FEEDING THE HUNGRY? STORY OF A MODERN-DAY GOOD SAMARITAN

When reading this note from one of our friends I was reminded of that Great Depression headline in a Social Credit journal, “Poverty Amidst Plenty”. It wasn’t that the nations couldn’t produce enough food to feed the hungry or house the homeless. It was a matter of POLICY on the part of governments and banks that the production would not be distributed to the hungry and homeless without they worked for it first.

This Good Samaritan has spent many a year in rescuing good food products thrown out by business houses and distributing them among the poor and homeless in Adelaide. The time was 9.00am in Whitmore Square, in the centre of Adelaide and it was Easter Sunday morn. He had placed a sign readily seen that read:

“Free Milk – Happy Easter”.

Within 45 minutes all was gone, he had ‘sold out’. Along comes an Adelaide City councillor who warned the Good Samaritan that what he was doing was illegal because of S.A. health laws. To which our friend replied that he would keep on doing it and ‘bad laws are there to be broken’ inviting the Council- “to bring it on fellows!” Our Good Samaritan is now awaiting the legal action to take place.  

THE ILLUMINATI WERE AMATEURS COMPARED WITH ICAP BROKERS!

“Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever” by Matt Taibbi in the RollingStone journal, 25 April 2013.

“The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There's no price the big banks can't fix.” (Internet Content Adaptation Protocol =ICAP)

“Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.

You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that's trillion, with a "t") worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets." (wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal… OT: www.alor.org/Volume47/Vol47No39.htm)

That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world's largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behaviour that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world's largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.

Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It's about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget. (emphasis added…ed)
Read more:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425#ixzz2RpVZ7W8C  

THEY WERE SO NEAR -AND YET SO FAR

by Betty Luks
News from Iceland: Readers will remember OT reported on the Parliamentary proposal (No. 239) of politician Lilja Mosesdottir “on the separation of money creation and loan function of the banking system”. But as our Iceland colleague noted, there were obstacles to be overcome, not the least being the delaying tactics of the Opposition. (https://alor.org/Volume49/Vol49No13.htm)

It would seem from first reports of last weekend’s general elections in Iceland, the same old parties are back in power and will be happy to continue the present financial set-up – along with some limited modifications, of course, to appease the people.  

CENTRE ‘RIGHT’ CLAIMS ICELAND ELECTION WIN

ABC News reported: “Iceland's centre-right opposition has declared victory in parliamentary elections, as voters punished the incumbent leftist government for harsh austerity measures during its four years at the helm. They will now form a coalition government after a count of 45 per cent of votes suggested the rightwing Independence Party would get 21 seats in parliament, with the centrist-agrarian Progressive Party set to double its seats to 18. It marks a return to power for the two parties, which both want to end the Atlantic island nation's European Union accession talks.
The Independence Party's leader Bjarni Benediktsson told supporters he was ready to negotiate a coalition that would lead the country. "[We are] called to duty again. The situation now calls for change," Mr Benediktsson said.

The two parties have staged a remarkable comeback since they were ousted in a 2009 election after presiding over the worst financial crisis to ever hit the small country. After four years of tax hikes and austerity designed to meet international lenders' demands, the Independence Party has offered debt-laden voters tax credits. The Progressive Party, a historic coalition partner to the Independence Party, has vowed to go even further by asking banks to write off some of the debt. "We will change Iceland for the better very fast in the coming months and years," said the party's leader, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson.” (emphasis added…ed)  

THE PROPOSAL TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2013  

The Gillard government is purporting that they will hold a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to directly finance local government. The Hon. Anthony Albanese MP - Minister for Regional Development and Local Government has said that a referendum should take place in conjunction with the federal election in September.

It is of great concern that there will be little time for the public to absorb the implications of such change and it is to be hoped that the parliament will reject a referendum on those grounds alone – but of course with this parliament, nothing is ever certain. Labor party policy for many decades has been to expand local councils into regional governments thus making the States redundant and to eventually dissolve the federation and centralise all power into Canberra.

The Australian Monarchist League has always opposed any proposal to concentrate power at the expense of the States. Lack of time and finances make it uncertain whether there will be a positive NO case opposing the referendum. It is rumoured that the States of Western Australia and Victoria will oppose, but there is no definite opposition at this stage.

The Australian Monarchist League has always believed in democratic processes and the National Council has decided that, if we are to become engaged in the proposed referendum, it is necessary, as Australia's largest member-based monarchist organisation, to obtain the opinions of our members on whether they themselves are for or against such constitutional recognition. Brief arguments for and against have been incorporated below…

- - Philip Benwell National Chair Australian Monarchist League

Brief Arguments For and Against Constitutional Inclusion of Local Government

ARGUMENTS FOR RECOGNITION: (Taken from various news resources)
Local governments deliver a wide variety of services including roads, footpaths, libraries, planning, public parks, sports grounds, waste collection and various community services. It would be possible to symbolically recognise the importance of this role through mention of local government in the preamble to the constitution.

But the more immediate concern for federal and local governments is a financial one. Recent High Court decisions have raised uncertainty about whether the federal government can provide funds directly to local government. Pape v Commissioner of Taxation in 2009, a case about the legality of stimulus payments in the government's response to the global financial crisis, revealed the High Court's consideration that the Commonwealth was unable to spend money without explicit constitutional powers as set out in sections 51 and 61. While in that case it found powers did exist due to the global crisis, the general line of thought was that an explicit power was needed for spending.

In Williams v Commonwealth, a case about school chaplains, the High Court found the Commonwealth could not spend money outside some tightly specified circumstances without supporting legislation. A number of Commonwealth payments to local governments, particularly for roads and other infrastructure, do not have a specific legislative authority.

If the issue of commonwealth funding to local government were to come before the courts, the bulk of the academic commentary suggests a challenge to some or all of the Commonwealth's funding of local government might well succeed. Thus, including the ability for local government to receive financial assistance from the Commonwealth will be necessary to clear up uncertainty and avoid the risk that such funding might come to an end.

The federal government itself supports constitutional recognition of local government. It was a part of its agreement with the independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott to form government. The government set up an expert panel to consider the questions involved. It recommended an amendment to section 96 of the constitution (which allows the Commonwealth to make payments to the states) to add in local government.

Section 96 currently reads:
“During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.”

The likely referendum amendment would be along the lines of:
"The Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State or to any local government body formed by state or territory legislation on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit."

ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECOGNITION:
(From the paper delivered to the 2011 AML National Conference by Dr. David Mitchell RFD B.A, LL.B. LL.M. Ph.D.)

In the Westminster System ‘government’ is recognised as having three distinct powers, Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Local government in Australia is an exercise of the executive (administrative) power of the government of the States. Local government has no legislative, executive (administrative) or judicial power of its own but all power that it has is derived by delegation from the State Governments and is the actual exercise of powers of the State Government.

Local councils are a means used by the State Governments for exercising aspects of their own administrative governmental functions. Local government itself is created and maintained by State Government legislation, the geographic extent of local government districts is determined by the State Governments, the powers of councils are determined by and conferred by State Governments, the authority to make regulations is delegated and supervised by the State Governments, establishment of new councils and amalgamation of existing councils are matters for the State Governments.

Local government remained part of the States’ administrative structure over which the Federal (Commonwealth) Government and the Constitution had no authority. Local government is recognised in the State Constitutions of all six States. Each State and the Northern Territory has a Local Government Act. Australian Capital Territory has neither a Local Government Act nor, indeed, local government.

Recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution has been rejected three times. The first was when the Constitution was drawn up, the second was at referendum under a Labor government in 1974 and the third was at a referendum under a Labor government in 1988. There is now an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the three previous rejections, the reasons for now rejecting the proposal a fourth time and voting ‘NO’.

The purpose of the Constitution was originally to enable the Commonwealth of Australia to come into existence and then continue on a permanent and indissoluble basis with the States maintaining their own governmental structures (including local government). Inclusion of local government would change and impact on the responsibility and power of State Governments. Inclusion of local government in the Constitution would advance the principle of centralism to the disadvantage of federalism. More power would be transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.

The mere mention of local government in the Constitution might be sufficient to enable the Commonwealth Government to undermine policies of State Governments by direct funding for local government to do its bidding.

If the inclusion of local government were to authorise direct funding from the Commonwealth to local government, much additional power over local government would pass to the Commonwealth Government. While it is not possible to read the future, such power might be extended for the Commonwealth to control councils to the distinct detriment of the principle of local government.

Local government is not a ‘level of government’ but is a method of administration by a State Government of local matters.

There is no proposal to change the Constitution to establish local government. Local government is already established and has operated satisfactorily in the Commonwealth for more than 110 years since federation and it operated satisfactorily in the States before that. It is not inclusion in the Commonwealth Constitution that would give local government importance or significance. Its importance and significance derives from the State governmental functions it administers.

The undesirability of recognising local government in the Constitution is obvious. The only sensible vote in the interests of Australia as a whole, continuing proper State administration in local areas, protecting federalism and the States from further Commonwealth encroachment is a ‘NO’ vote.

Further reading:
Political Democracy: Referendum to Amend the Constitution To recognise Local Government by Dr. David Mitchell.

"Back to post-WWI Labor, however. Even before that war broke out, a conga line of early Labor luminaries began proselytising what they called ‘unification’, the then-fashionable term for centralisation of power via abolition of the states and their replacement by what were then called ‘provinces’.
Here’s what long-time hardline leftist, Maurice Blackburn, the man responsible for Labor’s socialisation platform, suggested should be added to Labor’s Fighting Platform.
“(a) Unification. “(b) Reconstruction of Australian Government; centralisation of legislative power in the Commonwealth Parliament; devolution of local powers to Provincial Councils.”

That policy was in fact adopted by Labor and remained in its platform for decades; and Ms Gillard has ensured that commitment survives. Today, Laborites and Greens no longer refer to provinces. They instead promote creating ‘regions’, which they now say must be “recognised”, meaning we become ever-more controlled by Canberra. Provinces or regions are exactly the same beast – centralism – under different names.

Labor in the 1920s even commissioned a cartographer to draw-up a map of Australia without states.
It showed Australia broken up into 31 provinces, with scrapped Western Australia becoming four provinces: Greater Perth, basically the Perth-Fremantle metropolitan area; another called Goldfields, which included the Nullarbor, the Kalgoorlie area and Central Desert; another called Dampier, which included the Pilbara and today’s Mid-West; and South-Western, which was basically today’s South West plus Wheatbelt. The Kimberley was to be hived-off into the Northern Territory with Canberra controlling both as it did the NT from 1911 until self-government in 1978, implemented by the Fraser government.

Since Blackburn’s blueprint meant scrapping the states, what inevitably followed was abolition of the Senate, state governors, state education, police, health and all other departments. Future recreated departments would be Canberra-directed entities with the provinces, now called regions, becoming administrative agencies resembling 19th century colonial entities but of a Canberra imperium, rather than London’s before self-government. There would only have been a single chamber, the House of Representatives. .."(emphasis added...ed)

AND... ALOR Library Section The Labor-Socialist Strategy for Destroying the States and Local Government.

MOTHER EARTH IN RIO

The push for World Government by some very powerful forces goes back a long way. It would be as well to keep in mind the fact that at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, not only was avowed internationalist, world government advocate, and prominent member of the Club of Rome, Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the "Earth Summit",But Australia's delegates included politicians from the two main parties.

“Australia sent a delegation of 40 to Rio, which was criticised as excessive by Senator Bill O'Chee. Mrs. Kelly defended the delegation, as did Opposition spokesman on the environment, Fred Chaney…”
(www.alor.org/Volume28/Vol28No23.htm)

EARTH SUMMIT ~ AGENDA 21

The United Nations programme of action from Rio
Taken from the booklet “Agenda 21”  

It can be summarized this way:
Sustainable Development is essentially the "land grab". The Wildlands Project is the "water grab". Health Care Reform is the "body grab". Cap and Trade is the "private property grab".
It is much more complex of course, but it can readily be discerned when you consider all the new Codex Laws for Agriculture that have been passed, all the enumerated powers given the USDA, EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. These "grabs" are being enacted in numerous ways, but they ALL flow from Agenda 21.

This is meant only as a primer, to open your eyes, to make you aware of this "secret" plan to "radically transform America" (and Australia…ed). If you are among the youth of today, feeling a bit aimless and uncertain of your future, the good news is you have a Life Plan, no need to fret. If you are a citizen that has diligently organized your life and you are obtaining the goals of your Life Plan, well, I have some bad news for you---your plan is being replaced by someone else's plan.

I am often asked what is the purpose to all this? What is there to be gained by all of this? First, the goal is Global Governance. It is also a massive global re-distribution of wealth. This is currently underway in a huge way, as Obama has already funneled 300 billion dollars into the IMF, and we are additionally obligated to give 80 billion dollars per year to "needy" nations through the Global Poverty Act that we signed in Feb. of this year. So what’s the point? In the most simplistic explanation possible, the answer is to make those with the power more powerful, and those with the most money, richer. Of the world's 6.5 billion people, only about 1 billion of them are consumers. By re-distributing the wealth, the idea is to make all 6.5 billion people consumers of the transnational corporations. It is that simple.

These transnational corporations have all signed onto the "co-operative" pacts. Go to any major corporation you can think of, type sustainable development into their search engine... you will find it there. Even corporations that should be most objecting to Agenda 21 (such as major oil companies), they are all playing ball.

Haven't you seen the BP Petroleum advertisements? Did you ever ask yourself why it is they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot? Hopefully I have provided you some answers. This is YOUR life, YOUR choice, and YOUR freedom. If you value your individuality, your hard work, your freedom of choice, and the future sovereignty of America, then STAND UP... let your voices be heard!

Whatever you think is so important, whatever it is in this bill or that bill you are all hot to trot over...forget it! All these Bills come from a singular source, and they all have a singular goal! Now it is time for us Americans (and Australians.. ed) to be united in our purpose to defeat this goal by cutting it off at the head!
Every post, every letter, every utterance needs to contain the words "Agenda 21". Until you know where the battlefield is, you have no chance of winning the War. None!  

THIS MAN HAS THE RIGHT IDEA! PEOPLE POWER! ACTION!!

He writes: “UN Agenda 21 has not been ratified by parliament. Nor have the people ratified it. The Greens party admits it's part of their policy. UN Agenda 21 is documented as part of ALP policy (Paragraphs from page 243 of ALP's 2004 platform) yet not publicly discussed. Some Liberal MPs have pushed it covertly for around two decades. It was stated in the 1990's as part of Liberal policy and likely still is. Some MPs reportedly have been pushing it yet deny doing so.

Graham Williamson’s detailed documents revealing UN Agenda 21 being implemented stealthily across Australia are available here: www.galileomovement.com.au/australia_democracy.php

UN Agenda 21 includes unfounded climate alarm fabricated and pushed by the UN to cede national governance and sovereignty over energy, resource use, property rights, finances, transport and mobility. It's our greatest threat to individual freedom. A second component is UN ‘Biodiversity' stealing private property rights. The third component is UN ‘Sustainability' regulating and restricting people, energy, resources, finances and property. These three prongs are underway in Australia, America and other nations. As Americans awaken, their states are now banning UN Agenda 21.

Why won't Australian politicians discuss UN Agenda 21? Some MPs seem genuinely ignorant of UN Agenda 21. Others are quietly and stealthily pushing this campaign for control by unelected UN bureaucrats outside Australia. Why the secrecy? They likely know Australians will reject it. It contravenes our constitution. See Appendix 14 in CSIROh! report: www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html.

Protecting freedom by understanding climate:
In February Malcolm Roberts sent letters by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation to all Members of federal Parliament; CSIRO executives; Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Director; ten of the most prominent academics advocating cutting human production of carbon dioxide (CO2); ABC directors, executive management, Executive Producers and journalists; Fairfax Media Chairman, directors, executive management and journalists; Australian Academy of Science; Freedom of Information units in CSIRO and BOM; various other agencies and people. All letters were personally signed and almost all were sent by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation.

Copies of most of his letters are provided below the replies from politicians.
• Replies from Politicians
• Summary of responses received from federal Members of Parliament including identification of the Ostrich Club.
• Graph of mail collection times - in reverse alphabetical order and starting with senators. Each vertical line represents five working days from date of arrival of letter in Parliament House post office until collection by each MP's office.
• UN Agenda 21 arises in some communication. This UN campaign is being exposed by state MPs and local councillors across Australia.
• The Wide Bay electorate branch of the Liberal National Party in Queensland recently passed the following motion: "That the LNP opposes laws and/or regulations being made by Local, State and Federal governments that enact the policy objectives of United Nations Agenda 21." The Wide Bay electorate is currently held by Warren Truss, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and parliamentary Leader of the Nationals.

Registered Post envelopes were sent to all 226 federal MPs. The contents detailed extensive documented corruption destroying Australian sovereignty, governance and economic security. Taxpayers pay MPs large salaries to represent the nation's interests and the people's interests. MPs are responsible for expenditure and for our federation's constitution. Yet only thirteen MPs responded. None demonstrated that they take responsibility. Why not?

Here is one man who understands just what freedom (balanced by responsibility and accountability…ed) and democracy means! Go to his site, read it – then do your part: https://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html  

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM REIGN OF TONY RABBIT?

by Brian Simpson
The polls are predicting that come September Tony the Rabbit will be our new king. Julia will go the back bench and dream about her superannuation. That is, if Big Kev doesn’t rise from the dead, again, and steal Julia’s crown pre-election.
Would a Ruddy duddy election save Labor? Not even King Solomon could call it. But it doesn’t matter. Tony Rabbit will continue Gillard’s Big Australia migration programme.

Maybe the really crazy stuff, like the carbon tax will be dumped. Yet the really bad stuff – the migration madness, the Aboriginal Constitutional change, and most of the politically correct agenda of Gillard will continue. Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in politics? And what a pity there is no longer Australians Against Further Immigration to stir the pot.  

OUR TOXIC LIFESTYLE

by Brian Simpson
The endgame of industrial capitalism is well illustrated by the rivers of trash that runs through the United States, and across the Western world, and now industrialised Asia. Frosty Woodridge (http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2013/03/rivers-of-trash-running-through-the-united-states) describes the Chesapeake Bay which runs from the Potomac River, right through Washington DC – literally under B. Hussein Obama’s nose: “Once the rich fisheries, oyster beds and ample avian life – the bay struggles under poisonous pesticides, endless container trash, plastics, fertilisers, petroleum and industrial run-off from upstream abusers.” The US doesn’t have 10 cent deposit rules for plastic drink containers, which in turn, kill wild life.

Newton Creek in New York is across the East River from Manhattan’s skyscrapers, but it is home to an oil leak bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill – along with sewage and industrial pollution. Plastic bottles and other filth fill Newton Creek killing animals and plant life. The Mississippi River is also full of trash and pollutants but nothing is done about it.

Woodridge wrote letters to various newspapers telling them of the thousands of cans, bottles and plastics but the papers were not interested in publishing his letters. He asks us to imagine what the planet will be like by 2050 with another 3.1 billion people adding their wastes. I think this problem alone will be enough to bring down civilisation: we will literally drown in our own filth. Not a pleasant thought.  

‘VICTORY FOR THE BEES’ AS EUROPE BANS NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES

'Victory for bees' as Europe bans neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for destroying bee population.
15 of the 27 member states voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoids despite opposition by countries including Britain reports Charlotte McDonald for The Independent from Brussels, 29 April 2013.

Environmentalists hailed a "victory for bees" today after the European Union voted for a ban on the nerve-agent pesticides blamed for the dramatic decline global bee populations.

Despite fierce lobbying by the chemicals industry and opposition by countries including Britain, 15 of the 27 member states voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoid insecticides. That gave the European Commission the support it needed to push through an EU-wide ban on using three neonicotinoids on crops attractive to bees. Tonio Borg, the EC's top health official, said they planned to implement the landmark ban from December. "I pledge to do my utmost to ensure that our bees, which are so vital to our ecosystem and contribute over €22bn annually to European agriculture, are protected," he said. Britain was among eight nations which voted against the motion, despite a petition signed by 300,000 people presented to Downing Street last week by fashion designers Vivienne Westwood and Katharine Hamnett. The Independent has also campaigned to save Britain's bee population.

Four nations abstained from the moratorium, which will restrict the use of imidacloprid and clothianidin, made by Germany's Bayer, and thiamethoxam, made by the Swiss company, Syngenta. The ban on use on flowering crops will remain in place throughout the EU for two years unless compelling scientific evidence to the contrary becomes available.

More than 30 separate scientific studies have found a link between the neonicotinoids, which attack insects' nerve systems, and falling bee numbers. The proposal by European Commission - the EU's legislative body - to ban the insecticides was based on a study by the European Food Safety Authority, which found in January that the pesticides did pose a risk to bees' health.

Read further: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/victory-for-bees-as-europe-bans-neonicotinoid-pesticides-blamed-for-destroying-bee-population-8595408.html  

HOW LONG WILL IT BE UNTIL THE “CHINA WAR”?

by James Reed
For Michael O’Keefe, “Australia must lead in managing the peaceful rise of China to suit its interests”. (The Australian 25 March 2013, p.6) But how does a mouse manage a dragon? O’Keefe does conclude by saying that “A new Cold War in the Pacific is the last thing anyone wants, but we may be witnessing its beginning. China may pose a threat to Australia’s interests in the decades ahead, but this is far from inevitable and Australian planners must shape the region to ensure that strategic change is orderly and predictable.”

How does this attitude fit with the sentiment expressed by a recent article in China’s Liberation Army Daily advocating “full preparation” for war and an end to “romantic Pacifism”? (The Australian 25 March 2013, p.7) or China’s testing of a “killer missile”, based on technology given by the former Soviets to the Chinese, which can destroy an aircraft carrier up to 2,000 kms from China?
Arms exporting is soaring in Asia, with the top five arms importers between 2008 and 2012, all being in Asia. Clearly a Cold War in the Pacific has already begun and it is just a count down now to the China War.

DEBT THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

"The New Age" of February 10, 1938

"Now, my dear," said Lewis Carroll to a little girl, "stand here opposite the looking-glass and hold this orange up in your right hand. Which hand do you see the orange in?"
"My left hand," replied the little girl after a pause.
"That's remarkable, isn't it?" said he. "How do you account for that?"

After scratching her head for some time she looked up at him and exclaimed: "But if I went round to the other side of the glass the orange would still be in my right hand, wouldn't it?" "A very good reply--the best attempt I've heard yet," was his commendation.
This incident is quoted in some recent biographical notes on Lewis Carroll, and is said to have prompted him to write Through the Looking Glass.

Students of Social Credit will get some fun if they transmuted the orange into a book-entry.
A credit in your right hand looks like a debit in your left when you stand in front of the bankers' looking-glass. If you walk round and stand behind your reflection, so to speak, the double you holds a book entry in each hand, so it doesn't matter which is the credit and which the debit.

This exercise throws a sidelight on the foundation of an exemplary policy put forward in the earlier days of Social Credit propaganda, namely, that of crediting the National Debt to the community. What? Share out among the people that which they owe? Distribute as a plus that which is a minus? Such is the reaction of the ordinary person. But the ordinary person always takes it for granted that because the glass shows him top-side up it shows him as he is in every particular. He is un­conscious of the reversal of the credit and debit sides of him in the bankers' mirror.

In that mirror all of us appear to owe some of us £7,000 millions. In reality all of us paid some of us that amount of money. So some of us owe all of us the same amount. Not legally, of course. The bankers' mirror presents the legal aspect only. Actually, all of us are square with some of us. All of us have had the money; some of us have had it from all of us; and now none of us has it. The money came out of the banking system and went back to the banking system.

The Debt is a myth created by law based on figures. If it were an actual debt all of us would possess the money owed to some of us. Since all of us do not possess the money, and some of us are creditors for the money, the debtors are the bankers. Hence, if all of us are deemed liable to pay the money to some of us, then the bankers must be deemed liable to furnish us with it.

In other words, they must distribute the National Debt.
In front of the mirror we owe the orange; behind the mirror we are owed the orange.

The Debt is a myth for the further reason that some of us do not expect or desire to be repaid by all of us. They want not-to-be repaid. The Debt Myth is the title-deed of Despotic Powers made out in figures. It is the basis of the legal power of some of us to coerce all of us. If all of us could pay them we would not have to obey them.

The Debt is a myth for the further reason that if all of us were taxed to pay it to some of us, practically the whole sum would have to be contributed by some of us. They would have to sell or borrow on their holdings to raise the money owing to them. Their attempt to do either would bring down the value of these holdings (and all other securities) to zero. Apart from this, even if they succeeded, they would have paid themselves back the debt owing to them, a result which is in accordance with the reality that all of us have already paid some of us the money that figures against us in the bankers' looking­glass.

Thus the Social-Credit concept of a distribution of this Debt, in the sense that it amounts to an all-round cancellation of the Debt (everybody has paid everybody) is theoretically intelligible and practically innocuous. It would be noxious only in one respect, which is that Economic Democracy would lift its head against Financial Autocracy! Some of us don't like that.

Further reading: Ray King, former bank manager explained just how the double entry book-keeping system worked. www.alor.org/Volume49/Vol49No14.htm  

IS THIS WHAT AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ FUTURE WILL READ LIKE?

Clothing manufacturing in Bangladesh: Around 4,500 factories produce clothes for many of the world's major brands. Generates 80 per cent of Bangladesh's $US24 billon annual exports. Figures make Bangladesh world's second-largest apparel exporter behind China Employs 4 million workers. But wages are as low as $37 a month, with some employees working 10-15 hours per day. Some retailers are getting worried about their reputation.  

HERE’S A PREDICTION FROM ABC’S THE DRUM

Andrew Bolt’s Blog carried this item recently:
“Jonathan Green’s Crystal Ball Forsees Abbott Embracing An ETS”. (Emissions Trading Scheme…ed) ABC Radio presenter Jonathan Green may not know much about the past. But like Bob Ellis (the False Prophet of Palm Beach), Mr Green certainly knows about the future.

Writing in The Drum yesterday, Mr Green said that we did not really know what happened during and after the Boston marathon bombing. But your man Green does know about the future. This is what he said on the ABC News 24’s The Drum program last Wednesday:
Jonathan Green: Here’s a prediction. They [the Coalition] move to an emissions trading scheme within the first six months of the Abbott government. Having failed to knock off the carbon tax, they just bring that forward.

So, according to Jonathan Green, if Tony Abbott becomes prime minister he will not abolish the carbon tax and will introduce an emissions trading scheme. Within six months…” Andrew, methinks The Drum is ‘spot on’. We will see.  

LEAGUE OF RIGHTS’ 2013 NATIONAL WEEKEND - FORWARD NOTICE

The 2013 National Weekend beginning with the 67th New Times Dinner on the Friday evening, 4th October will be held for the first time in Adelaide, South Australia.

The dates and events are as follows:
New Times Dinner, Friday 4th October : Seminar, Saturday 5th October : Guest speakers will be announced at a later date. Divine Service and Action Conference, Sunday 6th October.

The South Australian League members and supporters are looking forward to hosting this annual event and welcoming interstate visitors into their midst. The advance notice will help you plan a holiday along with attending our New Times Dinner, National Seminar and Action Conference. |
The Friday evening New Times Dinner will be held at the Public Schools’ Club (within Adelaide proper).
The Saturday and Sunday events will be held at Lothlorien, Happy Valley (in Adelaide’s south).

The following accommodation addresses are within reasonable motoring distance of Lothlorien, Happy Valley. These are only suggestions, you may already know where you would like to stay.
• Tollgate Motel, Glen Osmond: Conveniently situated between the scenic hills and the shopping district of Glen Osmond Road. Tollgate Motel accommodation from $68 single. Phone Number 08 8379 1651 Website: https://www.tollgatemotel.com/
• Glenelg Lake Holiday Units, Glenelg North: Glenelg Lake Holiday Units are situated in the pleasant seaside town of Glenelg in South Australia. From $77. Address: 1 George St, Glenelg Nth. Ph: (08) 8322 6007.
• Mick O’Shea’s Hotel/Motel, Main South Road, Hackam. Phone 8326 2939. $110 per night. Discount for early bookings.

The Internet-Google is very helpful for viewing the various accommodation venues.

The South Australian State Weekend will be replaced by the National Weekend in October 2013.

Please note the changes.