SERVANTS OF THE MERCHANTS OF DEBT

by Betty Luks
I am already bored out of my brain by the political hype pouring forth from the electronic and print media. As to the 'leadership' mock battle! What the 'right leader' or the 'new leadership' has got to do with POLICIES I will leave to the reader to determine. For myself, I have weighed the actions of the main political parties against their political hype for at least the last thirty years and made my own judgement. They have been weighed in the balance and found abysmally wanting.

Social Credit more meaningful today:
Well did Donald Martin National Director for the British League of Rights sum it up in his message to the guests of the recent 61st "New Times" Dinner:

"What a year it has been! Events have once again proved the Social Credit message to be correct in relation to the realities of the world in which we live.
Nowhere is the Social Credit message more meaningful than in the current financial tribulations. If you were to read only the daily papers you would believe that the current credit squeeze was due to the people of the United States of America defaulting on their home loans. Many of these home loans have been bundled together and sold on to other banks and financial institutions. These debts have been passed around the world.
As the defaults grew, the major banks became nervous about who were holding the potential or actual bad debts. None of the banks wanted to have to write off bad debts, even if it was not a real problem for most of them so to do. What banks then started to do was to refuse to lend to other banks. They normally lend to one another as a matter of course on a day to day basis so that they can balance their books. The small and weak financial institutions were immediately vulnerable.

The Northern Rock bank collapse:
A number of financial institutions do not finance mortgages with savings like Building Societies do but they use what are called wholesale markets, which are basically short term loans. The trouble here is that if the financial institution is lending to customers long term, but borrowing short term, they are very vulnerable if the short term market suddenly dries up through the action of mainly the big banks. This is what happened in the case of Northern Rock in England. Here we have seen the first run on a bank in about 150 years.

Banks' huge capacity to write off book debt:
In this scenario we start to hear talk of economic collapse. Don't fall for this false statement. The banking system has a huge capacity to write off many billions of pounds or dollars of loans. Remember the real nature of the game is centralisation and control.

What is lacking in this current debate is any talk about the elephant in the room:
What is that elephant? It is simply a matter of asking why has it become necessary for there to be longer and longer term mortgages some as high as 125% of the value of the property!

The elephant is the manner by which nearly all new money comes into existence combined with the chronic shortage of consumer purchasing power.
What about the National Dividend and the Just Price financed through a National Credit Authority? Not for a long time have we had such an opening and such a challenge."

WHAT ABOUT A FUTURE FOR OUR FARMERS?

Is it really 38 years since the League published a 30-page booklet "They Want Your Land"? In it the League stressed the basic fact that if Australian farmers are to save themselves from financial liquidation, and set an example to the rest of the community also suffering under increasing centralisation, they have got to face the fact that the present policy of credit creation and issue, high taxation and progressive inflation, is the basic cause of their problem of mounting financial costs…"

And then again 27 years ago, Jeremy Lee wrote of "Australia's Looming Farm Disaster" wherein he repeated the warning: "They Want Your Land" had a stark message which few public figures wanted to hear. The acceptance of the "get-big-or-get-out" slogan and the policy of rural 'reconstruction' was a surrender to socialism no matter what label was used to justify such a programme. Once embarked on, such a programme would, perforce, herald a never-ending process of destruction which would finally engulf not only small farms, but ultimately the biggest…"
Nearly forty years further down the socialist-centralist road, many of our farmers are in dire distress, not only are they carrying the weight of heavy financial burdens, but many are, once more, in the grip of a prolonged drought.

The Howard government's answer
For those who have had enough and want to get off the land, pay them a pittance to help with their move. But what about their farms? It doesn't necessarily mean the farm will go out of production. It will be bought up cheap and when the seasons improve, production will be resumed. But next time round, it probably won't be a family farm; more likely it will be absorbed into another international agribusiness.

Almost 200 farmers from around South Australia's Eyre Peninsula recently attended a grower's meeting to discuss their grim situation. Estimated crop yields could be down by as much as 80 per cent this season; not only will the land not yield a crop, but the heavily indebted farmer will probably have borrowed from his local debt merchant to purchase the seed.

'Forward selling' - selling something you haven't got
But that is not all the worries he might have. Added to the burdens, there are farmers who "forward sold" this season's estimated harvest only to have it fail due to the prolonged drought. This leaves them with a financial contract with the grain traders who will insist on their 'pound of flesh'. The farmers have gambled on the hope the contracted price will be more than the final selling price of their as yet unrealised grain crop.

Sounds to me like the desperate 'verging on bankruptcy' businessman who goes to the casino to try to improve his luck.

A RURAL 'FUTURE FUND' - A VISIONARY FINANCIAL POLICY

On the 14th & 21st October 1971, Sir Robert Sparkes placed two full-page articles in the newspaper "Queensland Country Life".
Among other things his political party proposed:
"As a result of the investigation of the Management Committee the [then] Country Party has formulated a set of proposals designed to curb inflation and assist the rural community (both country towns and districts). The following are some of the more important of these proposals … which were put to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Doug Anthony) and the Premier Mr. J. Bjelke-Petersen in July 1971….
"That because of the great importance of maintaining viable primary industries in Australia, the federal Government should provide a source of long-term, fixed contract interest rate finance, below 3 per cent to individual primary producers adversely affected by drought, low prices and rising costs…"

Don't think it is an issue that concerns only our farmers.
Ultimately it concerns us all. Do city-dwellers want access to good food at reasonable prices? Then we must support our farmers to find answers, which means answers for us all. From where I stand, it looks like the Corporate NeoCommunists have reduced the farmer to servitude and will eventually direct them to work as wage-slaves on their own farms.

Comment:
Notice Sir Robert Sparkes inadvertently admitted by his financial proposals "to curb inflation" there is such a thing as monetary inflation. Further reading:
A very important little booklet the League has carried for many years is "Freedom and Inflation," by Bryan Monahan. It sets out a comprehensive explanation of the two types of inflation. Price: $5.00 posted.

THE PREAMBLE AND DEVIOUS POLITICIANS

by John Brett
Every time we look at Australia's Constitution for one reason or another, we discover further evidence of the genius of its architects. Last week's announcement by the Prime Minister that on return to office he would introduce a Bill to replace the existing Preamble to the Constitution, becomes the third attempt to do this since the year of the republic referendum in 1999.

For that referendum the Labor Party drafted a new Preamble and the Prime Minister drafted his first Preamble. But why change the Preamble only? What is the Preamble? Why suddenly is it important at this later date, when the Constitution is not on the agenda anywhere? There were only four written Constitutions preceding Australia's. There was a German Constitution, a Canadian, a Swiss and the American Constitution. The example most useful to our architects and ourselves was the American Constitution, which until the arrival of the Australian Constitution, was "The high water mark of Constitutions". The first American attempt to unite her various States in a Federated Union, led directly to the disaster of the American civil war.

The original compact was breached when one of the Southern States, South Carolina, withdrew from the Union, quickly followed by another State which then led to the dissolvement of the Union and the disastrous civil war that followed. Our founding fathers were only half the distance in time from that calamity as we are today. At a time when History was still taught throughout the English speaking world, anybody contemplating another new Constitution with this disaster so recent in memory could not avoid finding a way around this flaw in the original U.S. Constitution. Remembering, written Constitutions were rare and unknown before these times. Like the sporting fields of the world which were to follow, to be successful we had to learn how to make rules all the participants agreed to abide by.

From the short lived German Constitution it was learnt that a Constitution easily changed without the consent of the beneficiaries, or the part consent as in the first U.S Constitution, was not a practical solution or of long time benefit.
The founding fathers overcame this with section 128, borrowed from the Swiss Constitution, which only allowed a stipulated change by a national majority and a majority of states. Since demonstrated to be possible and practical. But it left the possibility of just one of the constituents to the Federation withdrawing and so dissolving the compact as happened in the U.S.. The solution was new, ingenious, but not invincible, as we may be about to discover.
The Preamble was given form to describe the purpose of the constitution as agreed by the founding parties and binding on all the parties to the compact, which were the States and the Crown, "…. to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown…"

Preamble justified the Constitution
The word "indissoluble" meant it could only be dissolved if all the founding parties agreed to dissolve it, not just a single State or the Crown. All had to agree to dissolve it, just as all had agreed to form it. Then to ensure the Constitution could not be changed by section 128, the Preamble was not included as part of the Constitution itself. In modern ideological language the Preamble justified the Constitution, making it a legal document in itself apart and separate from its founding institutions and people, and named the Preamble.

Commonwealth the creature of the States
As the Commonwealth was not a party to forming its own identity and Constitution, it was not a founding member but the offspring or result of that compact, therefore not likely to dissolve itself by the conditions of section 128 which is a part of it only. Just as a new born baby comes into existence forming its own character and behaviour, but not wanting to be changed later by its own children even if some of them do deny their common progenitors.

Now that every attempt to persuade Australians to abandon their Constitution by referendum has failed, another way to circumvent their wishes would be to have one or more of the States withdrawing from the compact to form their own separate Republic - without consulting their electors. This could be accomplished, by simply removing by Legislation, that one single word "indissoluble" from the Preamble, but that would alarm the victims and focus on the intent of that word "indissoluble", the last thing Republicans desire.
A much quieter way to proceed would be to replace by Legislation the whole preamble as previously attempted by a failed referendum, which is possible and is possibly legitimate and legal. As soon as that word "indissoluble" is removed the way is wide open for a Republic without our consent, as they will have a "MANDATE".

John Howard seems to be determined to be remembered as one of our longest serving PM's and the first short term President. With Rudd announcing another referendum in 2010 and Howard removing the word "indissoluble". Australians are between a rock and a hard place at election time, with no help or alternative in sight.

THE RIVER RED GUMS - A FURTHER LAND GRAB

by Betty Luks
We are pleased to note more and more Australians are waking up to the huge political scams now relentlessly being imposed on them by governments and bureaucrats (armed with previous legislation enacted by politicians of all parties) in the push for what Professor Andrew Fraser likened to the "Corporate NeoCommunist" world order.

According to Wendy Jubb Stoney, of "Push For The Bush" on the S.O.S. website:
"The moves by the Victorian Environment Assessment Council (VEAC) Investigation into the Redgum Forests along the Murray River in Victoria heralds the biggest dispossession of land since European settlement.
The VEAC River Red Gum Forests Investigation draft proposals paper admits that its recommendations will cause poverty and dislocation within the communities adjoining and within the Redgum Forests along the Murray and the Goulburn rivers. This is a shameful admission by the VEAC Councillors.

Further, these Councillors are being paid to deliver yet another National Park in the face of millions and millions of exterminated flora and fauna as well as the subsequent erosion and lack of water in our catchments and rivers, caused by the 2003 and the 2006-07 Alpine fires. I am reminded of the Enclosure Acts in England of the 1600's where the ordinary people were forbidden to grow their food on public land…

Added to this, there are the current regulations in Australia governing freehold land which take away the rights of private land holders. This is what is occurring in Victoria, stealthily, incrementally, and in the grand name of conservation.
The conservation record shows that the 'authorities' management of our public land is overwhelmingly wrong. Specific 'science' is extrapolated out to whole areas in order to claim environmental sensitivity; fuel loads on the forest floor are being required to build up to holocaust proportions; environmental flows are applied incorrectly with no redeemable effects and tracks are closed to stop access into public land.

Apart from the fires that came through National Parks and destroyed everything, causing erosion and effecting water supplies as well as biodiversity, the heritage and skills necessary to understand and live with the forests are being deliberately stolen away by the VEAC process. This process has gone on for twenty years and delivered a national park every time…"

'Lock it up and leave it' mentality
Federal member for Indi Sophie Mirabella has spoken out for the local inhabitants. She explains:
"The VEAC report recommends the cancellation of 1725 grazing licences at a cost to the local community of $1.25 million. Local farmers will be required to construct hundreds of kilometres of new fencing to alleviate the damage this recommendation will bring."

IT'S EUPHEMISTICALLY REFERRED TO AS 'DEBT FOR EQUITY' SWAP

A National Park is not the final goal for this River Red Gums push; this is but a local move in the overall plan for the Corporate NeoCommunist nation state of Australia.

Digest well the words of John Hopkins, author of the explosive book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man":
"I think it is fair to say that since World War II, we economic hit men have managed to create the world's first truly global empire, and we've done it primarily without the military, unlike other empires in history. We've done it through economics very subtly.

We work many different ways, but perhaps the most common is that we identify a third world country that has resources our corporations covet, such as oil, and then we arrange a huge loan to that country from the World Bank or one of its sister organisations. The money never actually goes to country. It goes instead to US corporations, who build up big infrastructure projects - power grids, industrial parks, harbours, highways - things that benefit a few very rich people but do not reach the poor at all. The poor aren't connected to the power grids… But they and the whole country are left holding this huge debt.

So at some point in time, we economic hit men go back to the country and say, "look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debt, so you've got to give us a pound of flesh… and then take over their economies."

LEADERS ANSWER EXCLUSIVE POLICY QUESTIONS FOR AIR

by Betty Luks
We are informed in the leading paragraph: "As has become traditional in the lead-up to a federal election, the Australia/Israel Review sent a series of questions to Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd focussing on international security, the Middle East, and domestic policies of special interest to the Australian Jewish community."
Can we be sure the responses by both politicians were to the satisfaction of the questioners? What do you think? For the full response from the two politicians go to: www.aijac.org.au

WHAT POLICIES CAN OTHER AUSTRALIANS LOOK FOR TO SATISFY THEM?
What I would like to know: Have the two politicians made the effort to place themselves before the struggling farmers and small businessmen of this nation - other than by the media hype and jingoism we are constantly bombarded with - and set out rural and small-business policies that are to the satisfaction of the same farmers and small businessmen?

As the League noted in the Intelligence Survey in 1995:
[The] revolutionary financial policy has ravaged country areas for half a century, and by definition, a policy is quite deliberate. This financial policy of short-term debt finance at high interest rates is still eliminating private ownership of family farms just as effectively as bayonets eliminated the peasant farmers of Georgia under Lenin. The use of finance as a weapon is slower, but no less certain.

AND FOR MY NEXT TRICK… IRAN

by Peter Ewer
Various writers in this weekly journal have warned that the US, to protect Israel, would be taking military action to halt Iran's nuclear weapons programme. US Vice-Presdient Dick Cheney during his visit to Australia let the cat out of the bag and said to The Weekend Australian, ("Cheney hints at Iran Strike") that he agreed with John McCain that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran. (24-25/2/07, p.1)

One wonders what President Hilary Clinton or black President Barak Obama would do with the US in the middle of a war with Iran? And will another 9/11 be coming? What plays Shakespeare could have written about this mob.

THE EVIL PARTY SYSTEM

from Len the Cleaner
I don't want your readers to get me wrong, I scorn Jane Lomax-Smith, South Australia's State Education Minister as much as the next extreme 'right-wing' fringe dweller. But I note with horror the article "How the Mighty Have Fallen from Grace," (The Advertiser 22/9/07 p.16) which says that Lomax-Smith, who was touted as being the next Labor Premier, is now 'on the outer'. Why? Let me quote:
"Dr. Lomax-Smith was more interested in retaining the full support of her constituents than supporting the party."

In other words, for the Labor Party cult, the good doctor was no longer one of the faithful. But surely, her support of her constituents is a point for her, not against her. It shows how far the evil party ideology has come.

Comment:
Len's letter reminds me of Dr. David Mitchell's query expressed - along the following lines - during question time at the recent National Seminar.
Throughout Australia's parliaments, there are now many politicians who claim to be Christians; if that is the case, why don't we see more Christian legislation originating from those same parliaments?

THE LATE, GREAT AFRICAN REFUGEE "DEBATE"

by James Reed
First create a racial problem, and then at election time, talk tough about 'threats' and the like. After the election, roll back on any solution. It is a tried and proven formula that the Howard government has used in each of its previous elections, especially to displace the threat of Hansonism in the 1990s.

The great puppet theatre of "playing the race card" will always require a "shocked" MP, intellectual and/or ethnic to compare comments critical of the non-White to:
a. Nazi Germany (but with care not to in any way diminish Jewish suffering)
b. The US 'deep South' pre-1960s and/or
c. The White Australia Policy.

And the routine was once, more superb, with all the appropriate parties playing to perfection their finely scripted "shock-horror" roles. In short, the African refugee debate was standard political theatre, the equivalent of any mid-afternoon TV soapy - and containing as much reality. After the election, whatever 'side' wins, watch the non-White migrants continue to flood in.

GO FOR YOUR LEGAL SIX SHOOTER!

by Ian Wilson LL.B:
African community leaders are considering both international legal action via the UN as well as legal action via a complaint to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, for present Immigration Minister Kevin Andrew's alleged "vilification" of the African community.

The comments - that some such communities had trouble settling in Australia as well as low-levels of education - supposedly constituted "vilification". Legally this shows that ethnic communities will take any criticism as vilification.

All the more reason for Australia to pull out of the UN and out of all UN-inspired politically correct treaties and to wind back UN-inspired laws like the Racial Discrimination Act.
These laws remind me of wild west gun-fighters with six shooters with "hair triggers", that go off at the slightest criticism. A sane, democratic society does not need these laws enforcing globalist morality.

THE REPUBLICAN FIGHT - AGAIN

by James Reed
The coming Rudd government will mean that the republican fight will intensify. The "Republic" will be "back on the agenda," simmering away in the great evil cauldron of Laborite politics. So let us get ready to fight.

First point: I have been asked to publicise the fact that ARM (Australian Republican Movement) is very shy about answering questions not only from Monarchists, but also from the undecided. A letter by Sean O'Leary "The Secret Republic" published in Quadrant details ARM's refusal to answer some very reasonable questions.
Mr. O'Leary concludes: "If a political party refused to answer questions about its platforms and beliefs, would anyone vote for it? Surely not. So send the ARM people some questions you would like answers to.

The Australian Government's Civic Expert Group found in 1994 that 82 per cent of Australians know little or nothing about our present system of government. This in itself is an excellent reason for not having a republic debate until people are better educated. Ignorance is incompatible with true democracy.
To this end the League has a vast amount of material that can be used by actionists to educate themselves and others. Send for a list of suitable reading.

"The Chameleon Crown" by Anne Twomey, is a scholarly text which makes use of previously unpublished documents to show that the Australian States were British colonial dependencies until the 1986 passage of the Australia Act. Until that time, the United Kingdom government advised the Crown on the States' matters. The book contains interesting material, but has a republican slant, that this advisory role was somehow bad.
On the contrary, in my opinion, it resisted the slide to centralism. Republicans, of course, are Canberra centralists, and an Australian republic will ultimately see the elimination of the States.

"The Chameleon Crown" is for advanced readers, but is worth dipping into as its material will be used against us by republicans. Price: $60.00 posted from all Heritage Book Services and Veritas Pub.(W.A.).

Political comment authorised by Donald Auchterlonie, 145 Russell Street Melbourne 3000