Academic Hysteria, Part I

/37 Comments/in , /by

I am a faculty member at an American academic institution; for the sake of argument, the school is a fairly prominent blue state university, with predominantly undergraduate students but also, as befits a university, post-graduate education as well. The institution, like virtually all others in the USA, has a far-left radical administration, leftist faculty, and social justice-obsessed students; since late spring 2020, all of these unfortunate specimens have become hysterical beyond all imagining. In Part I of my essay, presented here, I comment on aspects of some of the initial anti-White “training, workshop, seminar” activity that has been foisted on us as a result of the latest moral posturing outrage with Black Lives Matter, George Floyd, etc. More to the point, and more broadly, I will comment on the overall racial atmosphere here and how different sections of our academic community contribute to it.

The latest  “social justice” barrage started with outrageously juvenile and bigoted sociopolitical pontifications from our overpaid and underworked administration, and promises to the students for all sorts of “social justice” activity and “rigorous reflection” and “training”— mandatory of course — for everyone at the institution, to eliminate the deadly scourge of “White racism.” I would like to also point out that promises were also made to change student admission and faculty hiring practices to favor “diversity” — that is, discriminating against qualified White candidates. As well, non-White students were specifically promised race-specific student benefits (e.g., counseling for “victims of racism” specifically for “students of color”); please note that providing student services based strictly on race is of course against federal law and also is in violation of official institutional policy that states that all activities that affect students will be applied in a manner independent of “race, color, ethnic origin, sex, religion, etc.”

Let’s briefly consider some low points of the “training” (i.e., indoctrination) so far. There were online webinars from angry Black women about the health crisis of “racism” — complete with pointed references to the “racism” of the 2016 election outcome. I suppose now we will hear complaints about all those nasty White racists who voted for Donald “Platinum Plan” Trump in 2020; after all, voting for a man who completely ignored his White base for four years, while promising a half-trillion-dollar handout to people who don’t vote for him and who in fact elected Joe Biden, is evidence of unrepentant bigotry. Other webinars told of the agonies of the Holocaust (while omitting mention of any historical episodes of White Christian suffering), isolated cases of medical malpractice involving Blacks, and, of course, the ever-present nonsense of “race is only a social construct” (tell that to Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug). Live “workshops” often also featured Black women (who seem to specialize in this activity), typically using ghetto slang and vulgar language to a captive audience of highly educated White and Asian faculty.

Another accusation faculty hear in such “training” is that the institution is “White-centered.” How that could be is a mystery, since our academic institution (like all others) celebrates the identities and accomplishments of every group except for Whites. One observes multiple celebrations and exhibits for Black History Month, Asian History Month, “Latinx” History Month, Native American History Month, etc. During such celebrations, one can find non-White students wearing racial pride and racial nationalist t-shirts of an extreme nature; if White students wore anything analogous, they would likely be labeled as “racist” and expelled. In the midst of all of this “inclusion,” one can look in vain for anything positive for Whites, Europeans, etc. The only mention of Whites, as a group, is always in a purely negative sense. So, the idea that this is all “White-centered” when it is precisely the opposite is something only deranged ideologues could claim.

What do I believe is the attitude of students and institutional employees to all of this? The students are close to 100% supportive; indeed, much of the impetus for hysterical “training” and the other manifestations of non-White identity politics and anti-White hatred originates with the students. The non-White students are essentially 100% on board. The vast majority of the White students — I’d estimate at least 90% — are strongly supportive of the anti-White agenda as well. No student openly speaks out against it; even if they were offended, they would, rightly, fear retaliation from fellow students, from faculty, and from the administration. Rarely, a White student will quietly complain, in private and in confidence, to the few sympathetic faculty that exist about mistreatment based on race. Typically, after “White Privilege training” what would happen is that White students would be verbally racially harassed by non-White students; most of the Whites would masochistically revel in the abuse but a few would complain behind closed doors. Staff also verbally abuse, in racial terms, those few White students who are insufficiently anti-White and insufficiently “woke” on these matters.

Administration are virtually all on the extreme left, whether these individuals are White, Jewish, non-White; they speak with one voice, without the slightest hint of dissension or debate. For the most part, I suspect this is sincere ideological fervor, but in some cases, I suspect there may be some characterless White sociopaths among our institutional leadership who mouth the dogma merely for career advancement.

What about the (non-faculty) staff? All of the women are “social justice” types, with White women “allies to people of color” being particularly extreme and unpleasant. White-collar men among the staff also are mostly leftist; however, I suspect that some of the blue-collar White maintenance staff include a few with more healthy instincts, although they stay silent. Faculty are among the most extreme leftists, with obvious exceptions such as myself; the majority of the far-left White faculty are hypocrites who live as far away from minorities as possible. And, amusingly, even some of these White progressives sometimes complain about non-White administrators who (and this is an exact quote) “cannot get along with White people.” By and large, however, the faculty stand with the administration and students, and most of the staff, in their adherence to radical leftism. It is interesting how these people obsess over the accidental death of George Floyd, a Black ex-convict who, according to the autopsy, died of a drug overdose while resisting arrest, but completely ignore the death of Cannon Hinnant, a five-year-old White boy shot to death, “allegedly” by his Black neighbor. Some lives matter more than others, I suppose.

We must understand what the real purpose of all of this “diversity training” is. Multiple studies have shown that such training is ineffective and indeed often increases bias. That is old news, and yet, despite these findings, the training continues to occur. But, you see, the ultimate purpose of the training is to abuse and humiliate White people and it is indeed very effective at that. And, if the training has the side effect of actually increasing bias and exacerbating racial tensions, well, that’s a side-benefit, since more bias and more tension is used to justify more training, leading to more of the desired abuse and humiliation and also to more problems requiring yet more training. Of course, as well, some people make good money from this nonsense, and the institutions that host the training use it as “liability insurance” to safeguard against “discrimination” lawsuits by non-Whites (they don’t worry about Whites in that regard). So, many people benefit, but, again, the main objective is to “stick it to Whitey.” Therefore, that White students end up getting racially bullied after such training is considered a feature and not a bug. That White employees are ritually humiliated by such training is also a feature and not a bug.

I would like to finish with comments about the overall racial and cultural climate in American academia, based on direct observation, my own institution being a perfect example. Are admission committees biased against Whites, particularly White men? Yes they are. After all, there are a limited number of admission slots and there are more candidates than slots. Therefore, it is inevitable that altered criteria for admissions that favor minorities and/or women will result in other candidates being rejected. This discrimination is often hidden behind the euphemism of “a holistic admissions policy.”

I read about the grading system changes in the San Diego school district with grim amusement. Readers should understand that the situation is no different in higher education. Not only have general standards fallen to accommodate low-performing students, grade inflation and easy exams being just two examples, but, specifically, non-Whites are accommodated in other ways. Cheating scandals? If most or all of the cheaters are non-White then you can forget about any real discipline being meted out. Faculty are simply told to “change the test questions” as if the new questions are not going to be targeted for cheating as were the old ones.

And these manipulations are not only for undergraduate institutions, but also for graduate and medical schools as well. The Step One exam for medical students is now pass/fail. Who knows? Perhaps it will eventually be dispensed with completely. We can’t have “disparate outcomes,” now, can we? Why have the MCAT? SAT? GRE? Maybe we should dispense with grading altogether and evaluate students solely on the basis of their commitment to “social justice.” What about student misconduct other than test cheating?  Are investigations into potential student misconduct biased against Whites, particularly White men? Yes they are. Interestingly, it seems that the group most favored are Asian-American women. No matter what they have done, no matter what terrible things they are accused of doing, they are considered to be “nice and sweet” and therefore must always be “given a second chance.” In contrast, the most mild, nitpicking infraction by a White male student is met with “he’s arrogant and we need to make an example of him.”

Finally, are academic institutions hypocritical in how they address alleged cases of “offensive comments and microagressions?” You bet they are. It’s “anything goes” with respect to hate toward Whites in general, specific White ethnic groups, Christian religious belief, men, etc. I do not want to get into real-life specifics here, as some specific incidents may very well be the target of future discrimination claims against the institution, but I can provide hypothetical examples that convey the essence of what typically occurs. For example, it would be considered perfectly acceptable to, openly and publicly in front of witnesses, tell an Irish-American that they “look like a drunken leprechaun” or to ask a Polish-American “how many of your family members does it take to screw in a light bulb?” or to comment that an Italian-American “looks like a Mafioso” and “talks like Vito Corleone.” But if one were to, for a microsecond, make a facial expression of distaste in response to the harsh smell of some sort of exotic and malodorous non-White food, or to, completely innocently, mispronounce a non-White surname, then that is considered a serious racial offense, a microaggression, and will lead to investigations, meetings, and “sensitivity training” for the entire institution. If you think I’m joking, I assure you I am not. It is also perfectly acceptable to openly disparage Whites in general in the most extreme and derogatory terms, mock men for alleged biological inferiority to women, and to ridicule Christian religious practices. That is all considered to be “inclusion” and a “commitment to eliminate discrimination.” Complaints about such overt anti-White and anti-male bigotry are of course completely ignored. Things can only be expected to get worse; after the Trump interregnum, these types are out for blood.

After the first round of our required “training” is concluded, I will conclude with Part II of this essay, summarizing what has occurred in that time and its effects on the institution. Who knows whether a Part III will be necessary, but it is entirely possible.

The Vietnam War and China: Was Walt Rostow Right? — With an Endnote on the linkage to US-Israel relations

/34 Comments/in /by

The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party. I call its approach of economic espionage “rob, replicate and replace.” China robs U.S. companies of their intellectual property, replicates the technology, and then replaces the U.S. firms in the global marketplace.
     John Ratcliffe, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, “China is National Security Threat No. 1,” The Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2020

In the [hermeneutic] circle is hidden a positive possibility of the most primordial kind of knowing.  To be sure, we genuinely take hold of this possibility only when, in our interpretation, we have understood that our first, last, and constant task is never to allow our fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception to be presented to us by fancies and popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out these fore-structures in terms of the things themselves.
     Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit, 1927)

In Fall of 1981, I was a newly arrived young undergraduate at the University of Texas at Austin.  The former White House National Security Advisor to U.S. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson was a professor at the Johnson School of Public Affairs, and the Rex Baker Professor of Political Economy.  His name was W.W. “Walt” Rostow.  I had heard of him through my readings in economic history, and thought I would see if he would let me into his graduate seminar in economics that he had otherwise made famous while at M.I.T.  He not only let me in with enthusiasm, but proceeded to load me up with a stack of his books to read in preparation.  One was titled The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.

This book became famous, eagerly embraced among the Washington, D.C. establishment as a political manifesto, and in the corridors of the Pentagon as a call to arms, as it was a clarion call for the defense of U.S. interests and its methods of free markets.  It was also perfectly timed to coincide with a post-war obsession against communism, especially the Soviet kind, and the threats emanating from Cuba, and later, Southeast Asia.  Much has been written about the men who championed the Vietnam War, the so-called “brain trust” or, as author David Halberstam called them in his best-selling book, The Best and the Brightest.  Rostow was among a group of middle-aged intellectuals and academics, most also World War II veterans and, as in Rostow’s case, who had also served in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA).  From that experience, and the ideology it reinforced, the advisors surrounding America’s post-war presidents were Hawks; even what today would be called “Neo-cons” and far-right advocates for U.S military intervention (or pre-emption).  But as the Vietnam war dragged on, their reputations were dragged through the mud.  In Rostow’s case—one of the last holdouts for U.S. victory—he constantly pushed LBJ (president Johnson) to commit more troops, more planes, more bombs, and more money.  To most in opposition however, it was only more blood.  And so it ended, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, billions spent in taxpayer money, and at best an exit finally under Nixon and Kissinger (not without still highly critical accusations of political opportunism) that had the appearance of a negotiated truce.

Rostow was vilified by the northeastern establishment, and effectively black-listed among the university ivy-league for his role in that war and in US foreign policy generally—until Johnson built his new graduate school on the Austin, Texas campus, and gave Rostow a permanent position, effectively its titular head, from its founding in 1970, until his passing in 2003.  In 2002, British historian David Milne came to Austin and chronicled Rostow’s tenure as a wartime advisor, and consistent with his general reputation even today, characterized Rostow (and named his book) America’s Rasputin.  In a more normal, “globalized” international order, Rostow does seem an anachronism; an outdated older generation of “communist hunters” that saw Red everywhere, and overstated its danger.  Indeed, much of communism’s threatening posture seemed to fade under a triumphant Reagan foreign policy that saw “glasnost” and “perestroika” (openness and rebuilding) under former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, collapse into utter ruin with the Soviet Union broken up, and America, seemly triumphant.  China was still a distant, if unsophisticated developing country beginning to be known more for making all the consumer goods that the U.S. had divested in favor of “high-tech” and Wall Street.

But the international order is no longer normal (indeed, some have called for the CCP to be officially declared a transnational criminal organization).

Rostow believed early on that communist China, if it continued to advance through the “stages of growth” into a high-tech, modern mass society, would be a profound regional, and if consolidated, a global competitive threat to nearly everything America stood for.  Rostow advanced the thesis that the United States had actually “won” the Vietnam war; he believed the war had “bought time” for the rest of South-east Asia to economically advance and escape Chinese Communism. Today, China’s growing economic, financial, technical and political influence isn’t through those regional proxies, and mere regional hegemony, but directly through China itself, and its increasing global reach, including in the new space race.  It is even seen by many as a model for a socially flat, “fair,” controlled, regulated society.

Today, China’s growing economic, financial, technical, and political influence isn’t through regional proxies, but by China itself: A giant high-tech, authoritarian machine with a population over 1.5 billion and growing; a military to rival the U.S. and Russia; aggressive ambitions in space travel, and abundant natural resources, infrastructure, and businesses with global reach.  Indeed, Rostow’s belief that Chinese influence could spread to Vietnam and act with a domino effect across greater South Asia (even Austral-Asia) may have understated the effect, and the danger, because the country most at risk now isn’t Vietnam or Cambodia; Thailand, Korea or Taiwan even, but the United States itself.  That is, China is no longer an ideological opponent for geopolitical control or regional hegemony within the context of competitive ‘empires” seeking regional dominion, but instead a direct, frontal threat to the integrity of the United States itself, as a sovereign nation. The CCP is the new “USSR”).

Indeed, was the U.S. the ultimate prize that China has had its disciplined eye on, especially for the last 20 years?   Was Rostow right?  I believe he was, and more: he was not only right about the threat communism posed to Western freedoms and liberty, but about the dislocations and distortions in scientific and technological development: China’s culture is imitative and assimilative; it is the like the “Borg.”  Resistance is futile.  And therein is the ideological danger: China has become a role model of conformity, conditioning and control to the progressive Left that sees the U.S. as a mistake; a selfish White beast of capitalism that pollutes and ravages; consumes and oppresses; the “Anglosphere” that is pitted now against the “Sino-sphere,” the Indo-spere; the Afro-sphere, and the Zio-sphere.

Indeed, the entire far Left “woke” culture of identitarian-based (racial) coercive moralism, rests on an effective spiteful lust for vengeance that naturally sees China as a solution for a flat, “fair,” controlled, and highly regulated society, but especially, as a model of absolute power.  The CCP is the new cult-hero of the radical Left globalist, who views the U.S. as a dying establishment society of privilege.  Except the Left doesn’t actually despise privilege; it despises being denied privilege for itself—and now, it wants it all for itself, with an objective of a unitarian, consolidated American political monism that destroys its opposition and consolidates its hegemony over all aspects of society in ways completely foreign to American traditions of individual freedom — economic and religious liberty, with a government subordinated to the civil public, and the civil public in control of its military, its property, currency, and most of its natural resources.  Communism upends all of that (but there is more: China has been waging an “irregular” war against the U.S. since at least 2000, and in the current environment, has been cited as responsible for the SARS-coV-2 virus, including recent accusations as the actual sponsor of what is called “Operation Warp Speed” and cited as a CCP assault proxy).

China — and emulation of China — threaten to dismantle most if not all American routines and traditions, and in an insidious way that slowly but consistently encroaches on every aspect of American culture and custom.  China has laid down the economic, geopolitical and military gauntlet, and with a renewed confidence, reinforced by eager if naive encouragement by America’s Left progressives who are overwhelmingly non-White, and largely Jewish in its most senior leadership, financial and media roles.

China’s ancient philosopher of war, Sun Tzu, said that the victors of a war can win without even fighting, by subduing the enemy through his own self-defeat and surrender.  Rostow’s Cold War hawkish stance of defiance was right: It is modern, strong, sober and confident, in the face of another U.S. political world view that is anarchic, compliant, hysterical and weak.

Endnote on U.S.-Israel Relations

It is important to appreciate a few things about Rostow that inform my full opinion of him.  There is much to admire about his aggressive, fighting spirit, even though there is much that causes me some reservation. That fighting spirit, however, was not always, or strictly, in service to readily identifiable, domestic, institutional or otherwise transparent causes, interests or objectives.  Rostow’s family were Jewish immigrants from Russia — a fairly traditional immigrant story of a family with modest means, working in traditional labor markets, and with the ambition to see their children attend college.  Walt Rostow and his brother Eugene both went to college and graduate school at Yale, where Walt received his Ph.D. from Yale, and his brother his law degree from Yale Law.  Both served in public administration and became deeply embedded in high-level state policy circles.  Walt also served in the U.S. military, the OSS, and that pedigree formed much of his persona and modus operandi.   However, many people, including myself, felt that he was inordinately ambitious and that this fueled a complex mix of motivations and professional and personal alignments.  He became usually candid with me concerning the complexity of competing interests in the U.S. government during the 1960’s and how those led to the rise of LBJ, and the further deepening of American military activity in Vietnam and bordering countries, along with a radical escalation of the intelligence agencies and their conversion to “black” or irregular warfare outside the normal chains of civilian, even military control.

It is my view that Rostow was a central, principal actor in the elimination of the legacy of JFK and the supersession of LBJ who had a set of policies almost entirely written and controlled by Rostow.  And while his hawk posture in Vietnam—possibly including preemptive tactical nuclear options—was indeed a bulwark, notionally, against China, he had an equal measure, along with his brother (the central author and advocate for the narrative deployed in the Warren report) of commitment to Israel, to Israel’s nuclear development, and to U.S. foreign aid becoming a normal feature of annual transfer payments to Israel.  Moreover, his naïve idealism about U.S. domestic social programs—he authored the “Great Society” strategy—led some to even go so far as to label him a “bourgeois Marxist” for his championing of government involvement, or even control, of many key industries.  His idealism also led to an aggressive platform of controlling wages and prices in order to “tame” inflation.

Rostow was a social engineer at heart, and in his inherent intellectual extremism, not unlike the radical Left today.  His ultimate loyalties are uncertain, and he was indeed a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who could justify any degree of violence in order to realize his academic theories and Weltanshauung.  This view has a particularly fascinating, if disturbing, similarity with a trend in academia among certain Jewish legal scholars in the immediate pre-war and post-war period.  A poignant example involves Harvard Law’s notorious and historically revered Felix Frankfurter.  Working in the Wilson administration in the then War Department (like Rostow in the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson offices), Frankfurter was assigned to Europe where he became actively, and officially involved in the Zionist cause, working with Dr. Chaim Weizman.  After the War, Frankfurter attended the Paris Peace conference, supporting the Balfour Declaration that the British sponsored to establish a “permanent home for the Jews in Palestine.”  As with Rostow, the co-mingling of American and British cultural influence, combined with Zionist interests, may have created a logic in Frankfurter’s mind that Anglo-Saxon culture, and the larger dynamic of the British Empire (and, later, the American Empire) could be integrated with the ambitions of Zionism.  Like Frankfurter, Rostow (and his brother) may have held out a broad front of US defiance and patriotism against communism, and an aggressive militancy in combating it. But they also had a passionate obsession with Israel, and a personal conviction that Americanism and Zionism were an effective identity.

Indeed, one of Rostow’s obsessions was Russian (Soviet) communism, and I believe he saw Vietnam not only as a proxy war with China, Chinese communism and the larger communist bloc including the then-dominant Soviet Union, but also a “shield” over Israel, and a Israel-US cultural, economic, financial and military duplex.  The extent of Johnson’s lobbying, commitment and favor on behalf of Israel was immediately apparent after he assumed office, and Rostow had a central role as a national security advisor in articulating, planning and directing these activities.  LBJ and his Rostow-headed national security team, declared that Israel had “no better friend,” and Johnson was the first U.S. president to formally align U.S. policy with Israel. Thus Rostow may very well have been as asset — an agent or working in some agency capacity — on behalf of Israel.

The United States may now be considered caught in a vise, between a perpetual irregular war of Zionist contours that systematically infiltrates U.S. institutions, including government, media, and key commercial sectors (central and commercial banking), combined with a regular, direct force (not without its irregular components, especially within our top-level research universities) prepared for direct physical confrontation — a new “Sino-Bolshevism” that combines a systematic assault on America’s Western cultural foundations and emulation of a massive Sino empire that has stolen U.S. technology and military secrets (often with our own political cooperation) and been able to create a first-rate military, reinforced with a fighting population five times the size of America’s and with a reserve population that is equally outsized.

American technology transfer to China was also facilitated directly by Israeli actors.  Israel has also appropriated U.S. technology through systematic, on-going industrial-military espionage, while reselling it, often to China, or Chinese surrogates. It is not surprising therefore that the current China-originated virus combined with Jewish media and Silicon Valley election engineering, speech suppression, and on-going public relations psy-ops, are together creating an effective constitutional “crucible.”  Indeed, is China in some regards, the alter ego of Israel?  Is a theocratic-ethnic, hegemonic, nuclear armed and technologically advanced social monism, the ambition of Israel as well? In both cases—China and Israel—the real battle is cultural, and culturally determined.  This puts Western culture in an especially fascinating position of necessary assertion across all regular and irregular dimensions.

Moreover, not only the United States, but the “Five Eyes” of Canada, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia are, along with the U.S. and Western Europe under cultural assault — a highly systematic, programmatic “invasion.”  Indeed, these countries have surrendered in several dimensions; they are more easily captured politically, institutionally and economically because they have less of a tradition of individual liberty and because their multiethnic social infrastructure is significantly more porous and vulnerable. Because of its strong tradition of individual liberty, the United States required a much more complex invasion strategy in order to gain operative control of U.S. systems.

Is Israel finally “done” with the U.S. in a bi-lateral mode, and changing its posture to a new phase of an attempted complete acquisition?  In historical terms, this makes actors such as Rostow (and his brother) into archetypes. They combine an American “immigrant” narrative with academic achievement, military service and senior national security roles—all reinforced with a lengthy university pedigree and authorship—that ultimately disguise their ethnic motivations that work against U.S. interests, and in fact actively damage its sovereignty.  Some call this the profile of traitorous behavior, and in Rostow’s case there is a constellation of associations and actions that reinforce this view.  His model of culturally and institutionally embedded special interests that are ultimately ethnically based has multiplied radically since the 1960s, and has become almost institutionalized itself in several key American institutions.

 

 

Some Jews Involved in the Great Covid Reset

/32 Comments/in /by

Jews have been an integral part of Western elites since the Enlightenment, and they have a very prominent profile as an anti-populist elite in the United States. So it’s not at all surprising that they have a role in statist, top-down, “let the experts handle it” responses to Covid. The following describes some of the more prominent Jews playing a central part in this unfolding story. There is no attempt here to label the Covid response as some sort of Jewish conspiracy—just that Jews are very involved at several levels.

Charles Lieber, Chair  Harvard Chemical Biology Dept., Director Lieber Research Group

As early in the Covid timeline as late January, 2020, the story of Professor Charles Lieber selling nanotech secrets to the Communist Chinese emerged. We were told Lieber was allocated $1.5M by the Chinese to set up a naanoscience lab at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT). He also received $50,000/mo. plus “living expenses” of over $150,000/yr. from at least 2012 through 2015 under China’s Thousand Talents recruitment program. According to the Dept. Of Justice press release, “In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT ‘not less than nine months a year’ by ‘declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of WUT.'”

Since Lieber was also receiving a lavish $15M in US government grants, his crime was in not disclosing this conflict of interest when questioned by federal agents in 2018. He also lied to Harvard, which when questioned, falsely—apparently unknowingly—asserted Lieber’s denials. Further charges of tax offenses were added relating to the money Lieber received from the Chinese. Lieber pled not guilty. In a move of classic chutzpah, Lieber has gone on to sue Harvard  in a civil suit, trying to get his employer to pay his criminal legal costs. Harvard has refused, but a court will decide. Lieber’s criminal case is still pending resolution.

The relevance of Lieber’s case to the Covid pandemic is profound when we assess the extraordinary research and development in nanotechnology applicable to vaccines and medical technology that Lieber has been involved in throughout his career. To summarize portions of Lieber’s biography at Harvard:

  • .”..pioneered the synthesis of a broad range of nanoscale materials, the characterization of the unique physical properties of these materials and the development of methods of hierarchical assembly of nanoscale wires, together with the demonstration of applications of these materials in… biological and chemical sensing (and) neurobiology…”
  •  .”..published over 340 papers in peer-reviewed journals “
  • .”..principal inventor on more than 35 patents.”
  • .”..Co-Editor of Nano Letters, and serves on the Editorial and Advisory Boards of a large number of science and technology journals.”
  • “In his spare time, Lieber has been active in commercializing nanotechnology, and has founded the nanotechnology companies: Nanosys… and the new nanosensor company Vista Therapeutics …”
  • Some awards: NIH Director’s Pioneer Award, Einstein Award, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Award, World Technology Award in Materials…
  • Some memberships: National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine,  Honorary Fellow of the Chinese Chemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science…

Given these references to Lieber’s known and public involvement with China, displayed openly on his biography page at Harvard, we must wonder if all the scandal is more theater to build the view of a false conflict between the US and China, and feed a potential psy-ops myth that the Covid virus was bio-engineered in China with US support. Or perhaps Lieber’s case is being used to divert attention from other US funding of China’s bio-weapons industry. If it’s a bioweapon, engineered by the US, China, both or anyone else, it is another failure if the goal is mass slaughter on a scale like the Black Death, given the absence of increased all-cause mortality compared to the yearly average.

The possibility of nanotechnology applied to medicine and biology, including injection with new vaccines, is very real. One of the companies that Lieber founded “in his spare time,” Nanosys, uses nanotech in its quantum dot displays. While Nanosys does not mention direct biological interface use for its displays, a great deal of news has emerged focused on the intentions of Bill Gates and associates to deploy quantum dot tattoos that accompany subcutaneous vaccine implants in the hand. The bioluminescent tattoo left behind (using Luciferase) can be read by scanners to affirm that this patient has been administered the vaccine. Lieber’s nanotech research and development with Nanosys is at least an indirect contribution to this controlling vaccine-status-tracking technology.

Lieber’s spare time allowed him to also co-found Vista Therapeutics, which is directly engaged with the nanotech-biological interface. Vista’s NanoBioSensor claims “Real-time, continuous flow… detection and measurement of your biomarker in minutes.” It performs “Detection and quantification…of proteins, antibodies, nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) even single viral particles!” Beneath a picture of Lieber attending some lab device, the caption reads: “Vista co-founder Charles Lieber shows detection of a single influenza A virus with the technology at the heart of the NanoBioSensorTM.” Lieber’s involvement with nanotech applicable to the Covid pandemic is made clear by his founding of Vista Therapeutics.

One other link shows how Lieber’s nanotech is directly connected to the pandemic. One of the most central aspects of the current Covid phenomenon is Operation Warp Speed, essentially a US military program to develop new genetic vaccines in record time to be deployed by the US military to almost the entire US population. The vaccine coordinator of OWS is Matthew Hepburn, who formerly was a project director at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). “COL Matthew Hepburn joined DARPA as a Program Manager in 2013. He aims to address the dynamic threats of emerging infectious diseases with potential impact on national security. Prior to joining DARPA, COL Hepburn served as the Director of Medical Preparedness on the White House National Security Staff.” The best information available on OWS and Hepburn comes from an interivew with investigative journalist Whitney Webb, in which she notes: “[Hepburn] oversaw the development of ProfusA,1 an implantable biosensor that allows a person’s physiology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity.”

Now consider that the Lieber Research Group (LRG) at Harvard has DARPA as one of its five major sponsors. Two of the other four are Naval and Air Force research offices. Here are some of the research areas the LRG is engaged in for the US military, with direct Covid opportunities today and in the very near future:

  • .”..biological nanostructures involved in communication, to blur the distinction between man-made and living systems.”
  • .”..recording of electrical and/or biochemical signals from individual cells and subcellular structures …  and in-vivo recording from simple organisms through animals.”
  • .”..science, engineering and novel technologies at the interface between nanoelectronics and the life sciences… and the development of novel cyborg cells and hybrid nanoelectronics-innervated tissues.”
  • .”..exploring the creation of cyborg cells and biochemical targeting of nanoelectronic devices to form well-defined cell/device junctions.”
  • “Cyborg tissue. … biomaterials that seamlessly integrate arrays of nanoelectronic devices with synthetic tissues. … 3D nanodevice arrays interconnected as tissue scaffolds, together with 3D cell culture… including advanced tissue-on-chip diagnostics and powerful new actively monitored/controlled tissue implants.”
  • .”..integrating electronics within the brain and other areas of the nervous system, which involves the development of neural network-like mesh electronics and a noninvasive delivery method into targeted distinct brain regions via syringe-injection.”
  • .”..enhancing human performance via brain-machine interface.”

Since Lieber is working for DARPA, this last most likely refers to super-soldiers, but much of the rest is clearly applicable to the kind of medical surveillance technology that is to accompany the Covid vaccines under the Gates’ ID202 and other programs. Even if the new vaccines are not formally legally “mandated,” such bio-integral monitoring and tracking of vaccine status will make acceptance of vaccines so thoroughly coerced that to reject them will amount to ostracism from the new global society, amounting to death by cut-off from the only life-support systems in town.

The Wolf Prize that Lieber received is bestowed by an Israeli Foundation, and many recipients are Jews. Lieber’s criminal case attorney Marc Mukasey may be the highest profile trail lawyer in the nation, and is Jewish.

Mark Suzman, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Chief Executive Officer

On almost the exact same date as Lieber was arrested,  on February 1, Mark Suzman officially became the CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Suzman had already been at the foundation for thirteen years. According to his bio: “Mark joined the foundation in 2007 as director of Global Development Policy, Advocacy, and Special Initiatives. Prior to becoming CEO, Mark served as managing director of Country Offices, president of Global Policy and Advocacy, and chief strategy officer. In these roles, he built and oversaw the development of the foundation’s offices in India, China, Africa, and Europe, and managed the foundation’s relationships with government, private philanthropists, and civil society.”

Suzman appeared on a panel at the World Economic Forum in 2019, focused on Africa’s challenges in meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (14:00). Suzman was formerly an official at the UN, and spoke mainly of funding and financing for Africa’s health and education sectors, and of course deployment of vaccines. He also mentioned “digital financial inclusion” for Africa, a major step toward the One World Currency planned for all humanity. Suzman also touted a “dual insecticide” which can overcome the resistance malaria mosquitoes have developed to the “first generation” of insecticides, that did little more than empower mosquitoes to overcome the natural sickle-cell resistance Africans had developed over millennia, and poison the landscape and water supplies, contributing to other health problems.

It would be surprising if Suzman was not involved in arranging the Gates Foundation’s participation and funding for the infamous Event 201 at Johns Hopkins University on October 18, 2019 — a “global pandemic exercise” shockingly similar to the “real” pandemic that ensued less than three months later. This suggests foreknowledge and planning for the pandemic, although foreknowledge and planning have been denied by JHU. The Foundation’s representative was Chris Elias, President of the Global Development Division, most likely  working closely with Suzman at Global Policy and Advocacy.

Soon after accepting the appointment to CEO, Suzman released a letter, “Reflections to Guide our Next 20 Years.” His statement is full of globalist and radical left phrasing, such as “the world’s willingness to cross borders, [including] those that run between nations,” “dismantle the harmful gender norms,” “reaching out to enemies to build a new culture, one centered on equality for all,” “the massive challenges of climate change and gender inequality” and “the equality of human beings.” Throughout Suzman praises violent Communist revolutionary Nelson Mandela, and repeats the Communist propaganda about apartheid South Africa where Suzman was born and raised.

We will return to this letter and its references to Suzman’s activist great aunt.

A Washington Post article announced that “Gates … did have an early window into the spread of the virus,” although Suzman noted that “‘We got an early heads-up about [it]”  ̶ ostensibly because of the Gates Foundation’s presence in China, which Suzman worked to establish. Most likely it was because Suzman was a central part of advance planning to position the Gates Foundation for the spread of the pandemic to the West.

The article also mentions Gates’ infamous “prediction” in a TED talk (38 M views in 43 languages): “His knowledge of infectious diseases led him to the conclusion in 2015 that a pathogen-based pandemic could sweep over the globe, killing indiscriminately and destroying economies. ‘If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war,’ Gates said in his TED Talk, which seems eerily prescient today.”

Eerie, yes.

Immediately after becoming CEO, the Foundation under Suzman granted $100 Million to, among other projects, speed the development of new vaccines. Two months later, the Foundation granted another $150 Million. Some of this was “financing to quickly spin up manufacturing facilities.”

At that time, Suzman gave an interview in which he repeated the Foundation’s mission, as he so often does: “We’re about making sure every person on the planet in the United States and around the world … has the opportunity to live a healthy and productive life. Every statement we make, every action we take, is toward that end.” This interview appeared on April 15, and focused on the Foundation’s “transparency.”

Six days earlier, Children’s Health Defense posted an essay disclosing that Gates-funded vaccine programs had decimated children’s health with paralysis of 500,000 in India, sterilization of millions of women in Kenya, and other mass manglings and deaths around the world. Suzman did not address this when discussing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s “transparency,” nor its mission to “make sure every person on the planet has the opportunity to live a healthy and productive life.” This is a hard message for the millions of vaccine-maimed and -mangled people of the world — the same people Suzman and Gates claim they are trying to save. Perhaps they are acceptable collateral damage.

Now we return to Suzman’s letter when he accepted the offer to become the Gates Foundation CEO in February. In most of the mainstream and “independent” media reporting on Suzman, no mention is made of his racial and religious affiliations. And this is continued in his letter, which contains some biographical disclosures: “My great aunt, Helen Suzman, spent her life trying to tear down the regime. She served in South Africa’s parliament for 36 years, many of them as literally the only voice opposing apartheid.”

“There is Helen, of course, and during a moment while I was driving in Cape Town along what’s now named ‘Helen Suzman Boulevard’ in her honor, I reflected on how her influence has shaped me. Her resolve to stand up for what was right and to speak up for those without a voice, combined with her unflinching commitment to a core set of principles around the equality of human beings and the simple, yet powerful approach to ‘go and see.’ As part of my tenure as CEO, I have set a goal, which I hope would make her proud…”

For Mark Suzman himself, strangely no Wikipedia entry exists. For Suzman’s great aunt, we do have a Wikipedia entry that reveals their family racial and religious affiliation. After learning that Helen “represented a succession of liberal and center-left opposition parties.” She also helped found the Progressive Party and worked to improve prison conditions for Communist criminals of the African National Congress including Mandela:

“Suzman was born Helen Gavronsky in 1917 to Frieda and Samuel Gavronsky, Lithuanian Jewish  immigrants.”  Her husband Moses Suzman, a prominent physician in South Africa at that time, and the source of the family name, was also Jewish.

Cass Sunstein, Chairperson, WHO Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health; Professor, Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School

A more recent important date on the Covid timeline occurred in mid-October, when World Health Organization Director and Bill Gates creation Tedros Adhanam Ghebreyesus appointed Cass Sunstein to Chair the WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on Behavioral Insights and Sciences for Health. Sunstein’s bio there reads:

Cass R. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School. … From 2009 to 2012, Cass was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and after that, he served on the President’s Review Board on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and on the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board. He is author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books, including Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

Let us review some of Sunstein’s history to assess whether he should be in charge of convincing the people of the world to have under-tested vaccines injected into their and their children’s bodies.

In 2008 Sunstein co-wrote a scholarly paper titled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” The Abstract states: “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.” This is not limited to online infiltration, but also In Real Life (IRL) agents joining groups to disrupt their belief in “conspiracy theories.” One example given is belief that the events of 911 “were carried out … by Israel.” Sunstein is advocating beyond-Orwellian thought control by labeling any views that deviate from Establishment narratives as “conspiracy theory,” and recommending direct infiltration and disruption. The KGB was hardly more blunt.

He advocated for discrediting the “false” conspiracy theories, but affirming the “true” ones—essentially the time-worn Jewish anti-populist perspective that politics and opinion should be molded by elites. Only Sunstein and the “experts” can tell the difference, and they’ll tell us. In Sunstein’s new role at WHO, this will surely apply to vaccine “conspiracy theories.”

In 2013, after Edward Snowden was deployed to inform the American people that they were under mass surveillance so they would self-censor through fear, President Obama continued the theater by appointing Sunstein and others to a new expert panel that would assess the National Security Agency’s programs. The Guardian, one primary channel through which this psy-op reached the liberal masses, reported on Sunstein’s notorious 2008 paper, his proposal to reformat the First Amendment to Free Speech, and his high-power wife, Obama-appointee as Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers. An ACLU attorney is quoted as including Sunstein among “folks… deeply enmeshed in the intelligence community.” This was partly because Sunstein had already been an official inside the Obama Administration,  Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The voyeur protecting the spy brothel, indeed.

Given Sunstein’s training and history, it’s reasonable to think that this panel was never meant to sincerely assess privacy issues of government surveillance by agencies like the NSA. Sunstein’s specialty is in rebuilding public confidence—or at least promoting doubt of “conspiracy theories”— in government surveillance and psy-ops programs.

Nudge, Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness was a popular book Sunstein and  a co-author published in 2008. “The book draws on research in psychology and behavioral economics to defend libertarian paternalism [sounds like an oxymoron] and active engineering of choice architecture.” It is challenging to translate this, but basically the book advocates the anti-populist perspective that for economic and behavioral “experts” (libertarian paternalism) restricting and managing peoples choices to get them to behave in ways the “experts” decide is best for them (engineering choice architecture). We can easily see how this could be applied to Sunstein’s new job at WHO, forcing the new genetic vaccines into people against their natural and reasonable “hesitancy.”

Sunstein was appointed to the original founding Pentagon Defense Innovation Board (DIB) of 2016. “The DIB “provides independent recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and other senior DoD leaders on emerging technologies and innovative approaches that DoD should adopt to ensure U.S. technological and military dominance. The Board is comprised of leaders from across the national security innovation base to provide diverse insight on DoD’s biggest challenges. The DIB has previously weighed in on key focus areas for the Department, including AI, software, data, digital modernization, and human capital.” Its mission: “to provide the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and other senior leaders across the Department with independent advice and recommendations on innovative means to address future challenges through the prism of three focus areas: people and culture, technology and capabilities, and practices and operations.”

Other appointments at the time of Sunstein’s were Neal DeGrasse Tyson, the public astronomy spokesman, and Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s multi-multi-billionaire and media mogul. Others on that board were Chairman of Alphabet Eric Schmidt, co-founder of LinkedIn Reid Hoffman, CEO of CNN Walter Isaacson, CEO of Instagram Marne Levine and VP of Google Capital Milo Medin among other big tech, big academia, big media and only one defense contractor (United Technologies).

The DIB has three sub-committees, and Workforce, Behavior and Culture is Sunstein’s department.

Should we feel settled knowing the Department of Defense is employing high-powered Harvard professors to study “people and culture” and “workforce, behavior and culture”? That’s us! We’ve known for a long time that the government military and intelligence departments treat We the People as a domestic enemy, and Cass Sunstein has been a key contributor to their psychological warfare operations.

Sunstein will need all his expertise as a master mass mind manipulator to convince the people of the world to accept the new covid vaccines. Successive polls have shown Americans are increasingly reluctant to trust these vaccines. It will be Sunstein’s role to reverse that trend, just as Jews Edward Bernays and others reversed American “isolationism” from World Wars I and II. Sunstein will no doubt use all his acumen to subvert these legitimate fears and convince, persuade and coerce his target audience—the people of the world—to dutifully take their vaccines.

Wikipedia profiles, Early Life sections, are often (not always) good for ascertaining racial/religious affiliation. Sunstein’s Wikipedia entry tells us: “Sunstein was born on September 21, 1954, in Waban, Massachusetts, to Marian (née Goodrich), a teacher, and Cass Richard Sunstein, a builder, both Jewish.” Sunstein is listed in Wikipedia’s extensive list of Jewish American Writers.

BTW notes:

Robert Walmsley, who founded the Harvard Professorship that Sunstein now holds, is the father of current pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKlein CEO Emma Walmsley.

On the Pentagon Defense Innovation Board with Sunstein in 2016 was Walter Isaacson , Jewish president and CEO of the Aspen Institute—and much else including CEO of CNN and editor of TIME. The Aspen Institute organized and hosted the now-infamous conference in Rwanda in August 2019 addressing threats to global health, co-sponsored by the Gates Foundation, and attended by Black Illinois  Representative Bobby Rush (D). Rush returned to the US and sponsored the Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, with the inauspicious bill number HR6666.

Another Jew on the Pentagon’s Innovation Board with Sunstein was the Marne Levine current COO of Instagram and former assistant to Jewish Secretary of  Treasury, Chief World Bank Economist, and Harvard President Larry Summers.

At least two others on the WHO TAG, Dr Varun Gauri and Dr Fadi Makki, formerly worked at the World Economic Forum. The WEF is perhaps the epicenter for implemtation of the global technocratic control grid it calls the Great Reset, in response to the covid crisis.

Tal Zaks­, Chief Medical Officer, Moderna Therapeutics

Still early in the Covid timeline, on March 16, Moderna Therapeutics, one of the top candidtes for developing and selling a vaccine for covid, appointed Tal Zaks its Chief Medical Officer. Zaks started his commercial vaccine career at pharma giant GlaxoSmithKlein in genetic research. Before joining Moderna, “Dr. Zaks was senior vice president and head of Global Oncology at Sanofi, where he was responsible for all aspects of oncology drug discovery, development and commercialization.” Zaks’ work was focused on developing new cancer drugs.

Reports conflict about the effectiveness and safety of Moderna’s previous vaccine attempts. A Times of Israel article in May stated: “Zaks said the battle against COVID-19 marked the firm’s ninth bid to develop vaccines against viruses, ‘and we succeeded with the previous eight.’ Thus, he said, ‘the degree of confidence within the company was always high’ that it would succeed this time, too.” Another report, however, from arguably the best investigative researcher working today, Whitney Webb, states: “RNA vaccine companies, including Moderna…, have been unable to get their products licensed for human use, largely due to the fact that their vaccines have failed to provide sufficient immunity in human trials. Examples of these ineffective vaccines include…Moderna’s efforts to create a vaccine for the Zika virus.” The Times of Israel article focused on Zaks’ over-enthusiasm that “Our Vaccines Work” as the headline blares. His claim was based on only 8 of 45 trial participants who “appeared to produce an immune response.” This does not inspire confidence. Children’s Health Defense assessed Moderna’s Phase I trial as a “catastrophe,” with “20% serious injury rate.”

Moderna released the second of its preliminary phase 3 results on November 30, but on its Investors page and through the Business Wire online publication. Moderna claimed a 94% effectiveness. “Today’s primary analysis was based on 196 cases, of which 185 cases (from 30,000 total) of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 11 cases observed in the mRNA-1273 group, resulting in a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 94.1%.” These were in the mild to moderate symptom cases. Understand that Moderna split a total test population of 30,000 people into half placebo and half vaccine, assessed that 196 got covid, claimed that 185 were in the placebo group, and announced a 94% effectiveness rate.

“Moderna plans to request an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency. … Moderna announced that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting to review the safety and efficacy data package for mRNA-1273 will likely be scheduled for Thursday, December 17. … By the end of 2020, the Company expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the U.S. The Company remains on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.”

Here let us review Moderna’s disclaimer regarding “forward looking statements” in its investor-oriented press release: “The forward-looking statements in this press release are neither promises nor guarantees, and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond Moderna’s control and which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors include, among others: the fact that there has never been a commercial product utilizing mRNA technology approved for use; the fact that the rapid response technology in use by Moderna is still being developed and implemented; the fact that the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established; despite having ongoing interactions with the FDA or other regulatory agencies, the FDA or such other regulatory agencies may not agree with the Company’s regulatory approval strategies, components of our filings, such as clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies, or the sufficiency of data submitted; potential adverse impacts due to the global COVID-19 pandemic such as delays in regulatory review, manufacturing and clinical trials, supply chain interruptions, adverse effects on healthcare systems and disruption of the global economy; and those other risks and uncertainties described under the heading ‘Risk Factors.'”

Moderna’s phase 3 trial was evaluated by “the independent, NIH-appointed Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).” How “independent” the DSMB is toward Moderna is revealed in this report based on documents which show that the NIH owns up to half the patents for Moderna’s new vaccine.

In evaluating the safety of Moderna’s new mRNA vaccine, ingredients including nanoparticles (linking back to Prof. Lieber) and PEG, a synthetic chemical, have been shown to likely be dangerous to the health of those who allow it to be injected. Moderna did not reiterate the health damage the vaccine did in its second press release, but its first one, on November 16, reveals that “Grade 3 (severe) events…after the second dose included fatigue (9.7%), myalgia (8.9%), arthralgia (5.2%), headache (4.5%), pain (4.1%) and erythema (2.0%).” This totals over one third (34.4%) one presumes the effects on older people are worse. While some severe events are no doubt overlapping, meaning it is not likely a full one third of test victims endured these symptoms, suffering more than one of these symptoms is a far worse horror for those who did.

Despite this vaccine having no approval of any government agency as yet, “the U.S. government has agreed to provide up to $1.525 billion to purchase supply of mRNA-1273 under U.S. Department of Defense Contract No. W911QY-20-C-0100.”

A couple years after joining Moderna, in 2017 Zaks gave a public lecture focused on the medical potential of “gene editing.” He openly used the phrase “hacking the software of life.” Today Tal Zaks is a main spokesman and promoter of Moderna’s under-tested, likely ineffective, quite possibly dangerous mRNA vaccine. It has financial and organizational ties to the US government’s NIH and the US military’s DARPA. Zaks himself has a long career of promoting under-tested dangerous drugs, including other vaccines, and will join the marketing and promotion of Moderna’s vaccine for the unsuspecting masses. Moderna already has a signed contract with the Pentagon for a further $9 billion to buy a half billion doses. We only have about 320 million people in the US. These syringes are not just for the military, they are for everyone.

From his Moderna bio: “Dr. Zaks received his M.D. and Ph.D. from the Ben Gurion University in Israel…” The Times of Israel article calls Zaks “Israeli.”

Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

World Economic Forum (WEF) Chairman Klaus Schwab has emerged into infamy as the grim specter of today’s The Great Reset. Among many other horrors, The Great Reset, quoting Schwab, will “lead to fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.” This concept is clearly elaborated in Schwab’s  book (ghost written by Nicholas Davis) The Fourth Industrial Revolution, as well as this year’s book Covid-19: The Great Reset. They discuss implantable microchips to read biometric data, brain scans at borders instead of passports, and other dystopian nightmare techno-realities. This is transhumanist globalism openly championed by a man formerly on the steering committee of the very influential Bilderberg Group.

Schwab’s Wikipedia entry notes that he has received over a dozen honorary doctorates, and then notes that he “is an honorary professor of the Ben-Gurion University of Israel.” Schwab also was … a member of the Peres Centre for Peace.” Simon Peres was a former Prime Minister of Israel.

In a remarkable synchronicity, “Klaus Schwab was having breakfast with Rabbi Arthur Schneier at his Park East Synagogue in New York when the two jets struck the World Trade Center,” according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Schwab decided to move the annual January WEF meeting from its usual Davos Switzerland location to New York City the following year.

Researchers agree that information on the background of Klaus Schwab is difficult to find. Most Wikipedia entries contain a section “Early Life” or “Family History” that reveals useful background, but not so with Schwab. The only reference to his earlier life in his Wikipedia entry is a parenthetical entry after his name: “born 30 March 1938 in Ravensburg, Germany.” Other bios on Schwab also mention he was born in Germany, but not that he is of German ethnicity. Even an essay titled “Getting to Know Klaus Schwab” makes no mention of his birth, ethnicity, religion or childhood.

This entry gives us the most content on Schwab’s childhood available: “Klaus Schwab was born in 1938, in Germany, but on the Swiss border. His father, who was a businessman, was able to cross that border during WWII, while the son and his mother had to stay behind in a country that became progressively more and more war-ridden. It made the young boy acutely aware of the strangeness of borders: destruction and death on one side, peace and prosperity on the other.” A convenient and compelling influence for someone advocating One World Government and listing “Nationalism” among other scourges of humanity such as poverty, war, disease, racism and climate change.

These and other associations Schwab has had with Israel, the vague references to his having been born in Germany but not stating that he is of German ancestry, and other affiliations he has had with Jews around the world are not definitive on their own. Schwab has had associations and affiliations with many peoples, notably the Chinese, as we would expect from an oligarch organizer “doing good” for the world. However, no other mention of Schwab’s racial and religious identity has been found, and similar to what we have seen with these other Jews involved with the Covid agenda, his Jewishness is not just downplayed, it may be excluded altogether. Possibly, Klaus Schwab is a crypto-Jew.

Dishonorable Mention: The Council on Foreign Relations

Brief mention must be made of the top leadership of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential body right up there in the ranks of the WEF and Bilderberg Group. The CFR has been actively and extensively involved in the Covid agenda since it began, and in June conducted a panel event called “Learning From Past Pandemics.”This featured a number of Jews, pro-Zionists explaining how disease scares in history should inform our response to the deadly Covid today. One presenter even compared Covid to the Black Death.

Of the four members of the CFR leadership—President, Chairman,  and two Vice Chairs—three are Jews. Richard Haas has been President for seventeen years, with the usual past trajectory through Rhodes Scholar, government agencies, advisor to Presidents, etc. CFR Chair David Rubenstein, co-founder of one of the largest investment firms in the world, the Carlysle Group, is also a board member of the World Economic Forum. His ethnicity is obvious. Vice-Chair Blaire Efron is another Jewish billionaire investment manager and worked at UBS Warburg bank earlier in his career. Jami Miscic is the other Vice-Chair, and while not Jewish, is also President of the Kissinger Institute, and formerly worked at Lehman Brothers investment bank (gone bankrupt), both Jewish institutions. A more detailed analysis of the CFR is found here.

Conclusion

We have examined just some of the more prominent Jews involved in and profitting from imposing the Covid agenda. Their Jewish affiliations have been neglected in most reports, but here we expose some covert Covid Jews operating in our crucial year in world history, 2020. Further developments will reveal whether we are shifted into the Great Reset technocratic control system long prepared for us, or arise to reject this grim future and retain and expand our inalienable freedoms and rights.

Mark Leibler: Powerbroker for Australia’s Jewish Plutocracy — PART 5

/1 Comment/in /by

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.
Go to Part 4.

Bob Carr — Friend then Exasperated Foe of the Israel Lobby

In his memoir, Run for Your Life, published in 2018, former foreign minister Bob Carr outlined his journey of disillusionment with Israel and with its supporters in Australia. Carr’s first clash with Rubinstein and Leibler’s AIJAC was in 2003 when Sydney University’s Peace Foundation awarded its annual Sydney Peace Prize to veteran Palestinian activist and politician Hanan Ashwari, citing her commitment to human rights and the peace process in the Middle East. Rubinstein, outraged at the decision, claimed Ashwari was “an apologist for violence and terrorism,” and called on Carr (then Premier of New South Wales) to refuse to present the prize to Ashwari. Carr refused.

The City of Sydney, one of the sponsors of the prize, which came under fire from AIJAC, suddenly announced it would boycott the ceremony. Professor Stuart Rees, head of the Sydney Peace Foundation, was subjected to “severe pressure” including abusive phone calls over the Ashwari decision. Rees noted that threats were made to “our supporters to the effect that their interests might be affected if they pursue their association with the peace prize.”[1] Based on his experience as editor of The Age, Gawenda has “no doubt Rees and Carr were subjected to abusive phone calls from individuals who see anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel everywhere.”

Looking back on the Ashwari episode, Leibler regards the AIJAC’s militant approach that resulted in alienating the likes of Carr (hitherto a strong supporter of Jews and Israel) as a strategic mistake. He claims that, if AIJAC had its time again, it would not have been so concerned about Ashwari’s Peace Prize. “It was not that important. Sometimes, we have to know when silence is best. I think I have certainly learnt not to react to everything. And I think I have learnt to say things in a more measured way.”[2] When asked whether AIJAC’s actions turned friends (like Carr) into enemies, Leibler claimed “Making us responsible for our enemies is to blame Jews for anti-Semitism. I utterly reject that.”[3]

Recalling the hysterical reaction of organized Jewry to his presenting the Sydney Peace Prize to Ashwari in 2003, Carr writes:

The storm of criticism that then occurred was a shock … and an insight. Soon after my participation was announced, Jewish leaders launched an international campaign to force me to withdraw from the award. There were threats of funding being withdrawn from the University. … Letters of protest were dispatched about the awards going to a Palestinian, switchboards were set aflame with indignation.[4]

This incident underscored for Carr the power of the Israel Lobby in Australia to distort and control Australian foreign policy. Particularly egregious, in Carr’s view, was the influence exerted by the people who ran AIJAC — Leibler and Rubinstein in particular. Of the Lobby, Carr wrote:

The hold of the Israel Lobby over Australian politicians is based on two facts. First, the donations to political parties from the Jewish community leadership; second, paid trips to Israel extended to every Member of Parliament and journalists [i.e, Rambam Fellowships]. From the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) over 700 trips alone. … No other community, treats politicians as their poodles.[5]

One of those treated as a poodle, Carr implies, was Prime Minister Gillard, in whose Cabinet he served as Foreign Minister. Eight months after his appointment to this position, in November 2012, his relationship with Gillard became strained over a looming United Nations vote on a resolution to grant non-member status to Palestine. Carr supported voting in favor of the resolution, while Gillard was “adamant that Australia should vote against it.”[6] Carr lobbied colleagues in favor of the resolution and in the end, with a significant bloc of Labor MPs sympathetic to Carr’s stance, Gillard decided Australia would abstain from voting on the resolution.

Carr was convinced that Bruce Wolpe, Gillard’s Court Jew and “liaison with the Jewish community,” was Leibler’s spy in the Prime Minister’s Office. Carr shared this view with Leibler at a meeting at the ABL offices in Melbourne. According Leibler, Carr spent an hour “ranting and raving and yelling to the point that it could be heard all over the office.” Wolpe’s name got several mentions. Afterwards, “the two men hardly spoke to each other again and avoided each other as much as possible, such was the level of distrust between them.”[7]

Julia Gillard with Bruce Wolpe, “Leibler’s spy in the Prime Minister’s office”

In Diary of a Foreign Minister, published in 2014, Carr describes how the Israel Lobby made his life hell whenever he wanted to issue a statement on any issue involving Israel. He found it exasperating that he couldn’t even issue a “routine expression of concern about the spread of settlements” without aggressive push back from the Lobby. As she had done to Rudd when he was Foreign Minister, Gillard vetted — and sometimes vetoed — his statements on Israel and the Palestinians. Carr notes that some of his proposed statements “merely repeated government policy, for instance that the settlements were obstacles to peace.”[8] Gillard expressed surprise at Carr’s exasperation on these issues when surely Carr “must have known of the issues she had with Rudd about Middle East policy and that she was on good terms with Leibler.”[9]

Indeed, Carr knew at the time of his appointment that Gillard had been captured by organized Jewry. Critical to this capture was when, in 2001, while Shadow Health Minister, Gillard “first went to Israel in a group of Labor and Liberal politicians chosen for AIJAC’s Rambam Israel Fellowship.” The effect of this trip on Gillard was far from unique, with Carr noting how “the program has produced scores of politicians and journalists who are poodles of AIJAC.”[10] Due to such influence, both Rudd and Carr came to believe that the Israel Lobby was a malign force that “distorted Australia’s policies on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and turned many politicians and journalists into the Lobby’s puppets, or, to use Carr’s word, ‘poodles.’”[11]

To gauge the propagandistic effectiveness of Rambam Fellowships, “participants are asked to provide feedback of their experience. Some are invited to a function to talk about what they saw, whom they spoke to, and the impact the visit had on them.”[12] Gillard first met Leibler at one of these debriefing sessions. Over subsequent years, “Leibler’s relationship with Gillard continued to grow. After Australia’s abstention in the vote in the United Nations, the two met. Gillard had come to appreciate Leibler’s keen sense of what was happening in politics and she appreciated his encouragement and concern for her.”[13] When asked whether she thought AIJAC, and Leibler in particular, were powerful, Gillard was unequivocal:

Look, yes in the sense that the Jewish community in Australia — the Melbourne community in particular, because I know it best — is well connected. Put it another way, the community has done a good job over many years of developing deep connections across both side of Australian politics. They therefore have the networks and the access to put a particular point of view.[14] 

In 2010, Gillard appointed Leibler to co-chair her Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. In 2017 a proposal from the Expert Panel recommended that an Aboriginal advisory body be included in the Australian Constitution. Aboriginal activist Marcia Langton claimed that Leibler told her “that his own history, being Jewish, gave him a great understanding of the genocide of the indigenous people and you know, there’s no question that it did.”[15]

Leibler and the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Governments

The power of AIJAC has not waned since Gillard’s tenure as Prime Minister. This reality is clear to Gawenda who notes the fact that “a meeting  between Prime Minister Scott Morrison and AIJAC’s three most senior leaders could be arranged not long after Morrison replaced Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Australian government [in 2018] is evidence of an organization at the height of its influence.”[16] These leaders were Leibler, Rubinstein and Solomon Lew, the billionaire retailer and long-time funder of AIJAC. Rubinstein had proposed the meeting and was surprised how quickly Morrison responded. For Gawenda, Morrison’s swift response was “not really surprising.”

Although Leibler did not know Morrison well, he had met him several times when Morrison was Treasurer, and Leibler was close to Josh Frydenberg, the Liberal Party’s Deputy Leader and newly elected federal Treasurer, whom he had known for 20 years or more, since Frydenberg had worked as an advisor to John Howard. By the time Leibler and the delegation met with Morrison, Frydenberg had become the most senior Jewish politician in Australian history. There is little doubt that Frydenberg had briefed Morrison about a possible meeting with the AIJAC people. What’s more, Morrison would have been aware of Leibler’s connections in Canberra, probably remembering that his predecessor as Prime Minister [Malcolm Turnbull] had chosen Leibler to MC at the official lunch for Benjamin Netanyahu in Sydney in February 2017.[17]

The AIJAC leaders took a list of demands to the meeting with Morrison. Their top priority was for Australia to officially abandon its previous support for the Iran nuclear deal (a purely symbolic gesture given Australia was not a party to that agreement). The second priority was for Australia to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Three days after the meeting, Morrison announced that the government was examining the possibility of moving the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. At the media conference Morrison refused to say whether he had been briefed by Foreign Affairs or by his own department on the consequences of the embassy move. Clearly, the Morrison acted purely at the urging of the AIJAC triumvirate and his deputy leader Frydenberg “who made it clear that he favored its move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.” Frydenberg said he “would not comment on any meeting he might have had with the Prime Minister” in relation to this issue.[18] Before the 2019 federal election, Morrison announced his government was committed to moving the Australian embassy to West Jerusalem when the time was right.

Australia’s current Treasurer Josh Frydenberg (front left)

Gawenda observes there “is little doubt that Leibler and AIJAC push on open doors when it comes to having access to the Prime Minister and senior ministers in his government.” This has been the case for many years now: at an AIJAC function held at the offices of ABL in 2013, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott was asked what his position was on some aspect of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. “Oh, my position is whatever Mark and Colin’s position is,” he answered.[19]

Chair of the United Jewish Appeal

By the early 1990s, Isi and Mark Leibler had become senior leaders not only of Australian Jewry, but also in the organizations of world Jewry. Isi had served numerous terms as President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and was co-chairman of the World Jewish Congress. Mark had been president of Zionist Federation of Australia for a decade, and was a Jewish leader with “unmatched political contacts in Canberra and a record of getting things done.” By the late 1990s, in addition to his chairmanship of AIJAC, he was president of the United Jewish Appeal.

The United Jewish Appeal determines how money raised in diaspora communities will be spent on projects in Israel and, increasingly, in diaspora Jewish communities, especially the six-million-strong community in the United States. For more than 25 years, Leibler has flown to Israel for meetings of Keren Hayesod, the Israel-based institution that governs United Israel Appeal (UIA) organizations that operate worldwide except in the United States, and of the Jewish Agency for Israel. The Jewish Agency, with an annual budget of around $US400 million (mainly raised by American Jewish organizations) is the most financially powerful Jewish organization in the world.

Increasingly, it funds “projects in the diaspora that are designed to bolster Jewish identity and connection to Israel in communities where assimilation looms large and where there is evidence of weakening ties to Israel. It funds the Birthright programs that send young Jews on organized tours to Israel and around 1,800 shlichim, the young Israeli emissaries sent to diaspora communities to work in schools, universities and Zionist youth groups in order to promote the migration of young Jews to Israel. The Jewish Agency also funds diaspora Zionist organizations such as ZFA.[20]

In Leibler’s six years as President of the United Jewish Appeal from 1995 to 2001, its Australian affiliates raised around $200 million. In some years they sent more money to Karen Hayesod than equivalents in Canada (which has a Jewish population three times larger than Australia) and more than any Jewish community in Europe (including France). These fundraising results gave Leibler significant influence and power in international Zionist organizations.

Under Australian law, donations to charities that run programs in developing nations were tax-deductible. Despite the fact Israel is a wealthy country, Leibler “with his expertise in tax law, managed to win an exemption for the UIA.” UIA’s tax-deductible status was threaten in 1998 when Israel was officially classified as a First World country. In response:

Leibler went to see [then] Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and told him that despite Israel’s First-World status, the funds raised by the UIA were going to refugee resettlement in Israel and to Jews living in difficult circumstances in Eastern Europe, Ethiopia and the Balkans. Downer was convinced and shepherded through amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act that allowed UIA to retain its tax deductibility and, therefore, its position as the world’s biggest fundraiser for Israel outside the United States. This achievement helped ensure Leibler’s standing as one of the world’s outstanding Zionist leaders.[21] 

Leibler’s networking and connections with senior Australian and Israeli politicians, together with the very large donations of wealthy Australian Jews to the UIA, gave him great clout in world Jewry. It has long been clear to Leibler that “there would never be a mass Aliyah from the prosperous and increasingly assimilated Jewish communities of the West,” and that “donating to Israel was a way to express support and even love for the country.”[22]

Leibler’s successor as chairman of the Jewish Agency, Natan Sharanksy, who held the position from 2009 to 2018, changed Leibler’s strategic focus, shifting away from projects in Israel to “projects that strengthened Jewish identity, particularly in the United States,” which become a “first-order priority” for the Agency.[23]  Sharansky’s successor, former Israeli politician, Isaac Herzog, reaffirmed this focus on the “American Jewish community, so large and powerful, but so vulnerable, at least in terms of Jewish continuity.”[24] Regarding Australian Jewry, by contrast, Herzog noted there was “no other community like it in the world. So united, so strongly Zionist.”[25]

Contemporary Demographics of Australian Jewry

Australian Jews are overwhelming middle to upper class, with surveys finding 78 per cent of Australian Jews were “comfortable or better.” Around one-in-five Australian Jews had an annual personal income of $104,000 or more, compared to 7 per cent of the general population. Australian Jews mostly live in the middle-class or upper-middle-class suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney. The socioeconomic profile of Australian Jews is reflected in voting patterns. Around half vote for the Liberal Party, as opposed to the Labor and other minor parties. The Liberal Party gives them the neo-liberal economic policies (including tax cuts) that benefit them financially, while also being more enthusiastically pro-Zionist than the Labor Party. The Liberal Party is also fully on board with the mass immigration and multiculturalism that comprise the central pillars of the Jewish ethno-political strategy for the West. Disputes within Australian Jewry over the last several decades (many involving Isi Leibler) have not been about this agenda, according to Gawenda, “but about tactics and personal status, about who speaks for the community and, above all, about who has access to prime ministers and senior government ministers.”[26]

While equally wealthy, American Jewry, a community three or four generations older than Australian Jewry, is more assimilated with higher rates of intermarriage — a trend which, according to Gawenda, threatens the world’s largest Jewish community. The intermarriage rate in Australia is less than half that of the United States, with rates among Orthodox Jews close to zero.

This trend has been bolstered over the last few decades by the arrival, since the end of apartheid, of over 15,000 South African Jews in Australia. These Jews “are the world’s most educated émigrés, 70.8 per cent at tertiary level, the most well-heeled, the most cosmopolitan in the way they travel, the only migrant group capable of spending time and money coming on visits before selecting their relocation spots.”[27] They are also among the most ethnocentric Jews in the world, with Tatz noting how their mentality is encapsulated in “daily pontification about the Jewish-goyishe divide” and in his grandfather’s refrain that “The worst of ours are better than the best of theirs.”[28] Even other Australian Jews have been taken aback by the insularity of these newcomers, how “socially, spatially, culturally, religiously, they huddle in enclaves of their own creation.” “Marrying out” for these intensely parochial Jews means marrying a non-South African Jewish spouse.

Tatz ascribes this hyper-ethnocentric mentality to the fact “the shtetl remains engraved in their immigrant souls.” From the time of the mass Jewish exodus from Lithuania to South Africa in the early twentieth century, these Jews were, he notes, “saturated” with the notion of separateness. He also attributes their extreme ingroup preference to “the specter of anti-Semitism, the dark shadow of rejection by an anti-Semitic and intolerant world.” It is only among themselves, he maintains, that they can “relax at least for a while — laugh, cry, be brash, busy, creative, funny and not worry about what the goyim think.”[29] The reputation of South African Jews in Australia took a significant hit in 2009 when the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Barry Tannenbaum, a South African Jewish immigrant, had scammed investors out of $1.5 billion in a Ponzi scheme that was likened to Bernie Madoff’s crime in the United States.[30]

Given this infusion of South African Jews, and the high fertility rates of existing groups of Orthodox Jews, Markus predicts the proportion of Australian Jews “who are ultra-Orthodox or Modern Orthodox will increase, and the community might become even more conservative.”[31] Unlike in America, Reform Jews, even today, represent only a small minority of Australia’s Jewish population.

Preventing his own children and grandchildren from marrying non-Jews was a first order priority for Mark Leibler, and Gawenda notes “how important it was for him that his children, and now his grandchildren, married Jews. He can be pretty sure that his family, his children and grandchildren will be committed Jews, committed to their Judaism and to the sort of religious Zionism in which three generations of the Leibler family have played such as prominent role.”[32] Each of his children “have followed in their parents’ footsteps: each married a Jew; none has weakened his commitment to Zionism and to the continuity of the Jewish people; none has ever doubted that they would.”[33] Leibler’s son Yehuda has Australian, American and Israeli citizenship — but sees himself unequivocally as an Israeli. “When he thought about Australia,” notes Gawenda, “he thought about his family and the Jewish community. The fact that he was a citizen of Australia, or of America, did not mean much to him.”[34]

The Leibler Dynasty Continues

In 2018, Mark Leibler’s son Jeremy, a partner at ABL, was elected president of the Zionist Federation of Australia. Meanwhile Colin Rubinstein’s son, Paul, ABL’s managing partner in Sydney, is the New South Wales chairman of AIJAC and is touted as a likely successor to Mark Leibler as AIJAC’s national chairman. Gawenda claims the next generation of Jewish leaders will face daunting challenges which include “the rise of anti-Semitism around the world, including in Australia.”[35]

Prime Minister Scott Morrison being presented with the Jerusalem Prize by Jeremy Leibler (current president of the Zionist Federation of Australia)

Mark Leibler is more sanguine than his brother Isi about the future of Jews in the diaspora. Nevertheless, he thinks Jews are far less safe in some diaspora communities, including the United States, than he thought possible a decade or two ago:

Anti-Semitism has been on the increase for three decades and has accelerated in the past few years. Who could imagine even a few years ago that a major party in Britain would be led by an anti-Semite or, at least, by someone who has made numerous anti-Semitic remarks and has tolerated the growing number of anti-Semites in his party? I still can’t believe it, that Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the British Labor Party and could well have been Prime Minister. … But as far as grassroots anti-Semitism is concerned, it’s probably worse in France than in England. In America, there has undoubtedly been an alarming increase in violent extreme anti-Semitism from the left and right. What is happening there was unimaginable a few years ago.[36]

As a rabid Zionist, Leibler is particularly concerned about growing anti-Zionism on university campuses in the United States. He insists this “so-called anti-Zionism invariably traffics in anti-Semitic canards about the money power of Jews for instance.” The irony of his making these remarks as the leader of Australia’s wealthiest, most politically well-connected and powerful ethnic group seems to have escaped Leibler. Leibler believes Islamist anti-Semitism, encouraged and supported by the far left, poses a bigger threat to Australian Jews than right-wing anti-Semites.

Mark Leibler’s brother Isi had also expressed concern at the growing threat of Islamist anti-Semitism. In an article for the Jerusalem Post entitled “European Meltdown Threatens Jews,” he lamented the negative impact of large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe on Jewish communities there. He notes that: “With the indigenous population shrinking and the Muslim birthrate alarmingly high, unless the flow of migrants is stemmed, there is every possibility that by the end of the century the foundations of European civilization will be destroyed.” Through “dramatically destabilizing the social cohesion and security of countries harboring them,” Muslim migrants have led to Diaspora Jewish communities “suffering severe trauma as they experience the erosion of the acceptance and security they have enjoyed over the past half-century.” What makes this all the more concerning for the elder Leibler is the fact this influx of Muslims is, to a great extent, the direct result of Jewish ethnic activism.

Yet ironically, many liberal Jews are at the forefront of campaigns to open the door to widespread immigration of Muslim “refugees” and even make ridiculous bleeding-heart analogies to the plight of Jews during the Holocaust. In so doing, they are facilitating the entry of hordes of embittered anti-Semites who have been brought up to consider Jews as the “offspring of apes and pigs.”

For Leibler, flooding Europe with these “hordes” is regrettable, not primarily because, if the trend continues, “by the end of the century the foundations of European civilization will be destroyed,” but because the end result will be that Jews in Europe are increasingly forced to “live in societies where horrific terrorist attacks against their schools, synagogues, museums and supermarkets have necessitated military or armed guards to provide security.”

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott with Isi Leibler

The mass importation of Muslims into Europe also presents a danger to Jews, according to Isi Leibler, in fueling the rise of the far-right. He notes that activist Jews, in advocating and facilitating the influx of Muslims into Europe, inevitably “enrage many of their neighbors who loathe these ‘refugees’ and fear that this flood of immigration will destroy their way of life.” The result has been “the meteoric rise of radical right-wing movements in all European countries — Jobbik in Hungary and the Golden Dawn in Greece [which] are outright anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi movements.” Despite nationalist leaders like Marine Le Pen having “vigorously condemned and disassociated her party from its former anti-Semitism,” Leibler insists the rank and file members of parties like the National Front that notionally “support Israel” remain “unreconstructed traditional anti-Semites.”

Leibler is part of the distinct (though growing) minority of activist Jews who regard the Jewish strategy of transforming Europe through mass Muslim immigration as “bad for the Jews.” In 2010 he voiced his strong support for non-White immigration and multiculturalism for Australia while rejecting these policies for Israel.  He thus accepts it to be in the interests of Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of the majority European-derived nations in which many live. For Leibler, however, this non-White diversification strategy for is only good for Jews providing “hordes of embittered anti-Semites” from Muslim nations aren’t the primary means of achieving it.

A silver lining of the rapidly-accelerating destruction of Europe for Isi Leibler is that, unlike vulnerable Europeans, Jews can always flee to an ethnically-homogeneous “Jewish state” that provides “a haven for all Jews.” As an ultra-Zionist he naturally hopes that, as European societies become increasingly violence-plagued, dysfunctional and inhospitable to Jews, “many will leave and join us in Israel and participate in the historic renaissance of our people.”[37] As a result of Jewish activism, millions of White people are also increasingly fearful of their or their children’s future. Unlike Jews, however, they don’t have the option of fleeing to the relative safety of an ethnostate.

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, available here and here.

[1] Michael Gawenda, The Powerbroker: Mark Leibler, An Australian Jewish Life (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2020), 259.

[2] Ibid., 260.

[3] Ibid., 260.

[4] Bob Carr, Run For Your Life (Melbourne: MUP, 2018), 177.

[5] Ibid., 178.

[6] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 279.

[7] Ibid., 280.

[8] Bob Carr, Diary of a Foreign Minister (Sydney: NewSouth, 2014), 388.

[9] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 283-84.

[10] Ibid., 285.

[11] Ibid., 3.

[12] Ibid., 285.

[13] Ibid., 286.

[14] Ibid., 286.

[15] Ibid., 208.

[16] Ibid., 335.

[17] Ibid., 336-37.

[18] Ibid., 338.

[19] Ibid., 341.

[20] Ibid., 310-11.

[21] Ibid., 313.

[22] Ibid., 316; 315.

[23] Ibid., 317.

[24] Ibid., 320.

[25] Ibid., 319.

[26] Ibid., 75-76.

[27] Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: A Life Confronting Racism (Clayton, Victoria; Monash University Publishing, 2015), 350.

[28] Ibid., 16.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Nick O’Malley & Thomas Graham, “Exposed: the Sydney man accused of $1.5 billion scam, The Sydney Morning Herald, June 13, 2009. https://www.smh.com.au/national/exposed-the-sydney-man-accused-of-15-billion-scam-20090612-c640.html

[31] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 329.

[32] Ibid., 334.

[33] Ibid., 360.

[34] Ibid., 352.

[35] Ibid., 335.

[36] Ibid., 356-57.

[37] Isi Leibler, “European meltdown threatens Jews,” The Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2026. https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/European-meltdown-threatens-Jews-476004

Mark Leibler: Powerbroker for Australia’s Jewish Plutocracy — PART 4: Australian Foreign Policy: Hijacked by AIJAC

/3 Comments/in /by

Mark Leibler with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard: “A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Israel Lobby”

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.

Australian Foreign Policy: Hijacked by AIJAC

The Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), chaired by Leibler, is undoubtedly the most aggressive Jewish lobbying organization in Australia. Gawenda describes it as “the most formidable lobbying outfit for Israel and for what AIJAC perceives to be Jewish community interests in Australia.”[1] AIJAC emerged out of Australia/Israel Publications (AIP) which published Zionist literature and organized venues for Israeli politicians and commentators to speak in Australia. By the early 1990s, the Jewish academic and activist Colin Rubinstein (later Prime Minister John Howard’s Court Jew), who had been involved with AIP since 1977, was “telling people, Leibler included, that AIP was not viable and needed to be professionalized along the lines of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobbying bodies in Washington.”

An indefatigable networker, Rubinstein went to see a number of wealthy Jews in Melbourne and Sydney who “quickly agreed to support his vision of a professionally run and well-resourced replacement for the AIP.”[2] Among the wealthy Jews who responded enthusiastically to Rubinstein’s appeal was the retail mogul Solomon Lew, who had once been Rubinstein’s schoolmate. Lew contributed significant funding and persuaded some of his fellow Jewish billionaires to help bankroll AIJAC. Mark Leibler joined the organization as chairman at the urging of Solomon Lew — who was a client of ABL. Asked who AIJAC is supposed to represent, Lew replied “It represents Australian Jewry and it represents Israel. We are recognized by more politicians in Australia from all sides. They never make a speech without checking with us.”[3]

Mark Leibler, Colin Rubinstein and Solomon Lew with Prime Minister Scott Morrison

With an impressive suite of offices in Melbourne, and with a staff of 17, eight of them full-time policy analysts and journalists, Gawenda notes that “No Jewish representative body in Australia has such resources, contacts and clout.” AIJAC’s Sydney office is run by Jewish activist Jeremy Jones whose current focus is on “developing relationships with Australia’s Muslim community, a process still very much in its infancy.”[4] Leibler and Colin Rubinstein, a Monash University lecturer in Middle East Studies (and rabid Zionist) built the body into “one of Australia’s most formidable lobbying outfits.” When there’s lobbying to do in Canberra, Leibler is invariably part of the AIJAC delegation.

Leibler has visited Israel continuously for 25 years, and has close relationships with Israeli politicians, including prime ministers, and senior Israeli public servants, among them Yuval Rotem, head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and close advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu. While AIJAC officially claims to support a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, it “has consistently argued that the peace process is stalled indefinitely” for which it blames the Palestinian leadership.[5] In reality, AIJAC has “publicly disowned any prospect of a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”[6] While vehemently rejecting the feasibility of Israel as an ethnically-diverse, multicultural state, AIJAC is, however, deeply committed to multiculturalism in Australia, and relentlessly “lobbies on issues that affect Australian Jews, such as anti-Semitism and the health of multiculturalism.” Rubinstein insists that “multiculturalism has served the Jewish community well” and responds vociferously to any critiques of a policy that is deliberately designed to harm the group genetic interests of the White Australian majority.[7]

AIJAC is also committed to silencing those who don’t share its views, including fellow Jews, and “their criticism of people who held views they didn’t like was almost always extreme and sometimes personal.”[8] Gawenda personally attests to the accuracy of such claims, and notes that during his tenure as editor of The Age in the 1990s:

I would receive, at times almost daily, AIJACs criticism of the work of its Middle East correspondent, either by email, phone or in meetings at newspaper offices. The AIJAC spokespeople were smart, relentless, knew their stuff, and were blunt, sometimes to the point of rudeness, in their criticism of the paper and some of its journalists and commentators. I also received emails and phone calls, some of them abusive and hostile, from people whose views on Israel were to the far right of AIJAC, about some aspect of our coverage of the Middle East. Invariably, I was accused of being an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew.[9] 

The effectiveness of Leibler and Rubinstein’s activism can be gauged by the fact that “over 70 per cent of Australian Jews in all age groups, no matter their religious affiliations — even secular Jews — describe themselves as Zionists.”[10]  More than 90 per cent of Australian Jews over the age of 18 have visited Israel (often through programs like Birthright), many more than once. Two in three have close family living there. These figures are higher than in any other diaspora Jewish community. Around 10,000 Australian Jews have made Aliyah (while retaining their Australian citizenship), proportionately more than any other Western country.[11] Australia’s Zionist youth movements “are thriving and membership is growing,” an achievement that is “unparalleled anywhere in the world.”

Capturing Elite Opinion through Rambam Fellowships

AIJAC funds and coordinates trips to Israel for journalists, editors, academics, public servants and politicians. These trips are part of the organization’s Rambam Israel Fellowship program which is named after the twelfth-century Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides — Rambam being an acronym of his full name and title. Participants travel to Israel to be propagandized by senior Israeli politicians, journalists, commentators and military and security officials. Gawenda notes how:

AIJAC has funded Rambam fellowships for scores of Australian politicians, including [current Prime Minister] Scott Morrison and [former Opposition Leader] Bill Shorten when they were backbenchers, and [former Prime Minister] Julia Gillard when she was Shadow Minister for Health. About 500 journalists, commentators, senior public servants and academics have also participated in the program, which is funded by donations, mostly from some of Australia’s wealthiest Jewish families.[12]

The journalists involved in this “cultural exchange” program (including prominent News Limited journalists Greg Sheridan, Andrew Bolt, Rita Panahi, and Janet Albrechtsen) are lavished with hospitality in Israel and intensively propagandized by the Zionist establishment there. The goal is to foster a sense of obligation and loyalty to Israel which is, in turn, reflected in these journalists’ strict adherence to a pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist line. The only real “exchange” involved with this program is journalists trading their intellectual and journalistic integrity for the strategically-bestowed hospitality of organized Jewry. Lawyer and journalist Greg Barns noted the obvious parallels between the old Soviet Union and the Israel Lobby in their courting of Western journalists:

Back in the days when the hammer and sickle flew proudly, the Soviet Union would spend big dollars on paying for journalists, academics and diplomats to see for themselves the “workers’ paradise.” It was part of a long term and relentless strategy by the Communists to win the propaganda war against the West. Today the heirs and successors of those Soviet-sympathising journalists head to Israel. … The Israelis have clearly learnt a thing or two from the Soviets. They understand how important it is to roll out the red carpet for the media, by offering them carefully choreographed trips to Israel and in return ensure that their spin on events is planted in the minds of the Western media.

The Israelis also know that they have the upper hand in this game, because the impoverished Palestinians will not be able to outdo them when it comes to lavishing hospitality on a willing media. That the Israeli propaganda strategy of handpicking journalists and others to come to Israel works was made abundantly clear when The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen visited Israel last November as a guest of the Israeli government and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. …

Albrechtsen is not alone in being feted by the Israeli propaganda machine. The Sydney Morning Herald’s Paul Sheehan is another. Just as the Soviets carefully selected the journalists they wanted to show around the country, so is the case with the Israelis. The Soviets would go for leftist sympathizers in papers such as The New York Times, The Guardian and other influential mastheads. The Israelis also favour sympathetic writers. Greg Sheridan as recently as May 6 was comforting poor Israel because “second to the US, Israel is the most acute object of the hostility to the West that flourishes in Western intellectual life.” One is tempted to evoke the immortal phrase “useful idiots,” attributed to Lenin, and used against Western journalists who fell for Soviet propaganda in the 1930s, to describe Western journalists who accept paid trips from the Israeli authorities.[13]          

It’s not only journalists who are targeted with these elaborate bribery schemes. During the 2013–2016 Australian Parliamentary term, Leibler’s organization sponsored more foreign trips for members of the House of Representatives than any other country. AIJAC also brings high profile guest speakers to Australia, mainly from Israel but also from the United States. For example, Alan Dershowitz (of Jeffrey Epstein fame) spoke at an AIJAC function held at the offices of Arnold Bloch Leibler in 2018. Australia’s premier Zionist lobby group also brings politicians and officials from India, China and Southeast Asia to Australia (as a proxy for Israel) because some are unable to take up Rambam Fellowships because their Muslim-majority countries forbid travel to Israel. AIJAC also funds and organizes propaganda programs for these people in their home countries.[14]

Clashing With and Then Removing Prime Minister Rudd

Those in public life who have had disagreements with AIJAC report that the “experience can be bracing to say the least.”[15] Among those who have felt the wrath of AIJAC is former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The strong relationship Leibler forged with Prime Minister’s Paul Keating and John Howard did not extend to the latter’s successor Kevin Rudd. The catalyst for the breakout of actual hostility between Leibler and Rudd was their respective attitudes to a major crisis between Israel and Australia. In May of 2010, Rudd ordered the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat, who was also a senior Mossad agent, after the Israeli spy agency used fake Australian passports to enter Dubai and assassinate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, an arms dealer with a close relationship with Hamas.

Rudd declared Israel’s use of fake Australian passports to be “outrageous” and particularly egregious given that Mossad had used Australian passports for another operation in 2003 — the details of which neither Israeli nor Australian security officials have ever disclosed. After the 2003 incident, the Israelis gave the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) an undertaking never to use Australian passports for any Israeli security operation again.

One of the faked Australian passports Israel used to assassinate Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in 2010

The passports affair came just before an operation from the Israeli military where they boarded one of the six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, launched by a coalition of pro-Palestinian human rights groups to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine people were killed when Israeli soldiers landed on the ship from helicopters. All six ships were escorted to an Israeli port and everyone on board was detained for several days before being expelled from Israel. The incident sparked international outrage, and then Prime Minister Rudd condemned “any use of violence under the circumstances that we have seen.” He called for the blockade of Gaza to be lifted, and for the setting up of an independent inquiry into the incident.

Leibler was apoplectic over Rudd’s comments and his expulsion of the Israeli diplomat. Nevertheless, Gawenda notes how the passports incident was “especially difficult, time-consuming and troubling for him, because it was specifically about the relationship between Australia and Israel, and because it was hard to defend what the Israelis had done.”[16] He wanted to settle the passports issue and for things to “move on.” In this endeavor, Leibler worked closely with the Israeli Ambassador in Canberra, Yuval Rotem, to repair the diplomatic relationship. He reached out to cabinet ministers and senior public servants, including the head of ASIO, “who invariably took his calls or agreed to see him,” while Rotem “lobbied members of the Rudd and Gillard governments.”[17]

Reflecting back on the passports incident in the second volume of his memoirs, The PM Years, published in 2018, Rudd observes that the Israel Lobby tried to “menace him” for his strong response to the passports affair. Rudd describes a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet after the second passports incident. Dennis Richardson, head of ASIO at the time of the first incident and now head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, had urged them to “act firmly and decisively.” All agreed with this recommendation, except for Julia Gillard regarding whom Rudd “knew for a fact that Julia had been cultivating the Israeli Lobby in Australia.”[18] Leibler had first met Gillard after she visited Israel on a Rambam Fellowship in 2001, and had cultivated a close relationship with her.

In June of 2010, Jewish Labor MP Mark Dreyfus (later Gillard’s Attorney-General) called Leibler, whom he had known for many years, to organize, at Rudd’s request, a dinner with Leibler and other Jewish community leaders to discuss the passports issues and the Gaza flotilla. Rudd was keen to repair his strained relationship with organized Jewry. Rudd writes in his memoir that he agreed to put on the dinner out of respect for Labor’s Jewish MP’s Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus, who had lobbied him to put on the dinner for the Jewish leaders. According to Rudd, he sat politely at the table while Leibler berated him for committing the “hostile act” of expelling the Israeli diplomat. When Rudd offered Leibler a briefing with Richardson, Leibler turned angry and made a “menacing threat.” Rudd records Leibler as saying, “Julia is looking very good in the public eye these days, Prime Minister. She’s performing very strongly. She’s a great friend of Israel. But you shouldn’t be anxious about her, should you, Prime Minister.”[19]

Kevin Rudd with Mark Leibler

In his contemporaneous notes of the meeting, Leibler acknowledges he was blunt with Rudd, telling him the Jewish community was “pissed off” by the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat, which he characterized as an “overreaction.” In his notes, Leibler only mentions Gillard once, praising her for comments she made saying Israel was justified in responding militarily to missile attacks by Hamas in 2009. According to Leibler’s notes: “Rudd responded by saying that he discussed and approved the statement by Julia Gillard. I said, ‘Don’t be so sensitive — this is something we assumed.’ For about 30 seconds there was dead silence and I thought Rudd’s eyes were going to pop out of his head, and then we reverted back to normal conversation.”[20]

Three weeks after Leibler’s threat to Rudd, Julia Gillard defeated Rudd in a leadership ballot and became Australia’s first female prime minister. Leibler and the Israel Lobby supported Gillard’s challenge to him, and were, to a significant extent, responsible for his defeat—reportedly plotting Rudd’s removal for at least a year prior to Gillard’s successful challenge. In his book, Rudd notes that “the meticulous work of moving Gillard from left to right on [Middle Eastern] foreign policy had already begun in earnest a year before the coup.”[21] Gawenda claims to be bemused at Rudd’s belief that “Jews were so powerful they could play a role in deciding the fate of an Australian prime minister.” For Gawenda, “the idea that a Jewish leader, even a tough one like Leibler, could intimidate or seriously threaten politicians like Rudd or Carr seems far-fetched.”

Julia Gillard — A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of the Israel Lobby

The validity of Rudd’s view was confirmed by the close relationship Leibler forged with Gillard during her tenure as Prime Minister. In The PM Years, Rudd describes how Gillard became a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the far-right Australian Israel Lobby.”[22] Gawenda is troubled by Rudd’s language regarding the actions of Australia’s Israel Lobby, seeing it as “verging on a conspiratorial darkness.” Echoing this view, Leibler responded with fury to Rudd’s version of events, labelling his accusations as “far-fetched conspiracy theories.”[23] Other Jewish leaders (inevitably) came to Leibler’s aid and disputed Rudd’s version of events at the Canberra dinner. In 2018, Michael Danby and Australian Jewish businessman Albert Dadon said the incidents Rudd described “had not happened, at least not in our presence.”[24]

Dadon’s comments are significant for Gawenda because of Dadon’s former role as Rudd’s Court Jew, and as someone Rudd found “far more congenial than some other Jewish community leaders, especially those at AIJAC, including Leibler.”[25] Journalist Jason Koutsoukis observed in 2009, regarding Dadon, that: “In the small but competitive world of Australian Jewish politics, the ultimate test of esteem is whether or not you have the ear of the Prime Minister of the day.” Dadon took on the role of that AIJAC bigwig Colin Rubinstein had assumed during John Howard’s tenure as Prime Minister. He spotted Rudd’s potential soon after he entered parliament in 1998 and “courted the future Prime Minister assiduously.”[26] It was under Dadon’s direction that Rudd inaugurated the annual Australia-Israel Leadership Forum in Jerusalem — a two-day talkfest for Australian and Israeli politicians, academics and businesspeople designed to further consolidate the Australia-Israel alliance.

Gillard claimed her close relationship “to some people in the Jewish community, including Dadon and Leibler, was never an issue between her and Rudd before the leadership challenge.”[27] Those who, like Rudd, believed Gillard had been captured by Jewish interests noted, in support of this contention, that her partner, Tim Mathieson, had been employed since 2009 as a property sales consultant by Ubertas Group, a fund management and property development company owned by Albert Dadon. Mathieson was given the position after he and Gillard attended the first Australia-Israel Leadership Forum in Jerusalem — an initiative of Albert Dadon.

Gillard with her partner Tim Mathieson and Albert Dadon

It was in this context that Gillard flatly refused to criticize Israel for its Operation Cast Lead in 2009. Gillard’s Jewish alliances even extended beyond Australian Jewish leaders and businessmen. In The PM Years, Rudd points out that Gillard’s “ever-loyal American factotum, Bruce Wolpe, her lifeline to the Australian and American Jewish communities,” exercised a Svengali-like influence on her, even before she had taken over from Rudd as Prime Minister.[28] Wolpe, a Jewish-American political operative married to an Australian, had settled in Australia and played an important role in moving Gillard to a position of uncritical support for the Israel Lobby’s views.

Wolpe had been senior advisor to Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, with “seriously impressive contacts in the United States Congress and in the Democratic Party.” He was appointed as Gillard’s senior advisor (i.e., Court Jew) in 2010, soon after she became Prime Minister. His role was twofold: “to develop contacts and interaction with the Australian business community, and to be the contact person between the Prime Minister and the Jewish community.”[29] Gillard justified giving Wolpe the liaison role with the Jewish community on the basis that “there was increasing dissatisfaction with that community about the way Rudd was behaving.”[30]

Gillard’s Court Jew Bruce Wolpe

Three months after she became Prime Minister, Gillard reluctantly appointed the defeated Rudd as her Foreign Minister due to his previous experience in the role. Several times, she vetoed press releases from Rudd on Israel and Palestine that she claimed did not reflect her government’s position. By this time, Leibler “had come to seriously distrust Rudd,” finding him “frustrating to deal with.” In his contemporaneous notes, Leibler claims Rudd was “courting the Arab bloc” at the UN by signaling that Australia might vote for a resolution in the General Assembly declaring Palestine a state, though with non-voting status. Gillard had privately rebuffed Rudd and instructed Australia’s Ambassador to the United Nations to vote against any resolution on statehood for Palestine.

In February 2012, Kevin Rudd resigned as Foreign Minister to challenge Gillard for the Labor leadership, and therefore for prime minister. His first challenge failed, and with Rudd now out of the Gillard Cabinet, former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr was enlisted by Gillard to fill the vacant position of Foreign Minister. In making this appointment, Gillard was unaware that Carr’s position on Israel and the Palestinians had changed over the years. Leibler, on the other hand, was aware of Carr’s shift in perspective, and was apprehensive about the appointment. Despite this, he was reassured by the fact “his relationship with Gillard was strong” and that “she would have the final say on her government’s policy on Israel and the Palestinians.”[31]

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, available here and here.

Go to Part 5.

[1] Michael Gawenda, The Powerbroker: Mark Leibler, An Australian Jewish Life (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2020), 249.

[2] Ibid., 253.

[3] Ibid., 254.

[4] Ibid., 251.

[5] Ibid., 254.

[6] Ibid., 254-55.

[7] Ibid., 255.

[8] Ibid., 256.

[9] Ibid., 258.

[10] Ibid., 312.

[11] Ibid., 323.

[12] Ibid., 250.

[13] Greg Barns, “Israel’s ‘useful idiots’ in the Australian media,” Crikey, May 27, 2009. https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/27/israels-useful-idiots-in-the-australian-media/

[14] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 251.

[15] Ibid., 248.

[16] Ibid., 262.

[17] Ibid., 262; 263.

[18] Kevin Rudd, The PM Years (Sydney: MacMillian Australia, 2018), 400.

[19] Ibid., 266.

[20] Ibid., 267.

[21] Rudd, The PM Years, 430.

[22] Ibid., 431.

[23] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 271.

[24] Ibid., 270.

[25] Ibid., 270.

[26] Jason Koutsoukis, “New figure steals into the limelight of Jewish affairs,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 25, 2009. https://www.smh.com.au/national/new-figure-steals-into-the-limelight-of-jewish-affairs-20090624-cwyp.html

[27] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 271.

[28] Rudd, The PM Years, 442.

[29] Ibid., 273.

[30] Ibid., 274.

[31] Ibid., 276.

American Krogan: On Emma Lazarus

/7 Comments/in /by

Mark Leibler: Powerbroker for Australia’s Jewish Plutocracy – PART 3

/3 Comments/in /by

Mark Leibler in the early 1990s

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

Having Their Cake and Eating It Too – The Dual Citizenship Campaign

By the mid-1980s Mark Leibler had established the Zionist Federation of Australia as “a political lobbying powerhouse.” The organization was centrally involving in ensuring 7,000 Australian Jews who had made Aliyah to Israel retained their Australian citizenship. Under the Citizenship Act, Australians could not become citizens of another country without giving up their Australian citizenship, as Rupert Murdoch had done to become an American citizen. Under Israel’s Law of Return, Jews who settled in Israel automatically became Israeli citizens – meaning they had implicitly renounced their Australian citizenship. This was not enforced by Australian authorities prior to 1986. That year, however, the Labor government introduced legislation to amend the Citizenship Act to clarify the prohibition on dual citizenship. The bill prompted Immigration Department officials to rule that those who had settled In Israel before 1981 and become Israeli citizens would have their Australian citizenship revoked and passports cancelled. So too would Australian Jews who had arrived after 1981 and been granted permanent residency by Israel.

Among Australian Jews there was outrage and panic, and the “ZFA was inundated with demands for help. Contrary to what Australian immigration officials had always told them, not only would adult Australians in Israel lose their citizenship, but so too would their children who had been born in Israel.”[1] These Jews, noted Gawenda, who Leibler and the ZFA regarded as a Zionist success story, wanted to have their cake and eat it too. This situation might have “raised the old charge of dual loyalties, a long-standing anti-Semitic trope in which Jews are a sort of fifth column, with greater loyalty to their fellow Jews than to the country in which they live and are citizens. Here were Jews committed to Israel, living and raising children there, even serving in the Israeli army, and yet determined to hang on to their Australian citizenship.”[2]

Leibler coordinated an intensive lobbying campaign to have Jews granted a special exemption to the dual citizenship laws. A “sense of urgency” gripped Leibler during this campaign; he “was a man possessed, furiously working on this issue, and sometimes furious when he didn’t get his way, as, for instance, when an Immigration Department official refused to see the logic and force of the case Leibler was putting to him.”[3] In his notes, Leibler recalled that “The conversation was very heated and I was quite abusive.” Leibler was adamant “this problem would have to be resolved even if it meant I had to go and see the Prime Minister for the second time that day.” Leibler had met with Bob Hawke earlier that day as part of a delegation organized by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

Leibler insisted on seeing [then immigration minister] Chris Hurford who “interrupted a lengthy meeting with a rather important lobby to see me.”[4] Hurford caved in to Leibler’s demands/threats and, in April 1986, with Opposition support, announced amendments to the government’s proposed citizenship legislation that restored the citizenship of all the Australian Jews living in Israel. Leibler’s victory was complete.[5] In 2002, the Howard government made dual citizenship legal, “in recognition of Australia’s diversity and multiculturalism.”[6]

Courting Paul Keating and John Howard

When Paul Keating successfully challenged Prime Minister Hawke for the leadership of the Labor Party in 1991, there was consternation among the ranks of Jewish activist organizations. At the time “there was a wave of grief through some sections of the Jewish community at Hawke’s departure,” and Jewish leaders “effusively praised the former prime minister.” Bob Hawke was “particularly close to the Jewish community” and, in particular, to influential Jews like Isi Leibler, multicultural activist Walter Lippmann, and wealthy businessmen like Eddie Kornhauser and Peter Abeles. All “had direct access to the prime minister.”[7] Bronwyn Hinz noted the far-reaching social policy implications of Walter Lippmann’s close association with Hawke:

In the 1980s, the ECCV [Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria] worked closely with Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a personal friend of ECCV founding Chairperson Walter Lippmann. As the representative of Melbourne’s most ethnically diverse electorate, Hawke was especially cognizant of the value of close connections with the peak council, its activists and member groups, accepting most invitations to their functions, and providing Lippmann and other ECCV activists with direct access to his office. In the first year of the Hawke government, the ECCV’s lobbying culminated in the reduction of citizenship waiting period to two years, the replacement of the term alien with “non‐citizen” in the 1983 Migration Act, and an increase of the refugee intake.[8] 

Leslie Caplan, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, lamented Hawke’s political demise, describing him as a man of “extraordinary ability, intellect, compassion and charm who had a special relationship with the Jewish community.” Mark Leibler, then president of the ZFA, likewise extolled Hawke as “a giant among men, a great prime minister, a close friend of the Jewish people and a constant supporter of the security and integrity of Israel.”[9]  While making this public statement, he had been busy behind the scenes courting Hawke’s successor. After Paul Keating’s first unsuccessful challenge to Hawke, Leibler had sent him the following handwritten letter:

Dear Paul,

Strange isn’t it that the loser on the votes emerges looking very much the winner in all other respects, But then perhaps not surprising at all!

Congratulations on the performance. I look forward in anticipation to the Second Act – its final and successful completion.

Wish you much luck

With best wishes

One of your many admirers

Mark

Keating wrote back, thanking Leibler for his note, and for his “words of encouragement and support.”[10] Sniffing the changing political winds, Leibler carefully positioned himself as Keating’s Court Jew. Keating’s defeat of Hawke left the field open for Mark Leibler to assume a position hitherto occupied by other Jewish leaders like his brother Isi, “Almost all of whom had developed a relationship with Hawke, whom they considered the community’s and Israel’s greatest friend in the Labor government.” Given Isi’s particularly close relationship to Hawke, and the latter’s defeat “was particularly hard for Isi to handle” and “with Hawke gone his contacts in and access to the government were severely diminished. He had no real relationship with Keating, and developing one would be difficult, given his well-known closeness to Hawke. His brother Mark was really the only Jewish leader with a significant relationship with the new prime minister.”[11]

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating in the United States in 1993

In an article in the Australian Jewish News from the time of Keating’s successful challenge to Hawke, Leibler declared that he was confident that “In light of my contacts with Paul Keating over many years … there is no reason to believe that there will be any shifts in government policy which would be adverse to the interests and concerns of the Australian Jewish community.”[12] This signaled to other Jewish leaders, including his brother, that he was uniquely placed “to make the case to Keating on any issue that concerned the Jewish community.”[13]

One such issue emerged early in Keating’s tenure as Prime Minister. There was widespread concern, even alarm, among organized Jewry regarding Keating’s foreign minister Gareth Evans’ stance towards the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Gawenda notes that “Many Jews had been alarmed by the Scud missiles that Saddam Hussein had rained down on Israel during the Gulf War [in 1991] and by the sight of Israelis wearing gas masks out of fear that the missiles would be armed with poison gas.” The PLO had organized demonstrations in support of Saddam Hussein, and many Western nations had, as a result, cut contact with the PLO.

A year after the end of war, Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans decided the Australian government should restore contact with the PLO. Keating, who had little personal interest in the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians, publicly supported this decision. A month after the announcement, Evans visited a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and criticized the expansion of illegal settlements by the Israelis. Evans even expressed support for United Nations Resolution 194, passed at the end of the 1948 war, which called for the right of return of Palestinians who had fled or been forced out of their homes (i.e., ethnically cleansed) by the war. Mark Leibler was “enraged” at Evans’ stance, which, interpreted one way, could result in the return of all Palestinians and their descendants which “would have meant the end of Israel as a Jewish state.”[14] Hitherto, both major political parties in Australia had followed the United States position on the resolution: that it only allowed for a token number of Palestinians to return in the event of a peace settlements, thus preserving the Jewish demographic supermajority in Israel.

Leibler met Evans on his return to Australia and “according to people with knowledge of the meeting, Leibler and Evans exchanged views in a very robust fashion. Insults were exchanged.”[15] Jewish Labor MPs joined Leibler in attacking Evans, with former Whitlam and Hawke government minister Barry Cohen telling The Australian the foreign minister’s stance risked the loss of political donations from wealthy Jews, and that Australian Jewry had always been a source of ideological and financial support for the ALP, noting, “That [support] will be weakened whenever a government appears to be antagonistic towards the state of Israel.”[16] The bad optics of Cohen’s open threats troubled some Jews at the time, including Leibler. While fiercely critical of Evans, Leibler was adamant “Jewish leaders should not make any [public] threats about donations to political parties or threaten to urge the Jewish community to vote against the government because of its policies in the Middle East.”[17]

Leibler’s next gambit was to invite Keating to speak at the ZFA’s biennial conference in 1992. In his speech, while not repudiating Evans’ views, Keating focused on “the ALP’s historic commitment to Israel and emphasized his government’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.”[18] Shortly after Keating’s speech, Evans’ stance on Israel and the Palestinians suddenly became irrelevant. Yitzhak Rabin led the Israeli Labor Party to victory in the 1992 general election. Many senior Keating government figures had ties to the Israel’s Labor Party and personally knew Rabin and members of his government like Shimon Peres. The result was that “criticism of Israel’s settlement policies was significantly toned down.”  This was particularly so after the Oslo Accords between Rabin and Yasser Arafat were signed on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993.

Rabin was assassinated in November 1995 by Yigal Amir, a radical Zionist opposed to the Oslo process. Keating attended Rabin’s funeral and, three months later, was defeated in a landslide by John Howard at the 1996 election. Despite Keating’s defeat, Leibler continued to cultivate a close relationship with Keating. Meanwhile, Zionist activists in the United States and Australia were secretly happy to see Rabin disappear from the scene. As Gawenda notes:

Shortly after he was elected, Rabin told American Jewish leaders, including AIPAC officials, that they needed to modify their lobbying for Israel. That was code for his view that their lobbying was counter-productive and that Israel was perfectly capable of developing its own relations with Congress and the President without their interventions. Rabin’s message was a stunning repudiation of the work of AIPAC. An Israeli prime minister was telling the most influential Jewish lobby group – perhaps the most influential lobby group in Washington – to back off, that he did not need their help.[19] 

Following a meeting with Rabin in Israel, Isi Leibler had reported back to the Australian Jewish media that Rabin had asked him to inform Jewish organizations in Australia (including the ZFA) that they should “drop the quasi-diplomatic role they have adopted in Australian-Jewish affairs of state.”[20] Instead, government-to-government relations should be left to the Israeli embassy in Canberra, and Jewish organizations should focus on trade with Israel and fighting anti-Semitism. For Mark Leibler, Rabin’s remarks (as reported by his brother) “were a repudiation of his life’s work, of the years he had spent building up his political contacts in Canberra so that he could put the best case for Israel to whatever government was in power.”[21]

Paul Keating was ideologically predisposed to embrace the agendas of organized Jewry in Australia. A Cultural Marxist and economic neoliberal, Keating harbored with a deep-seated animus toward the traditional Australian nation, and was a strong proponent of Australia’s economic and demographic integration into Asia. In an interview for The Powerbroker, Keating explained that he “believed in a cosmopolitan Australia” and was bemused why some “Jewish people ever vote for someone like [former Prime Minister John] Howard.” This was especially so given Howard’s putative support for some of the positions of Pauline Hanson in the mid-1990s – part of his successful attempt to steal votes from her then politically-ascendant party.[22]

Howard’s faux White Nationalism was utterly cynical and strategic, and he later oversaw the biggest expansion in non-White immigration in Australian history. His government created the Section 457 Visa for temporary workers – a visa program designed to be uncapped and totally driven by the putative needs of the Australian labor market. The 457 Visa led to a massive increase in cheap non-White labor brought into the country. It was also the Howard government that, from the early 2000s, encouraged overseas students to apply for permanent residence after completing their courses in Australia. The inevitable result was an explosion in overseas student enrolments, and by 2017–18 overseas students had become the largest contributor to Australia’s very high level of Net Overseas Migration (NOM) which numbered 271,700 people in 2019.

Howard also presided over Australia’s shameful involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably even exceeded Bob Hawke in his fawning philo-Semitism and subservience to Israel. Dan Goldberg, the editor of the National Jewish News, observed in 2006 that:

From his first encounter with Jews, as a nineteen-year-old at the Sydney law firm of Myer Rosenblum, Howard has, especially over the last decade, cemented his alliance with the Jews, and has arguably eclipsed even the great Bob Hawke as the most pro-Israel prime minister in Australian history. Most of his empathy is a function of his foreign policy, pivoted on the US alliance, which translates in the Middle East arena to unequivocal support for Israel, regardless of which prime minister is in power in Jerusalem. Of course, Australia’s role in the war in Iraq was no doubt seen by most Australian Jews as yet another significant milestone in the long history of relations between Canberra and Jerusalem. 

It is no coincidence therefore that Howard has received major awards from three Jewish community organisations in the last couple of years. It is also no coincidence that he speaks regularly to Jewish audiences, and that he is closely allied with a clutch of Jewish powerbrokers. … Understandably, most Jews were in favour of eliminating Saddam Hussein and his regime if only because he bankrolled families of Palestinian suicide bombers to the tune of US$25,000 each, not to mention the fact that it would neutralise the threat to Israel’s eastern flank. The fact that Australian SAS forces took out Saddam’s stockpile of Scuds aimed at Tel Aviv in the early hours of the war only augmented the bond between Canberra and Jerusalem.[23]

 Despite Howard’s cynical willingness to appeal (like Donald Trump) to implicit White interests to win elections, Leibler retains “a huge amount of respect and affection for Howard, who was unshakeable in his support for the Jewish community and Israel.”[27] For Gawenda, Howard’s government was “probably the most pro-Israel government in a long time.”[28] Howard himself spoke of his “long association with the Jewish community of Australia of which I am unapologetically proud.”[29]

In 2000, Prime Minister John Howard asked Mark Leibler to become a director of the newly established body called Reconciliation Australia to promote the welfare of Australia’s Aborigines. Leibler accepted, and speaking on behalf of Australian Jews, claimed: “We’ve suffered 2,000 years of persecution and we understand what it is to be the underdog and to suffer from disadvantage.”

Former Prime Minister John Howard (second from right): leader of “probably the most pro-Israel government in a long time.” 

Seemingly oblivious of all this, Keating claims to be bewildered why “the Jewish community here could ever vote for the Coalition whilst Howard-type views abounded. … So I got a bit short with [the Jewish community], still am I suppose. I tell them that ‘the one party that would actually stick with you through thick and thin on the question of identity, your identity, is the Labor Party.” Moreover, it was Labor governments, he insisted, “who helped you make all the money.”[30]

It has been a longstanding strategy of wealthy Jewish businessmen and activists to cultivate relationships with prime ministers on both sides of politics: in the words of Mark Leibler: “John Howard certainly, and Bob Hawke of course, and yes, Paul Keating, and so too Malcolm Turnbull.”[31] Wealthy Jewish businessmen and Jewish activists often coordinate their lobbying efforts. Leibler notes how he could reliably “call one of these business people who I knew had a close relationship with politicians on both sides of politics. I would ring up and explain that there was a problem and that they needed to sit down with the PM and explain the problem. They would always be very helpful doing that.” While these Jewish tycoons often weren’t comfortable issuing public statements, they “had the sort of relationships with prime ministers and foreign ministers too, that allowed them to intervene.”[32] When asked whether this level of access was a unique situation for a Jewish community of such a small size (Australia’s 120,000 Jews make up less than half of one percent of the Australian population), Leibler’s response was unambiguous: “The answer is, yes.”[33]

Leibler’s Campaign against Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party and the Extension of the Racial Vilification Act

Mark Leibler played a key role in the Jewish attack on Pauline Hanson and her “exclusionary form of nationalism” in the 1990s. Andrew Markus notes how Hanson’s “campaign evoked widespread condemnation within the Jewish community and calls for mobilisation to challenge the growing influence of her movement. Concern was at its peak following the success of One Nation in the 1998 Queensland election, which opened the prospect of a One Nation dominated Senate.”[34] In response to Hanson, more than thirty Jewish organizations signed a statement denouncing “racism,” and supporting the formation of a new Jewish activist front group called “People for Racial Equality.” Jewish organizations that vehemently opposed Hanson included the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council led by its chairman Mark Leibler. The “People for Racial Equality” campaign aggressively targeted political parties and politicians, demanding they put One Nation last on their “how to vote cards,” as well as individual voters, urging them all to put One Nation last under Australia’s system of preferential voting.

In an effort to shame and intimidate Hanson’s supporters, the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission doxed 2000 people associated with the One Nation Party. The list was published with Mark Leibler’s consent in AIJAC’s Australia/Israel Review under the headline “Gotcha! One Nation’s Secret Membership List.”[35] In keeping with the tactics of organized Jewry throughout the Western world, the attempt by Hanson and her supporters to ensure that White Australians retained demographic, political and cultural control of Australia was represented as racist, immoral, and indicative of psychiatric disorder. Central to the Jewish response to One Nation, notes Markus, “was repugnance at public expressions of bigotry and a sense that while the focus of the Hanson movement was not on Australian Jews, it would not be long before they were targeted.”[36]

The rivalry between the Leibler brothers over who had the right to speak on behalf of Australian Jewry was often fierce. One catalyst for a rift between the two brothers was when Mark Leibler and a delegation of ZFA officials met with the Keating government’s immigration minister Nick Bolkus when the government was considering the introduction of “racial vilification legislation” into the federal parliament. Mark Leibler’s Zionist Federation of Australia made a virtually identical submission to the government as Isi Leibler’s Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Gawenda notes that “Both organizations had long advocated for such legislation; both urged the government to include criminal sanctions for extreme forms of racial vilification.”[37]

The Racial Hatred Act was passed in 1995, adding to the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 (itself a direct result of Jewish activism) the totalitarian Section 18C, which made it unlawful to offend, insult and humiliate or intimidate a person or group on the basis of color, race or ethnic origin. The 1995 legislation was a victory for Leibler and his communications director Helene Teichmann who had organized the meetings of leaders of ethnic communities that had “led to a unified position on the need for racial vilification legislation.”[38] It was clear to immigration minister Bolkus that “Leibler had been more active than any other Jewish leader in the campaign for the proposed extension of the Racial Discrimination Act.”[39]

Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt later fell afoul of Section 18C for some columns he had written questioning the ethnicity of light-skinned “Aboriginal” activists. Bolt, hitherto a Zionist shill and sycophant of organized Jewry, was stunned when his appeal to Mark Leibler to support the elimination of Section 18C was flatly declined. Gawenda observes that “Bolt seemed unaware that Leibler had played an important role in getting the 1995 legislation passed and would never support the repeal of Section 18C, not even to support Bolt, who had always seen himself as a strong supporter of Israel, unlike the left-wingers who opposed any change to 18C.”

Journalist Andrew Bolt: jilted paramour of organized Jewry

A frustrated Andrew Bolt predicted that Jewish leaders would ultimately regret opposing changes to the Act, noting that: “The Jewish leaders now should look very, very deeply into their souls at what they have helped wrought and ask themselves, are you seriously safer now as a result?” Bolt’s reasoning is that under Section 18C Australian Jews will in future be precluded from criticizing the beliefs and actions of a growing and increasingly militant Australian Islamic community which will be increasingly hostile to Israel and the interests of Australian Jews.

Bolt fails to mention the only reason there are any Muslims in Australia at all (with all their myriad problems and social dysfunctions) is because Jewish activism succeeded in ending the White Australia policy and establishing multiculturalism as the basis for social policy. As the Jewish academic Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.”[40] As throughout the West, it is clear that the Jewish fear and loathing of White Australia trumps any concern about the anti-Semitic tendencies of the non-White immigrants that are being imported into the nation.

In 2014, the then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott abandoned an election pledge to repeal Section 18C after coming under sustained attack from Jewish activist organizations. Gawenda observed at the time how “the repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say – without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful – that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA. It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [then Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott.”[41]

Thanks to Australia’s Jewish-led demographic revolution and legislation like Section 18C, the Jewish lawyer and activist Ruth Barson is now confident that “the chances of the Holocaust occurring in Australia today are remote,” but cautions that history shows Jews are never truly safe, and consequently, “we should have no tolerance for even the shadows of racism and xenophobia. These are dangerous in any guise.”[42] Dvir Abramovich, chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission (Australia’s version of the ADL), contends that “The horrors of the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers – but with hateful words of incitement and contempt, and with the demonizing of anyone who was deemed unworthy by the Nazis.” Accordingly, in addition to supporting the prosecution of “hate speech” through Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, he insists “it’s time that compulsory teaching about the Holocaust is introduced in all Australian schools, to not only develop an understanding of the dangerous ramifications of racism and prejudice, but to heighten awareness of the value of diversity, religious freedom, acceptance and pluralism.”

In early 2020, the Victorian government acceded to Abramovich’s demands and study of the Holocaust became mandatory in Victorian schools. Leibler’s friend and ABL client John Gandel will fund the development of new teaching resources which will be based on existing resources from Israel’s Yad Vashem memorial and lesson plans produced by the World Holocaust Memorial Centre in Jerusalem. Holocaust “education” has been compulsory in New South Wales schools since 2012.

In the 1990s, Mark Leibler successfully lobbied the Keating government immigration minister Nick Bolkus to have British historian David Irving banned from entering Australia. He reiterated the views of his brother Isi, then Executive Council of Australian Jewry President, who had described Irving as “a beer hall rabble-rouser and hero to the German neo-Nazis.” Both urged the government to follow the example of Canada and deny Irving entry into Australia. These overtures were successful and Irving was banned for being “likely to become involved in activities disruptive to the Australian community or a group within the Australian community” and for not being “of good character.” The entry ban was imposed despite Irving’s daughter residing in Australia.

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, available here and here.

Go to Part 4.

[1] Michael Gawenda, The Powerbroker: Mark Leibler, An Australian Jewish Life (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2020), 127-28.

[2] Ibid., 128.

[3] Ibid., 129

[4] Ibid., 130

[5] Ibid., 131

[6] Ibid., 128

[7] James Jupp, From White Australia to Woomera – The Story of Australian Immigration (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 46-47.

[8] Bronwyn Hinz, “Ethnic associations, networks and the construction of Australian multiculturalism,” Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Corcordia University, Montreal, 1‐3 June, 2010, 9-10. http://www.bronwynhinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Hinz-2010-Australian-multiculturalism-paper-for-CPSA-v4.pdf

[9] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 149.

[10] Ibid., 147.

[11] Ibid., 150.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 152.

[15] Ibid., 153.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., 154.

[18] Ibid., 155.

[19] Ibid., 174.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 175.

[22] Ibid., 143.

[23] Dan Goldberg “After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006) 146-47 & 149.

[27] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 146.

[28] Ibid., 199.

[29] Ibid., 200.

[30] Ibid., 144.

[31] Ibid., 145.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., 146.

[34] Andrew Markus, “Multiculturalism and the Jews,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006), 99.

[35] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 303.

[36] Markus, “Multiculturalism and the Jews,” 99-100.

[37] Ibid., 178.

[38] Ibid., 179.

[39] Ibid., 180.

[40] Dan Goldberg, “Jews key to Aboriginal reconciliation,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 2, 2008.

[41] Michael Gawenda, “The real reason Abbott broke his promise on Section 18C,” The Australian, August 6, 2014. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/the-real-reason-abbott-broke-his-promise-on-section-18c/news-story/bc977f7be04dc1dab8eb1db52a5707ed

[42] Ruth Barson, “Holocaust remembrance teaches lessons for humanity,” The Sydney Morning Herald, January 26, 2016. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/holocaust-remembrance-teaches-lessons-on-human-rights-20160126-gmdy21.html