HOWARD 'DIDN'T KNOW'

SIGNS OF HOPE

ALL YOU NEED … IS A... PUNCH IN THE HEAD!?

by James Reed
"Imagine all the people sharing all the world… no possessions… and no religion too". "Give peace a chance". "All you need is love". My generation grew up to the sound of such communistic nonsense from pop guru John Lennon and the Beatles.
But as my dear old Dad put it: "some of their love songs [Yesterday] were alright, but they went silly because of that Lennon idiot long before that Jap woman [Yoko Ono] came along." So I didn't grow up to the sounds of Lennon but had a healthy scepticism as a lad about the whole '60s "freedom" movement.
At the time I believed that Lennon was not as he portrayed himself, a man of "love and peace" "like Jesus" [in fact as he said in egoistical fashion "bigger than Jesus"] but another manipulating money grabbing mind messer.
After Lennon's assassination in 1980 he was elevated to the status of a sage, a Jesus-Socrates figure. Killed by a deranged "right-wing fundamentalist Christian" he, much like Princess Diana, was taken as a shining symbol of the new politically correct order.

Lennon, however, was not a man of peace according to his first wife Cynthia Lennon and his first son Julian Lennon. Cynthia Lennon has challenged the "love and peace" image of John in a book about him. Such was the political usefulness of Lennon's image that her story could not be published until now.
Lennon, she says was, a violent bully, who hit her when they were going out merely because she danced with a friend. He himself though was afraid of physical confrontations with other males.

When Cynthia married him she found that his temper did not improve, but got worse. "John's temper could be frightening… All sense of reason disappeared and his tantrums could be awesome." Lennon married Cynthia in 1962 and left her in 1968 for Yoko Ono.
During the Beatle touring days, as Lennon himself later said to Rolling Stone magazine, the Beatles engaged in promiscuous sexual orgies with innumerable teenage girls. There is a strong suggestion from the small hints in the meagre reports about this, that most of these girls were under the age of consent. One disgusting story that did get into print has it that one young girl lost her virginity with one of the Beatles and they let her take home the bloodied sheet.

That image is an apt representation of the evil of the music industry.
Pop or rock music has since the late 1950s been the Pied Piper of the young. It has been used by the power elites to brainwash the young about the 'ideals' of sex and interracial sex. Today 'rap' music advocates open race war against whites and celebrates black gang and drug culture. Rap music by black rappers frequently advocates the raping of white women and the murder of white police - all done between the mind-numbing use of the "f-word". But the establishment does not call this "racist". In fact such "artists" get music awards and millions of dollars.

It is important for a movement such as ours to begin to investigate some of the not so subtle techniques used by our master enslavers to keep their oppressive regime in order. Popular music is one such mechanism. Thus in resisting their tyranny it is important that their ideology be discredited. Hence nationalist writers in America have in recent years attempted to debunk politically correct "heroes" of the new world order such as Martin Luther King.
These individuals are symbols of the ideologies they have pushed. That is why it is important that people like John Lennon get exposed for what they are - or were.

I'M GLAD HE'S GONE

by James Reed
As a Christian, I know I shouldn't say this, but I will. I'm glad he's gone. "Public intellectual" Donald Horne died last September aged 83. On seeing his smug arrogant face in the newspapers I immediately reflected on what his intellectual contribution actually was. Beginning with his book "The Lucky Country" (1964) Horne did his best to make Australia the unlucky country, and Australia has been cursed with a crop of intellectuals like him.

He actively worked to undermine the White Australia Policy and make Australia into the multicultural mess that it is today. He was a champion of the republic and the undermining of our British heritage. The Australian 9 September 2005 p.11 says that in his early days Horne was planning to write a book on leadership based on the insights of the Chinese sage Sun Tzu that all warfare was based on deception:
"When about to attack seem unable. When active, seem inactive; feign disorder and crush the enemy."
That is the Fabian socialist wolf-in-sheep's clothing strategy that has been used to get us to our present state of affairs.

The historical record shows that only the League during the 1960s exposed the agenda of these elites. This movement was not sufficiently strong enough to stop the massive "red army" march through the institutions of society. But Eric Butler and others did put up a noble fight as continued by our noble director today. As always in history, victory against tyranny requires the ordinary people taking a stand.

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

WATCH THIS SPACE?

The 48-hour media blitz for war with Iran:
In the last 48 hours all the major players in the Bush administration have issued statements warning of the impending danger of Iran.
Cheney blasted the Islamic regime saying there would be "meaningful consequences" if it refuses to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear program.
Condoleezza Rice said, "We face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran… This is a country that seems determined, it seems, to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community that is determined that they should not get one."
Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Rumsfeld, Burns, Congress, and Israel. Whoa! That's quite a line-up. All in the last 48 hours! https://www.uruknet.info/?p=21402 https://www.countercurrents.org/whitney110306.htm

ISRAEL NUKES TO BE DEALT WITH AFTER IRAN?
The headlines read: Israel nukes will be dealt with after Iran, says British Minister:
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said Thursday that Britain wants to see a "nuclear-free Middle East," saying now that action has been taken against Iraq and Libya, Iran and Israel remain the only two nations posing "potential threat."
Speaking to Channel 4 Straw said:
"If you want to see a nuclear-free Middle East, you've got to remove that threat from Iran, including the rhetorical threat to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Once you've done that, then we can get on to work in respect of Israel."
Ynet (Israel) and Reuters https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3226278,00.html

At the same time: Britain develops secret nuclear warhead: The Sunday Times (London)
Britain has been secretly designing a new nuclear warhead in conjunction with the Americans, provoking a legal row over the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The government has been pushing ahead with the programme while claiming that no decision has been made on a successor to Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.
Work on a new weapon by scientists at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire has been under way since Tony Blair was re-elected last May, and is now said to be ahead of similar US research.
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2081800,00.html

BUT HOLD ON - IN THE 1960s BRITAIN SECRETLY GAVE ISRAEL PLUTONIUM
Richard Norton-Taylor of the Guardian 10 March, 2006 reported:
Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb, it was disclosed last night. The deal, made during Harold Wilson's Labour government, is revealed in classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by BBC2's Newsnight programme.
The documents also show how Britain made hundreds of shipments to Israel of material which could have helped in its nuclear weapons programme, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium and tritium, as well as heavy water.

Israel asked Britain in 1966 to supply 10mg of plutonium. Israel would have required almost 5kg of plutonium to build an atomic bomb, but British defence intelligence officials warned that 10mg had "significant military value" and could enable the Jewish state to carry out important experimental work to speed up its nuclear weapons programme.
Documents show that the decision to sell plutonium to Israel in 1966 was blocked by officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, who said: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons."
But the deal was forced through by a Jewish civil servant, Michael Michaels, in Tony Benn's Ministry of Technology, which was responsible for trade in nuclear material, according to Newsnight.

Peter Kelly, who was British defence intelligence's expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, knew Mr Michaels. He told Newsnight he believed Mr Michaels knew that Israel was trying to build an atomic bomb, but that he had dual loyalties to Britain and Israel.
Mr Benn told the programme that civil servants in his department kept the deals secret from him and his predecessor, Frank Cousins.

He had always suspected that civil servants were doing deals behind his back, but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. He told Newsnight: "I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked. It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government.
"Michaels lied to me, I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again." He thought Wilson may not have known that Britain was helping Israel to get the bomb.
Last year Newsnight showed that in the late 1950s Harold Macmillan's Conservative Government provided Israel with 20 tonnes of heavy water to start up its Dimona reactor. Newsnight said it learned that Jack Straw had admitted to the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, that Britain knew the heavy water was destined for Israel!
Is this the same Jack Straw who now wants to see a 'nuclear free' Middle East? Huh?

IRAQ ON FIRE by James Reed
Here is the story of the headlines: "Iraq on Brink of Religious War) (The Australian 24/2/06, p.1); "Iraq's New Holy War" (The Weekend Australian 25-26/2/06, p.32,); "Iraq Poised on Brink of Civil War," The Age, 25/2/06, p.15).
Around 50 Sunni mosques have been destroyed, three Imams slain and 80 people killed after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Sunnis are squaring off to battle Shi'ites.
John Howard said that the bombing was by al-Qaeda terrorists. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says it was the work of Saddam Hussein's Baathist supporters. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme leader of Iran, and a Shi'ite, blames "the Zionists". Take your pick.

For me, events like the recent burning of Iraq are the ultimate fates of multicultural/multiethnic societies. Peace can be sustained for some time by either the military fist (as in the case of States of the former USSR) or by consumer lifestyles. But when the bubble bursts, flawed human nature rises to the surface and dominates. Only relative affluence supplies the lotus eaters of the West with pacifiers that keep the system together.
Iraq and Afghanistan were to become new democracies: victories for American capitalism/ liberalism. The countries remain war zones and will continue to be so because people who cannot be at peace together are forced to live together. Like the most unhappiest of marriages, only separation can give a lasting resolution. The only realistic question is how to achieve this.

BUT WHAT ABOUT 'THE WAR' BEHIND THE WAR?
Neocon advocates civil war in Iraq as strategic policy:
While the above articles contain some facts not to be ignored might not the real reason for "Iraq being on fire" lay somewhere else? Why do the neocons 'find comfort in Muslims killing Muslims'? I have read elsewhere that Ariel Sharon thought it important (for Israel) Iraq be 'broken up' so that Iran was left exposed.

Daniel Pipes Finds Comfort in Muslims Killing Muslims, March 9, 2006:
One of the abiding myths about the War on Iraq is that the neocons were too stupid to realize that they would confront an unrelenting, indigenous resistance to their occupation of Iraq. Unwittingly, the story line goes, they led the U.S. into a conflict which has now produced a civil war. But this simply does not fit the facts.

The neocons clearly anticipated such an outcome before they launched their war as Stephen Zunes documents in Antiwar.com:
"Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much:
In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to "expedite" such a collapse anyway."

Yet the line persists that the neocons had no idea what they were getting into. This cannot be correct as they think a lot about what they do and they plan carefully. Not only is that charge absurd on the face of it, but it is arrogant on the part of those who level it. And it is the worst political mistake possible - underestimating your adversary.

Now the neocons are beginning to advocate for civil war in Iraq quite openly.
The clearest statement of this strategy as yet comes from pre-eminent neocon and ardent Zionist Daniel Pipes. In a recent piece in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes spills the beans. He writes:
"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. Iraq's plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility, nor its burden. When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one."
As ever Pipes's anti-Arab racism is simply too rabid to be hidden. If Muslims are busy killing other Muslims, then "non-Muslims" are less likely to be hurt!! What does that say about Muslim lives? And of course both Sunnis and Shia must be labeled "terrorists."

Pipes is doing nothing more than endorsing the oldest of colonial strategies: Divide et impera.
Pipes envisions other "benefits" to the civil war "strategy," such as inhibiting the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Pipes again:
"Civil war will "terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This would have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago."
And finally Pipes declares that a civil war "would likely invite Syrian and Iranian participation hastening the possibility of confrontation with these two states, with which tensions are already high." It is no secret that the neocons have been aching for the U.S. to strike at Iran and Syria, so here too the civil war strategy of the neocons makes good sense to them. Of course the added death and destruction is not their problem since the victims will be Muslims and some unwitting American soldiers.

There seems to be only one fly in this neocon ointment.
That is, will it be possible to control the flow of oil in the midst of turmoil in Iraq. Here I suspect the neocons who put Israel first might have their differences with the oil barons, presently their allies. But the neocons have certainly given a lot of thought to that, and it probably explains why the locations of the large and permanent U.S. bases in Iraq are not known. It would seem, however, that there are great uncertainties in this and it may cause some trouble among the neocons and their allies over the longer term.
The only real question is whether the civil war emerged spontaneously as Wurmser, Perle and Feith predicted or whether the Iraqis had to be goaded into it by the U.S. Given all the intrigues and mysteries in Iraq, including the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra and the shadowy death squads and torture chambers which the U.S. claims to know nothing about, the latter seems more likely as of now. It certainly fits the civil war strategy, and it is quite reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war in which the U.S. and Israel fanned the flames that consumed over 1 million Muslim lives.
The fact is that the neocons who control U.S. strategy have no interest in preventing a civil war but only in inciting one. Sectarian tensions were virtually unknown in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. And in fact the Iraqi Shia fought loyally as Iraqis against Iranian Shia in the disastrous Iran-Iraq war. So to avoid an Iraqi civil war, the most important step is to get all the U.S. troops home and thus to terminate U.S. provocations. For it is now crystal clear that the neocon strategy is one of civil war to divide and destroy Iraq; and such a strategy amounts to a crime against humanity. Source https://www.counterpunch.org/walsh03092006.html

THE WARMONGERS SAY - "WE WERE WRONG"
The Independent UK, Thursday 9 March 2006:
It has taken more than three years, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and $200bn (£115bn) of treasure - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But, finally, the neo-conservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words.
We were wrong.
Editor's Comment:
How clever of the Neocons. Get other nations to do your fighting for you - once again.
What were the costs, not to you but to the other nations?
- Tens of thousands of other people's lives and a nation's infrastructure and resources.
- $200billion of other nations' military production and war debt.
And what about George Bush? Is his usefulness finished? Will he be dumped by his 'close friends' the Neocons? There is already talk of impeachment.

ACTIONISTS USED QUESTIONAIRE IN S.A. ELECTIONS

A survey of the MacKillop candidates asked three questions, one of which sought retention of the Legislative Council.Our thanks to the actionists for their good work. The information is worth storing away for future reference.

Some MacKillop candidates will retain Legislative Council.
Responses from three candidates, namely Philip Cornish (Family First), Robert Netherton (Democrat) and Darren O'Halloran (National) all favoured keeping the Upper House.
Another question asked whether they would support Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR).
The same three candidates agreed to support CIR.
Possibly the most interesting question asked whether they would place the interest of their electors ahead of their party.
Darren O'Halloran and Robert Netherton agreed to serve the electors ahead of their party but Philip Cornish (Family First) would only do so in cases where there was no conflict with his party's values.
To indicate sincerity, candidates were asked to sign a commitment to adhere to their responses, if elected on March 18th.
Mr Netherton and Mr O'Halloran signed but Mr Cornish advised that Family First policy is to not sign questionnaires.

The small group of voters who conducted the survey, like to consider matters such as the above before they cast a vote.
Naracoorte spokesman for the group, Ken Grundy, expressed disappointment that information from the Greens, Liberal and Labor candidates could not be included since they failed to respond.
Authorised by K Grundy, Martins Road, Naracoorte, S.A.

LAUNCESTON CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS CLUB

ADELAIDE 1215 LUNCHEON CLUB

The 1215 Luncheon Club, on Monday 3rd April, is going to celebrate the Patron Saint of the English-speaking peoples'- St. George. Guest speaker, Christopher Steele will entertain and educate the guests at the Luncheon. Venue is The Public Schools' Club, 207 East Terrace (cnr. Carrington), Adelaide. Phone 8296 4704 to make your booking.

BOOK , BOOKS, BOOKS