FOR THOSE WHO HAVE 'EYES TO SEE'
by Betty Luks
One of our newer readers has expressed his frustration in
coming to grips with the article in last week's On Target
Vol.40, No.40.
"The Left the Right and the Truth".
He writes: "I am having trouble understanding why you
would use a definition of left and right which only makes
sense in the original (& scarcely used) French definition
of the scale. Modern readers might be confused with this (I
was, at least. I'm a novice - a significant element in your
target audience). Therefore, if you want to use the scale
this way, wouldn't it be diligent to explain/qualify your
use of terms - especially in this case of which the opposite
is the common/modern interpretation?
Any scale, of course, is neither
right or wrong, it's just a simplified method of understanding
the spectrum, but to use it the way you have, certainly needs
qualification within the text so as not to confuse us 'less
educated' in these matters.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the French scale was more
to do with distinguishing between the Aristocracy and the
commoners, rather than Anarchy vs Totalitarian Government,
resemblant though it may be. My point being - why give it
prominence at the expense of communication?"
Reply: The importance of the correct
use of words
Ah! The constant and continuing battle of communicating in
a language which has been captured and corrupted by the revolutionary
forces to use as a weapon of dialectical mass deception against
us!
Let me give an example: A number of years ago I had a discussion
with a state Labor minister who was also prominent within
the Uniting Church hierarchy. As with most members of the
Australian Labor Party, being in reality International Socialists,
this fellow claimed identity with Jesus Christ because "He
was the first communist". It is a claim which leaves
many Christians confused because they have not thought through
the issue.
It is recorded in the New Testament, Jesus and His
original group "had all things in common". The early
Christians in Jerusalem also "had all things in common",
but the group eventually broke up when the Jewish widows were
treated more favourably than the Greek widows. They had not
reached some 'utopia' as they had imagined; what was not taken
into account when dealing with human associations is the factor
of the weakness of human nature.
'Utopian' Christians make this most serious
mistake, by confusing and 'sanctifying' the revolutionary
lie of 'common ownership'; meaning in effect, State bureaucratic
control of resources. Christians have not distinguished the
genuine 'community of goods' as practised in some religious
orders under vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience from
the revolutionary Marxist/Communist 'common ownership'.
I would think the vow of poverty was absolutely essential
under such an arrangement; in fact history shows such an arrangement
has never survived in the absence of those vows, or when they
have been broken.
'Anti-language' a cover for doing
the opposite
Many who think of themselves as 'conservatives' (and voted
the Liberals into power at the federal election) identify
'Rightism' with traditional values of 'social justice': i.e.,
protecting the weak and encouraging the self-reliant, cannot
see past Howard's façade of 'conservatism' or policies
of the 'right'. It was a brilliant campaign strategy by Howard
to publicly associate with the Family First Party during the
election -- all the 'right' values being implied without that
party having been put to the test.
"But this is not the Rightism of the revolution,"
writes Geoffrey Dobbs in "What is Social Credit?"--
"but (it is) that which is appealed to by its verbal
propaganda, for the purpose of its stifling and betrayal.
A mere matter of words? YES! And desperately important, as
the correct use of words is. It is a fatal thing to accept
the enemy's terms at face value, or to upgrade and idealise
them; for that is exactly how the Devil operates. 'Anti-language',
or 'the reverse technique in words', i.e., creating a verbal
image as a cover for doing the opposite, is now a standard,
indeed a necessary routine in party politics, since it automatically
neutralises the main opposition."
Whilst Geoffrey was dealing with the
UK, it is just the same in this land.
"Of course it had to be the party with the patriotic
image which could get away with the betrayal of Britain's
national sovereignty. If it had been done by declared international
socialists and anti-patriots they would have been up against
the whole patriotic feeling of the nation." Time and
time again we see this happening in this country with the
phoney "Labor vs Liberal" charade.
If it had been the International Socialists who handed Rhodesia
over to the Marxist revolutionary Robert Mugabe, the outcry
would have been ten times greater. But it was 'conservative'
'rightist' Malcolm Fraser, John Howard and the Liberal Coalition
in this country, and the Carrington-Thatcher ('conservatives',
'rightists') in the UK, who betrayed the Rhodesian people,
thus reducing the protests to impotence.
The 'Third' Way's new clothes
On the other hand, whilst once the verbal champions of 'the
poor' and the 'exploited masses', the International Socialists
in the Labor Party are having difficulty in presenting themselves
in their new clothes as "The Third Way". Having
been washed up on the banks of a stream of history after the
exposure of 'the workers' paradise' of Soviet Communism and
its eventual collapse, they are still trying to 'reinvent'
their image.
(Tasmanian timber workers witnessed this first hand with
the ruthless gamble of the Labor Party 'heavies' to sacrifice
them to the Greens in return for votes in the major cities…
But it didn't pay off! The sitting Labor politicians lost
their seats instead!)
These political dinosaurs are attempting
to link themselves back to the movement coming out of the
guild socialism of the late 1800s early 1900s and the catholic
Distributist movement which grew out of it, but they haven't
got the new role quite right as yet.
In politics as in all aspects of national life, we must make
a realistic analysis of not just what is said but what is
done! As Dr. Dobbs tells us:
"This sort of realistic analysis, relating actual policy
as expressed in deeds with the use made of words in relation
to it, is commonly rejected by those who have swallowed the
anti-language at face value, as 'cynical'; but though these
people (e.g. the average patriotic Conservative voter) think
of themselves as 'sincere', they lack integrity in so far
as they refuse to face the 'deeds'.
If they did so, all the parties would have been forced to
fit their policies to their words long ago, or else would
have been left high and dry with a mere handful of supporters.
"Since the point seems so hard
to make, let me put it with different emphasis. There is no
'happy mean' between running and walking to Hell, between
Right and Left, Conservative and Labour (let alone Liberal
or Social Democrat!); between monstrous borrowing to keep
the economy going with massive handouts, and strangling it
with monetary restriction; between Tory (Right) inflation
and Labour (Left) inflation; between multinational financial
monopolies and State-controlled national monopolies; or between
the typical bum's rush of a Labour or Tory Government (but
the Tories are worst) to give instant 'recognition' to any
gang of Leftist murderers who seize bloody control of a country.
Indeed, when one compares them, it is clear that the Right
has done a more competent job of encouraging the World Revolution
than the Left.
The Left/Right conflict is a divide-and-rule
strategy
The Left/Right conflict is a divide-and-rule strategy, and
it is remarkable how closely it has succeeded in splitting
the population down the middle, so that a 'swing' of only
a few per cent can change governments. The two sides are at
one on their evil policy, they differ only on the truth, which
they divide between them and so render (Truth) impotent.
Further reading: "What is Social
Credit?" by Geoffrey Dobbs; "None Dare Call
it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen; "Responsible
Government in a Free Society" by Geoffrey Dobbs;
"Censored History" by Eric D. Butler.
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE PART OF
THE STATE
For many the problem is solved by sacrificing one of these
elements: either authority, as the anarchists; or liberty,
as the partisans of permanent dictatorship.
LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY AT THE SAME TIME
The Church knows very well, on the one hand, that liberty
is not only one of the most important privileges of man, but
an inalienable right, and she is desirous of having that right
not only respected, but also promoted. On the other hand,
she sees that when different men freely associate themselves
for a common purpose, they are unable to unite their efforts
in harmonious co-operation without the help of a superior
principle by which those efforts will be organized and unified,
that is to say, without an authority.
The Church, therefore, speaks out for
liberty and authority at the same time. She does not demand
the sacrifice of either, but tries to conciliate and to bring
them in harmonious accord with each other, by basing herself
on the principle which the Pope calls that of the suppletive
function of the State, a fundamental principle of social philosophy,
unshaken and unchangeable. This means that in the first place,
the greatest liberty possible -- legitimate liberty, of course
-- must be left to private enterprises, individual or associated,
and that State intervention must be resorted to only when
such enterprises prove themselves unable to attain their particular
ends, become detrimental to the general interests of all,
or when the direct promotion of the common welfare is concerned.
This, in our opinion, is the real
teaching set forth by the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno
"None the less, just as it is wrong to withdraw from
the individual and commit to the community at large what private
enterprise and industry can accomplish so, too, it is an injustice,
a grave evil, and a disturbance of right for a larger and
higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which
can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies...."
Individual liberty protected
In this way the individual is assured of his liberty and protected
against continual and embarrassing interference by the State,
and the State in turn is delivered of almost unlimited and
overwhelming responsibilities which do not rightly belong
to it and which it cannot properly fulfil…"The State
should leave to these smaller groups (and to the individuals)
the settlement of less important business, by which its efforts
would be exceedingly dispersed; it will thus carry out with
greater freedom, power, and success its own tasks, because
it alone can effectively accomplish these, directing, watching,
stimulating, and restraining as circumstances suggest or necessity
demands."
Socialism on the contrary
To the individual, first of all, must be left the greatest
liberty and initiative possible. Then, in order to make up
for his incapacities, appeal must be made in the first place
to the family group, then to a group of greater dimension,
professional or others, for everything that is beyond the
power of domestic society; and finally, the State will be
called upon to undertake the tasks which these larger organizations
themselves are unable to accomplish, especially those directly
concerning the common welfare. Thus each social group must
supply the deficiencies of the inferior groups or those of
the individual, to co-ordinate their respective activities
while protecting their own initiative and liberty.
The proceedings of the Socialistic School, on the contrary,
are exactly the reverse. It aims to build up society by beginning
with the State, entrusting to the latter nearly all the power,
functions, and wealth of the country and paying but a secondary
attention to the individual's liberty, tastes, personal enterprises,
and rights.
Taken from "Social Credit & Catholicism"
by George-Henri Levesque, O.P. Professor of Economics, Laval
and Montreal Universities, Dominican House of Studies, Ottawa
Canada, 1936.
|
LIFESPAN CRISIS HITS AMERICANS
Researchers claim the latest figures
on the decline in expected lifespan for Americans point to
two key factors: obesity, and inequality of health care. Left
unmentioned are not only two chemicals their food and drinks
are dosed with, but also chemical farming, processed foods
and vaccinations and a whole host of factors which also contribute
to ill health and disease.
Aspartame and Monosodium Glutamate
Both of these chemicals induce cravings for more food. Aspartame,
touted as a diet aid, actually creates cravings for carbohydrates,
which is why food companies link diet sodas and snack foods
in their sales promotions, i.e. a six-pack of diet soda and
two giant bags of chips together for a special price. Monosodium
glutamate also creates cravings for people to eat more food.
As you read the following 'orthodox'
article, take into account the following
Not only the additives must be taken into account when considering
a healthy diet, but also the matter of the 'poor and ill-fed'
accepting responsibility for their own diets, health and well-being.
They would be much healthier if their diets consisted of less
processed 'dead foods' and more fresh and living foods. Also,
implied in the article is the assumption orthodox medicine
is the only acceptable form of treatment and that vaccines
etc. are beneficial to us all. For all that, the article points
to the fact Americans are going to have to change their eating
habits and lifestyles if they want to live long and healthy.
Lifespan Crisis Hits Supersize America
Taken from The Observer, UK by Robin McKie, science
editor. 19/9/04
Bloated, blue-collar Americans - gorged on diets of fries
and burgers, but denied their share of US riches are bringing
the nation's steady rise in life expectancy to a grinding
halt. Twenty years ago, the US, the richest nation on the
planet, led the world's longevity league. Today, American
women rank only 19th, while males can manage only 28th place,
alongside men from Brunei.
These startling figures are blamed by researchers on two key
factors: obesity, and inequality of health care. A man born
in a poor area of Washington can have a life expectancy that
is 40 years less than a woman in a prosperous neighbourhood
only a few blocks away, for example.
'A look at the Americans' health reveals astonishing inequalities
in our society,' state Professor Lawrence Jacobs of Minnesota
University and Professor James Morone, of Brown University,
Rhode Island, in the journal American Prospect .
In another newly published paper, statisticians
at Boston College reveal that in France, Japan and Switzerland,
men and women aged 65 now live several years longer than they
do in the US. Indeed, America only just scrapes above Mexico
and most East European nations.
This decline is astonishing given
America's wealth
Not only is it Earth's richest nation, it devotes more gross
domestic product - 13 per cent - to health care than any other
developed nation. Switzerland comes next with 10 per cent;
Britain spends 7 per cent. As the Boston group - Alicia Munnell,
Robert Hatch and James Lee - point out: 'The richer a country
is, the more resources it can dedicate to education, medical
and other goods and services associated with great longevity.'
The result in every other developed country has been an unbroken
rise in life expectancy since 1960.
But this formula no longer applies to America, where life
expectancy's rise has slowed but not yet stopped, because
resources are now so unevenly distributed. When the Boston
College group compared men and women in America's top 10 per
cent wage bracket with those in the bottom ten per cent, they
found the former group earned 17 times more than the latter.
In Japan, Switzerland and Norway, this ratio is only five-to-one.
Jacobs and Morone state
'Check-ups, screenings and vaccinations save lives, improve
well-being, and are shockingly uneven [in America]. Well-insured
people get assigned hospital beds; the uninsured get patched
up and sent back to the streets.' For poor Americans, health
service provision is little better than that in third world
nations. 'People die younger in Harlem than in Bangladesh,'
report Jacobs and Morone.
Consumption of alcohol, tobacco and food can also have a huge
impact on life expectancy. The first two factors are not involved
with America's longevity crisis. Smoking and drinking are
modest compared with Europe. Food consumption is a different
matter, however, for the US has experienced an explosion in
obesity rates in the past 20 years. As a result, 34 per cent
of all women in the US are obese compared with 4 per cent
in Japan. For men, the figures are 28 and 2 per cent respectively.
'US obesity rates jumped in the 1980s
and 1990s, and the vast majority of the population affected
by obesity had not yet reached age 65 by 2000,' state the
Boston group. 'As the large baby boom cohort begins to turn
65 in coming years, a stronger connection between obesity
rates and life expectancy may emerge.' In other words, as
the nation's middle-aged fatties reach retirement age, more
and more will start to die out. Life expectancy in the US
could then actually go into decline."
|
CONTINUING: WHAT A BOMBSHELL! PUTIN
ACCUSES US AND UK
by Webster Griffin Tarpley, Washington
DC, 14 September, 2004:
From INN World Report, http://inn.globalfreepress.com/article.php?storyid=793
In last week's edition of On Target the first half of the
article finished with the following words:
"In 1999, Putin rode to power on a backlash against Chechen
terror which he had in all probability staged himself - thus
just doing a long-standing US-UK capability. The key point
is that the Russian press is now openly denouncing London
and Washington as centres for terrorist control. This can
blow the lid off the 9-11 hoax." It continues:
"On Saturday, September 4, Putin
had delivered a national television address to the Russian
people on the Beslan tragedy, which had left more than 300
dead, over half of them children. The main thrust was that
terrorism constitutes international proxy warfare against
Russia. Among other things Putin said:
"In general, we need to admit that we did not fully understand
the complexity and the dangers of the processes at work in
our own country and in the world. In any case, we proved unable
to react adequately. We showed ourselves to be weak, and the
weak get beaten."
"Some people would like to tear from us a tasty morsel.
Others are helping them. They are helping, reasoning that
Russia still remains one of the world's major nuclear powers,
and as such still represents a threat to them. And so they
reason that this threat should be removed. Terrorism, of course,
is just an instrument to achieve these gains."
"What we are dealing with, are not isolated acts intended
to frighten us, not isolated terrorist attacks. What we are
facing is direct intervention of international terror directed
against Russia. This is a total, cruel and full-scale war
that again and again is taking the lives of our fellow citizens."
(Kremlin.ru, September 6, 2004)
Recruitment in London:
Around the time of 9/11, Putin had pointed to open recruitment
of Chechen terrorists going on in London, telling a German
interviewer:
"In London, there is a recruitment station for people
wanting to join combat in Chechnya. Today -- not officially,
but effectively in the open -- they are talking there about
recruiting volunteers to go to Afghanistan." (Focus --
German weekly newsmagazine, September 2001) In addition, it
is generally known in well-informed European circles that
the leaders of the Chechen rebels were trained by the CIA,
and that the Chechens were backed by US-sponsored anti-Russian
fighters from Afghanistan. In recent months, US-UK backed
Chechens have destroyed two Russian airliners and attacked
a Moscow subway station, in addition to the school atrocity.
Some aspects of Putin's thinking were further explained by
a press interview given by Aslambek Aslakhanov, the Chechen
politician who is one of Putin's official advisors. A dispatch
from RIA Novosti reported Aslakhanov's comments as follows:
"The terrorists who seized the school in Beslan, North
Ossetia, took their orders from abroad. 'They were talking
with people not from Russia, but from abroad. They were being
directed,' said Aslambek Aslakhanov, advisor to the President
of the Russian Federation. 'It is the desire of our "friends"
- in quotation marks -- who have probably for more than a
decade been carrying out enormous, titanic work, aimed at
dismembering Russia. These people have worked very hard, and
the fact that the financing comes from there and that they
are the puppet masters, is also clear."
Aslakhanov, who was named by the terrorists as one of the
people they were going to hold talks with, also told RIA Novosti
that the bid for such "talks" was completely phony.
He said that the hostage-takers were not Chechens. When he
talked to them, by phone, in Chechen, they demanded that he
talk Russian, and the ones he spoke with had the accents of
other North Caucasus ethnic groups. (RIA Novosti, September
6, 2004)
"School seizure was planned in Washington and London":
The above headline is an even more explicit commentary by
the Russian news agency KMNews.ru. This analysis blames the
Beslan school massacre squarely on the U.S. and British intelligence
agencies. The point of departure here is that Shamil Basayev,
the brutal Chechen field commander, has been linked to the
attack (something that Putin advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov yesterday
said was known to the Russian FSB, successor of the KGB).
Michel Chossudovsky pointed out some years back, the Chechen
leaders Basayev and Al Khattab were trained in the CIA-run
camps for Islamic fighters in Afghanistan.
In 1999, Putin rode to power on a backlash against Chechen
terror which he had in all probability staged himself - thus
just doing a long-standing US-UK capability. The key point
is that the Russian press is now openly denouncing London
and Washington as centres for terrorist control.
|
