ZIONISTS OPPOSE FREE SPEECH IN CANADA

Eric Butler reports from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. David Irving may be a distinguished British historian whose work is gaining increasing attention and respect, but the Zionist totalitarians are determined that his views should be suppressed. As the League of Rights has found over many years, Zionist influence in Winnipeg, Canada, is formidable. During past visits I have personally experienced that influence, with meeting venues cancelled as a result of Zionist inspired pressure. A famous television debate with Zionist spokesmen came to a sudden end when my two Zionist opponents abruptly left the set shouting that they were not going to tolerate my comments any longer. Influence was brought to bear from Ottawa to ensure that this shortened debate was not shown by the C.B.C.

During David Irving's 1987 visit to Winnipeg I chaired a meeting that had to be suddenly removed to a different venue because of Zionist pressure. The same pressure resulted in a subsequent meeting; was to address, being cancelled at the last minute, with a well-known hotel cancelling the booking. This year's David Irving tour of Canada was under the auspices of the Free Speech Society. But once again the Zionists made it clear that everyone should have free speech so long as no views contrary to their views are expressed. Originally Irving was scheduled to speak in a public forum, the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Local lawyer William Martens was told that the booking had been cancelled because he had not revealed the nature of Irving's address, which was, in essence, an update of history with particular reference to the re-uniting of West and East Germany. Local Zionist leaders claim that they had not been responsible for the cancellation of the Irving meeting, but admitted that they had been closely "monitoring" Irving's Canadian tour.

A revealing aspect of the controversy about the Irving affair came from the local Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, the President saying that while his association believed in free speech, Irving's views on the "holocaust" were a form of "hate literature" and could therefore not be heard! An attempt to obtain an alternative venue was also thwarted when the owners of the venue were told Irving should not be heard. A local open line radio programme was abruptly ended with a well-known announcer stating that Irving should not be heard.

David Irving has hit back with a charge that "organised" pressure by the leaders of the Jewish community was being mobilised to prevent him expressing his views. As a result of the Leuchter Report, which appears to be a banned document in Canada, in spite of the fact that it was tended as formal evidence in the second Zundel trial in Toronto, Irving has openly admitted that he has been forced to revise his own original views on the "holocaust". He is now convinced that it has been a major hoax. For this reason he has completely revised his best-known history, Hitler's War.

As Irving points out the Soviet has now revealed that the death list in Auschwitz was approximately 76,000. Other Soviet revelations are making nonsense of what has been promoted for years, primarily to serve the policies of the Zionist State of Israel. Slowly but surely the truth is coming out and attempts by the Zionists to keep on suppressing it will eventually prove extremely counter productive. Irving's next visit to Winnipeg, next year, should be interesting.

BANKERS MOVING FEVERISHLY

from Jeremy Lee
The forces of finance are now closing remorselessly on Margaret Thatcher. The Financial Review (15/11) reported: "The British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, is baulking at European plans for creating a common currency, but the City of London is not. Europe's biggest financial centre wants in. Otherwise, the City fears, a continental city might replace London as an anchor in the global trading day which begins in Tokyo and ends in New York ... Said Sir Michael Butler, Chairman of Hambros Bank Ltd: 'Being left out certainly would have adverse effects'. A 'European Committee' made up of 18 city heavyweights and chaired by Sir Michael has agreed that Britain should play a full part in the creation of E.M.U. (European Monetary Union) and its operation ... London is the centre of European banking, with more than 500 banks…"
We can but ask: If the banks in the city have decided that the Pound Sterling should be abolished and Britain's sovereignty handed over to a European Central Bank, who is a mere Prime Minister to say no?

The Financial Review (15/11) also reported: "All 12 central bank governors of the European Community have agreed on draft statutes of a proposed European central bank, the Deutsche Bundesbank President, Mr. Karl Otto Poehl, said in Basle yesterday …."
The concept envisaged, as described in the article, sounds almost exactly like the Federal Reserve System in the United States, which, it should be remembered, is privately owned.

Meanwhile, hot on the heels of the International Monetary Fund, which as we reported in On Target recently, was in Moscow with its plan of action for Mr. Gorbachev, is the World Bank - the other 'ugly sister' of U.N. financial control. The Financial Review reported: "... Mr. Conable (president of the World Bank) will spend two days in the Soviet capital and meet President Gorbachev and the chairman of the State Bank of the Soviet Union, Mr. Viktor Geraschenko. 'The talks are expected to include a discussion of the Soviet request for technical assistance and the issues relating to the possibility of the Soviet Union joining the World Bank', the bank said…"

What is the vision behind these coordinated moves? A half-page advertisement in The Australian (9/11) from Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German Foreign Minister, spelled it out in heart wrenching rhetoric: "... A new concept of the co-existence of nations is taking shape. It is based on the awareness of the global challenges and of global interdependence... It is the concept of ... limiting national powers through the transference of sovereign rights to community institutions, of the interlocking of economic interests, of regional solidarity and independence. ... The opportunities for developing a new world order lie in solidarity and joint action. They must be taken..."

There is just one little cost Mr. Genscher failed to mention. If his concept succeeds, national parliaments will longer be answerable to the people but to international instructions from Global Headquarters. How could he have forgotten to tell us?

THE MARKET BRINGS THATCHER DOWN

by David Thompson
The sudden resignation of Mrs. Thatcher heralds a turning point, not only in British politics, but in Britain's future. Mrs. Thatcher has so far steadfastly limited Britain's unification with Europe, much to the frustration of some of her senior colleagues. Such were the divisions within the Conservative Party on European unification, that Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, both resigned because they could not support Mrs. Thatcher's insistence that Britain retain its sovereignty and identity.

Was Mrs. Thatcher out of touch with the British grassroots? Do the British people want to submerge their sovereignty in Europe, and could no longer tolerate Mrs. Thatcher's niggardly stalling? There is no evidence for this view. In fact, the opinion polls indicated that Thatcher's position on Europe was not a major concern among the British people. The major concerns were the politically damaging poll tax, and a carefully fostered perception that Mrs. Thatcher had become "bossy, willful, proud and arrogant". Mrs. Thatcher may have been all these things, but it is clear that, had she stood her ground and contested the second leadership ballot, she would have won it.

Why, then, is Thatcher gone? Mainly because of immense pressure brought to bear upon her by her ambitious colleagues and that latter day deity, "the market".

The "City of London"
It is clear, too, that London's banking groups were able to exert such enormous pressure upon the leadership of the Conservative Party, that only Thatcher herself had not capitulated. Europe is vital to the bankers. The formation of a new, powerful European Central Bank on the Continent is music to the ears of the "City of London". If Britain is not fully committed to Europe the influence of London as an international banking centre must wane. It seems that Howe, Hestletine and Lawson had already capitulated to this pressure. It also appears that Mrs. Thatcher has resigned so that another candidate may withstand the Hestletine challenge. But would Mr. Major or Mr. Hurd hold the Thatcher line on Europe? Mr. Hurd is Thatcher's choice. Where does Mr. Major stand?

Robert Hadler reports from London: "Within minutes (of the resignation) the F.T.S.E. index of 100 leading shares which was up around 8 points before the news, leapt to an increase on the day of almost 34 points... Investors were relieved that Mrs. Thatcher's decision had left the way clear for a new candidate. Word swept financial markets that Mr. Major might throw his hat into the ring. He would be a popular choice within the City of London. His tough stance against inflation and his softer line on Europe are both seen as attractive to the markets..."

The Fabian Triumph
Trade and financial pressures, the tottering pound and rising inflation have been sufficient for the Fabian thinking to finally triumph. The words of the brilliant Marxist theoretician, John Strachey, have an ominous ring. Writing in his book, "Programme for Progress", Strachey wrote that inflationary credit expansion policies were seen as "an indispensable step in the right direction", and continued: "…The loss of objectivity and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e. inflation) will sooner or later make necessary on pain of ever increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control… for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of reorganisation."

THE VANDALISING OF RURAL AUSTRALIA

from Jeremy Lee
A letter in The Australian on November 12th from a lady in Illinois complained about the scarcity and cost of woollen apparel, and asked why Australia could not export wool to the U.S. rather than slaughter 20 million sheep. Her letter was a microcosm highlighting the cynicism and inertia of farm and political leadership in a situation where our primary producers now face wholesale decimation. As a result of the Middle East crisis Australia has directly lost a $400 million wheat market in Iraq, as well as a viable live sheep contract. In addition, the U.S.S.R. is long overdue with a further $400 million payment for wool received.

In previous world wars, Australia immediately devised mechanisms for keeping its industries viable, even when export markets disappeared for the duration of the war. The Commonwealth Bank was instructed to finance pools for rural commodities, and fuel costs were subsidised down at the consumer level. The famous J.O. scheme was used to stockpile wool for over six years. Every effort was made to protect producers from the inevitable results of military action.

The Hawke Government, however, while escalating an already existing rural crisis by what many regard as precipitate action in rushing in to save American and Israeli interests in the Gulf, has done nothing to protect agriculture. Conversely, it has tightened the screw on farmers with massive price hikes on fuel just prior to harvest. The result is an unfolding calamity. Tens of thousands are poised to follow the thousands who have already been forced off their family farms, to vent their misery in the dole and housing queues that are lengthening day by day.

In the early 70s the League of Rights was instrumental in the distribution of "The Little White Wool Book" - authored by an engineer who showed that if Australia started processing its raw wool into tops and finished woollen articles - using brilliant new machinery invented and built in Australia - the size of our export wool income could triple. The investment required was insignificant, and the resulting scouring and spinning plants would revitalise rural areas where off farm jobs were scarce. The then Minister for Primary Industry, Ian Sinclair, dismissed the concept as "uneconomic". The only plants built in Australia since have been by the Japanese.

The Weekend Australian (17,18/11/90) reported the chief of the C.S.I.R.O. Institute of Animal Production, Dr. Alan Donald, as claiming there was scope for increasing wool income by $3.8 billion by top-making the whole clip. Further increases of up to $15 billion could be gained by going a step further into spinning and weaving. But who's listening? The Opposition has done nothing, save to advocate that the slaughter of sheep be increased from 20 million to 50 million. This, plus the introduction of a consumption tax, is about all the Opposition can offer.

If farmers have any fight left, they must realise it is now a waste of time negotiating with a Labor Party openly committed to their destruction. They must focus their attention on their own industry organisations and the Opposition parties. The N.F.F., with its massive fighting fund, has not run one advertisement giving the nation the true facts of the rural crisis. Its executives have gone through the motions only to the point where there is no threat to their own comfort.

Rural Australia is now at war. Its generals are far behind the front line. Either they should get up and lead, or get out. It is now obscene for any politician elected to a rural seat to preside in Parliament over a situation where clearly there is no representation for rural voters. A 'gutsy' farm leadership would demand that rural politicians withdraw, and refuse to take part in the parliamentary process - at least until the dimensions of the rural crisis were tacitly acknowledged, and some genuine alternatives put forward.

A Box Hill Actionist (Vic.) has sent the following letter to the Melbourne newspaper, The Age: "In the eloquent opening paragraph of his 'Dirt & Debt' (The Age, 17/11), Kevin Childs paints a microcosmic picture of that most disturbing economic problem: poverty amidst plenty, enforced human misery amid material abundance. But it is virtual blasphemy to ascribe the problem to the 'hypocrisy of nature...' where it is entirely the 'hypocrisy of society'. "Nature's abundance is really God's munificence. And the Creator does not show forth his infinite bounty on the one hand, only to deny Man access to it, on the other. It is the flawed financial system, or the (anti-social) 'society' of debt merchants, constantly charging up to itself the national credit (wealth actual and potential) as unrepayable debt, that is militating against the community 'ready to embrace prosperity'. "In all justice, the community cannot possibly owe its wealth, as monetised to the financial system. Yet the Moloch of Money seems implacable: driven to desperation at paying off the unrepayable (debt), the community is 'forgiven' its trespasses (debts) only by dispossession of its assets. There's worse than hypocrisy there."

BILL FOR PEOPLE'S REFERENDUM COULD GIVE US TRUE DEMOCRACY

from The Age (Melbourne), November 21st "Mr. Ted Mack, the Independent Federal M.P. for North Sydney, is striving to introduce a private member's bill for the incorporation of a system of people's referendum into our Constitution. "If successful, this would provide a much needed check on government, and enable the electorate, by majority vote, to stamp its will on government policies - in other words, full democracy. As things are, the democratic process is only evident every two or three years, whenever an election is called; between times, the Government virtually does as it pleases.
"At present, it is only the Government that can call a national referendum and set the question or questions. Mr. Mack is campaigning for the right of the people to call their own referendums on their own choice of subject, the result of which would be binding on the government. "This is, in effect, a safeguard of the people, and restrains government from introducing or continuing unpopular policies.
Naturally, no government or Opposition is in favour of giving such power to the people - a little democracy is alright, but not that much. So Mr. Mack's bill will not even be debated unless a sufficient number of voters are concerned enough and motivated enough to demand of their federal representatives that the matter must be at least submitted for public debate.
"For our encouragement, let us remember that several European countries operate under a people's referendum system (Switzerland for over 100 years) and not one of them has sought to give up that right; this they could do simply by holding a referendum and voting it out. Clearly, they find that it results in good, responsible government.
"It is said that better government would be achieved by an improvement in the quality of M.P's., but as we well know these are just words in the wind. Something much more radical is needed, and a system of people's referendum would give all of us a real say in our destiny. The policy of governing by reference to opinion polls clearly does not lead to good government." (Doug Chamberlain, Yamba, N.S.W.)

A CANBERRA ACTIONIST
has sent us a handbill, which was distributed in Canberra on the occasion of the League's stormy public meeting there last June (Saturday, 2nd). It is headed - "Public Protest Against the 'League of Wrongs'" it runs (in part only): "We, the undersigned members of the following organisations, state our concern at the first visit to Canberra of the racist fringe group, the so-called 'League of Rights', this Saturday…." The handbill calls for a picket line outside the venue of the meeting in question. But, the names of the various organisations, hostile to the League, are of great interest. We shall name some of them:
*Aboriginal Broadcasters Association (no apostrophe)
*ACT Aboriginal Education Consultative Group
*International Socialist Organisation
*Chilean Support Group
*Committee for Human Rights & Democracy in Turkey
*Community Radio 2XX
*Aids Education Bus, Tim McCann
*Women Against Racism
*Azania Support Group (Azania is the Marxist (A.N.C.) name for what is now South Africa.. .O.T.)
*Lesbian & Gay Rights Association
*Rape Crisis
*Incest Centre
*Lara Pullin, Women's Officer, University of Canberra...

There are others. We can be proud of our opponents.