ABORIGINAL COUNCIL CALL TO CHANGE CONSTITUTION

by Betty Luks
The 'Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation' is calling for the alteration of the Commonwealth Constitution Act to include recognition of the Aborigines as the first people of Australia. The Council is also calling for the date of Australia Day to be changed and the low level of indigenous representation in parliaments to be remedied.
The 'roadmap' is broken into four national strategies that examine ways for Aboriginal people to achieve economic independence, overcome disadvantage and a strategy for sustaining the reconciliation process - The Age, 11/5/2000.

A foundation by the name of 'Reconciliation Australia' will be set up to continue where the Council leaves off at the end of this year. It has also recommended the government establish a legislative process to deal with the 'unfinished business' of reconciliation. The council said legislative change must take place "so indigenous rights can be recognised in a constitutional preamble".
But, let us be in no doubt as to what is intended for Australia and it is not what most Australians hope for.

In 1982, former communist Geoff McDonald explained the forces behind the push for 'land rights' and what was the ultimate objective. His summary in the letter to The Australian newspaper, 10/2/1984, should be heeded by us all:
"Mitchell's cartoon (Australian, 30/12/1983) shows a crowd of white people laughing over the claim of the National Aboriginal Conference that sovereignty of Western Australia should be ceded to present-day Aborigines... the demands are being pursued with the real objective of establishing Aboriginal prior ownership under terms of international law... The argument over whether Australia was acquired by 'conquest' and not by 'occupation' is central to the claim that the United Nations can recognise land rights area as a separate nation...All Australians should see this land rights controversy as no laughing matter..."

Now known as the "father of reconciliation" Patrick Dodson has called on John Howard to endorse an independent commission "to oversee a treaty between black and white". He went on to say, "If there was no agreement reached between Government and indigenous negotiators then the treaty question should be put to a referendum" (emphasis added).
A conference of the Federation of Aboriginal Land Councils gave a full airing of the Marxist objective of a sovereign Aboriginal nation in Alice Springs, November 27th, 1981. The following day the meeting was reported in the Melbourne Age:
"An organiser of the federation meeting, Father Pat Dobson, said there would be no agreement until the Federal Government comes to terms with the fact that we are a sovereign nation".

Geoff McDonald observed, "Supported by the Labor Opposition they (the Federal Australian law-makers) are accepting a doctrine of revolution by instalments... The situation is moving inexorably towards a cataclysmic climax time when the united nations will be manipulated to declare the "Land Rights" areas as a separate black nation.

"Father Pat Dobson has candidly explained the ultimate objective, which is not just the establishment of an independent black nation in Australia but also the eventual taking of the whole of Australia from the white man. "The nation belongs to the Aboriginal people, and it has never been handed over or ceded," said Father Dobson.

It would seem that even ancient Australian history has 'gone down George Orwell's memory hole'. If anthropologist and author John Greenway is correct, the ancestors of the present-day Aboriginals were not the first Australians. In fact, history retrieved from the 'memory-hole' is revealing the ancestors of the present-day Aboriginals annihilated and/or assimilated the original inhabitants of this land!

ZIMBABWE: EXAMPLE OF THINGS TO COME FOR AUSTRALIA?

Are Australians taking particular note of what is happening in Zimbabwe - and South Africa - as conditions continue to deteriorate and murder and mayhem continue unabated? That little nation was 'liberated' by the 'international community' strongly supported by Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal government of the time.
To effect the 'liberation' process, Robert Mugabe invited foreign troops in to help him - highly trained troops from Communist North Korea... the very nation that is now being 'invited in out of the cold' by the 'international community'.

Rhodesia was handed over to the proxy regime of Marxist Robert Mugabe and his thugs, as a prelude to its future 'internationalisation'. "At the time, Africa was in no fit state to be included in the planned one-world dispensation with its New International Economic Order and its World Government," explained Ivor Benson; The Truth Out of Africa, 1982.
"Africa had to be put through the wringer; its natural resources had to be made ready for international ownership and control; it had to be given a number of bogus political regimes which can be fully internationalised when the time is ripe..."

Having been Information Advisor to the Rhodesian Front Government in 1964-5, Mr. Benson warned Australians "...they hadn't yet realised that they are now getting the full attention of those revolutionary forces which have already transformed most of Africa."

He observed, "The parallel with Africa is very close. As in Africa, land and natural resources were ostensibly given to the Blacks, so in Australia large areas with their natural resources are being given to Aborigines. In both cases the reality is the same; natural resources are made ready for final transfer to an international authority..."
"Delayed justice for the Aborigines however, is not the only ploy that can be used to get control of natural resources out of the hands of state (and federal) governments and made ready for inter-nationalisation... Areas rich in natural resources which cannot be handed over to Blacks in Africa and to Aborigines in Australia as a prelude to their future internationalisation can... be handed over to the United Nations as areas of unspoiled nature to be preserved as part of mankind's precious heritage".
To his credit, John Howard has, so far, refused to play into the hands of these forces and has "...rejected key elements of a proposed declaration..." Age, 11/5.

The Council planned for "the declaration to be endorsed by the Parliament and eventually protected under legislation."

Further reading: Red Over Black by Geoff McDonald; Truth Out of Africa by Ivor Benson.

THE 1967 REFERENDUM

by Antonia Feitz
Anthony Mundine is just the latest of many people to claim that Aborigines weren't citizens until the 1967 referendum. Though the claim has attained the status of a defining myth, it's simply not true. The result of that referendum allowed for Aborigines to be counted in the census; required them to vote; and provided for the Commonwealth to enact laws "for members of the Aboriginal race". A 1948 Act had conferred citizenship on all Australians, and, in some States, Aborigines had never been deprived of the vote.

Most activists - black and white - along with the general public, are also ignorant of the fact that Aboriginal activists in the 1930s were strongly assimilationist. The mainstream media keeps everybody in the dark about that one too. We've quoted and referenced it in a previous issue, but it bears repetition that in a letter to the then Prime Minister, Aboriginal leader William Cooper wrote:
"We want the right to full education, academic and cultural and industrial, and to be able to take our place beside the white race in full equality and responsibility. We ask the right to be fully British."

Such a politically incorrect statement would really mortify the concerned actors, the hand-wringing bishops and the likes of Mundine, wouldn't it? The facts are there, and are available to anybody with the honesty to do his or her own research. But for too many people it's easier to uncritically swallow the propaganda churned out by the Aboriginal industry, the media and the various churches' social justice secretariats, than to think for themselves.

THE BIG PICTURE CONTINUES TO DEVELOP

by Alfred King
The collectors and investors among our readers should seriously consider putting aside some examples of Australian bank notes and coins as we now enter the final few years that the establishment intends them to be in circulation. In October, 1999, the Secretary-General of ASEAN Rodolfo Severino, said in Manilla that it would soon be time to dispense with the annual leaders meeting of APEC nations.

The Australian's International Editor, Paul Kelly, a great admirer of Paul Keating, is horrified by the proposal. "It confirms that a body of opinion exists in ASEAN that wants to dismantle APEC as a political force". Severino would like to see APEC revert to the ministerial level discussions that were carried on for the first four years. "At that level there would be less pressure for dramatic breakthroughs..., media and public expectations would diminish. So would political distractions. Greater balance would be restored to the APEC agenda." Severino's aim is to have APEC as a low-key economic group working more in harmony with ASEAN'S interest. He believes the expansion of APEC is absurd and has weakened its coherence.

Messrs. Keating and Kelly openly admit that they want APEC to develop 'more political clout'. The translation of this double-speak is that they want APEC to develop as quickly as possible into the Asian equivalent of the European Union: the Asian branch of a World Government. Keating spent a lot of his time as PM, when he should have been devoting his energies to the betterment of the Australian people, in a campaign to upgrade APEC. He wrote letters, lobbied and talked. He 'persuaded' Bill Clinton to take up the idea and host the first APEC leaders' meeting in Seattle.

Interestingly, the tactics used to seduce and bludgeon the Asian nations into a political union are the same as were used to force post-war Europe into a humanistic, non-representative supranational parliament. Firstly, the individual nations, deceived by false promises of economic prosperity, are tricked into taking on the debt-finance system for their national economy. This is run by a central bank which is owned not by any national interest, but by a private group of international bankers. Because all new money comes into existence in the form of debt under this system, the national debt of each country must inevitably go up and up. Even if one of these countries is very successful in its trading and earns a lot of money from exports, the amount of debt always increases faster than money can be earned, and economic ruin is assured.
(It was for this reason that Eric Butler was able to predict with certainty in the 1960s and 1970s that the Japanese economy would crash, while every 'expert' was hailing Japan as the economic miracle that would never fail, and that Australia must tie itself to.)

With the national debt at a high level, the establishment can then bully each nation individually with the same argument. "The reason you have this debt is because you are lazy/inefficient. The only way for you to get out of debt is to become more efficient, export more, and use the dollars earned to reduce the debt, in order to export more we must have free trade. To have free trade, we must enter into an agreement with the other countries in the 'region' and set up a 'free trade zone'".

Of course, once this stage is reached, each nation is told, not asked, that this free trade zone, or Common Market, can not remain static, but must develop into a political union, known as the 'EU', or 'AU' as will be the case for us. When we capitulate on one point, it is never the end of the matter. They always want more out of us, until they have pushed us all the way into the total dictatorship of world government.

The ASEAN free trade zone is being speeded up. From this year, 90 percent of traded goods will face a tariff of zero or less than 5 percent. The ASEAN free trade area will be a market of half a billion people with a combined GDP of $1.3tr. The Australian, 8/3/2000, reports that the issue of a common ASEAN currency has been raised, and a feasibility study is under way into an ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade zone. No prizes for guessing what the findings of this study will be. The pollies of all three main parties will be falling over each other to get us into this trap.

Paul Kelly's heart is already bleeding: "Australia urgently needs a new and constructive debate about our Asian links." Someone should let him know that there is nothing new about the desire of the corrupt for world domination - it is as old as time itself.

BASIC FUND

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

CANBERRA CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

TOOWOOMBA'S 34th ANNUAL WEEKEND

INDEPENDENT VERSUS PARTY HACKS

by Antonia Feitz
There's no doubt that party hacks are affable enough. They're frequently very good people, local pillars of society. Their only problem is that they aren't free to represent the people. Before the last State election, I made an appointment to meet our local National Party MP. He was intelligent and affable, tertiary educated, even candid about how much fur flies at party meetings when members disagreed on party policies (take note One Nation and other minor parties: learn to have the discipline to keep the fights in the party room). But our MP was a party man through and through. He told me that while he made every attempt to represent his constituents' concerns (and he did), when push came to shove, his party's policies took precedence over his constituents' wishes. He said, "I make no apology for that. If they don't like it, they can vote me out at the next election." They did.

Our new independent MP is very attentive to his constituents. He chides local councils if they don't give him enough work! He sits on the floor with us because there aren't enough chairs in the office. He's eager to serve his constituents. Clearly, independents are the way to go. Minor parties are the next best. If they care for the country, no intelligent person should even consider voting for the major parties. In our electorate, if we can find a good candidate we hope to oust our Federal National Party MP at the next election. I hope people in other electorates are already thinking about the next election. It's only 18 months away.

RACISM BLAMED WHEN WHITE SOLDIERS MASSACRED

THE GOVERNMENT'S DODGY DEAL

by Antonia Feitz
A key part of the Federal Government's one billion dollar Budget bribe to the bush is the $75 million set aside for helping country towns identify and then have the government 'train' community leaders. Why? And what 'training' will the selected people receive? And what for? What does it mean practically: who gets the money - consultants? the locals (as if)? a new bureaucracy?

It would appear the policy makers have little understanding of life in country towns. It would also appear they have little understanding of Australians. Australians don't suffer from a lack of leadership. We're not sheep that must be led. We well know what's wrong with the country, yet our voices have been ignored for the past twenty years through the treasonous bi-partisanship of the colluding major parties. The concept of identifying community leaders with money is absurd. And downright insulting. It might come as a surprise to the Canberra elite, but in the country, Australians work together in the traditional way that made this nation great - co-operation. They don't have, want, or need, 'leaders'.

A COMMUNITY'S REAL NEED

THE COMMON THREAD

by Alfred King
It was the Chinese philosopher Confucius who correctly pointed out that it was no use running harder if you are running on the wrong road. All developed and developing nations are running down the same road, with the same terrible consequences. This is surprising at first glance, given the diversity of peoples and cultures around the globe. It would make sense then, to look for similarities in the leadership influences among nations to see why all have chosen the same disastrous road.

As a starting point, consider the world's biggest economy, the USA. It has been reported that the present US administration, which uses Bill Clinton as a front man, is the most overtly Zionist-influenced in American history. This trend looks set to continue irrespective of which party succeeds at the forthcoming US elections.
In the UK, the Sunday Times on November 17th, 1996, carried a front page report entitled Blair's "Secret Donors Exposed". It revealed the distinctive ethnic identities of those behind the scenes who have created Tony Blair and New Labour. All the major contributors to Blair's private office-fund are prominent members of the Jewish community. The chief fundraiser and organiser of the secret trust was identified as Michael Levy, a close personal friend and tennis partner of Blair's; the article revealed that the money was channelled through a "particularly mysterious" private account managed by Blick Rothenbiirg, a City accountancy firm. Blair's involvement with such people is the result of a long established relationship going back over many years, not a recent result of advances made to the Labour Party.
The same individuals played a key role in creating the New Labour Bandwagon in the first place, and in grooming Blair for PM.

Margaret Thatcher's former backer, Sir Trevor Chin, finds it just as easy to support Tony Blair. Blair also appointed multi-millionaire film producer Sir David Puttman as a member of his business committee. Puttman is a close friend of Edgar Bronfman Jr., owner of the massive MCA entertainment group and Universal Studios, and President of the World Jewish Congress. Tony Blair's close ties with key personnel of the Zionist lobby go back over many years. He is an old and close friend of the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Eldred Tabachnik. Blair and his wife shared barristers' chambers with Tabachnik in London.
He has repeatedly reaffirmed his personal commitment to the implementation of legislation outlawing any communications in any way critical of the Jewish community - even though in practise these generally involve comments on the power and influence of the Zionist lobby, rather than hostility to Jews per se.

In December, 1995, Blair addressed the Board of Deputies annual president's dinner and spoke of his party's "very deep" links with Jewry. Again, at a charity dinner in September, 1996, attended by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs, Israeli ambassador Moshe Raviv and Eldred Tabachnik, Blair promised that under his leadership, New Labour was committed to introducing stronger legislation against "anti-semitism" (i.e. criticism of Jewish influence) and "racism" (i.e. the suggestion that traditional British culture and identity should be preserved).
It is interesting that some British Jews have opposed these proposals for further "anti-racist" legislation, warning that it could actually increase anti-Jewish sentiment by giving the impression that Jews have some kind of privileged position and influence.

Others have the same worry about the identity of New Labour's backers being made public. Jarvis Astaire, the millionaire Jewish businessman who was a member of the circle behind Harold Wilson in 1974 and who nowadays supports New Labour, has complained that public knowledge of the ethnic identity of Tony Blair's backers, as revealed by the Sunday Times, might lead to "latent anti-Semitism". Astaire's idea for preventing such a development is not to curb the undemocratic nature of activities implied in a need for discretion, but to prevent any details of them from being made public.

Robert Gavron is a member of New Labour's most important fundraising committee and known to have himself contributed over a half a million pounds. Gavron explained "if you are a businessman you can quite easily vote either way now, as you can in the United States". This statement is quite pertinent in the light of the presence on the Conservative's party's board of treasurers of men such as its chairman Charles Hambro, property developer Sir Geoffrey Leigh, Sir Basil Feldman and bookmaker Leonard Steinberg.

It is also pertinent here in Australia. It is well known that when he was Prime Minister, at Canberra cocktail parties, Paul Keating always gravitated towards the end of the room where the Jewish power brokers could be found. Now The Age, on April 30th, tells us that our present PM has joined with the world's great leaders at the Bar-Ilan University of Tel Aviv to be given an honorary Doctorate of Philosophy for his support for the state of Israel. There John Howard, dressed in skull cap, recalled the great influence of Jews in his personal development and emphasised the contribution that Jews had made to Australia since the first of them arrived here; like his UK counterpart, he also enthusiastically supports "anti-racist" legislation.

And so we see in our own country the same behind-the-scenes phenomena, of super-rich Jewish businessmen exerting considerable influence over both choices which are offered to the public at election time. This could help to explain the 'elected dictatorship' situation: why the policies of the main parties are so remarkably similar, and in total agreement on all the big issues. Behind the TV smiles and the 'balanced' political reporting, it would appear that massive wealth has been employed to guarantee that the country is steered in a certain direction.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: PEOPLE POWER RALLY

FROM THE MATT SINCLAIR COMMITTEE

RELEASE OF NEW VIDEO

THE PAIN OF A NEW IDEA

SEND PREMIER COURT LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR STAND ON FARMERS