6 February 2004. Thought for the Week: "Constitutional safeguards: Public opinion has been so confused and perverted by subtle-totalitarian propaganda that there are a great number of people who accept without question the idea that once a Government has been elected to office, it should be free to do as it likes until the next elections Laski has written: 'There is no reason to doubt that the prerogative of the King seems to men of eminence and experience in politics above all the means of delaying the coming of Socialism.' This is a particularly significant statement. Laski said his fellow-totalitarians in all parts of the British Empire realise that the Monopoly State cannot be created while the powers of Parliament are limited by Constitutional safeguards "
Eric D. Butler in Steps Toward the Monopoly State, 1949
THE VERY REAL THREAT WE FACEby Betty Luks:
As a younger woman I had read of the horrendous experiences of such men as Lutheran pastor Richard Wurmbrand under the brutal communist regime in the eastern-European country of Roumania. I went on to read Solzhenitsyn's works and realised the western world was also in dire peril, but, because the battle being waged was not by military means, but by a much more subtle means of warfare, few people could 'see' what was -- and is -- happening. (I had noted the comment of one person, based on the lessons of the 20th century alone, that those who thought a totalitarian New World Order would be run by saints were not only gullible but incredibly stupid.)
I wonder how many of our younger readers know the Australian League of Rights grew out of the "VOTE NO" campaign waged against the wartime bid to centralise more power in the hands of the Canberra politicians? The Fabian Socialist, attorney-general at the time, Dr. H.V. Evatt, tried to do so, at the 1944 "Post-War Reconstruction" Referendum - and, thankfully, failed. Dr. Evatt was forced to go to a Referendum only because the Tasmanian Legislative Council refused to be a party to the House of Assembly's proposal to grant the powers to Canberra without reference to the Tasmanian electors.
In 1942 Dr. Evatt had courted the States' Premiers and Leaders of the Opposition getting them to adopt the proposal of deferring the holding of a Referendum, but asking the various State Parliaments to 'refer' a large number of powers to the Federal Parliament "for a limited period". The proposal was rejected by Tasmania's Upper House thus forcing the centralists to a referendum.
In a Melbourne Argus article, 25th October, 1947 written prior to the Victorian State Elections of that year Eric Butler wrote:
"After visiting Stalin in 1946, Professor Harold Laski, of the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics made the statement that Russian Communism and British Socialism were merely two distinct roads to the same objective." He also observed British and Australian Governments "both have the same totalitarian objective, but different techniques are required to reach it." And, "The written Federal Constitution and the High Court have compelled different tactics in Australia."
Just in case you may be thinking those objectives ended with the 'collapse' of the Soviet system, remember, labels mean nothing - "By their fruits you will know them". What was not quite so clear in the 1940s, as it is today, was the hidden link between Capitalism and Communism. It was through the great pioneering work of such men as Eric Butler and Jeremy Lee, and authors such as Gary Allen None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Douglas Reed The Controversy of Zion, Ivor Benson In This Age of Conflict, Antony Sutton Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Carol Quigley Tragedy and Hope that those who pay enough attention to detail can now 'peer through the veil' of those 'hidden' forces and their Plan for a New World Order - and bring their Plans out into 'the light of day' for all the world to see.
P.S.: Most Australians have yet to recognise, let alone acknowledge, the stupendous efforts made over many years and under most difficult circumstances, by men such as Eric D. Butler and Jeremy W. Lee in their endeavours to warn, educate, and motivate us, to also take up the fight against these devilishly clever forces -- to retain our freedoms and keep government in its place as servant, and not master.
ANOTHER MASSIVE ONSLAUGHT ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHYMr. Philip Benwell, National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League writes:
"As I have been warning for some time, the Republicans, particularly those in the media and the Parliaments, have been preparing for a massive onslaught on our Constitutional Monarchy. In 1999 they were unable to succeed because the Australian People (as opposed to the supposed intellectual elite) stood their ground and voted down a republic and they will not succeed this time provided we, ourselves, stand our ground.
I have often quoted the words of Ben Chifley - and they are no less relevant today: "If an idea is worth fighting for, no matter the penalty, fight for the right, and truth and justice will prevail".
The Australian Monarchist League is preparing for what is to come and very soon our web-site will be updated and ready to meet the challenge. However, as with the phone poll, email is our fastest weapon but unfortunately so many of our members and supporters remain computer illiterate. It is therefore important that we increase our email database, which always remains strictly confidential and is never broadcast to others.
Would you therefore give consideration to contacting persons whom you know to be sympathetic to our cause to ask whether they would like to receive our emails, which I hope you will agree are not very intrusive?
Editor's note: Those O.T. readers who would like to receive Mr. Benwell's emails can contact his organisation at: email@example.com
Mr. Benwell reminds us: Submissions to the Senate Inquiry into an Australian Republic are now being pasted onto their web-site and can be seen at:
Please do respond to this Inquiry opposing any plebiscites, referendums or indeed any sort of republic. Briefing notes to assist you can be found on our web-site: www.monarchist.org.au
THE 'ACA' PHONE POLL
The A Current Affair telephone poll on
the question: "Do you want a republic?" was announced
on Tuesday the 27th January 2004 with a resounding 66.3% NO
result. However when contacted the following day Channel 9
advised that the NO figures were 61.5% out of a total 13,640
Further information and 'ammunition'
in the battle for our Constitutional Monarchy:
The Twilight of the Elites by
BASIC FUNDThank you to those who contributed to the Fund bringing the current figure up to $10,395.60. There were some most generous contributions. Please keep the contributions coming in - we have a long way to go.
WE ARE YOUR 'REPRESENTATIVES' - WE THINKby Kenneth McFadzen
At a public forum held by the Free Association in Mackay on the 29th January, to hear candidates for the coming State elections present their policies and answer questions from the floor, it was stated by the National Party (NP) candidate that they were responsible to the electors' will before the Party.
The National Party's state leader, Mr.Springborg has publicly stated that any N.P. candidate who distributes preferences to One Nation will be disendorsed.
It was made fairly clear by those at the meeting that preferences should be given to One Nation over Labor - the NP candidates 'fumbled' around this question. I suppose we will have to wait to see National Party "How to Vote" cards, to find out whether the Party or the Will of the People prevails.
JOBS GOING OVERSEAS, IS A HOT ISSUE IN AMERICAby Jennifer Grundy
In America almost three million jobs have disappeared in three years, mainly manufacturing and textiles, because of cheap exports.
The CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, Jerry Kozak has said, "Australian products would swamp our markets and wipe out thousands of small-to-medium-size family farms in the process." Mr Kozak even linked the free trade agreement to the war on terror, "No homeland can be secure if the quantity and quality of its dairy supply is in doubt". Kozak also pointed out that Mr Bush said two years ago, "It is in our national security interest that we be able to feed ourselves." (Advertiser 28/1/04)
The age-old trade war between Australia and America continues, with those involved at the grass roots in primary and secondary industry concerned not only for their own welfare, but for the overall loss of jobs, which in turn means the slow decline of small communities to the detriment of the nation.
When are the decisions which bring about such devastating results going to be reversed? If we are fighting to find markets for products, does this mean an oversupply? Can it be revealed that we do not always produce goods because they are needed, but because the money or income is needed?
Trade should not mean a conflict between "them and us" but should be a way of distributing genuinely needed goods among willing parties. Complicated trade agreements tend to take control of policy making, while attempting to avoid trade wars. It would be preferable to encourage each nation to be self-sufficient in supplying their own needs and exporting or importing only that which is genuinely required.
If production and distribution is to be kept in balance, without individuals losing purchasing power, the issue of debt free money must come into the equation.
What is physically possible can be made financially possible. The physical side means hard work and organisation to produce and manufacture - the financial side is a matter of implementing a policy to make money or credit available, without burden, so that what is produced can be readily purchased. The only purpose of production is consumption.
This can be done, has been done and must be done again if stability for all is to prevail.
THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL (ACCOUNTING) REFORMby Anthony Cooney:
Editor's note: Mr. Cooney wrote the following missive in response to similar questions put to him via the internet. Do take time to read and 'mull over' what is being proposed.
"The required financial reform for each nation is that its financial system be balanced by provision of sufficient effective consumer purchasing power to equate with final consumer prices generated in each cycle of production.
This must be done by the introduction of an external flow of money (i.e., consumer credit) created without registering as a repayable debt charged against future cycles of production. This money would cancel old debts and prevent the accumulation of unrepayable debt."
Capital appreciation, communal capital & increasing economic independence and leisure
"In effect, the consumer must not only be charged with capital depreciation as is properly done at present, but also must be credited (as is not currently done) against this charge with the normally much greater appreciation of capital.
In this way, each consumer would be beneficiary to his or her rightful share in the communal capital and would enjoy an increasing standard of economic independence and leisure wherein, "every man [woman and child] would sit under his [her] own fig tree and none would make them afraid."
Under the above circumstances, the centralisation of world power would be reversed and nations would not be driven into forced, unnatural, undesirable and unnecessary relationships with other nations -- significantly because each nation would have the means of facilitating internal consumption without engaging in a desperate struggle to export more than it imports in order to make up an internal monetary deficiency.
This would bring about much more cordial international relationships while permitting the development of differentiated and independent cultures. The whole world cannot export more than it imports--except, perhaps by a massive wasteful program of shipping goods to outer space merely to distribute sufficient incomes so to allow consumers to obtain goods produced for use on earth!
Reference: "International Finance: The Necessity for a National rather than an International Financial System," C. H. Douglas, Address to the Bournemouth Rotary Club, June 20, 1932--reprinted in "Major Douglas Speaks" (Sydney: Douglas Social Credit Association, 1933)
THE PASSION OF CHRISTWhilst we knew the New York Times journalist Sharon Waxman ('Passion' Film Is Scheduled for Big Opening, 15th January 2004) had discussed the plans of the distributors to simultaneously release the Gibson film on 2,000 screens across the nation late February, and that she had also noted the flood of requests for tickets had reached 'tsunami' proportions, what hasn't been given prominence, certainly not within the Australian media, is the "battle royal going on within the Jewish community in America and what we will call for better or worse the Mel Gibson camp," as reported by The Australian's Frank Devine, 30th January 2004.
Mr. Devine writes, "The worldwide controversy about the movie, its echoes registering relatively faintly in Australia, began with an article on March 9 in The Times's Sunday magazine. It clawed at Gibson personally and claimed his picture depicted Jews as Christ killers, and would stir up new waves of anti-Semitism."
"The controversy," he penned, "stirred up by The Times has guaranteed a large audience for the movie. I had hoped to squib it as probably harrowing but have been persuaded by the paper's embargo attempts that I should see The Passion -- though certainly not on its ill-chosen opening date, Ash Wednesday, a day sufficiently dense with stress and foreboding.
"The manufactured raging against the movie has created worse possibilities of conflict between Christians and Jews than the movie itself, which, given the hair-raising risks, I have no problem accepting as an act of personal devoutness by Gibson.
Mr. Devine was, he said, "heartened by David Klinghoffer, writing in the Los Angeles Times, who drew upon the Talmud to conclude:
'Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do.' (One wonders does Mr. Devine know of the other things it is recorded the Talmud says about Christ?)
"The Christian thing to do, I guess, is to forgive The New York Times for perverting journalism and turning it to propaganda," concluded Mr. Devine. "But," he thought, "I need to brood about that for a while."
We haven't heard when the release date will be for cinemas in Australia.
TELSTRA -- TO SELL OR NOT TO SELL ??The following outline of Peter Davis's TELSTRA flyer could be of help to those who are taking action on this issue.
Some facts and figures (rounded) on Telstra:
Commonwealth Government owns 51% of shares. Value of the asset to the govt. is approx $3,2000m.
Last year, Telstra:
Paid off $1,400m of its debts.
Wrote off bad debts worth $770m.
Paid a dividend to the Govt. $1,700m.
Paid income tax to the Govt. $1,500m.
Total revenue paid to the Govt. last year $3,200m.
This represents a 10% yield to the government on its investment.
If the debts were eliminated, a further $2,100m would have been available.
If the government sold Telstra for $32,000m, funds could be used to reduce debt or to finance govt. expenditure
BUT the income stream of $3,200m per annum would cease - never to occur again.
EXAMPLES OF USING TELSTRA FUNDS WISELY
Enthusiastic supporters of worthy schemes such as "Saving the Murray" have foreshadowed a claim for funds from the sale of Telstra.
If for example, they wanted $2,000m for their project, the government could retain Telstra and allocate them $500m for the next four years, funding it from a portion of income derived from Telstra.
Similarly, Telstra's annual earnings could be directed to debt reduction.
Service to remote areas.
Much has been said about assurances being written into a sale agreement compelling a
privatised Telstra to adequate service in remote areas. Such claims are not convincing in the long term. Private corporations are concerned with cost cutting and increased profits.
With the chance to review recent privatisation of electricity and water supplies, would anyone seriously prefer to see Telstra go the same way?
Majority Government ownership.
If its ownership level of 51% is considered any handicap in the commerce world, the government could sell its holding down to 49% and in practical terms, retain control of Telstra.
HOW CAN THE SALE OF TELSTRA BE PREVENTED?
Can we depend on Liberal or Labor Governments to adhere to the people's desires? All the polls indicate that it should not be sold. Pressure from voters will need to be applied to all MP's. Could Local govt., Unions, small business, farmers' groups, etc. assist?
DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF - WHAT CAN I DO? THEN GO TO IT - AND DO IT!
THE WORLD'S 'POLICEMAN' - NOW FOCUS IS ON PAKISTANby Betty Luks:
The Chicago Tribune announced the US plans to attack Pakistan - maybe this year. (The Australian 30th January 2004). The reason given was the recent attacks on Musharraf, Pakistan's 'political leader' who originally gained power by means of a military takeover. He is viewed by "Washington officials as a strategically important ally." Strategic to what? Hardly the old-fashioned kind of war -- defending one's homeland against a threatened invader!
We are told Musharraf believes al-Qa'ida was behind two recent assassination attempts against him. Citing military sources, the daily said the offensive could occur this year but the timing "would be driven by events in the region".
"According to military sources," reports the newspaper, "The plan calls for the use of special operations forces, army rangers and army ground troops, and the deployment of a navy aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea. It would involve thousands of US troops, many of them drawn from US forces already on the ground in Afghanistan, working with Pakistani troops.
A series of planning orders for the operation, which is referred to as the 'spring offensive', in internal military communications, were issued in recent weeks."
It reads more like two Mafia groups want to 'scare off' another Mafia mob but they want to use America's sons and daughters to do their dirty work! Why am I so cynical these days?
TAINTED CHICKEN BEST SERVED WITHOUT FREE TRADEOne Nation's national director, Frank Hough, MLC (W.A.) has called for the 'culling' of free trade arrangements in favour of Australia's quarantine and bio-security concerns.
Identifying potential risks he insisted, "As the bird flu closes in on Australian borders the imperative of opening our economy to free trade must take a back seat to quarantine and bio-security concerns."
Insisting quarantine protection should never be confused with economic protection, he continued "It's not the same thing and any attempt by international competitors to force Australia to lower its quarantine standards in the interests of free trade must be resisted at all costs. At present the meat chicken industry is Australia's most efficient meat industry with an absolute size that's second only to beef. It has estimated assets of $6 billion, an annual turnover of $3.5 billion, and employs around 120,000 people directly and indirectly."
WA produces approximately 40 million meat birds for market every year and incremental to the meat birds, more than 12 million chickens are bred each year for egg production. Over 215 million eggs are laid annually at a gross value of $340 million.
"The chicken industry," explains Mr. Hough, "enjoys a favourable status of being free of a number of significant diseases that plague the industry overseas. If strict bio-security measures are not maintained then we will lose our major advantage over international competitors."
Mr Hough also claims the bio-security measures currently employed are exemplary
"Quarantine protection is perfectly legitimate under WTO Agreements and all countries with substantial agricultural industries implement quarantine and bio-security protection. In its five year R&D Plan for chicken meat program the Federal Government's Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation recognized that the industry's current disease status must be maintained. Domestic flocks must be protected from endemic and exotic disease outbreaks.
The Australian Chicken Meat Federation made a similar argument in its May 2002 submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. It said strict bio-security and quarantine policies were crucial to guard against devastating exotic disease out-breaks which would impose massive economic and environmental costs.
Meat chickens are raised in batches in large, purpose-built chicken sheds where they can roam and have easy access to food and water. At the end of every batch, sheds are completely cleaned out and disinfected and a fresh layer of litter is laid on the floor in readiness for the next batch."
"While there are some well-maintained chicken farms in third-world countries like Thailand, the usual practice is to house chickens in sub-standard facilities or cages over water where the animals are exposed to insects and parasites.
They're also partially exposed to the elements meaning that they can come into contact with wild birds that may carry contagious avian viruses. These extremely low-cost practices are totally inadequate and make for very cheap chickens. When you consider third world countries get breaks under trade agreements, its easy to see how greed can turn a cost-saving of a few dollars into a multi-billion-dollar Australia-wide disaster.
He warned: "Any government that compromises our quarantine and bio-security so a few can benefit from the import of cheap, possibly diseased, poultry in the interests of free trade is placing a gun to the head of domestic agricultural development and employment."
LETTER TO THE EDITORThe Editor, The Australian, 18th January 2004
Australians concerned about the constitutional future of our nation would do well to ponder the extraordinary fact that within four years of a clear popular decision by the electorate in favour of retention of the monarchy, the Senate has launched an" Inquiry into an Australian Republic" whose terms of reference entirely flout that decision.
It was plain in 1999 that very powerful forces, capable of controlling our major media and the majority of our national politicians, were determined to foist a republic on Australia. It was also obvious that those forces were terrified of a genuinely open public debate in which supporters of the monarchy would have equality of opportunity with republicans to state their case.
Monarchists won the referendum despite the disgraceful bias against them in the public forums.
The establishment of the Senate inquiry, like the plans of Mr. Latham and others for plebiscites with loaded questions, displays a determination in some quarters to obtain an Australian republic no matter what. One asks, why?
History shows that constitutional monarchy on the British or similar European models can provide national unity, stability, peace, security and prosperity over a long period of time.
Republics have a far worse record.
A Senate inquiry on an independent Australian monarchy would have been much closer to the public will and the public interest.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave Vic.
"On Target" is published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.