Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

Terror Australis

In the interests of scholarly research, readers need to be aware of a remarkable book on the importation of Nazi war criminals into Australia following WWII, with the connaisance of the government and security services. This book, published in 1989, remains all but forgotten today: there are few substantial internet references to Mark Aarons' "Sanctuary: Nazi Fugitives in Australia", yet it contains information that explicitly and clearly links the Liberal Party to fascist extremists; including sitting ministers of the Howard government who voted against legislation that enabled the pursuit of such fugitives on the grounds that it would be an "injustice", yet apparently have no such qualms about visiting similar "injustice" on those pronounced "terrorists" today.

There is no understating the importance of this research in current times: it clearly demonstrates that Australia has a long history of terrorism, visited on us by right-wing extremists in the 60's and 70's, where at least 30 bombings were conducted on Australian soil in that period. For example, I was personally half a city block from Sydney's "Westfield Towers" in December 1982 when a terrorist's bomb detonated there in the Israeli Consulate - an incident that is never reported today, and for which, like the Hilton, no exact culprit was ever found.

Yet following 9-11-2001, one is struggling to find any information that points to terrorist activity in Australia before that date: probably because most such activity is directly related to the very same Croat extremists who stacked branches and manipulated the Liberal Party at least through to the mid-80's. "Sanctuary" remains a hard to find, but extremely rewarding publication that is capable of serious damage to the credibility of the Liberal Party in it's showpeice "war on terror". Not surprising that it is still out of print.

An ABC Four Corners program in 2000 touched on the subject, but still skirts some of the bigger issues. On the subject of War Crimes, it is also interesting indeed, as I discovered while researching this item, that the FC story "The House of War" which (apart from its main focus on the uprising at Mazar-i-Sharif), "looks at allegations that hundreds, possibly thousands, of Taliban were executed in the desert by Northern Alliance forces, with US complicity" does not contain a transcript of the episode. Interestingly, neither does another story on US war crimes broadcast by the ABC: "Kill 'Em All", which looks at civilan massacres in Korea, nor does "The Accused" which exposes the Israeli-approved massacre in the the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in the early 80's. Is it really purely coincidence that the stories with the highest potential to embarass the US and its backers are exactly those for which there is no accessible transcript?

It is clear providing ongoing refuge for extremist right-wing war criminals has resulted in the corruption of our political processes and our democratic ideals, the question is "how far does it go?" And meanwhile, the crimes continue, as does the protection for the perpetrators.

Are you comfortable with this? Perhaps some of these references will add impetus:

• "Return of the Uglies" by Norm Dixon and "Why Nazis still call Australia home" by Phil Shannon, in Green Left Weekly
• "Revolting per se" by Hillary Bray at Crikey
• NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard 12/05/2004
• "The Right-Wing Underground In Sydney 1973 - 1977" by J. Saleam (caution: an exponent of National Socialism)
• "In God they trust" in the SMH, April 12, 2004

Despite his alliegances, Saleam makes the revelatory statement that

"...there was a conservative mobilization against Labor building at this time [1975 - ed.]. The management of the Right generally, was important for the Liberal-National mobilization - and it had to be done 'right'. Maverick fractions required close monitoring. Noticeably, much of the NSPA's [National Socialist Party - ed.] labour in this period, while possibly encouraged (...) was not as intensive as neo-nazi activism in its other phases. It seems that real political police disengagement from Australian neo-nazism had already occurred, lest the connection be identified - by the Labor Party."

Shannon's article appropriately concludes by reminding us that

"Today, as thousands of refugees fleeing tyrannies around the world languish in Australian detention centres, they may well be wondering why the red carpet was rolled out for right-wing murderers and what this shows about the true colours of Australia's 'democratic' government."

Australians are far too accepting of the "official line" promulgated by elected representatives that have a sinister agenda to conceal.

For instance, this January 2001 speech by Liberal Minster Tony Abbott places strong conditions on notions of "freedom" (note this same government applies no such qualifications when lauding the "freedom" the so-called "war on terror" is meant to provide):

"The dream of greater personal freedom [...] might be the value, ideal and instinct which commands the broadest loyalty and evokes the widest sympathy among Liberal Party members but it is not the only one and cannot always prevail. Above all, it cannot be systematised or converted into an ideology without losing the human context in which its appeal is most deeply felt."

On the day before 9-11-2001, Abbott in a subsequent speech now announces that:

"There's a sense in which capitalism is just a fancy word for freedom - that freedom of possession which should complement freedom of persons. The role of government is to ensure that people are genuinely free and not to insulate people completely from the consequences of free choice".

There is no clearer indication than this that the definition of "freedom" is to Abbott and the Liberals no more than a convenience for manipulating political loyalties. Despite the glaring disconnect between a "freedom" that "cannot always prevail" and the government's "role" to "ensure that people are genuinely free", there seems to remain little public concern for the actual definition or carriage of "freedom" in 21st century Australia. The government's attitude towards any historial perspective on terrorism can be probably adduced from publications such as the 2002 "[Parliamentary Library] Research Paper no.13 2001-02: Terrorism and The Law in Australia" which makes almost no mention of terrorist violence in this country prior to 2001. Yet this is a paper designed to inform those who have been creating draconian legislation in the name of "fighting terrorism", those same legislators with the elastic definition of "freedom". Politics in Australia is the art of semantic convenience and selective history.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 9:10 am ::