|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
29 June 1984. Thought for the Week: "If Departments can today legislate beyond the reach of Parliament, and if, as they do constantly, they exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, substituting for it the jurisdiction of their own departmental tribunals, is it not clear that they have effectively excluded the rule of law and the control of Parliament from increasingly wide areas of the subject's social existence? If this is so, is it not clear that 'the rule of law' and 'the sovereignty of Parliament' have both become polite, but increasingly meaningless fictions?"
"The Passing of Parliament" by Prof. G.W.Keeton (1952)
THE ARROGANT MR. ISI LEIBLER
"The Australian Jewish News" of June 22nd, quotes Mr. Isi Leibler, leading Zionist spokesman, as saying that he was disappointed "at the failure of Mr. Kennett Victorian Liberal Opposition leader to give an explicit guarantee against any appearances by members of spokesmen of the Liberal Party appearing on the same platform as League spokesmen". Mr. Leibler insists that "there are no circumstances under which any member of a mainstream political party" should share a platform with a representative of the Australian League of Rights. This is not only breathtaking arrogance, but a manifestation of absurdity. With League members or supporters, members of a large number of organisations, including Municipal Councils, they are constantly associating with members of all political parties.
There is, of course, much more to the mounting Zionist attack on The League of Rights than is apparent to the casual observer. Generally overlooked is the fact that from the beginning of the Zionist movement, which, as Douglas Reed showed, had a common origin with Bolshevism amongst Eastern European Jews, there has been strong opposition to the Zionist programme amongst Western Jews. Even in Israel itself, large numbers of Israelis are anti-Zionist.
The attempt to depict the League of Rights as some type of new Nazi threat is directed as much against the rank and file of the Jews as it is against the rest of the community. As a number of anti-Zionist Jews have pointed out, the Zionist programme requires the "Holocaust" as a threat to those tending to rebel. Mr. Leibler and his fellow Zionists can, on occasions, be hysterical, but Mr. Leibler knows that it is insulting nonsense to claim that the League of Rights, "the most significant Australian distributor of literature which claims the Holocaust did not occur", seeks to whitewash the Nazis". The undergirding Christian philosophy and programme of the League of Rights is completely opposed to that of National Socialism. It is the programme of pro-Zionist Prime Minister Hawke that is a form of National Socialism.
The League of Rights makes available for those interested, literature, some of it by Jews, which questions the authenticity of the widely publicised Zionist claims that six -million Jews were gassed systematically during the Second World War. People are invited to read, for example, "The Hoax of The Twentieth Century", by Dr. Butz, ($8 posted from all League bookshops), and make their own judgment.
Why should there be at present a nationally orchestrated campaign against the League of Rights merely because it makes available literature providing a view of history different from what until now has been generally accepted? The answer is, of course, that the League has evolved the only effective grassroots movement in Australia that offers any threat to a revolutionary programme, which threatens the very foundations of traditional Australia.
In his attack on the League of Rights at the Victorian Labor Party conference last weekend, Premier Cain left no doubt that while he does not like the radical Socialists of his party; he is prepared to make common cause with them against the League of Rights. If the Liberal and National parties keep retreating in the face of what can now be seen as an unholy Zionist-Marxist alliance, they are demonstrating that they are not fit ever to regain office. With every day that passes, the battle lines for the future of Australia are being more clearly drawn. Now, as never before, is the time for all League of Rights supporters to "pull their weight" in the mounting battle.
DEBT AND REVOLUTION
Writing in last Weekend Australian Nicholas Rothwell in New York, says that "Senior US Administration officials have begun voicing publicly the dreadful truth that few have before dared utter - that the full Argentine debt may not be paid before the crucial deadline expires at the end of the month". The International Monetary Fund is prepared to make available a "bridging loan", but only on the same conditions imposed upon other debt-ridden nations, there must be a "readjustment" programme, the essence of which is a general reduction in the standard of living. Where such austerity programmes are imposed, there is an increasing impetus to revolutionary activities.
The debt crisis throughout Latin-America is making it impossible for the Reagan Administration to hold back the Marxist backed Revolutionary movements by military means alone. There is a close nexus between debt and revolution. Rothwell reports that if Argentina defaults on its debt payments; other Latin debtor nations could start to do likewise. This has fueled speculation that some of the International Banks could be bankrupted. Much of this type of speculation is misleading and a reflection of an ignorance concerning the mechanics of money creation by the banking system.
The bulk of all money created by banking
systems is in the form of financial credit. Notes and coins
are today only the small change of a nation, as an examination
of banking figures will reveal. If all people with bank deposits
went to the banks at the same time and asked for their deposits
in legal tender - notes and coins - the Central Bank would
either have to order the printing of a flood of notes, or
the banks would have to close their doors. All this is simply
explained in "The Money Trick" ($4 posted from all
Events have proved the warnings of the League of Rights correct: that all attempts to operate economic systems financed through expanding debt, must produce increasing economic, social and political convulsions. Some commentators are belatedly conceding, at least by inference, that the League has been right about debt finance. But they refuse to face the reality that there is a solution which does not challenge the right of any institutions, State or private, to issue the financial credit of a nation, on terms which insist that the credit created belongs to its creators. Such credit has no value, irrespective of what form it takes, in the absence of the productive capacity of a nation. That productive capacity belongs to the individual members of the nation. If they are forced, either as individuals, or as a nation, to go progressively deeper into debt in order to make use of their own productive capacity - on terms - then they are slaves to the Debt Merchants. The debt problem is the key problem facing a disintegrating Civilisation. The disintegration will continue until the problem is faced and solved.
Victorian State Cabinet Secretary, Mr. Ken Coghill has added a new dimension to the debate about Aboriginal Land Claims - claiming that the opponents of his programme are anti-Christian. We were not aware that Dr. Coghill had shown any previous concern about Christian values, but he now says in a recent statement that he was "dismayed to see the rejection of basic Christian values and the teachings of the major churches by the extreme Right Australian League of Rights and its fellow travelers". The first objective of the League of Rights is to promote loyalty to the Christian concept of God. The League supports the principle of private property ownership and believes that Australians of Aboriginal background should have the same property rights as other Australians. But the Fabian Socialists like Dr. Coghill do not believe in these types of rights.
"News Weekly" makes the suggestion that the Hawke Government could extricate itself from the difficult position in which it finds itself on the uranium issue, by having a referendum. We agree with "News Weekly's" assessment that the majority of Australian people would favour uranium mining. But a majority of Australian people would at a referendum also reject the present immigration policy. What about a referendum on that also? Mr. Al Grassby has recently claimed once again that only one percent of Australians oppose the present immigration policy because they vote overwhelmingly for the parties supporting it. A majority will probably vote for the Hawke government at the next elections. But will not mean that they are endorsing an anti-uranium policy imposed upon Mr. Hawke. It will merely provide yet one more example of the undemocratic nature of party politics. None of the parties favour putting major issues to the electors at a referendum.
If the NSW doctors and surgeons can maintain their present stance, they could render a deadly blow to the overall Fabian Socialist strategy in Australia. The controversy is not basically one concerning the monetary rewards of the medical profession, but is about freedom of choice. There are many truths concerning public hospitals, myths that all political parties have helped to perpetuate. One myth is that the public service is efficient in administering public hospitals. A government bureaucracy is never genuinely efficient, and the bigger it becomes, the less efficiency.
The disgraceful attacks on Professor Blainey are yet one further manifestation of the totalitarian and subversive policies of those who seek to continue undermining the nation by their "multiculturalism". There may be a case for allowing some genuine refugees into Australia. But this should not mean that everyone permitted into Australia has the right to participate in the political process, and become tools of power politics and subversion. It is to be hoped that Professor Blainey maintains his firm but dignified stand against the present immigration policy.
A BURAKIN (W.A.) ACTIONIST sends us
a reply from a senior official of the Queensland Government
that puts that Government's attitude to the attack on the
Australian Constitution by the forces of Socialism! Humanism:
Senate: June 13th: Senator Peter Walsh
(A.L.P.-W.A.) provides an answer to a question of nuclear
Senator Gareth Evans: Senate: June 13th
Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill:
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|