THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS
by Betty Luks
The League, and myself in particular, have received some criticisms
from a couple of readers lately. That's okay; we shouldn't
venture into 'the market place' if we are not willing to 'take
the heat' and at times need to explain to friends why we take
the positions we do.
One email was from an Australian of German background (C.B.)
who thought we are far too critical of Adolf Hitler - because,
as I understood his complaint - he thinks we criticize Hitler
mainly because he was a German. Not so C.B. -- in fact you
are way off the mark.
We are highly critical of traitorous Australian politicians,
such as those in the mainline parties, but that does not make
us anti-Australian. We are critical of today's politicians,
because, not only have they betrayed their own claimed principles,
they have betrayed their own people, their fellow Australians,
for a 'mess of pottage' - they have sold out our birthrights
to the NWO.
National Socialism and Marxist Socialism
sects of same 'religion'
Adolf Hitler's philosophy was that of a Socialist, a centralist,
albeit a National Socialist -- Nationale Soziale Deutsche
Arbeiter Partei (Worker's Party). It was Eric Butler who noted
that at the end of WW2 many Nazis went over to the Communist
camp in the Soviet Union.
Eric wrote in 1941: "Clashes between Hitler and Stalin
must not blind us to the fact that National Socialism and
Marxist Socialism are only different sects of the one 'religion'.
C.B., I would remind you, it was the Australian League of
Rights who stoutly defended the German people and over the
years, exposed the 'holocaust myths' when it was very unpopular
to do so. I suggest you do some serious study of 'the enemy
within' all nations.
"The Enemy Within the Empire"
The following extracts are from an article which first
appeared in 'Ken' (Chicago, U.SA.), November 3, 1938 and was
reprinted in Eric Butler's 1941 book with the above title.
"In the spring of 1934, a select group of city financiers
gathered around Montagu Norman in the windowless building
of the Bank of England in Threadneedle Street. Among those
present were Sir Alan Anderson, partner in Anderson, Green
& Co.; Lord (then Sir Josiah) Stamp, chairman of the L.M.S.
Railway System; Edward Shaw, chairman of the P.&0. Steamship
Lines; Sir Robert Kindersley, a partner in Lazard Bros.; Charles
Hambro, partner in Hambros Bros.; and C. T. Tiarks, head of
J. Shroeder Co…"
"… a new power was established on Europe's political
horizon, namely: Nazi Germany. Hitler had disappointed his
critics. His regime was no temporary nightmare, but a system
with a good future, and Mr. Norman advised his directors to
include Hitler in their plans. There was no opposition, and
it was decided that Hitler should get covert help from London's
financial section…"
"Immediately the directors went into action. Their first
move was to sponsor Hitler's secret re-armament, just about
to begin. Using their controlling interests in both Vickers
and Imperial Chemical Industries, they instructed these two
huge armament concerns to help the German programme by all
means at their disposal. In the same year English armament
firms placed huge advertisements in the "Militaerischer
Wochenblatt" offering for sale tanks and guns, prohibited
by the Versailles Treaty. A statement made by General Sir
Herbert Lawrence, chairman of Vickers, furnished the necessary
evidence that the British Government knew about and approved
these advertisements. When, at his company annual meeting,
he was asked to give the assurance that Vickers' arms and
munitions were not being used for secret re-arming in Germany,
he replied: "I cannot give you an assurance in definite
terms, but I can tell you that nothing is done without the
complete sanction and approval of our Government."
The Enemy Within
In ancient history, this 'enemy within' was known as the Whore
of Babylon, in Christ's time on earth it was known as Mammon,
in this day and age its most public face is the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
THE GOLDEN RULE
Another criticism came from B.E. of NSW. He thought we were
being hypocritical pushing for social credit principles and
democracy instead of a 'theocracy', i.e., obedience to the
Laws, Commandments, Statutes and Judgements of the Old Testament.
And yet he went on to say:
"Also responsible government is Obedience to Jesus Christ."
B.E. of NSW, it is important for you
to understand the League of Rights promotes the Christian
revelation of God. Jesus summed up what was required of us
in two commandments - Love the Lord your God with your 'whole
being' - and your neighbour as yourself. By fulfilling those
two commandments, our behaviour, our whole way of life, fulfils
a higher standard than the rigid observances of man-made law
upon law upon law.
As Christians, we are not free because John Howard might choose
to decree we are free - we are free because Christ has set
us free. That is a fundamental Christian truth which has acted
as a leaven through the last two thousand years of Christian
history.
Please look again at our policies - and I sincerely hope you
will see the Truth behind them!
Further reading: "The Australian Heritage Series",
$5.00 posted from all Book Services.
Canon Arthur Fellows wrote of the
Christian ideal
"It is to Christianity that man owes, if not the awakening
of the notion of freedom and human dignity, at any rate its
consolidation and universal expansion. The fact is that the
Gospel (Good News) emphasised decisively the dignity of the
human person. It preserved the natural bonds between the particular
individual and the human groups that fashion him, but it clearly
laid down the autonomy of the individual, based ultimately
on the nature of God, in whose image man was created.
This evangelical ideal, together with the doctrinal principles
it inspired, acted through all history as a leaven, constantly
urging western man to instill the greatest possible freedom
into his social, economic and political institutions.
It is Christianity which insists on the uniqueness of each
individual before God. All men are not created equal, but
each man is created free, moral and responsible. The inequalities
of life are compensated for by the words of Jesus, that "unto
whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required".
The worth and dignity of each individual, rich or poor, high
or low, and his inestimable value in the sight of God, is
fundamental to Christianity (and was the foundation upon which
this nation was founded.)
All exterior freedoms flow on from
this interior freedom
The working out of this principle in life was a slow process,
but, as an example, the Christian conscience came to see eventually
that slavery was wrong in principle -- and it was abolished.
The real foundations of liberty are spiritual. True freedom
is obedience, obedience to a Moral Law, obedience to God 'in
whose service is perfect freedom'."
|
'PASSION' PROVES GOSPELS STILL MATTER
by Steven Greenhut
What role would I have played in The Passion? Not the movie,
but the real-life drama. That's what I thought about as I
watched Mel Gibson's spectacular, moving account of the last
12 hours of Jesus Christ's life on Earth. Would I have cheered
as Christ was sentenced to death? Would I have laughed as
he was tormented toward the cross? It's scary to contemplate.
Gibson answered the question for himself. His only on-screen
performance was of his arm and hand hammering the nail through
Christ's hand. In one small dramatic act, Gibson exposed Abraham
Foxman's and the Anti-Defamation League's efforts to defame
the biblical account of Christ's death as anti-Semitic. Some
columnists are trying to suggest, outrageously, that Gibson
is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. They are sounding
increasingly bitter, increasingly desperate given the success
of the movie and their own irrelevance.
Liberal critics of the movie were aghast
at the violence portrayed in it. Well, we finally find a movie
that is too violent for these critics. Not "Kill Bill", which
liberals celebrated as a hip and edgy film, but The Passion.
Violence is too much for them if it is in service to a religious
message they simply cannot stand.
The beauty of the film, beyond the magnificent
imagery, fine acting and stunning photography, was the portrayal
of the key action of our faith as a real event. This, I suppose,
is a close portrayal of how the crucifixion and the hours
leading up to it took place. As such, I watched and wondered.
What would I have done? That's a central question.
Gibson's portrayal of Mary was magnificent.
She was real woman, laughing and interacting with her child
in flashbacks. Can any parent imagine what it would be like
to watch our child tortured in such a way? The pain would
be unbearable. Mary's suffering was immense. I was pleased
that evangelical Protestants have so freely embraced a movie
that is not shy about its Marian intentions. It's time all
Christians treat the Mother of God with the honor she deserves.
(In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a Jewish convert to
Eastern Orthodoxy.)
I can't recall any similar effort to
shut down a movie, to destroy the reputation of a producer
or to associate a project with the vilest half-truths and
innuendoes. Why? Because the Gospel story still matters. It
still offends. It still causes haters of the message to want
to crucify, albeit figuratively, the messenger.
Officialdom doesn't care about unsophisticated
TV evangelists. Mostly, such evangelists convince the world
that Christianity is a joke. But Mel Gibson has clout, and
he is using a medium well respected throughout American society.
I think the ADL and its allies fear mass conversations, not
outbreaks of anti-Semitism.
The film certainly is separating the
wheat from the chaff. The first attempt to silence the film
came after a stolen copy of an early script was sent to someone
associated with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He
formed a committee of scholars, and a nun on the committee
denounced the movie as anti-Semitic on national TV. The bishops
formally apologized, but the scholars' criticism sent Gibson
and company reeling.
The Catholic church is now dominated
in this country by "progressives." Our local diocese is hostile
to expressions of the traditional Catholic faith. I have a
photograph of the Bishop of Orange Tod Brown pulling a middle-aged
woman up by the arm who was trying to bow before communion.
He refused to give her communion unless she was standing.
The bishop and the diocese have been
strangely tolerant of sexual deviants in their midst, but
they absolutely cannot tolerate traditionalist expressions
of the Catholic faith. So it was no surprise to me, although
it was a surprise to many Catholics in Orange County, that
the diocese spokesman attacked The Passion in the newspaper
on the first day it was released.
"I saw a very tedious, slow-moving, graphic, violent motion
picture," Fr. Joseph Fenton said in the Orange County Register.
"If you are of the bent that feels that graphic suffering
makes you feel the terrible sinner that you are and Jesus
is saving you, then this is going to be a very big plus in
your favor when you see the movie." How snide and revealing.
Actually, I would have been shocked had the diocese been supportive
of Gibson's act of faith.
In The Passion, the religious
leaders were the ones who insisted that Christ be crucified.
The average folks could be led one way or another. But religious
leaders had created God in their own image. And they couldn't
stand to see the real God in their midst. But many leaders
in the Catholic church and other churches seem eerily similar
to the Pharisees depicted in the movie.
I don't mean to cast stones, but it
certainly seems that they have created a New Jesus to go along
with their New Church. This phony Jesus is always tolerant,
always kind, never uttering a harsh word and never making
any demands on his followers. In this phony church, everyone
is OK just as they are. There is no sin, so there is no need
for Christ to have suffered in such a way. That's my theory
why so many so-called Christian leaders are uncomfortable
with the Christ portrayed accurately in Gibson's movie. To
these New Church leaders, the big issues are temporal ones:
gay rights, ending celibacy in the priesthood, liberal politics,
social justice, etc. The Holy Church offends them. They cannot
take the sight of the stations of the cross. They must move
the tabernacle with the Eucharist to broom closets away from
the altar lest anyone be unduly reminded of Christ's real
presence.
Yet despite the efforts to humiliate
Gibson and his movie, the public is drawn to it. Money is
only money, but the movie is wildly successful from a financial
perspective. More important, it is having an unseen influence
on those who see it.
Steven Greenhut is a senior editorial
writer and columnist for the Orange County Register. Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
|
THE WORLD'S FIRST GOVERNMENT-CORPORATE
ARMY?
"Create a world police to "keep
the peace when it is threatened and restore the peace when
it is broken." (Taken from "The New World Order
Threat to Australia" flyer produced by the League over
twenty years ago.) At the time it couldn't be envisaged how
this would be done… read on.
The following condensed version of "The
world's first government-corporate war and the end of nation
states - as we know them," by Victor Thorn, Issue No.2,
1/3/04, comes from Neil Baird's email.
"We hear reports that Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai is being protected from assassins in
Kabul. Who is guarding him - the U.S. Army? No - he is being
surrounded by a private military company (PMC) called DynCorp.
This same private company also trains the newly formed Iraqi
police force, while the Vinnell Corporation trains the Iraqi
army and the Saudi National Guard.
How about the huge military base in Iraq that houses our 2nd
Armoured Cavalry Regiment - who built that - the U.S. military?
No, it was constructed by Kellogg Brown & Root, an affiliate
of Halliburton.
How about the Baghdad headquarters of Paul Bremer - who protects
him? Surely it must be our armed forces. But no, our commanders
are safeguarded by a British private military company called
Global Risk International.
Even a significant percentage of our Stealth Bombers, Global
Hawks, and Predator Drone aircraft are operated by PMCs, along
with our advanced technological operations, intelligence,
communications and logistics.
Who is really in control?
With this eye-opening information in mind, someone may ask,
"Wait a minute, what does our military do in Afghanistan,
the Middle East, and other hot spots? Who's really in control?"
The answer may shock you, but guess who the second largest
military force in Iraq belongs to. If you answered Great Britain
with 9,000 men, you'd be wrong, for the next highest contingency
of troops are constituted by PMCs - Private Military Companies.
But before we explore this intriguing phenomenon that is reshaping
how we view war, I feel a clarification is in order. The Centre
for Public Integrity defines a Private Military Company (PMC)
as: "A Company that provides, for profit, services that
were previously carried out by a national military force,
including military training, intelligence, logistics and offensive
combat, as well as security in conflict zones."
Yes, you read those words correctly
Warfare in the year 2004 is increasingly being carried out
by corporate armies (or mercenaries as they were called in
a bygone era). One of the primary reasons for this trend is
that, worldwide, the size of government armies is shrinking.
In the United States, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
despite being an ardent war-hawk, has cut over 200,000 military
jobs, and says that he would like to outsource all armed forces
roles except those for actual combat. This stance has angered
many long-standing traditional generals (many of whom have
been released from their duty), especially when they see that
our military has dropped from 2.1 million active members in
1990 to 1.4 million in 2003.
But American forces aren't the only
ones that have dwindled
Britain's is at its smallest point since the Napoleonic era,
while the Russian army was decimated by the fall of communism,
and East Germany's has significantly decreased since the Berlin
Wall came down. Even South Africa's once strong forces aren't
what they were during the days of Apartheid.
But what of the enormous 'war' budget?
But if the actual size of our military is decreasing, how
can we account for the billions of dollars the Bush administration
is receiving from Congress? Well, naturally a substantial
percentage is being funneled to the defense contractors, while
other portions are earmarked for Homeland Security and rebuilding
Iraq. But what the mainstream media isn't revealing is the
enormity of funds being forwarded to PMCs. In fact, the Department
of Defense has entered into over 3,000 contracts with a dozen
U.S. PMCs that total $300 billion.
Peter Singer, author of Corporate
Warriors
The Secret World of Corporate Mercernaries states that annual
PMC global revenue now tops $100 billion. Although this figure
sounds incredible, consider that PMCs now operate in over
50 countries, with Kellogg Brown & Root performing manoeuvres
in at least 18 different nations since the 1990s. Likewise,
Alpha Firm (comprised of ex-KGB agents) operates out of Moscow,
Sandline in the U.K., while Israel touts PMCs such as Levdan,
Ango-Sedu, and Silver Shadow.
Private military companies
This movement toward Private Military Companies has become
so prevalent that a consortium has been formed - the IPOA
(International Peace Operations Association) - to bring together
all the MSPs (Military Service Providers). But, one may wonder,
how does a firm get into the PMC business? The first step
they must take is to register with the U.S. Government and
get a licence from the State Department. Once that is accomplished,
they can either be employed to work with American troops;
or, if they want to be deployed on foreign soil, they must
get an export licence from the State Department's Office of
Defense Trade Controls. With that paperwork, they can station
their employees in the Middle East, or let them be recruited
as operatives in one of the CIA's paramilitary divisions.
Fortune 500 companies now in the business
of mercenaries
Knowing all this, the next logical question should be: who
exactly are these Private Military Companies? The answer is
very revealing, and somewhat disturbing, for we begin to realize
that quite a few Fortune 500 companies are now in the mercenary
business, including:-
a.. Lockheed Martin with L-3 Communications,
b.. Halliburton with Kellogg Brown & Root,
c.. while the Virginia-based MPRI brags of having more generals
in its employment than the Pentagon.
d.. Even British Petroleum hired a PMC to represent it in
South America.
But instead of mere generalities,
let's look at a few specifics
· DynCorp, one of the undisputed leaders in this field,
works in unison with the Kuwaiti Air Force, plus also received
a $50 million government contract in Iraq where they hired
1000 ex-cops to train the Iraqi police. Their total federal
contracts for 2002 totaled $2.1 billion.
· Following closely behind them, Halliburton's Kellogg
Brown & Root received $1.7 billion in federal money.
· While the Vinnell Corporation got $148 million to
train the Iraqi Army.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this phenomenon is that
a substantial amount of this money was awarded through no-bid
contracts.
These multi-national companies (MNCs) then use their funds
for mining and oil operations, technology & communications,
military ventures or computers, or to protect their own factories
and headquarters. This final concept - protection - has become
a vital consideration for PMCs due to the level of violence
they face, especially in volatile foreign countries.
Two newsworthy examples are the recent
bombing of a Saudi embassy where employees of the Vinnell
Corporation were targeted and killed.
In addition, a fall 2003 attack on the Gaza Strip led to the
deaths of some Americans. It was assumed at the time that
these were U.S. troops, when in fact they were employees of
DynCorp.
But these aren't the only problems
associated with PMCs. Military privatization also carries
other issues
1) National Security is now in the hands of an outside entity
(proxy).
2) Less accountability in that a private company is less apt
to answer Congressional questions or open their books to those
they view as outside the loop. This notion is reinforced by
Jason McIntosh, a spokesman for Science Applications, who
said, "We refrain from talking about things our customers
don't want us talking about. That's just good policy."
3) The delicate balance of power which this country was founded
upon will be circumvented, for Congress will have less input
in military matters, while the Executive Branch (via the State
Department and Pentagon) will rise in stature. In fact, by
law, Congress doesn't even have to be notified by the State
Department that a PMC has been hired unless the contract is
greater than $50 million. Plus, if you think the CIA has carte
blanche now; imagine if there is even less oversight in
regard to hiring and operational practices.
4) Lastly, PMCs have no oath or loyalty to this country; only
contracts as hired guns. In this sense, they're not compelled
to follow a military code of conduct (or any other, for that
matter). An excellent case in point is DynCorp, whose employees
have recently been involved in a sex-slavery fiasco, prostitution
rings on foreign soil, and employment scandals with its female
workers…[this] leads us to the crux of this issue. How
is the security of our nation affected by the fact that the
ability to wage war is no longer the sole possession of governments?
Now, I'm not talking about street violence or terrorist acts;
instead, I'm referring specifically to war being waged by
our government (or any other). If this concept exists outside
that commonly held arena, where will it lead the world?…"
|
