Aussie PM dumped by own party

[Mark Stapleton]

They did the same thing to Gough Whitlam in 1975.

I know there's plenty of evidence for CIA involvement in Whitlam losing office, but what evidence is there for Israeli/Jewish involvement? Do you just mean, say, general media assistance in generating an anti-Whitlam mood? Or something else?

What I'm saying is that the media's crucifixion of Whitlam roughly coincided with his falling out with Israel after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, as outlined by Colin Rubenstein and Tzvi Fleischer in their 'History of Australian/Israeli relations' from the Institute of Jewish Global Affairs website:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowP..._Relations

It is generally agreed that, despite a solidly pro-Israeli record up until that point, the election of an ALP government under Gough Whitlam (December 1972-November. 1975) marked a sharp departure in Australian policy toward Israel and Arab-Israeli issues. The Middle East was not a matter of controversy during the campaign and did not feature in the platform of either major party. Whitlam, speaking to Jewish gatherings during the lead-up to the campaign, emphasized his fraternal ties with the ruling Israeli Labor Party and friendship with leaders such as Golda Meir and Yigal Allon, and received a majority of Jewish support.[52]

In office, however, the Whitlam government moved farther from the United States and closer in its foreign policy to the nonaligned movement, where condemnation of Israel was the norm. Although Whitlam described this policy as "even-handedness and neutrality,"[53] such neutrality was a far cry from the sort also proclaimed by his conservative predecessors.

The effects of this new policy became most apparent during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Australia failed to condemn either the Egyptian and Syrian attacks that launched it or the Soviet airlift of arms supplies to the Arab combatants. However, once the United States began to airlift arms and supplies to Israel, the Australian UN representative, on instructions from Canberra, condemned both airlifts with a particular emphasis on America's.[54] Even before this, there had been repeated one-sided condemnations by Australia in the United Nations of all Israeli reprisals for terrorist and cross-border attacks, but silence about anti-Israeli aggressions.[55]

In a meeting with predominantly ALP-affiliated Jews called to clear the air, Whitlam apparently became angered by hostile questioning. He equated Israeli responses with terrorism, said an Israeli reprisal raid on a PLO base in Lebanon had been "not only a mistake, but a crime," and cited the growing Australian Arab community becoming "more articulate" as a reason to change Australian policy.[56] Most controversially, he referred to those present as "You people"; asked about the failure to condemn the Arab attacks that had launched the war, he responded: "You people should realise that there is a large Christian Arab community in this country."[57]

Under Whitlam, Australia also voted for a resolution equating Zionism with racism at a UN women's conference in Mexico, though it voted against the equivalent resolution in the UN General Assembly.[58] Whitlam later approved the establishment of a PLO liaison office in Canberra and became embroiled in scandals involving the acceptance of Arab loans to Australia and the ALP. In the 1974 Khemlani affair, Australia sought to borrow $4 billion from dubious Arab sources, repayable as a lump sum after twenty years.[59] Even more controversially, during the 1975 election campaign Whitlam secretly approved a scheme to obtain a substantial sum, often said to be $500,000, from the Iraqi Baath Party to help fund ALP campaign expenses.[60] It later emerged that the man at the center of the Iraqi loans affair, ALP activist Bill Hartley, had also written to Yasser Arafat seeking PLO funds for the party.[61] Approaches for funds also were reportedly made to Saudi Arabia.[62]

[Helen Reyes]

You're not convincing me, Mark, but I'm still listening.

1) Nicaragua broke diplomatic relations with Israel over the flotilla massacre.

2) Indian and Chinese interests fuel sales to them by Australian mining companies (probably multinationals).

3) Not sure what a sayan alarm is, but if you're implying I'm part of the pro-Zionist Megaphone effort, you're barking up the wrong tree.

4) I have no information on ownership of Australian media, please tell me more.

I'm still listening.

Are you just trying to be a pest, Helen?

No, and that's offensive of you to say that.

1. I know. So?

You just claimed not to know anything about Nicaragua.

2. Another news flash. As I've already told you, the tax is levied on the mining companies, not the customers. Unlike Zionists, the Indian and Chinese Governments have no history of trying to control western Governments. They couldn't influence public opinion here anyway, because they don't own the mainstream media. I've already told you that too.

The tax is passed onto customers, of course. "No history" is pretty strong language, and incorrect. I asked you to tell me who owns the Australian media.

3. Sayanim. Google it.

Another offensive reply by you. You used the term. You're implying I'm working to a Zionist agenda I assume, via Megaphone alerts. Please offer proof.

4. Rupert Murdoch, ardent Zionist, owns newspapers in all Australian cities, usually the main tabloid in those cities, as well as the national newspaper, the Australian.

So your theory Rudd was driven out by order of Israel rests on Murdoch owning tabloud newspapers plus the Australian. Am I getting this right?

Mainstream Australian newspapers, as well as radio and television stations, including the national broadcaster, are rarely if ever critical of Israel, regardless of its behaviour.

Does "rarely if ever critical" equate to Zionist/Mossad infiltration, or editorial policy, or general Australian opinion?

You are not listening, otherwise you wouldn't keep raising points I have already answered. Moreover, who cares if you are 'still listening'? Only someone with a rather inflated opinion of themselves would say this.

Yes, I do take myself seriously. I don't like to think I'm wasting my time here. However, this is your thesis. I would like to hear some arguments beyond "Jews control the world" or assumptions of Zionist media control. "Still listening" means I haven't broken off the communication, yet, due to rudeness on your part. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet, including about Whitlam, who was removed by the CIA as I understood it, because of the Hand banking stuff and some threats to intelligence-run drug concessions and production sites.

No offense, Mark Stapleton, but the onus is on you to demonstrate your thesis. I'm just the audience here, not being an Australian, not being a Zionist, not being overly concerned about Rudd one way or another.

Here's an alternate thesis: Rudd's party took the unprecedented step of removing him because the combo of mining tax and COP15 failure, plus some cold political calculations about results in the next election for the party. They did what Labour should've done in the UK when it became clear Blair was not implementing the Labour platform and was leading the party and country into oblivion. The Australians might've factored the Blair phenomenon into their calculations. Just a theory.

Since you sound like you're an Australian, I'd like to ask how much the Jewish community used the press to whip up a furore against Rudd in the preceding months. I'm asking because I do not know.

Does the Australian Jewish community really have the power of the purse strings to dictate to Rudd's party they have him removed? Is this documentable, or is it educated suppostion?

Thank you, Mark, for any clarification you can make to any of the above.

[Mark Stapleton]

Since you sound like you're an Australian, I'd like to ask how much the Jewish community used the press to whip up a furore against Rudd in the preceding months. I'm asking because I do not know.

Does the Australian Jewish community really have the power of the purse strings to dictate to Rudd's party they have him removed? Is this documentable, or is it educated suppostion?

I can't believe you are naive enough to think that the political process isn't manipulated by those with the money and power to do so.

Western democracies are controlled by lobby groups and the most powerful of all is the Zionist lobby, because they own the mainstream media.

[Mark Stapleton]

[quote=Helen Reyes]
1. I know. So?

You just claimed not to know anything about Nicaragua.

No, I said I don't know anything about Nicaraguan politics.

The reaction by various world Governments to Israel's behaviour is not internal Nicaraguan politics, but global politics.

I don't appreciate your subtle misrepresentation here.

[Mark Stapleton]

[quote=Helen Reyes] I asked you to tell me who owns the Australian media.

Why don't you find out for yourself, Helen. I'm not your galley slave.

[Mark Stapleton]

I asked you to tell me who owns the Australian media.

Please offer proof.

I would like to hear some arguments beyond "Jews control the world" or assumptions of Zionist media control.

No offense, Mark Stapleton, but the onus is on you to demonstrate your thesis.

Your repeated demands that I provide arguments, offer proof and demonstrate my thesis are depressingly familiar to a veteran of these kind of exchanges.

There is no onus on me to provide any more than that which I have already written. It's rude and presumptuous to claim that I must bear a burden imposed by you.

[Magda Hassan]

Since you sound like you're an Australian, I'd like to ask how much the Jewish community used the press to whip up a furore against Rudd in the preceding months. I'm asking because I do not know.

Not Mark but I just want to comment on the newspaper polls which have been used as a justification to get rid of Rudd. There is no doubt that Murdoch is an ardent Zionist as are most of the main stream media anyway it being a pretty standard operating procedure. Murdoch played a pivotal role, through his media empire, in the removal of Whitlam. The opposition party while they were in power had done nothing, zilch, zip, on climate change and indeed many, perhaps most, in it were of the belief that there was no such thing as climate change and that it was all made up. Rudd comes along and the first thing he does is sign Kyoto. He sets up a ministry of water resources, very important here as we are the driest continent on earth. As part of his Keynesian response to the capitalist meltdown he institutes a stimulus package which involves free and or very highly subsided insulation, solar panels, water tanks installed into homes and schools and workplaces. Millions in subsidies to the car companies to build hybrids. Alternative energy was on the agenda again. The government pushed very hard at Copenhagen to get it all passed which included the ETS. There is no way in the known universe that Rudd could be said to not be pushing hard for the environment especially compared to the other party. However, the ETS scheme did not get through parliament. The opposition party had a change of leadership. The previous leader was supportive of the ETS because he is a merchant banker and the ETS is a wet dream for them as carbon trading is just a new market for the players to make a motza from their new ponzi scheme. The new leader doesn't even believe there is such a thing as climate change. This obstruction by the opposition could have been used as a reason to dissolve parliament and call a new election but the Rudd government didn't and they almost certainly would have won had they done it at the time. Most people have no idea about the ETS but want to do something positive for climate change. A carbon tax would satisfy most people and satisfies Rudd, simple and straightforward, but that doesn't have the support of big business or the finance/speculative sector. Same with the resources super profits tax. Everyone loves the idea that companies will pay something at long last and if it is in the millions even better. What hasn't been explained very well is that this tax replaces royalties, which mining companies have to pay regardless if they find anything or not and if the mining company doesn't find what they are looking for they don't pay tax and may get a refund. But even this is unacceptable to the mining companies and this part hasn't been made clear to the public. Much of the polling has centered on these two issues but the polls themselves have been very biased, of the 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" variety and it is these newspaper polls which are being used to drive the whole discussion. There was a by-election in NSW, the most populous state, the weekend before. The former Labor member resigned due to corruption issues. There is no doubt that ruling NSW Labor party is truly fucking awful, brutal, nasty and deeply corrupt and sucks big time and the only reason they are even in is because the other party has even deeper and more corrupt ties to big business though they may well win the next state election because it is so bad for so long here. The post by-election results indicated to the Labor party that they would lose an election as things stood and this also played a role in the events of two days ago but all the ground work was done by the newspaper polls. I don't think Rudd was a Tony Blair in any way. Blair had total MSM support. They just couldn't sell brand Blair anymore because he was comprehensively rejected by the British people having been well and truly fucked over big time by him and Nulab way too many times. The MSM here supported the previous Liberal party like the UK MSM supported Nulab. Nulab took much of their style from our Hawke government. While NSW Labor is truly putrid Federal Labor had made most peoples lives better but has pissed off the mining companies and other big business interests as too much was being spent of people and business was being asked to contribute their share. The poll results are a result of the framing of the polls. The media covers the poll results but not the framing of the polls. The media/poll cycle feeds itself and it becomes self fulfilling. Rudd had his own limitations as it related to his party. He didn't 'consult' well with faction leaders and some were pissed off greatly. No doubt they were involved in framing the poll questions too and would have talked to their friends in the media to help get the ball rolling. The main unions behind this are known historically to be greatly compromised by their links with the CIA. Bob Hawke, a former Labor prime minister, and a direct beneficiary of Whitlam's removal had his start in the union movement. Hawke, the Rhodes scholar, son of a penniless preacher and ardent Zionist and now multi-millionaire businessman was there on the steps of parliament house calming the seething masses and unions from taking any action themselves in restoring their elected government. Hawke was always a totally willing lackey of the US. Hawke and Bill Kelty instituted a policy over the union movement called 'The Accord'. Basically the union leadership aligned with business interests and put the lid on any industrial action, kept wages and conditions down and ushered in the privatization and deregulation required by business. With the exception of a few the unions in Australia are very right wing and non-militant and this is one of the legacies of Hawke. This is also reflected in the Labor party because of their traditional links to the union movement. Rudd is not a union man. All Labor leaders since Whitlam have promised never to be anything remotely like him or his party as it is well understood that what little he did it scared the bejesus out of capital. Whitlam wasn't even from the left-wing. Just independent minded, educated, patrician and Kennedy-esque. Rudd was not like Whitlam either but he still thought he could run his own show. It is interesting though that Rudd gov was apparently more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than has been the case of any leader here for decades. He also took a strong stand on the illegal use of Australian passports in the Dubai murder and expelled a Mossad agent (but no doubt left others in place). His replacement Gillard's only public comment during the totally disproportionate Gaza bloodbath by the IDF was "Israel has the right to defend itself". Make of it what you will.

[Peter Dawson]

What I'm saying is that the media's crucifixion of Whitlam roughly coincided with his falling out with Israel after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, as outlined by Colin Rubenstein and Tzvi Fleischer in their 'History of Australian/Israeli relations' from the Institute of Jewish Global Affairs website:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowP..._Relations

Thanks Mark. I like it when people can back up their arguments with pertinent documentation. Wish I could! My Rudd-got-rolled-over-the-mining-tax theory is only based on a feeling that has come over me after half-watching the tv news during the few months build-up to this week's events.

These days, I'm always on the lookout for both pro-zionist bias in the media, and for evidence of resistance to the pro-zionist bias in Western politics. Rudd's expulsion of the Mossad agent struck me as a too-little-too-late gesture, perhaps intended more to placate the Australian pro-Palestinian lobby, such as it is, than to chastise Israel and thus threaten the pro-Israel lobby. If the pro-Israel lobby was threatened by Rudd's "anti-zionist activity", and they in turn set about ousting him, then all I've got to say is, by golly, ain't we in a spot of bother!

It would be interesting to dig around to get a better feel for the media climate during Whitlam's time, with a view to determining whether the displeasure Whitlam caused the Jewish community was translated into anti-Whitlam bias in media organs which were indeed infuenced/owned by Jewish/pro-zionist interests. Not trying to set you homework - just adding another thing to my to-do list.

*

Thanks for your post, Magda. As I said earlier, I've limited myself to half-heartedly watching free-to-air tv news only, and I do this in the hope that, in idiot-savant-like fashion, I may come to an accurate deep understanding of what the hell is going on in the world. The most striking impression I got with Rudd's downfall was that from channel to channel, as with so many other things, it was as if they were all reading from the same script. It didn't matter who owned what, it was as if the same organisation owned all of them. The unions certainly don't have that sort of power. They certainly must have been willing accomplices, having arrived at the conclusion that it would be in their best interests to ditch Rudd at this and not some later point in time, but the media was so very accomodating in providing the setting and scenery for Rudd's exit.

In the lead-up to the '07 election, I sensed early on that Rudd had been chosen to win the election. You could just tell by the way he was treated in the news, that he was the chosen one. (Not blokey enough to catch the bloke vote? Tell 'em that yarn about him getting caught in a strip club in the States! Want to make doubly sure of the result? Get some Lib insiders to drop some racially offensive leaflets in people's letterboxes. Then tip off the local Labor Party staffers...)

It's all very man-behind-the-curtain-ish, it seems to me.

[Mark Stapleton]

His replacement Gillard's only public comment during the totally disproportionate Gaza bloodbath by the IDF was "Israel has the right to defend itself". Make of it what you will.

And it further transpires that Julia Gillard's partner Tim Mathieson has for the last six months been employed selling properties in St. Kilda for the Ubertas Group, whose executive chairman is Albert Dadon, who is also chairman of the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange, which sponsored the trip to Israel last year by a delegation of Australian politicians, led by Gillard.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nat...5884482420

As such, he will have a significant public role to play in coming months and -- if things go well for Ms Gillard -- years.

This may well come at the expense of his current job, a full-time position he has held since January, selling apartments in a 50-storey complex in Melbourne's St Kilda Road for the developer Ubertas Group.

Ms Gillard's pecuniary interests register lists Mr Mathieson as a "property agent selling residential properties with the focus on international buyers".

Ubertas Group executive chairman Albert Dadon is also chairman of the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange.

Ms Gillard is understood to have travelled to Israel last year at this group's invitation.

Mr Mathieson is now expected to wind back his work with Ubertas to meet the demands of his new role as prime ministerial partner, a role for which he has been quietly preparing for some time.

[Mark Stapleton]

What I'm saying is that the media's crucifixion of Whitlam roughly coincided with his falling out with Israel after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, as outlined by Colin Rubenstein and Tzvi Fleischer in their 'History of Australian/Israeli relations' from the Institute of Jewish Global Affairs website:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowP..._Relations

Thanks Mark. I like it when people can back up their arguments with pertinent documentation. Wish I could! My Rudd-got-rolled-over-the-mining-tax theory is only based on a feeling that has come over me after half-watching the tv news during the few months build-up to this week's events.

These days, I'm always on the lookout for both pro-zionist bias in the media, and for evidence of resistance to the pro-zionist bias in Western politics. Rudd's expulsion of the Mossad agent struck me as a too-little-too-late gesture, perhaps intended more to placate the Australian pro-Palestinian lobby, such as it is, than to chastise Israel and thus threaten the pro-Israel lobby. If the pro-Israel lobby was threatened by Rudd's "anti-zionist activity", and they in turn set about ousting him, then all I've got to say is, by golly, ain't we in a spot of bother!

No problems Peter. I'm always happy to assist those whose motives are genuine if I can.

Yes, and I think we are in a spot of bother. As we have seen, it isn't that difficult for the media, if properly co-ordinated and synchronised, to mould public opinion, especially when an electorate has been sufficiently dumbed down, as in Australia's case.