FINANCIAL STORM JUST BEGINNINGS

"Whatever political party is in power in Australia in 1990 will likely be so discredited that it may not regain power for a generation." - Max Newton, in The Australian, May 23.

We have again asserted recently that we do not regard an international recession/depression as inevitable: we do not believe that the World's Money Masters themselves desire a plunge back into the economic conditions of the early 30s. They want a slow, intense, squeeze to force the nations and peoples of the world into some form of organised pattern. We have no difficulty at all in accepting that some sort of world straightjacket is what is intended for us all. The great journalist, Douglas Reed, had no difficulty, either. He said so (above). Yet the ignorant mediocrities who claim (today) to be journalists, both print and electronic, smirk and sneer. But the smirkers and the sneerers have always been around: history passes them by.

However, economic matters can get out of control, and mistakes can be made, even by the high and mighty. We can comprehend a scenario where the world's political events can be moving too slowly for the International Gentlemen, and that only the "financial weapon" can force the pace. What happens then? We are most mindful that all these matters are not in the hands of man. God is always in control, even though some with insufficient faith may be seduced into thinking the reverse. Will these International Gentlemen "stampede the herd" (quite a risk, they are playing for big stakes) by calling a world depression, as they did, deliberately, in 1929? Still speculative. Australia?

There is little doubt that our country is intended for a significant role in the Global Development of the Pacific Basin. This is not, of course, in the genuine interests of Australians; we are to be slotted in to a Master Plan where in the interests of the individual are to mean nothing. The economic distress already bekking suffered by many Australians will intensify, possibly greatly. We again repeat the words of C.H. Douglas, viz: "No solution to our ills is possible, which does not transgress the tenets of orthodox finance." The truth of these words will loom ever larger with the passage of time.

GREEN FOR DANGER

"A group of U.S. scientists has challenged the authenticity of research showing the Earth's protective layer of Ozone is being seriously depleted by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)." - The Weekend Australian (May 27th-28th)

We have been suspicious for some time that this Ozone Layer/Greenhouse Effect "propaganda" may be just that! Why? What's it all about? There have been just a handful of letters in the print media detailing weather records, over a century, particularly in the U.S.A. These demonstrate that there is no "warming of the earth" at all. A few scientists who have raised the alarm have been seen by us to have undergone some assaults on their credibility, a usually reliable "give away" that "there is something crook in Tallarook".

We smell something phony. For example, Professor Sir Gordon Dobson, knighted for Ozone research, regarded the Ozone hole as a natural phenomenon. Remember the Oil Crisis? We witnessed the spectacle of senior politicians, guided by supposed experts, giving the most serious warnings that the world was running out of oil. We must conserve, conserve, conserve. The result? The world is swimming in oil, and we are paying double, or more, for it. Mr. Malcolm Fraser dramatically raised the price of Australian oil to "world parity". Mr. Fraser is now an internationalist with that "Global View", beloved of the One Worlders.

Was the Oil Crisis a hoax to jack up the price of oil for the benefit of the you-know-whos? Are the Greenhouse (Greenhoax?) Effect and Ozone Layer another internationalists' ploy for further centralisation of political and other controls over the various nations?

We read that, in Australia, Senator Graham Richardson wants tougher laws to combat that Greenhouse Effect. Yes, we can't have any of the States holding up the works; all powers must be centralised in Canberra, where they belong, of course. Perhaps a "national approach" may be reliant upon a national referendum so that the States will be forced to cede those powers to Canberra.
(Apparently the Fabian lads in Canberra are a bit touchy about power grabs after the trouncing of the national referenda last year.)
But what a nice chance to sneak in a couple of fast ones if the electors of Australia could be worked up into a green frenzy. Lest you say, "the Fabian lads won't be there anyway", we have news. We viewed the Opposition's Top Greenie (Senator Chris Puplick) assuring viewers that a Peacock Government would use all possible powers to carry out a similar green programme. Over ride the States? Most certainly. External Affairs power? We cannot rule it out. So there.

Nothing, nothing, will be done by a Coalition Government to undo any Heritage legislation, which has been set in place by the Fabian greenies. Talking of the Fabians, we notice that the Fabian Society discussed the impact of the Greenhouse Effect at Erskine House (Lorne, Vic.) only recently. The President of the Climate Institute was a guest speaker. What's that? Read this carefully! The Climate Institute is a Washington, D.C.based international organisation established to educate policy makers and opinion leaders about the challenges to society posed by the greenhouse effect. What a coincidence that the Climate Institute, an international organisation, should be sending its President to Australia to address politicians, business leaders, Local Government people, etc. You wouldn't reckon there's any behind the scenes wheeling and dealing going on, would you?!

Yes, we agree that the environment of our Earth is in danger; but the principal danger comes from the rape of our natural resources brought about in the main by the effects of the world's fallacious finance economic systems which force unnecessary and escalating production of goods and services to maintain these monsters. The price we pay is astronomical world debt, with the inevitable collapse of national economies.

Melbourne and many other Victorian supporters will be interested to know that the Melbourne Conservative Speakers' Club, at its July meeting (Monday, July 3rd), will be addressed on the Greenhouse Effect and Ozone Layer by Councillor Kevin Smith, who has made a realistic study of all evidence. "Greenhoax" is the word, he says.

UNITING CHURCH OPENS APPEAL FOR AFRICA NATIONAL CONGRESS

This information supplied in The Advocate (Adelaide), May 3rd.
The national president of the Uniting Church, former judge of the Australian High Court, is Sir Ronald Wilson, who stated that the Church hoped to raise $10,000 in Australia for the outlawed African National Congress.

The South African Government publication, "Talking With the A.N.C.", comments (p.13):
"Over the years the relationship between the A.N.C. and the S.A.C.P. (South African Communist Party) grew into a firm alliance, to the point where Oliver Tambo was able to tell the S.A.C.P. on July 30th, 1981, during 60th anniversary celebrations, that when the A.N.C. spoke - it 'was not so much as a guest invited to address a foreign association. Rather we speak of and to our own'. In September 1985 the monthly A.N.C. publication Sechaba (published in East Germany) stated that the: "Members of the A.N.C. fully understand why both the A.N.C. and the S.A.C.P. are two hands in the same body, why they are two pillars of our revolution.
"By June 1985 the influence of the S.A.C.P. on the A.N.C. had grown to such an extent that a predominant group of the 30-member A.N.C. National Executive Committee which emerged from the Second National Consultative Conference of the A.N.C. held at Kabwe, Zambia, are known to have present or past association/membership with the South African Communist Party...."

Sir Ronald Wilson is quoted as commenting that the $10,000 will be spent in Australia to counter the influences of apartheid and racism. Rather surprisingly, he added that, "Many people ask us why we are being involved with an organisation which uses violent actions in its opposition to apartheid (the Uniting Church knows of the violent actions of the A.N.C. O.T.). Let me make it clear that the Uniting Church neither condones nor encourages the use of violence, but we do not believe it is our role to sit in judgment on the methods employed by oppressed people to fight against institutionalised violence."
There's something wrong with this. Yes. The Uniting Church does not sit in judgment on methods. This is another way of saying that it accepts that the end justifies the means. This is not right, because it is anti-Christian. The end never justifies the means, because all manner of evil may thus be tolerated. It is a reversal of Truth.

A SYDNEY ACTIONIST

wrote recently to Mr. Alan Cadman, until very recently the Opposition's Shadow Minister for Immigration. (Mr. Ruddock now holds that position.) The actionist wrote:
For the past fifteen years I have subscribed to literature prepared and distributed by the Australian League of Rights. For all that time I have witnessed a steady stream of abuse and ridicule directed at the League, often by people who, philosophically, would have to be closely aligned with the League. "I have heard the taunts of 'racism', 'anti-semitism', 'neo-Nazism', 'extreme right wing', and so on. Yet, after 15 years of close examination, I can only conclude that the League of Rights is a Christian based organisation, opposed to all forms of increasing centralised power and supportive of the individual worth and dignity of all people - nothing sinister about that. It is a service organisation, which seeks to promote what most would see as traditional Australian values. "Furthermore, I have yet to hear, from the detractors of the League, any reasoned, coherent and factual explanation of their hostility.
"In more instances than I can recall, the League of Rights has been proven absolutely correct in their warnings of the potential dangers inherent in the excesses of an over centralised form of government. "If you have not already done so, would you please read the attached publication (Special February issue Intelligence Survey ... O.T.). Would you then kindly advise me of your stance on the League of Rights? - particularly whether you support some of the quite ridiculous assertions that have been made by Senator Ron Boswell and others, regarding the League's 'hidden agenda' ."'

Mr. Cadman replied: "I have not only seen the League's publications on a number of occasions, I have also spoken with League supporters and must say that whilst I can understand some of the League's concerns, I believe their priorities and emphasis are not always in accord with my own views. Nevertheless, in a healthy democracy like Australia, a broad range of views needs to be aired. While I cannot support a number of the League's views I believe the League and its supporters have every right to hold those views."

ABORIGINES IN CUSTODY

HEARTBREAKING PLIGHT