STEREOTYPING WITH THE POLITICAL TAR-BRUSH

by Jeremy Lee
Periodically the media carry the latest hatchet job on what they are pleased to call 'extremist' elements of the political spectrum. All sorts of allegations are made and, judging by past experiences, no space for rebuttal is provided. The latest to attract some unjustified flak is Susan Bryce of Queensland, editor of The Freedom and Survival Guide, which stands out as a well researched and documented periodical. Having become a media adviser to Senator Len Harris of One Nation, she was the target for a critical article by Glenn Milne, chief political correspondent of the Seven Network, in The Australian (11/3/02).
Susan Bryce's crime, apparently, is that she also writes for New Dawn, which Milne classifies as a magazine which ".... believes in the 'New World Order One World Government' conspiracy, publishing details of their supposed meetings and describing the methods by which the New World Order exerts control ...." The article then went on to criticise Neil Baird, editor of the online newsletter The News Report, and also Edward Wall, a Perth lawyer he has accused of representing two 'holocaust deniers', and who is now the One Nation vice-president in Western Australia.

Glenn Milne wrote, inter alia: " .... According to the Jewish Anti-Defamation Commission publication B'nai Brith: 'Wall, of the Perth legal firm E.J. Wall and Associate, has acted as the Australian solicitor representing UK-based Holocaust denier, David Irving, in his ongoing attempts to overturn the Australian Government's ruling, refusing him an entry visa' ...." Wall had also acted for Fred Toben of the Adelaide Institute while he was in a German prison in 1999 for the crime of Holocaust denial. Milne added: ".... Wall has also spoken at forums of the (anti-Semitic) Australian League of Rights...." - which, presumably, is enough to damn him for ever, together with others such as current Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, the late RSL chief Brigadier Alf Garland, well-known former Victorian RSL chief Bruce Ruxton, one-time Defence Minister Jim Killen, full-blood Aboriginal church minister Cedric Jacobs, former Federal MP Graeme Campbell and former Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen. Historian David Irving, as we understand it, has never been a 'holocaust-denier' - although he has contested many factual distortions in the history of events associated with the Holocaust. Even his most trenchant critics have admitted his enormous capacity for research.

WHEN IT COMES TO SOURCES
It was interesting that Milne quoted from the Anti-Defamation Commission in his article. The following notes, by veteran League supporter and Secretary of the League's NSW book-mailing service Mr. Roy Gustard are worth considering:

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

After the passage of the Racial & Religious Tolerance Bill in Victoria, all States now have legislation that ensures that only those with a politically-correct image can be tolerated in our society. The provisions of this legislation make it an offence to disseminate ideas that are considered likely to incite racial hatred. Who will determine what material can be judged as likely to provoke racial hatred? Australian law already covers what constitutes violence or terrorism. The new laws will ensure that freedom of speech will be curtailed to ensure that expressions of opinion conform to what is acceptable to the establishment.
The legislation will be exploited by those groups regarded as "self-appointed" guardians of their own particular viewpoint on world issues. Within Australia a Jewish organization known as B'nai B'rith has already established an anti-Defamation Commission which is devoted systematically to researching as what they regard as "far-right" groups which includes those with a nationalist agenda, and opposed to One World Government. Included in this list are the One Nation Party, the Australian League of Rights, and other politically active groups, in particular those opposed to Zionism and the State of Israel. The ADC has published a series of Briefing Papers analyzing what they consider are racist groups. These papers are distributed to members of parliament and others, likely to be receptive to their prognosis.

During his visit to Australia in 1994, well-renowned Jewish writer Chaim Bemnant observed "... that any critic of Israel, Zionism or Zionists, would be immediately denounced as an "anti-semite" or, if Jewish, as a self-hating Jew". It is legislation of the nature of the anti-vilification laws that have been vigorously promoted for many years by Zionist lobby groups world wide. In their literature, the ADC claim contact with B'nai B'rith chapters overseas, and the United States based "Anti-Defamation League".

The tactics of the Anti-Defamation League, if identical with the Australian Anti-Defamaation Commission, should be of some concern to Australians. In 1991, their methods of operation were disclosed in a prominent Court case in New York City, which revealed their methods of discrediting opponents, which included infiltration, the use of spies, illegal entry and theft of private documents. The ADL exchanged information with a Foreign Power, the Israeli Government. This information was confirmed in a book written by an ADL agent, "Square One" by Arnold Forster, who was associated with the ADL for 50 years.

The well-known linguist and political activist and writer, Professor Noam Chomsky, himself a Jew, was one of many US citizens targeted by the ADL because of their opposition to Zionism. Another, Professor Alfred M. Lilienthal, an expert on the Middle East, and author of many books on the subject, was also vilified. The ADL circulated dossiers of material to discredit them. Similar tactics were used against groups considered by the ADL as "right wing extremists". Australians are tolerant of the views expressed by all persuasions, and preservation of our code of free expression is one of the attributes of our democratic society. But we should regard with real concern any group that exists solely to denigrate the opinions of others, and use underhand tactics to achieve their ends". (end of comment)

HOW MUCH DEBT IS TOO MUCH?

Max Walsh, economist and the recent editor of The Bulletin, posed this question in the issue of February 26th. He started by saying that this question would predominate the first decade of the 21st Century. He pointed out that household debt in Australia had grown by 16.5% in the six months to December, and had doubled to over 100% of household income in the last decade.

He went on: "....The Reserve Bank's cautious observations about local debt apply with even greater urgency to the three largest global economies, the US, Japan and Germany, where the accumulation of debt - in the corporate and public sectors and at the household level - has been even faster than here. Japan and Germany have more rapidly ageing populations which exacerbates any excess debt problem ...."

Dr. Susan George, in her explosive book "The Debt Boomerang", published in 1992, forecast that the Third World Debt, which haunted the world in the eighties and nineties, would finally rebound on the industrialized nations. She pointed out that in the 108 months from 1982 to 1990 the Third World had been forced to pay an amount of interest equivalent to $US1,000 for every man, woman and child in North America and Europe. This did not include the repayment of any principal, which doubled the amount. Yet this money never reached ordinary people, who saw their taxes spent on bolstering banks whenever Third World countries could not pay.

Now we all wallow in debt, living today by committing tomorrow's income. And still no one dares question how this world-wide debt starts and accumulates. How do the trillions of dollars now clogging budgets world-wide come into existence? The fact that they are simply created out of nothing during the lending process is kept well out of any discussion. So we are left with an absurd riddle - unless people keep borrowing, we have a recession. Yet the borrowing now threatens to collapse economies round the world!

Nobody knows what the right mix is between "borrowing" and "not borrowing". Reserve Bank Governors try to adjust the mix by raising or lowering interest rates. They are the architects of "boom-bust" economies which crunch up mortals and spit them out. Why should not required money expansions be credited to national economies? Wouldn't this balance an otherwise un-balanceable situation?

Max Walsh, without offering a definite answer, concluded his article with this observation: " ... That's why the question of how much debt is too much is critical. But it's one that will only be answered by discovery, not theory."
Pardon me, Max, but you're wrong. The answer is known. Trying to "borrow the world into growth and prosperity at a rate which eliminates recession" has now run out as any sort of valid policy. The only ones yet to catch up with that fact are orthodox economists, to whom the existing money system, with its spin-offs of debt, bankruptcies and despair, is still a sacred idol which should never be challenged.
What a world it could be if we stopped worshipping Mammon!

THE ESCALATING COST OF INSURANCE

by Anne Crosson
The escalating cost of insurance is grinding the whole country to a halt. Employers, doctors, clubs, community events and facilities, even the humble cake stall, are being held to ransom by insurance companies. If you can't meet the increased premiums then tough. You shut up shop. It must be time to get back to basics. There are two kinds of insurance, there's the insurance we take out on things of an agreed value. Our homes, possessions, lives, etc. We nominate a figure we believe will cover the loss, pay the premiums and hopefully, if the worst comes to the worst and we lose the thing insured, we get paid the sum agreed on.

The other kind of insurance is compensatory. And it seems to me that this type of insurance is the cause of the trouble. I think the basic premise on which it is based is flawed, since it implies that all injury and loss can be compensated for with money. Of course people who have been injured or suffered loss through the negligence, incompetence or criminal acts of others should have recourse to the law.
But these days the notion seems to be that all loss, injury and grief can be cured by the application of huge monetary poultices. A patient claiming negligence against a medical professional may be awarded immense damages. The insurance company pays up, puts up its premiums and the doctor gets a rap over the knuckles.

Tobacco companies carry insurance. So class actions aren't going to injure them, although the publicity may do so. But they don't go out of business. A dangerous driver causes an accident. His insurance company pays up and sooner or later the driver is back on the road. If a doctor, company, driver, whoever, is charged with causing injury or loss then the purpose of legal action should be establish guilt or innocence and determine how best to prevent a recurrence of the offence.

About punishment and deterrence
In the case of a doctor or lawyer, for instance, it could be the withdrawal of their licence. Drivers who commit serious offences are already open to loss of their licences and even gaol terms. Companies should be fined out of their own profits. Organisers of shows, parades, and all those community events would, if they were careless about public safety, lose their right to operate. And in the case of companies, paying appropriate fines into Consolidated Revenue would hurt them much more than upping their insurance premiums. The market place doesn't approve of company losses. I believe that if the safety net of insurance payouts were removed people would go back to doing what they once did. Take responsibility for their actions.

OPERATION "ANACONDA" EMBARRASSMENT

Powell in 1994: "We Don't Do Mountains"... We Still Don't, and Shouldn't!
AFGHANISTAN, March 13th - "Declare victory, and run like hell" seems to be an apt description of today's Pentagon announcement about an impending end to the embarrassing "Anaconda" operation in eastern Afghanistan. Named after a snake that squeezes the life out of its victims, this American-Afghan "Anaconda" let its most highly prized pray slip away. Again. "They (Americans) were weakening our morale, it was better for them to go," commander of the Afghan government troops, Allah Mohammed, told the London Times (March 12th). Shah Mahood Popal, the (Afghan) deputy commander, believed it was self-preservation that stopped the Americans from launching a more decisive attack. "They didn't want to risk losing lots of fighters. Afghans don't care if they lose lots of fighters, so we are better suited for the task. They should stick to bombing," he told the Times.

Of course, Pentagon's "victory" declaration was accompanied by a bombastic claim that our troops had killed over 800 Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters during the two-week operation. That sounds like a tall tale. At least the Afghans who have fought alongside the American troops think so. Here's an excerpt from the March 12th London Times report:
"Afghan commanders believe that the US has exaggerated the number of casualties in the bombing campaign, saying that at least several hundred al-Qaeda forces are up in mountain caves ready to fight back. 'We have been very close to their positions and we have seen no dead bodies,' Commander Mohammed said." Meanwhile, we (America) are supposed to have suffered no losses beyond the eight US soldiers killed at the outset in a helicopter incident, again, according to the Pentagon.

The only thing more embarrassing than the Pentagon's "Anaconda" performance was a lack of probing questions by our lamestream media. For two weeks now, hundreds of US troops have been under heavy enemy fire in treacherous mountainous terrains. Reinforcements kept being sent in all the time - both US and Afghan troops. Yet not a word about additional casualties. Not a peep from our lapdog media about them, either. It's all reminiscent of the "lie and deny"-style military reporting that we all witnessed almost three years ago during the NATO bombing of Serbia. For 78 days and nights, we fought an air-war flying tens of thousands of sorties. And when it was all over, our then commander-in-chief went on national TV and told the nation that we have suffered no combat casualties (see "NATO Losses Revisited", May 2000). Only a lapdog media reporter or a brain-dead citizen would have believed Bill Clinton's claim in June 1999. Only a lapdog reporter or a brain-dead citizen would buy the official Pentagon line today. Yet a poor performance of the American troops in the mountainous terrain of Eastern Afghanistan should surprise no one. Least of all our Secretary of State, a former military man, who has evidently done a turn-about-face in his new job.

"We don't do mountains, we only do deserts," a younger and wiser General Colin Powell rebuffed Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, back in 1994, when Powell was still the Chief of General Staff, and she was the US ambassador at the UN (see "Mountains Ground US Apaches", S99-86, Day 60, May 22nd, 1999).

Albright, whom this writer (among others) had dubbed "Madam Half-bright" long before she amply justified that epithet during the 1999 NATO bombing, chided Powell over his reticence to commit US troops to Bosnia: "What good is having the world's most powerful military if you don't use it" (to weigh in on the side of the Bosnian Muslims and Croats and against the Serbs). The preceding was the extent of Madam Halfbright's "military doctrine," on the basis of which she would have sent the American troops into harm's way.
Eight years ago, Albright's arrogant and ignorant attitude was shocking. Today, such attitudes are banal. They are the norm, not an exception, in today's Washington.

Clinton's hawks were silenced by saner majority
Eight years ago, Clinton's New World Order hawks were silenced by a saner majority in our government. Today, the Bush league hawks roam, reign and rain terror freely. Now, the truth and the American people are silenced, not just the peace doves. Here's a case in point.

While the Washington brass was making its 'Anaconda' "victory proclamations," the public in Britain and France, for example, were able to get an entirely different picture of what actually went on in Eastern Afghanistan during the last two weeks. As you read the following excerpts from the European media, keep in mind that both the British and the French have their own troops deployed in Afghanistan. Which means their own military intelligence and their own war reporters. The only difference seems to be that their media aren't as subservient to and gagged by the military. Here's, for example, an excerpt from a March 12th report by the London Times, filed from Afghanistan:

"Inadequate" US troops pulled out of battleground - War on terror .... Catherine Philp in Leg Diwawl, Afghanistan Overseas News
HUNDREDS of American troops were pulled out of the ground battle with al-Qaeda forces because they failed to adapt to the guerrilla tactics required for fighting in the mountains, according to their Afghan allies. More than 1,000 Afghan troops rushed to the front line yesterday to take up the slack after the withdrawal of 400 US troops from the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. The American military has described the withdrawal as a tactical reappraisal of their battle-plan, but Afghan commanders told a different story of inexperienced American soldiers unable to advance through the unfamiliar mountains to track down al-Qaeda and Taleban foes. Afghan leaders say the many pathways through the mountains are providing not only escape routes for the fighters but a means of replenishing their ranks.
Shahi-Kot has been called the last bastion of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but there is evidence that other pockets of resistance still exist in provinces to the south. Commanders say that before Operation Anaconda began, there had been only a small number of al-Qaeda in the mountains. They were attempting to negotiate a surrender when the offensive began, bringing al-Qaeda forces from all over the south running to Shahi Kot to help in the battle. "We were communicating with them, but the Americans would not allow us to negotiate," Commander Mohammed said. "This paved the way for the other Arabs to join them." The Arabs are thought to have made their way here from a number of locations in southern Pakistan and Afghanistan, in particular, a secret Taleban base in Zabul Province, north of Kandahar. Former Taleban sources predict that the base could be the scene of the next operation against al-Qaeda. "This battle will not be the last," one former official said. "The network is far from dead."

Anaconda 'operation' made situation worse
In other words, the U.S. military and its "Anaconda" operation only made matters worse for our local allies. What else is new... (any South Vietnamese among our readers?). Nor are the Afghans the only American allies who have a bone to pick with Washington's military strategy and tactics

Taken from https://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2002/3-2.html

Editor's note
In an ABC-TV interview some months back, I can remember a Central Asian correspondent observing the Afghan people were a "warrior people" and we needed to be reminded the Russians couldn't conquer them.

THE LAUNCHING OF AUSTRALIAN-WOMEN-ON-LINE

by Betty Luks
The first steps in the setting up of a website to provide a service and educational facility for Australian women has been taken. On my recent trip, covering parts of northern Queensland, New South Wales and the Capital Territory I outlined details about the League's latest initiative. The idea of such a service took shape as I traveled around this great land of ours. I became very much aware that many women felt so isolated in their day-to-day struggles - no matter what the issue, situation or battle. It could be the cane-growers' wives and the issues of concern to them, or the mother struggling with a child's drug problem. It could be the ghastly problem of chronic fatigue and the need to find out more about it and what has been shown can be done to improve the situation.

Broadly, the idea is this
The League will provide a website service for all interested individuals and groups to list the name of their group, the issue or subject with which they are interested/concerned, and a contact number or address. The different groups/issues will be listed alphabetically - just like a telephone directory. It is then up to likeminded women to make direct contact with the individual/group with a view to the sharing of ideas, strategies, knowledge and support.

Notice Board
There will also be a Notice Board where issues, ideas, strategies etc, will be discussed. Information and/or further reading, will be suggested for particular issues or subjects. The League will provide as much service and educational back-up as possible. It will be up to each person/group to make their own contact with the individuals/groups listed and thus set up, or expand, their own network.

The League's concept of Australian-Women-On-Line (AWOL) is based on the principles of service and education - NOT CONTROL.
WE ASK JUST ONE THING
We ask just one thing of the women and that is that they join in with others of like mind to present and promote a Conditions Letter to their local, state and federal political representatives aimed at changing the direction of this nation and helping to restore relationships within families, communities and the nation.
The concept will be outlined further in coming editions of On Target. For those who think the service could be of use to them, register your interest by writing to Australian Women On Line, PO Box 27, Happy Valley, SA, 5159, or faxing (08) 8322 8665.

SYDNEY CSC

JEREMY LEE