Vergil Reality

Views, comments, opinions, musings from Vergil Iliescu

My Photo
Name: Vergil Iliescu
Location: Sydney, Australia

This blog is an exercise in self indulgence; a way of clarifying or testing my own thoughts - about the random things that interest me. Everything from politics to philosophy to poems and songs I like or even dislike. Putting it online forces me to think.

Saturday, November 08, 2003

Escape the Meatrix!

This flash animation:

was posted on his webblog by AKMA (Rev A. K. Adam)
(see link on the left)

Of course, it might be another Green Party/Nazi plot, since Hitler was a vegetarian.

Bush, The Greens, and Nazis

After the leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, interrupted President Bush's speech to a joint sitting of parliament, Liberal senator George Brandis likened the politics of the Greens to Nazi Germany. In support of his case, he quoted a book "The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers 1871 - 1971", by Emeritus Professor Raymond Dominick, Ohio State University. This comparison, as you'd expect, was treated with contempt by the Greens. Senator Brandis also quoted from "Ecofacism: Lessons from the German Experience" by Professor Peter Staudenmaier.

ABC Radio followed up this story by contacting both Professor Dominick and Professor Staudenmaier, and asking them what they thought. Professor Dominick said that Senator Brandis had reached almost the exact opposite conclusion to the point he was making in his book. Professor Staudenmaier similarly felt that his work was completely misinterpreted.

The interview with Professor Dominick, which I just listened to this morning can be heard here:
(requires real audio player).

Some time ago, I posted this quotation from

'Why of course the people don't want war... naturally... that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or acommunist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"

-- Hermann Goering.

Senator Brandis, no doubt, would fail to see the irony of his accusations.

For those interested, below is an extract from Hansard, of the speech given by Senator Brandis:
(The whole speech can be found here, on page 16540: )

But, as their behaviour
last Thursday demonstrated, the Greens are not
well-meaning oddballs and they are not scruffy ratbags;
they are something much more sinister than that.
They have introduced into our democracy—one of the
world’s greatest and most successful democracies—a
new and sinister element.

In a very perceptive column
syndicated throughout Australia in last Sunday’s newspapers,
the journalist Andrew Bolt pointed out the
striking and very dangerous antecedents of the fanaticism
of contemporary green politics in this country,
and its commonality and common source with the
views that inspired the Nazis in prewar Germany. In an
earlier piece, published in July, Mr Bolt directed our
attention to two studies that have been written of contemporary
green politics—and I have read them in the
last day or so; they make chilling reading—which go
all the way to explaining the modus operandi of the
Greens last Thursday. The first, by an American
scholar, Professor Raymond Dominick, examined the
common source of the fanaticism of contemporary
greens with the nature worship practised by the Nazis
in the 1930s. The book is called The Environmental
Movement in Germany.

Then some interjections by Senator brown on a point of order
which was dismissed by the speaker. Senator Brandis then

And I intend to continue to
call to the attention of the Australian people the extremely
alarming, frightening similarities between the
methods employed by contemporary green politics and
the methods and the values of the Nazis. Mr Acting
Deputy President, I was referring to the book by Professor
Raymond Dominick, The Environmental Movement
in Germany, but even more illuminating is a work
by a person who is known to be on the far left of green
politics in Europe, Professor Peter Staudenmaier, who
wrote a book four years ago called Ecofascism: Lessons
from the German Experience. He, too, drew the
comparison between the political technique of the
Greens in contemporary Western societies and the political
technique of the environmental movement—or
the naturalist movement, as it was then known—in
Germany in the 1920s and the 1930s.

The work of both
of those scholars caused Patrick Moore, a former head
of Greenpeace International, to say:
In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we
are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of ecofascism.
The commonalities between contemporary green politics
and old-fashioned fascism and Nazism are chilling.
First of all—and this is the most obvious point of the
lot—is the embrace of fanaticism, the embrace of a set
of political values which will not brook the expression
of legitimate difference. So, as we saw from Senator
Brown’s and Senator Nettle’s behaviour in the House
of Representatives chamber last Thursday, they are
unable to listen to somebody whose political colour
they dislike, whose political views they disagree with,
without screaming at them. They will not even brook
the legitimacy of alternative points of view. The zealotry—
the fundamentalism—we saw from Senator
Brown and Senator Nettle last Thursday identified
them as true fanatics.

Thursday, November 06, 2003

The Balfour Declaration

I always imagined the Balfour declaration, which committed Great Britain to the establishment of a Jewish homeland, to be some great long document describing in detail the reasons for it all. While doing some research trying to understand the history of the middle east, particularly the Palestine/Israel conflict, I found the declaration, which I can repeat here in full:

"Foreign Office,
2 November 1917

"Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour".

Notice that it commits to not doing anything to prejudice the rights of non-jewish people living there. Something that has never been fulfilled. This simple document has been a key cause of immense injustice and suffering. Despite the apparent even-handedness of it's committment to Jews and to existing inhabitants of Palestine, the intention was simply to impose a Jewish homeland onto the existing peoples, regardless of the their wishes.

In another letter, Balfour states this:

"... in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American (King-Crane) Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."

I am not surprised that the people of Palestine were and remain unimpressed.

Monday, November 03, 2003

Hollow Apology

Prime Minister Howard apologised in Parliament today for forgetting to invite the widow of an Australian Soldier, killed in Afghanistan, to a ceremony in his honour. The ceremony was performed by President George W in his recent visit to Canberra. Apparently, the widow found out in the newspapers, and is understandably upset.

The excuse offered was that it was an "oversight". I can easily believe that it was just a bureaucratic bungle and oversight, and not deliberate. But somehow, that doesn't help, nor does it excuse the ommission. Just the fact that it was an oversight is offensive enough.

It shows with excruciating clarity, that the act was not one of honouring a soldier killed in duty, but a cynical political exercise.