THE “DREADED” LEAGUE OF RIGHTS: A BLUSHING TULIP’S REPLY

by Peter Ewer
The anti-carbon rally has been and gone. But the presence of the League was noted by the media and typical comments made: “the anti-Semitic League of Rights”. Excuse me, but 26 years ago the late, great Eric Butler decisively knocked that one on the head. In his 1985 booklet, “Phillip Adams’ Invitation Accepted: The Truth about the Australian League of Rights”. This booklet is well worth rereading, for it shows that the Australian League of Rights is a conservative Christian social credit service organisation, about as far away from collectivist National Socialism as you can get.

However a lesser person’s response is: what do you mean? And where is your proof? The League has been critical of various Zionist activities but has never taken an anti-Jewish stance. It has not been anti-Israeli and has never supported the notion that Israel should be destroyed. Rather, specific actions of Israel have been criticised as have the actions of other nations. Sometimes writers here have pointed out the threat that Iran and multiculturalism poses to Jews.

For a while the Greens were deep in thought, pondering, pondering. Did the party-party fail to win the seat of Marrickville because of the Israel boycott issue? Bobby Brown thinks from “feedback from the electorate” that the Israel boycott issue may have had an effect. But I find this hard to believe. How many voters in the seat of Marrickville could even correctly point to Israel’s location in an outline-map of the world? But boycotting Israel is now a popular cause among the hard Left, especially on University campuses.

Attacking Israel’s right to exist is a politically correct cause among this new crop of radicals. Anti-Israel posters can usually be found on university campuses. Further, although the Greens are distancing themselves from the boycott of Israel, the Senate Hansard of March 23, 2011 records that when Senator Mitch Fifield (Victoria) moved that, among other things, the boycott of Israel can be condemned, Senator Bob Brown asked that “the Australian Greens’ opposition to this motion be recorded.” The Greens then shifted their stated position when the present “boycott Israel” controversy erupted.

The media would be better off attacking these hard left radicals than pushing the long-refuted idea that the League is anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel. Those who respect race and nation, should have a “live and let live” attitude to all peoples.  

ADAMS SPEWS FORTH HIS VITRIOL AGAINST ‘THE LION OF FREEDOM’

by Betty Luks
In The Australian newspaper Phillip Adams once again vented his spiteful spleen against the League of Rights and in particular against that great Australian Eric Dudley Butler. Eric gave himself fully in a lifetime of service to his nation and people.
https://alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/The%20Lion%20of%20Freedom%20.htm#1a

Adams commences: “Organised by the brainless bigots of shock-jockery, following the example of their American heroes in talking up the toxic Tea Party, a Canberra rally ostensibly about carbon tax was addressed by Tony Abbott and wisely boycotted by Hockey and Turnbull.

My comment: All the above is to keep Tony Abbott and the rest of the Coalition quiet on issues of great national importance. One can only hope and pray that more and more politicians will grow a spine and stand tall in front of their fellow Australians – and give the people genuine leadership.

Adams continues: “Climate change denial? There were deeper, darker purposes to the gathering. The crowd contained many members of deranged cults owing their existence to a truly evil man called Eric Butler. Shortly before his death in 2006, aged 90, Australia’s most virulent anti-Semite complained bitterly to the Press Council about some columns I’d written to expose him and his League of Rights. I’d wanted to remind the National Party, first infiltrated by the league in its Country Party days, of what these thugs were really on about – and to prevent such foolish Liberal ministers as Alexander Downer sharing public platforms with Butler’s acolytes. Not that Downer went as far as my old friend Jim Killen who, sadly, had backed the league in the 1960s, even travelling with Butler to Europe. Let me now warn Tony Abbott, and any shock-jock who can read.”

Our Answer to Slander: Eric documented all details that led up to the attacks upon him in the book “The Truth About the Australian League of Rights”, now out of print, but Jeremy Lee also answered all of Adams’ slanderous lies and the answers were recorded on “An Answer to Slander”. We have great pleasure in putting that presentation on our website for our fellow Australians to make up their own minds. For those who would like a full-definition copy of the DVD it is $12.00 posted.

As to the slander that Eric was a traitor during WWII, we have posted Eric’s official War Record details here on our website. Eric never personally collected his Service medals, he was far too busy traipsing the length and breadth of this land seeking to warn his fellow Australians about the politicians’ sell-out of our sovereignty to the internationalists and the utopian United Nations’ New World Order. Be that as it may, Bruce Ruxton, at the time President of the Victorian Returned Services League, presented Eric with his Service medals at the 1990 “New Times Dinner” in Melbourne Victoria.
Adams article here https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-warning-for-tony/story-e6frg7fx-1226034302796  

NOW FOR PASTOR CHRIS FIELD’S DEALINGS WITH MACQUARIE BANK

by Betty Luks
First I need to explain On Target Vol31 No32 reported on the derivatives scam as early as August 1995:
“NEW BANKING REGULATIONS FOR THE GLOBAL MARKET” -
“The Bank of International Settlements, in Switzerland, has sent what amounts to a directive to the world's central banks, that regulations should now be introduced to force banks to raise additional capital in order to be able to absorb the kind of disaster that befell Barings Bank in Hong Kong. The Barings disaster came about allegedly as a result of junior traders speculating in currency or "derivatives" markets that exposed the bank to significantly increased risks….”
Read further here: https://alor.org/Volume31/Vol31No32.htm 

FORGET ABOUT HYPE AND POLITICAL SPIN-DOCTORING – QUESTION IS:
Are you an Australian Homeowner with a Mortgage?
If so, you really should take the time to listen to a radio interview with Pastor Chris Field. “Pastor Chris Field Attracts Army of Vic Government Enforcers for Macquarie Bank’s 2nd Eviction”: - http://sosnews.org/newsfront/?p=622

Pastor Chris Field of the state of Victoria was evicted from his home for the second time, not for refusing to pay his mortgage, but daring to ask who actually held the legal mortgage document to his home. He wanted to know where his mortgage payments were going.
If you have a mortgage on your home and you think the bank has the legal document safely stored in its vaults - you need to hear this interview. The situation may not be quite what you think it is.

An Army of some 25 people invaded the home of Pastor Chris Field, evicted him and family leaving them out the front of the home with only the clothes they were wearing, but without shoes. The enforcers then erected a fence around the home to be policed by guard dogs. This show of strength by the Victorian Government on this passive family of God was larger than most sent to a hostage situation involving firearms.

If I have understood the situation correctly:
The key point about all of Pastor Chris Field’s queries is that he wants to know is his Mortgage Deed still held by the Macquarie Bank or was it on-sold to another institution.

In 2008 American lawyer and author Ellen Brown alerted her readers to the fact that banks had on-sold the Mortgages without their clients knowledge, and had created such a tangle that original ownership was hard to prove.

"Let the Lawsuits Begin: Banks Brace for a Storm of Litigation": 13th, July 2008:
Source: https://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bracing-storm.php
Brown explains: “In an article in The San Francisco Chronicle in December 2007, attorney Sean Olender suggested that the real reason for the subprime bailout schemes being proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. The plan then on the table was an interest rate freeze on a limited number of subprime loans.

Olender wrote: "The sole goal of the freeze is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value - right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
". . . The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . "

What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back."

Toxic subprime paper-writing - design of banks' 'financial products':
The thought could send a chill through even the most powerful of investment bankers, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson himself, who was head of Goldman Sachs during the heyday of toxic subprime paper-writing from 2004 to 2006. Mortgage fraud has not been limited to the representations made to borrowers or on loan documents but is in the design of the banks' "financial products" themselves.

Among other design flaws is that securitized mortgage debt has become so complex that ownership of the underlying security has often been lost in the shuffle; and without a legal owner, there is no one with standing to foreclose. That was the procedural problem prompting Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko to rule in October 2007 that Deutsche Bank did not have standing to foreclose on 14 mortgage loans held in trust for a pool of mortgage-backed securities holders.
If large numbers of defaulting homeowners were to contest their foreclosures on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) could be at risk. Irate securities holders might then respond with litigation that could indeed threaten the existence of the banking Goliaths.”

What Australian homeowners have not been told by their governments is that they are also caught up in the tangle. Pastor Field wants to bring the matter out into the light of day.

THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM WITHIN AUSTRALIAN BANKS:
In December 2008 thanks to the work of Mr. Will Peden of Robe, South Australia, we reported on the exposure of Australia’s banks.
“Australian Banks have a combined exposure of $13,785 Billion (or $13.785 Trillion) to derivatives and other off balance sheet business as at 30 June 2008. These are the most recent figures publicly available. Readers can verify these figures by getting a copy of the Reserve Bank Bulletin, September 2008, and look at Table B4, and it is the last figure on the page. The source is credited to APRA or the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.

This is their exposure, not their turnover. It is unfortunate that the banks combined exposure has been increasing, even in the past year. To get this figure into perspective the total shareholder equity of the banks at the same date was a mere $129 Billion (or $0.129 Trillion). The total shareholder equity in our banks is less than 1% of the banks combined 'off balance sheet exposure. In Australia the banks may claim that they are hedging however the size of their derivative positions dwarfs their total assets ($2T table B2) so this argument doesn't hold water.

 Read further here... https://alor.org/Volume44/Vol44No47.htm#1a

NOW FOR AN ANGLE WITH A ‘POPULIST’ TILT

“Iceland Declares Independence from International Banksters” by Bill Wilson of Netrightly, President of Americans for Limited Government. Read full article here: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/04/iceland-declares-independence-from-international-banks/. He writes: “ICELAND IS FREE! And it will remain so, so long as her people wish to remain autonomous of the foreign domination of her would-be masters — in this case, international bankers.

On April 9, the fiercely independent people of island-nation defeated a referendum that would have bailed out the UK and the Netherlands who had covered the deposits of British and Dutch investors who had lost funds in Icesave bank in 2008.
At the time of the bank’s failure, Iceland refused to cover the losses. But the UK and Netherlands nonetheless have demanded that Iceland repay them for the “loan” as a condition for admission into the European Union.

In response, the Icelandic people have told Europe to go pound sand:
The final vote was 103,207 to 69,462, or 58.9 percent to 39.7 percent. “Taxpayers should not be responsible for paying the debts of a private institution,” said Sigriur Andersen, a spokeswoman for the Advice group that opposed the bailout.
A similar referendum in 2009 on the issue, although with harsher terms, found 93.2 percent of the Icelandic electorate rejecting a proposal to guarantee the deposits of foreign investors who had funds in the Icelandic bank. The referendum was invoked when President Olafur Ragnur Grimmson vetoed legislation the Althingi, Iceland’s parliament, had passed to pay back the British and Dutch. (Thank God for the trinitarian division and balance of Power... ed)

Under the terms of the agreement, Iceland would have had to pay £2.35 billion to the UK, and €1.32 billion to the Netherlands by 2046 at a 3 percent interest rate. Its rejection for the second time by Iceland is a testament to its people, who feel they should bear no responsibility for the losses of foreigners endured in the financial crisis.
That opposition to bailouts led to Iceland’s decision to allow the bank to fail in 2008. Not that the taxpayers there could have afforded to. As noted by Bloomberg News, at the time the crisis hit in 2008, “the banks had debts equal to 10 times Iceland’s $12 billion GDP.” Let that sink in gentle reader. Banks can have debts greater than a nation’s gross domestic product. Obviously there is no relation between a bank’s power to create ‘credit’ (read ‘debt’) out of nothing – or thin air – and a nation’s productive capacity.

You need to watch the videos on the League’s website front page and/or send for a full definition DVD of the “Social Dynamics” lectures – Eric Butler and Jeremy Lee at their best.

Continuing Bill Wilson’s article:
“These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks,” Iceland President Olafur Grimsson told Bloomberg Television. The voters’ rejection came despite threats to isolate Iceland from funding in international financial institutions. Iceland’s national debt has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies, and now those same agencies have promised to do so once again as punishment for defying the will of international bankers.
(This means the interest rates are raised because the ‘nation’ has become more of a risk in its efforts to pay back this fictional ‘money’ with the peoples’ hard work and taxation etc.)

“This is just the latest in the long drama since 2008 of global institutions refusing to take losses in the financial crisis. Threats of a global economic depression and claims of being “too big to fail” have equated to a loaded gun to the heads of representative governments in the U.S. and Europe. Iceland is of particular interest because it did not bail out its banks like Ireland did, or foreign ones like the U.S. did.

If that fervour catches on amongst taxpayers worldwide, as it has in Iceland and with the tea party movement in America, the banks would have something to fear; that is, the inability to draw from limitless amounts of funding from gullible government officials and central banks.
It appears that the root cause is government guarantees, whether explicit or implicit, on risk-taking by the banks… Threats of economic war this time: “The lesson here is instructive across the pond, but it is a chilling one. If the U.S. — or any sovereign for that matter — attempts to restructure their debts, or to force private investors to take a haircut on their own foolish gambles, these international institutions have promised the equivalent of economic war in response.

However, the alternative is for representative governments to sacrifice their independence to a cadre of faceless bankers who share no allegiance to any nation. It is the conflict that has already defined the beginning of the 21st Century. The question is whether free peoples will choose to remain free, as Iceland has, or to submit.  

A GREENS PIPPED AN INDEPENDENT AT THE POST

We kept in mind Greens candidate Jeremy Buckingham’s response to Julia Gillard’s criticisms of the Greens: “As a country tradesman in western NSW (who loves and works hard for his family, Julia) I probably would have been a Labor supporter and voter in an earlier time, but the values that I hold dear are not reflected in the old parties anymore. Sticking your dig on a tough issue, standing up for communities in the face of vested interests, a fair go - true Australian values - have been abandoned by the spin doctors and manipulators who rule Labor. At every election more and more Australians are recognising this and are abandoning the old parties to elect Greens to federal, state and local government…” - - https://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55402.html

Jeremy Buckingham ‘just pipped’ Pauline Hanson for that final spot in the NSW Legislative Council. It will now be the task of the people of NSW to keep Jeremy to his word and that may not necessarily be what his party has in mind!  

BOLT, EUGENICS AND RACIAL VILIFICATION

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The Andrew Bolt racial vilification case is now being heard in the Federal Court of Australia (“Bolt Articles ‘Akin to Eugenics’”, The Australian, March 29, 2011, p.3). The case arises from Bolt’s articles published in the Herald Sun which alleged that some high profile Aborigines, having fair skin and mixed heritage (i.e., race) had identified themselves as Aboriginal for career advancement.
The Australian article cites Ron Merkel QC telling judge Mordecai Bromberg that “The Holocaust started with words and ended with violence” and that Andrew Bolt’s articles on Aboriginal identity were akin to an “eugenics approach” which led the Nazis to establish the 1935 “anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws”.

Where does one start in deconstructing all of this? First, a question about the relevance of physical racial characteristics to the nature of Aboriginal identity does not constitute a eugenic claim. Eugenics is about improvement of the race and merely identifying racial characteristics does not constitute eugenics. Second, eugenics as practiced in Singapore and the US did not lead to the Holocaust. Mr Merkel is quoted as saying that the case is not about free speech as there was a free speech provision in the Racial Discrimination Act, but a “challenge to what he’s written”.
And how, pray tell, is that in itself not a challenge to free speech because free speech is nothing if one can’t express or write what one needs to say?

THE FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY

by Brian Simpson
French right wing writer, Alain de Benoist, a leading European New Right thinker, published The Problem of Democracy in France 26 years ago. Arktos has now published an English translation. I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of this book yet, so these remarks cannot be considered a book review. Nevertheless the Alternative Right website is excellent for reviewing all such books and offers a glowing review in its March 30, 2011 edition. What is interesting is that de Benoist shows that “democracy” is an essentially contested concept that has been used in contradictory and often deceptive ways to even apply to totalitarian communist regimes. For de Benoist, ancient Athenian democracy was real democracy and modern liberal democracies fall far short of that.

The key reason for this, as the Alternative Right article observes, is “that genuine democracy can only exist in a community with shared values and common historical ties”. Also important to the decentralisation philosophy of the League and social credit is that “the larger the political unit, the stronger the type of government needed to hold it together. The liberal democracies of the West, governing over vast multicultural multitudes are necessarily repressive and tend increasingly towards totalitarianism”. Further, de Benoist rejects equalitarianism, the dogma of our multicultural fascist societies, that all people are naturally equal.
This assumption is not required by genuine democracy which only needs abstract legal equality – people are given “equal opportunities to be unequal”.  

LOVE WITH ABBOTT IS TOUGH, TOUGH, TOUGH

by Peter West
It is essentially the anti-thesis of Douglas social credit – mad monk Abbott’s “tough-love” work plan. Abbott’s first real “policy” in who-knows how long, essentially making the dole tougher for the long-term unemployed and mandatory work for the dole for people under 50. With the massive waste of money on immigration and multiculturalism, Abbott’s proposals are simply mean, mean, mean. Never mind the massive reserve of army of unemployed harvested by immigration, never mind how inadequate the dole actually is. Just work until you drop.

Sure there are dole bludgers, but so what, they are of minimal importance compared to the corporate parasites that rip off the system with their fancy lawyers. Abbott’s policy is a symbol of the liberal worldview, which is regimented by the meanness of money and is a diversion from the real forces undermining our society so well exposed by the social credit movement: the tyranny of high finance.  

MORE ON THE JOYS OF RADIOACTIVITY

by Brian Simpson
True to form the mainstream media have either lost interest in or been told to “shut up” about the radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, just when they should be yelping about it.
The radioactive fall-out is now 73% of the daily radiation emitted from Chernobyl at the height of its fame. Radioactive iodine 1,150 times the legal limit has been detected in water 30 metres from the site. And caesium – 137, another nasty, is 60% of that released by Chernobyl.

The corporates say that there is nothing to worry about: translation, get very nervous as radioactivity will spread around the Earth. Stock up on natural sources of iodine such as kelp. This won’t be the last nuclear “accident”.