|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|OnTarget Archives||Newtimes Survey||Podcast Library||Video Library||PDF Library|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Library|
23 October 1981. Thought for the Week: "The qualifications of self government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training and for these they will require time and probably much suffering."
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU AT CHOGM
Canada's Fabian-Socialist Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who enjoys what has been described as a "special relationship" with Prime Minister Fraser, received comparatively little Australian media coverage at the recent CHOGM conference in Melbourne. His fulsome eulogy of Prime Minister Fraser was noted, as was his unconventional dress at one meeting.
Needless to say, Mr. Trudeau strongly endorsed Mr. Fraser's obsession with the New International Economic Order. After all, Mr. Trudeau shares, the same obsession, to the point where he has created a major constitutional crisis in Canada with his attempt to centralise control of all Canadian resources in order that the Federal government can then pass control to the international institutions envisaged by the New International Economic Order. As Mr. Trudeau is relying upon Prime Minister Thatcher, of the United Kingdom, to ensure that the British Parliament adopts the constitutional proposals he has put forward, it was not surprising to note that Mr. Trudeau had some lengthy discussions with Mrs. Thatcher during the CHOGM conference.
But the Australian media either missed
or ignored what could have been a major CHOGM story concerning
Mr. Trudeau. While Mr. Trudeau was actively backing Mr. Fraser
in Melbourne, he was suffering major setbacks to his revolutionary
constitutional strategy in Canada. It was in South Korea,
on his way to the Melbourne conference, that Mr. Trudeau heard
the historic ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court.
It is significant that only Trudeau's three appointments to the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that his actions were correct in every way. But they were in a minority. Mr. Trudeau reacted to the Supreme Court decision in his usual totalitarian manner. He said in South Korea: "We would very much like to have the agreement that is politically desirable from the provincial governments, but if we cannot have it, so grave are the constitutional questions facing the country, that we must be prepared to do what the Supreme Court has clearly and massively indicated we have the legal authority to do. This is not a matter of legal trickery. It is a matter of law."
Like so many modern politicians, Mr. Trudeau has a strange idea of law, believing that any legislation by a government is lawful so long as it has the numbers to have the legislation passed. This approach to "law" directly violates the traditional concept of English Common Law, which insists that such law must reflect moral absolutes and protect inviolable individual rights.
While Mr. Trudeau was stating in South
Korea that he was, contrary to the Canadian Supreme Court's
judgment, going to ignore the opposition of the Canadian Provincial
governments and that of the Canadian people, by the time he
had reached Melbourne, back in Canada Trudeau was being deserted
even by some who had previously supported him. In a special
phone report from Ontario to the Australian League of Rights
on the eve of its "New Times" dinner on October 2nd, Canadian
National Director Ron Gostick said that what little base Trudeau
had was now rapidly disintegrating.
The overall position is that Trudeau's strategy for using Canada to advance the New International Economic Order has received a major set back. The Canadian League of Rights has played the decisive role in inflicting a disastrous defeat upon the internationalists. The Australian League of Rights is playing a similar role in exposing and opposing Prime Minister Fraser's New International Economic Order programme.
MALCOLM FRASER: KNAVE OR FOOL?
Faced with the irrefutable evidence that the Soviet KGB had penetrated deep into British intelligence and security organisations prior to and during the Second World War, it is legitimate today to question the motives of all political and other leaders. The gullibility of politicians concerning conspirators is notorious. British Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, insisted in the House of Commons that there was no evidence whatever to suggest that Mr. Kim Philby was a top Soviet agent. Mr. Macmillan, the man whose Cape Town "Winds-of-Change" speech in 1960 signalled the beginning of the retreat from civilised government in Africa, and the massive advance of the Soviet Union, was defending Philby up until the top KGB agent defected to Moscow.
Antony Blunt, former art adviser to
the Queen was defended for years by men in high places. Mr.
Thatcher repudiates the strong evidence that even the late
Sir Roger Hollis, top British security chief, was a Soviet
agent, as suggested by Mr. Chapman Pincer in his book, "Treason
was Their Trade".
The outraged Liberal diehard will, of course, hotly dispute that the Australian Prime Minister is other than as generally presented. For our own part, while agreeing that a study of the pattern of Mr. Fraser's record leaves no doubt that he has consistently supported the revolutionary programme now clearly emerging on a global scale, we reject the suggestion by some that he could be the traditional "sleeper", and believe that he is more fool than knave. His background and make-up have made him highly susceptible to those who are skilled in manipulating from behind the political scenes.
Mr. Fraser's invincible stupidity may
be judged by his attempt to promote Marxist Robert Mugabe
as some type of a barrier to Soviet penetration of Southern
Africa, and his incredible support for SWAPO, the Soviets
main arm in its attack on South West Africa.
Further evidence of Mr. Fraser's stupidity
is his claim that he is opposed to allowing Australia's diamonds
to come under the control of a "South African monopoly". Mr.
Harry Oppenheimer, who already has extensive interests in
Australia, and whom Mr. Fraser has entertained, must be highly
amused to hear Mr. Fraser's comments. Mr. Oppenheimer is not
a "South African monopolist"; he is an internationalist and
a strong supporter of racial integration in South Africa.
Not even the Soviet can market diamonds without the closest
co-operation with Mr. Oppenheimer and his associates.
Mr. Harry Oppenheimer is not likely to be too disturbed by Mr. Fraser's threats concerning diamonds, any more than the Soviets are disturbed about Mr. Fraser's anti-Soviet rhetoric while at the same time Australian exports to the Soviet Union are increased. Like his Treasurer, Mr. John Howard, a man so financially illiterate that he denies what the banks say themselves about their power to create financial credit, Prime Minister Fraser has been consistently promoting disaster because he is ignorant of the realities of the world power struggle.
Western Australian Liberal backbencher, Mr. John Hyde, who likes to parade his alleged knowledge of economics, and, according to some, sees himself as Treasurer in a Peacock government, has claimed in a Sydney address that the 1981-82 budget is "socialistic". But this has not prevented Mr. Hyde from voting for what he criticises. As Mr. Bruce Goodluck the Tasmanian Liberal who has voted against the Sales Tax legislation, has pointed out, party politics are "evil". We look forward to Mr. Goodluck standing successfully as an Independent.
The evil of the party system has been demonstrated by Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen's statement that she will eventually vote for the very Sales Tax legislation she crossed the floor of the Senate to vote against. Senator Bjelke-Petersen claims that by her action she has made her point, pointing out that she was elected as a member of a political party. We reluctantly must agree with those critics who point out that the Senator will seriously damage her credibility if, after voting against legislation she felt was wrong, and then ultimately endorses it because of party loyalty. She would be well advised to think again before demonstrating that she is prepared to put loyalty to the party ahead of loyalty to the people who elected her, many of them not members of any political party.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|