released yesterday to international media and detailed in a major article in this weekend's Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's biggest-selling newspaper.
    Debate about the treatment of Palestinian children has grown since 60 of Israel's leading child experts, academics and psychologists wrote to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu protesting against "offensive arrests and investigations that ignore the law."
    The new report is by Breaking the Silence, an organisation of former Israeli soldiers who came together in 2004 and have now collected more than 850 testimonies from former and current Israeli soldiers and commanders about abuses they committed or witnessed.
    In response to the report, the IDF told The Weekend Australian: "Breaking the Silence has been asked numerous times to reveal the testimonies and claims they collect regarding IDF activity prior to publication in order to check and verify their claims.

    "As a matter of policy, the organisation chooses not to provide the IDF and other relevant bodies with the critical material necessary for investigation. By compiling testimonies over long periods of time and refusing to provide additional detail, (Breaking the Silence) proves its true intentions - rather than facilitating proper investigation, the organisation seeks to generate negative publicity regarding the IDF and its soldiers."
    In response, Yehuda Shaul from Breaking the Silence said: "Over 70 of our testifiers have come out publicly with their names and identities revealed, and I'm one of them. If the IDF was interested in investigating our claims, we probably would have already been summoned to 

    nterrogations."
    The report coincided with an escalation of violence against Palestinians. Israeli police described as "a lynching" an incident in Jerusalem this week in which dozens of people watched a mob of Jewish teenagers bash a 17-year-old Palestinian unconscious.
    The Israeli media said the group had been roaming the city chanting "Death to Arabs" until they came across the teenager.
    "They were looking to hurt an Arab," the police said. Separately, six Palestinians, including a five-year-old boy, were burned but not killed when a group, believed to be Jewish settlers, threw explosives at their bus.
    The US State Department now defines attacks by Jewish settlers as terrorism.
    Also this week, Israeli soldiers were caught on video bashing Palestinian journalists clearly marked as "press". The Foreign Press Association wrote to the IDF: "The soldiers shown attacking our colleagues are acting like a bunch of thugs."
    The IDF is investigating.
    The new report is by soldiers who served in and around the West Bank and Gaza Strip from 2005 to last year.
    Despite a High Court ruling against using children as "human shields", former soldiers said this practice continues.
    The report said the testimonies "serve as witness to the ongoing slide of the military system toward increasing immorality."
    One former soldier said his commander beat a Palestinian boy "to a pulp" - so hard he broke his stick. "That kid was such a mess, broken apart," he said.
    He said the commander, in front of the boy's parents, then put a gun-barrel in the boy's mouth saying: "Anyone gets close, I kill him. Don't annoy me."
    Another said when soldiers were bored they would provoke a riot. "We'd go up to the windows of a mosque, smash the panes, throw in a stun grenade make a big boom, the we'd get a riot," he said.
    "At best, in the middle of prayers - that annoys them the most."
    One former soldier from the Kfir Brigade said a soldier would put children against a wall and hit them between the legs. He made them sing the Israeli national anthem "and if they didn't sing on beat, they'd get a blow with that rod to their knee".
    A former member of the navy said every morning shots would be fired at children in Gaza "to the point that fire was directed at their legs, at kids who stood on the beach or rode a surfboat into the water." One commander was said to have thrown a stun grenade towards a seven-year-old to make him run away.

    OZ Press Council are insane re Eric Butler

    OZ Press Council are insane re Eric Butler
    [These notes are made on Saturday 25 and  Sunday 26/8/12]

    See my brief comments in a  letter to editor hereunder as well as the three  articles cognate to same as well.

    Kindly note that what I write here may appear to be obvious: but methinks others should have thought of it as well.
    Or bothered to do something about it.

    The reality is that I know NO - ONE who will bother!! And worse: I know few people who readily understand my scribbles! [Do not tempt me with an obvious rejoinder!]

    Furthermore in the wider world, I ALSO  doubt if anyone has taken hold of my tangent herein. Let us see The Australian on Monday 27/8.

    It is not so that I think my intellect so exceptional: JUST THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE WITH POLITICAL, ANALYTICAL, PRACTICAL ACUMEN OR INTELLECT WILL BOTHER!

    This is sad. Because our enemies intimidate the Press Council - and more! They are plainly, SO, SO  motivated.

    The above  is merely one of the reasons why we loose the media debate in all forums.
    AS an excuse of sorts - our 'best' are too busy in their work, scared of taking a public profile, simply lazy - or whatever.

    It took me ages to cut - and - paste the articles below: never mind the commentary! I wonder sometimes if it is worth the effort!!!

    Look at the visage of Eric Butler below.

    Geoff Seidner
    #################################################################################################################################################################

    From: g87
    Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:03 PM
    Subject: OZ Press Council are insane re Eric Butler



    OZ Press Council are insane re Eric Butler
    The Australian's journalists deserve commendations for showing what the League Of Rights and The Press Council stand for.
    See three articles The Australian 25/8
    The PC’s idea that an opinion piece in effect has to take the form of a debate in the first instance, is asinine.
    Furthermore, with all hypothetical strained ideas needing equal merit and space in a rebuttal by aggrieved parties - is absurd.
    Both are inimical to common sense. Neither could / would be concocted if Julian - leftist - Disney of the Press Council ever demonstrated an excess of the commodity.
    So, in the headline Traitor article 'failed to include key fact you have quaintly demonstrated two great Julian errors in merely 7 words.
    There are scores of non – sequiteurs littered in the PC’s pronouncements.
    Geoff Seidner
    13 Alston Gr
    East St Kilda 3183
    03 9525 9299
    03 9525 9290
    #############################################################################################################################################################################
    Traitor article 'failed to include key fact'
    NICK LEYS 

  • From:The Australian 
  • August 25, 2012 12:00AM

  • THE media watchdog has controversially ruled in favour of a complaint against The Weekend Australian's left-wing columnist Phillip Adams for neglecting irrefutable facts when describing a renowned peddler of race hate in Australia as a "traitor".
    In the same adjudication, the Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against Adams for asserting his target, Eric Butler -- the now deceased founder of the right-wing League of Rights who was known for advocating, among other things, that the diaries of Anne Frank were a hoax -- was anti-Semitic.
    APC chairman Julian Disney told The Weekend Australian the adjudication was an important one in terms of free speech, emphasising that the decision did not stop Adams from calling Butler a traitor.
    In typical style, Adams wrote in his April 2011 column in The Weekend Australian Magazine that Butler was a "truly evil man" and "Australia's most virulent anti-Semite".

    "If the word traitor means anything, Butler was a traitor, often investigated during World War II by stumblebum security people for his pro-Axis activities," Adams wrote.
    "He argued that Churchill, Roosevelt and John Curtin were covert communists, that then ally the Soviet Union was a Jewish slave state rolled by international Jewish financiers in New York."
    In a complaint to the APC, a friend of Butler and associate of the League of Rights, Nigel Jackson, said the description of Butler as a traitor was "inaccurate and deceitful" on the basis that he had served 

    with the Second Australian Imperial Force during World War II and had been found by the Reed board of inquiry into military offenders as "loyal to His Majesty the King".
    Jackson wrote to the magazine with this complaint and a further one that challenged the claim that Butler was generally anti-Semitic. That letter was not published.
    The APC decision recognised "the importance of free expression of opinion in columns of this kind" but upheld the first complaint on the basis that Adams had omitted to mention Butler's voluntary war record.
    It found the "failure to mention something which is so crucially relevant to the allegation as his voluntary military service during that war, including a hazardous overseas posting, contravenes the council's principles against misrepresentation or suppression".
    The complaint against Adams's assertion of Butler as anti-Semitic was dismissed.
    "The supporting evidence for that allegation is very much stronger, and the contrary evidence is very much weaker, than in relation to the allegation of being a traitor to one's country in time of war."
    The APC also ruled that The Weekend Australian should have published Mr Jackson's letter.
    Professor Disney defended the adjudication and told The Weekend Australian that in the interests of free speech, it was "crucial" to recognise that the APC allowed Adams to call Butler a traitor.
    "We have very specifically said Adams can call him a traitor but this irrefutable and highly relevant fact (about his service record) should have been mentioned," he said. "The word traitor is not the issue but (rather) the inclusion of a fact that would allow many people to think he wasn't.
    "I would have thought it was obvious that the time when our principles are most important to apply is when someone is a seemingly particularly unattractive person.
    "If someone thinks Butler is a particularly odious person, that is not the time to abandon our principles."
    Professor Disney said the role of the APC was not to decide "who is right and who is wrong" but to decide if "an assertion is tenable".
    "I don't want to get into a debate too much, but the Reed inquiry was done in the heat of war and drew a much more subtle distinction between being a real traitor and being of different views," he said.
    "Being an active traitor in times of war is a very, very serious allegation. And many people of impeachable character have been differing in view to their country going into war."
    Mr Jackson, a supporter of the League of Rights who first met Butler in 1964, told The Weekend Australian he had considered Butler a friend.
    "I was indignant," he said of his reaction when he read Adams's column. "If you hear someone speak ill of someone you admire, you feel the need to defend that person."
    He said he was pleased the complaint against Butler being a traitor had been upheld, "however, I feel disappointed over the way (the APC) handled my complaint about the accusation of Butler as an anti-Semite".
    "No one likes to be called anti-Semitic in 2012; it is a social curse," he said. "The word means an irrational and negative attitude to Jews and as generally something to be hated, whereas it is obviously possible to be critical of Jewish activities in some conduct without being anti-Semitic in that way."
    Mr Jackson said he would now submit an article about Butler to The Weekend Australian for publication and if it was rejected would publish it with the League of Rights.
    Adams was unrepentant.
    "I do not resile from what I wrote about Butler," he said.
    "I think he was a traitor to his country during war, despite the fact he may have waved a gun around."

    ##########################################################################

    Giving in to the green-ink brigade | The Australian

    www.theaustralian.com.au/.../story-e6frgd0x-1226457666931Share
    19 hours ago – This disappointed Nigel Jackson, its author, who lodged a complaint with ... nor the Press Council - decide what appears in the publications they edit. ... Thecouncil disagrees; its reasoning is set out in the full adjudication on ...

    The Press Council has no business telling Adams his opinion is wrong

    blogs.news.com.au/.../the_press_council_has_no_business_tell...Share
    The decision is odd enough, but why on earth is the Press Council even ... Left advocating greater media regulation, the Australian Press Council has ruled we must... The council adjudication says the complainant, Nigel Jackson, argued “the ...

    Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/Share
    He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10's The Bolt Report... The Press Council has no business telling Adams his opinion is wrong ... Thecouncil adjudication says the complainant, Nigel Jackson, argued “the ...

    Daily Telegraph Andrew Bolt Blog

    blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/Share
    He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10's The Bolt Report... The decision is odd enough, but why on earth is the Press Council even ... Thecouncil adjudication says the complainant, Nigel Jackson, argued “the ...

    ##################################################################
    Page 8 The Australian Sat. 25 Aug. 2012.. or 

    Press Council Adjudication: Nigel Jackson The  Australian Page 8, 25/8/12
    The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint by Nigel Jackson about a column by Phillip 
    Adams in the Weekend Australian Magazine on 9-10 April 2011. The column described the late Eric 
    Butler as having been a “truly evil man” and “Australia’s most virulent anti-Semite”. It also said: “If the 
    word ‘traitor’ means anything Butler was a traitor, often investigated during World War II by 
    stumblebum security people for his pro-Axis activities. He argued that Churchill, Roosevelt and John 
    Curtin were ‘covert communists’, that then ally the Soviet Union was a ‘Jewish slave state …
    controlled by international Jewish financiers in New York'.” It also said that Mr Butler's "favourite 
    theme [was] the evils of the Jewish race".
    Mr Jackson complained that the description of Mr Butler as a traitor was inaccurate and deceitful 
    because he served overseas in the Second AIF during the war and was one of a group of people 
    whom the Reed Board of Inquiry described in 1944 as “loyal to His Majesty the King” and “actuated by 
    a sincere desire to improve the lot of themselves and their fellow men”. Mr Jackson also complained 
    that Mr Butler’s views were inaccurately portrayed as primarily anti-Semitic when in reality they were 
    principally concerned with public service from a Christian orientation. Mr Jackson had expressed 
    these concerns in a letter to the editor of the magazine but it was not published.

    The magazine responded that the columnist was entitled to express his opinions on these matters. 
    The assertion that Mr Butler was a traitor was based principally on the criticisms of Allied leaders 
    referred to in the column and to a wartime censor’s statement that “the activities of [Mr Butler] and his 
    assistants are being closely watched by the authorities. There is no doubt that the general trend of 
    their propaganda is damaging to the financial side of the war effort”. The magazine said that, while 
    "the evils of the Jewish race" may not have been Mr Butler's favourite theme, "it was at least one of 
    his favourites". The magazine said it published two letters which criticised aspects of the column but 
    constraints on space led it not to publish Mr Jackson’s letter. 
    The Council’s principles recognise the importance of free expression of opinion in columns of this 
    kind. They also emphasise, however, that “relevant facts must not be misrepresented or suppressed”. 
    This qualification is especially important where an allegation is of such grave misconduct as being a 
    traitor and it is emphasised that the term “traitor” is being used in its strictest sense (which it is 
    reasonable to interpret as meaning active treachery to one’s country in time of war). This contrasts 
    with its looser or more colloquial usage in relation, for example, to mere expressions of disagreement 
    with national policy or to acting against the interests of a particular person or group. 
    The Reed report distinguished carefully between expression of views which might weaken the war 
    effort and, on the other hand, being actively disloyal, subversive or traitorous to one’s country. It 
    concluded that a number of people, including Mr Butler, had engaged in the former type of activity 
    (albeit motivated to a considerable extent by economic theories which they considered to be in 
    Australia’s national interest). But, except for suspicions about one or two unnamed people, it explicitly 
    exonerated them from the latter type of conduct and in doing so specifically mentioned the active war 
    service of Mr Butler and other named people. 
    The Council has concluded that alleging Mr Butler was an active traitor to his country in time of war is 
    an expression of opinion which, even if highly debatable, does not in itself contravene the Council’s 
    principles. But failure to mention something which is so crucially relevant to the allegation as his 
    voluntary military service during that war, including a hazardous overseas posting, contravenes the 
    Council’s principles against misrepresentation or suppression. This applies especially in the absence 
    of endorsement for the allegation from the Reed report or other authoritative source. Accordingly, the 
    complaint about the column is upheld on that ground.  
    The Council’s conclusion is different, however, in relation to the assertion in the column about Mr 
    Butler's attitude towards "the Jewish race". By comparison with the allegation of being a traitor, these 
    assertions were inherently less specific and the complainant  has not identified any irrefutable fact 
    which is of crucial significance to the truth or otherwise of the assertion. Accordingly, that aspect of 
    the complaint about the column itself is dismissed.

    The Council has also concluded that the magazine should have published Mr Jackson's letter, which 
    provided cogent evidence in relation to serious allegations against Mr Butler. The two published 
    letters from other sources addressed aspects of the column which were unrelated to Mr Jackson’s 
    concerns and arguably were of substantially less gravity. His letter was not inappropriately long, 
    incoherent or intemperate. Accordingly, the complaint about failure to publish the letter is upheld.
    Supplementary Note (not required to be published): 
    Unlike legal proceedings such as defamation, the purpose of the Council’s adjudication process is to express 
    views about appropriate standards of journalism, not to consider awarding financial compensation to people who 
    may have been damaged by some published material. Accordingly, the Council’s principles and processes apply 
    irrespective of whether published allegations relate to a living or deceased person. 
    Relevant Council Standards (not required for publication by the newspaper): 
    This adjudication applies part of General Principle 6: "Publications are free to advocate their own views and 
    publish the bylined opinions of others. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed.”; and General 
    Principle No 3: "Where individuals or groups are a major focus of news reports or commentary, the publication 
    should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, it should provide a reasonable and swift 
    opportunity for a balancing response in an appropriate section of the publication"
    ############################################################################
    An insult to the memory of many








  • From:The Australian 
  • August 25, 2012 12:00AM


  • Eric Butler
    Eric Butler, the founder of the infamous League of Rights and one of Australia's most notorious peddlers of race-hate. Picture: Simon Schluter Source: The Australian
    Now, in an adjudication that should give pause for thought to those on the Left advocating greater media regulation, the Australian Press Council has ruled we must not besmirch the blessed memory of our fellow travellers with Germany's wartime regime.
    The council has upheld a complaint against Phillip Adams for last year in The Weekend Australian Magazine describing Eric Butler, the founder of the infamous League of Rights and one of Australia's most notorious peddlers of race-hate and conspiracy theories, as a "traitor" for his wartime activities.
    "If the word 'traitor' means anything, Butler was a traitor," Adams wrote, "often investigated during World War II by stumble-bum security people for his pro-Axis activities. He argued that Churchill, Roosevelt and John Curtin were 'covert communists', that then ally the Soviet Union was 'a Jewish slave state . . . controlled by international Jewish financiers in New York'. And here we see his favourite theme. The evils of the Jewish race."

    Butler, who died in 2006, did not form the League until 1946. Around that time he published what has been described as "the vilest anti-Semitic book ever issued in Australia", The International Jew -- The Truth About 'The Protocols of Zion'.
    Jews obsessed Butler and the League. One of the books the organisation has been selling for decades (it's still available on their website), Anne Frank's Diary: a Hoax, accuses the best-known story of the Nazi holocaust of being "a preoccupation with the anus and excrement, a trait typical of many Jews".
    Butler's writings from the war years and the period immediately before are just as disconcerting, if not as immediately disgusting. They create the clear impression he committed treason in the most classic sense by violating his allegiance to Australia by consciously aiding its enemies while undermining its own efforts in his work; and one who commits treason, betrays his country, its cause and its trust, is most certainly a traitor.
    Not only that. His espousal of an aggressive Nazi-style anti-Semitism not only before and during World War II but after illustrates the extent of his betrayal of our national ideals.
    Butler emerged into the public eye in 1938, aged only 21, as a 

    propagandist for the social credit movement, which enjoyed brief popularity in the Depression years by advocating the economic theory of a Scot, Major CH Douglas. He argued that national economic problems stemmed from a lack of purchasing power that could be solved by government price control and issuing "social credit", as opposed to bank credit, to consumers.
    Ken Gott, a former journalist with The Australian, wrote in his classic 1965 study of Butler and the League, Voice of Hate, that Douglas "went on to equate bankers with so-called Jewish financiers and introduced a virulent anti-Semitic note into his writings. This was copied by his followers."
    Butler wrote for the social credit movement's magazine, The New Times. According to Gott, The New Times, sold on news-stands, began recommending the notorious 19th century anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion that depicts a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world and enslave the gentiles, as early as 1934.
    By the following year it was telling its readers the Nazis were being unfairly maligned and not to take reports of persecution of Jews in Germany seriously.
    "The whole of the great international news, cable and propaganda services are either Jewish or Jewish controlled," it advised.
    It spoke against urgings for Australia to admit Jewish refugees from Europe. "The Jew more than anyone else tends to be a monopolist," it warned.
    This was the paper Butler joined and where he asked in the August 25, 1939, issue, as Hitler's threats to Poland made a clash with its treaty partners Britain and France inevitable: "Is Danzig worth the life of one Australian?"

    Danzig -- now better known as the Polish port city of Gdansk, but then the centre of a semi-autonomous region coveted by the Nazis -- Butler argued, was "a German city with a German population", exactly the line being taken by the master of the Nazi propaganda machine, Joseph Goebbels, to justify the Fuehrer's claims.
    Butler had already advised his readers that Winston Churchill -- and his great soldier ancestor the Duke of Marlborough -- were too close to the Jews.
    As the war got under way, in December 1939, Butler told his readers: "The real enemy is not Hitler and Germany but the powers which control Britain and are working for the complete bolshevisation of the nation," a tacit reference to the Jews.
    But he was more explicit in 1940 when he wrote: "A stream of Australian youth is leaving to be smashed to bloody pulp in the second war to 'save democracy', which like the first war, was fomented by Jewish International Finance, will be financed and controlled by the same group and will mean their undisputed world domination."
    Unsurprisingly, Butler came to the attention of the Victorian publicity censor, Crayton Burns. In July 1940, Burns wrote: "I have taken steps to warn the provincial and country press that the activities of this gentleman and his assistants are being closely watched by the authorities. There is no doubt that the general trend of their propaganda is damaging to the financial side of the war effort."
    By the end of 1941, the commonwealth chief publicity censor, EG Bonney, was also on to Butler. He banned a series of Butler's New Times articles and ordered all state censors to be on the lookout for attempts to reprint them. An October 1942 letter from Butler to John Curtin accusing the prime minister of "a treasonable financial policy" was duly noted too.
    Not all of the file ASIO opened on Butler after its formation in 1949 has been declassified -- a sign of how seriously authorities in the post-war era regarded his activities -- but a wartime Security Service dossier on Butler from the same month as the letter noted: "In 1942, Butler was called up for military service and although this in no way curbed his political activities, it is felt that the entry of Japan into the war somewhat mitigated his morale-damaging writings, since the obvious affinity between his ideas and Nazism did not stretch to the point of welcoming an invasion of this country by the Japanese.
    "The question of whether any action should be taken against Butler was recently discussed with officers of Military Intelligence," it continued, "and the decision was reached that, in view of the fact that Butler is reputed to be a good soldier and has very recently been posted to a forward battle station, which should effectively hamper his political activities, no action need be taken."
    By 1944, The New Times and its supporters had come to the attention of the commonwealth attorney-general, HV Evatt. He set up an inquiry into their activities headed by South Australian Supreme Court judge Geoffrey Reed.
    The council adjudication says the complainant, Nigel Jackson, argued "the description of Mr Butler as a traitor was inaccurate and deceitful because he served overseas in the Second AIF during the war and was one of a group of people whom the Reed Board of Inquiry described in 1944 as 'loyal to His Majesty the King' and 'actuated by a sincere desire to improve the lot of themselves and their fellow men'."
    Yet Gott reports that Reed and his colleagues also noted "certain similarities in comment" between Butler's articles and the broadcasts on Nazi radio by Briton John Amery, who was hanged for treason in December 1945.
    Author and historian David Bird, who earlier this year published Nazi Dreamtime, a history of Australian enthusiasts for Hitler's Germany, says it is "certainly" fair to call Butler a traitor.
    He points not just to Butler's writings, but his proximity to the nationalist Australia First Movement. Its founder, Percy Stephensen, made its platform clear in his Fifty points of policy for an Australia First party after the war. Number six reads: "For national socialism; against international communism". No 15 goes: "For White Australia; against heterogeneity"; No 16: "For Aryanism; against Semitism" and No 33; "For responsible journalism; against 'freedom of the press'."
    Stephensen and 15 other AFM members were interned in 1942.
    "Eric Butler was never a formal member of the Australia First movement but he was recommended to that circle -- he was only in his 20s -- as an up-and-coming young man," Bird tells Inquirer. "He wasn't interned when they started interning them all in 1942. He wasn't interned because he wasn't a formal member of the organisation, but he expected to be. It was something that was extremely sensitive amongst people in the League of Rights circles that he was in any way associated with this group."
    Bird says Butler's early mentor Arthur Vogan (who in the 1930s had declared: "We badly need something of a Hitler leader here today! Without persecution, of course") "clearly accepted and endorsed the Fifty Points and the fact that he recommended the young man to Stephensen suggests that Butler did so as well".
    Bird adds: "There are people in the League of Rights who are quite adamant how unjustified it was to ever call Butler a traitor, but he was called a traitor at the time. And if you accept that these Australia First types and Nazi enthusiasts were traitors -- which is not the way they saw it -- but if you accept that they were -- and it was accepted at the time -- he most certainly was."
    The evidence suggests the judgment of the council in prosecuting the Butler case needs to be questioned, let alone its ruling.
    Let's not be beastly with the Germans continues: "Let's be free with them; And share the BBC with them."
    This Press Council ruling should make Finkelstein fans stop and think just who they might be sharing their media with in a tighter regulated environment.
    #######################################################################

    Giving in to the green-ink brigade


    ANYONE who has ever selected letters for publication can identify the ones to throw straight in the bin. Green ink is a good clue; all capital letters is another. Mention of the Jews' control of some aspect of world affairs is a reliable pointer, too, especially when couched in oh-so-reasonable terms.
    Phillip Adams wrote a column last year in The Weekend Australian Magazine condemning Eric Butler as an anti-Semitic traitor. When I received a letter informing me (the editor at the time) that Butler was in fact not a traitor and merely "responsibly critical of the Zionist influence in international finance", I applied one of my filters and chose not to share it with the magazine's readers.

    This disappointed Nigel Jackson, its author, who lodged a complaint with the Press Council, claiming my refusal to publish his letter was "irresponsible and unethical".

    Perhaps I made the wrong decision, although I'd cheerfully make it again. But that is beside the point. It was my understanding that editors - not readers, nor the Press Council - decide what appears in the publications they edit. It's part of the job description.
    The executive secretary of the council, Jack Herman, shared my view, telling Jackson: "Phillip Adams is entitled to his opinion, and the editor of The Weekend Australian Magazine was under no obligation to publish your letter." That, I thought, was the end of the matter.

    But Jackson, not satisfied with the ruling, appealed directly to the council's chairman, Julian Disney. The council's complaints subcommittee then decided to consider another aspect of Jackson's complaint and asked if The Australian considered Adams's assertions about Butler were justified.

    We replied at length, outlining some of the facts on which Adams relied (for more details, see Christian Kerr's analysis on this page). I told the subcommittee that I felt, given those facts, that Adams was entitled to deliver such a verdict on Butler.

    "Traitor is a damning word to use about anyone," I wrote, "but a man who claims, in time of war, that the Allied leaders are communists, while engaging in activities contemporaneously described as damaging to the war effort, risks that level of opprobrium."

    The council disagrees; its reasoning is set out in the full adjudication on page 8 of this newspaper. 
    But while it could have confined itself to declaring Adams's characterisation of Butler as unfair, it dispenses with the notion of editorial discretion to state (contrary to its initial position) that the magazine should have published Jackson's letter.

    With this decision the council has set itself up as an appeals court for anyone who feels aggrieved that their views have been unjustly hidden from the world.

    When the complaints start to pour in from every bigot, bore and lunatic in Australia, its members might have cause to regret their arrogation of the editor's role.