|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|
13 October 1989. Thought for the Week: "... What we see is always the same, always the same as it was then; adults deferring to the opinion of their children carried away by shallow worthless ideas; professors scared of being unfashionable; journalists refusing to take responsibility for the words they squander so profusely; universal sympathy for revolutionary extremists; people with serious objections unwilling or unable to voice them; the majority passively obsessed by a feeling of doom; feeble governments; societies whose defensive reactions have become paralysed; spiritual confusion leading to political upheaval. What will happen as a result of all this lies ahead of us...."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, B.B.C. Address, 26/3/1976
KAKADU, KAKADU - WIN ME THE ELECTION, DO!
"Cabinet's decision to put off approval for the B.H.P. Gold joint venture at Coronation Hill and to shrink drastically the area excised from the national park for exploration is an unashamed bid to buy the support and preferences of the green movement at the next election. - Michelle Grattan, in The Age (Melbourne), October 7th.
There is no doubt at all that the wide electorate is disenchanted with political parties; large political parties in particular. Why? C.H. Douglas observed that organisations (social organisations) which do not give supporters the results desired, gradually fragment. So it is with the large (old-established) political parties. Electors will become disenchanted with the smaller (newer) political parties, also, given time. Remember the Australia Party? What about the Democratic Labor Party? You can think of others. Many of them had some worthy planks in their platforms, but for various reasons they couldn't deliver; couldn't gain office. The Big Party machines were too powerful to toss: they didn't have the grassroots support; they lacked the "sinews of war" (money), and so on, and so on.
We certainly anticipate that the Australian economy will gradually worsen, and we don't doubt that Prime Minister Hawke is under great pressure (which he has admitted) to go straight for an early election, to let the Liberals and the Nats. "cop the flak". Really, there is a strong case for us to do what we can to bring about a late election, as late as possible, so that the Hawke Fabians will be forced to wear a falling away of the economy. There is a possible scenario that if the so-called "conservatives" are in power next year, they, themselves, will be blamed for the economic distress that appears to loom ahead.
In 1987 Mr. Hawke gave B.H.P. chiefs an assurance that there was no change in his Government's policy on the conservation zone (no mining) nor with respect to Coronation Hill (mining of gold, platinum and palladium). Small wonder that the Chairman of B.H.P. (Sir Arvi Parbo) is outraged. We viewed the Prime Minister, on weekend T.V., snarl, in response to some sharp questioning about the role of B.H.P. in the protection of environmental and aboriginal issues, that - "B.H.P. is only obeying the laws", or words to that effect. He said it with some venom. This may be quite so, but they are the Hawke Government's laws which have cost B.H.P. some $12 Million to observe.
The Editorial in The Australian (October 9th) reads ... "The decision of Kakadu has inflicted on Australia a serious loss of reputation as a place where governments keep their word. The world's boardrooms (our emphasis .. O.T.) will heed the message that Australia is governed by men who cannot make a practical decision within shouting distance of an election." Sharp words, but true. Even The Age (Melbourne) editorialised ... "B.H.P. Gold has fulfilled all the environmental requirements in developing the Coronation Hill project, and had been led to expect the go ahead. As with the abandoned Wesley Vale pulp mill in Tasmania, the Federal Government's lack of clear and consistent guidelines and its seemingly chronic shiftiness (our emphasis .. O.T.) are certainly bad economics and ultimately bad politics. Yes, we have no doubt that this is so.
The Hawke Fabians have breached the Moral Law by way of repudiating a promise, and inevitably there is a price to be paid. As the Government "represents" the people of Australia, in the sense that it (the Hawke Government) has usurped the right to act on behalf of the people of Australia (rightly or wrongly in this case wrongly), then we shall all suffer the consequences together. Senator Graham Richardson is right enough when he states that Labor is forming an A.L.P.-Green alliance. It has already occurred in Tasmania (Field Labor-Bob Brown Greens).
There is yet another aspect for which Mr. Hawke may yet be forced to pay. The "vote" by the Cabinet on Kakadu was anything but unanimous; a reliable report has it that the debate in Cabinet went on for several hours. The "economics" ministers were rolled (John Dawkins, John Button, Peter Walsh, Peter Cook). Our great Treasurer seems to be having 5 bob each way on this one.
To sum up, the Fabians have decided on GREEN FOR SALVATION AND THAT FOURTH TERM. We ourselves, see "Green for Danger"; "Green" for national and international political centralisation. To retard the mad drive for this centralisation we must expose the "Green Hoax" ... It is obvious to us that our Enemy is in a hurry; a note of desperation is creeping in to the Big Idea (we'll all be inundated by the oceans/we'll all develop cancer from ultra violet light, no protection from Ozone! the seasons will change, etc., etc.). Kids in schools are being given an intense brainwash about Greenhouse and Ozone Layer. It won't be long before the politicians and the media open up on us with all guns blazing. When that happens, you'll know for certain that our "GREENHOAX" is spiking our Enemy's guns...
TRICK OR TREATY?
"Can the Commonwealth agree with Liechtenstein to widen Pitt Street? That was the tongue-in-cheek title given to a discussion of the width of Australia's treaty making powers at this year's Australian Legal Convention." - David Solomon, in The Weekend Australian, October 7th-8th.
We suggest that all actionists read Mr. Solomon's article: it is good. Much of the content is already known to our people but there are some interesting observations and historical points. Fortunately, Australia's legal system, unlike that of the U.S.A., gives more protection against "law by treaty". Under American law, a treaty becomes part of domestic law, whereas in Australia, legislation must pass both Houses (Representatives and Senate) to implement effects of treaties.
A Senator Bricker, in the U.S.A., proposed what has become known as the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A.; this was something like 30 years ago. The Bricker Amendment, if carried, would have stopped this imposition of the effect of treaties on American law, without a referendum or at least some protective electoral machinery. It was defeated by one vote. Guess who voted against it? Senator Richard Millhouse NIXON (later President, and forced from office).
Fortunately, again, we have the Australian Senate to, at least in theory, give us protection against treaty legislation. Politicians are terrified of the United Nations (it's virtually political suicide to oppose U.N. Conventions, etc.). But the Senate can still slow things down in various ways until we have better machinery to protect us, such as Citizens' Initiated Referendum and Recall, of which the subversives and powerlusters are, in their turn, terrified.
In the, 1890s, when the Constitution framers were deliberating, they were not contemplating that the new nation, Australia, would have an active, independent foreign policy: external relations were, by agreement, the preserve of the British Government. Quick and Garran (authorities) held that in 1901 (Federation) the real purpose of the "external affairs power" was to allow the Commonwealth to implement treaties negotiated and signed by the British Government, to give them force in Australian law. It was regarded as improper for the Commonwealth, until World War I (1914) to communicate directly with non-British governments.
THE ART OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING
The latest Morgan Gallup Poll is revealing. In spite of high interest rates and the general economic malaise, the Hawke Government is leading the Opposition parties, while Andrew Peacock's leadership rating has sunk to a new level. According to surveys by Labor's research firm, Rod Cameron's ANOP, the electorate is now significantly less angry about interest rates than was the case a few months ago. Cameron says that the electors are becoming "more educated" about economic matters, claiming that "It's not just the fall (in interest rates) that is important, but it's the understood state of the economic indicators which might precede a fall in interest rates". This observation reminds us of a comment by a former Director of the Bank of England, who said that by psychological conditioning the British people were tolerating a level of taxation which previously would have been thought impossible.
All the indications are that in spite of the speculation about an election in December, Hawke will wait until April or May of next year. If he can ease the interest rate a little, and continue to make the environment a major issue, and if the Opposition continue to be as inept as they have consistently been, Hawke may well achieve the impossible with a fourth election victory. For our own part, we would not be unduly dismayed about this so long as the winning margin was small and the Senate is in the hands of the Opposition parties and Independents. We tremble to contemplate the Opposition taking office at the present time. They would be completely discredited by their inability to cope with crisis conditions. It is much better that Hawke and Keating should be kept in office to "face the music" as the crisis deepens. This could result in a new alignment in Australian politics.
BANKING ON A NEW ORDER OF THINGS
From The Herald (October 3rd) "An ominous portrayal of events yet to unfold appeared in the National Australia Bank monthly summary of October 1986: 'The development of the new global economy demands a fundamental realignment of policy making power, away from national governments to some, as yet undefined, institutional order, where the traditional nation state plays a more subordinate role'.
"The 'realignment of policy-making power' could yet be played out to the full unless the banks' power over the control of money is curtailed. The banks' debt system of finance has almost destroyed the great Australian dream of owning one's home. It takes two incomes to obtain a home, and many owners are spending more than 40% of incomes on mortgage repayments. "The growth of personal debt, as well as other forms of debt, is a type of drug created by the banking system without which economies would completely collapse.
"Banks create no real wealth. They are, theoretically, representing the people of a nation as bookkeepers who have been granted a licence by government to manage the financial credit system. "But as Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. President, once warned: 'If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the corporations that will grow around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered.' "This is happening in America and now in Australia.
"The Labor Party policy before the 1983 election stated: 'To allow foreign banks to operate in Australia would mean the end of Australia's independence and force interest rates up to an all time high.'
"The Reserve Bank by its Charter is supposed
"None of these things is being done. We appear to have been sold out to the international bankers who will own our country and have the population in perpetual bondage unless we introduce a system whereby the electors can, if they feel strongly enough, either veto unwanted legislation by a referendum, put forward their own proposed legislation - this also to be put to a referendum - or recall a member of parliament not regarded as satisfactory.
"The Swiss people are justly proud of such a system, and there have been no suggestions that a system which provides for an effective say by the people should be abolished. If this Swiss system were applied to Australia, it could halt the surrender of our independence. Such a great opportunity with its capacity for good, but should it ultimately pass us by, with it also would pass that which we call civilisation." (Ralph Provan, Seymour, Vic.)
ALL IS FORGIVEN
This letter from the Rev. Rodney Rivers,
of Toowoomba, Qld., published in the weekly Christian journal,
NEW LIFE (October 5th).
"In Western Australia during the 1930s,
my grandmother - a full-blood aborigine married to a white
man - was separated, rounded up by police on horseback at
Landsdowne station and made to walk to Fitzroy Crossing in
chains with her sister for about three days over rough terrain.
"The police in those days were only obeying orders. Gran and
my great aunt had chains around their wrists and necks. They
were linked to each other by a chain from neck to neck. At
nightfall, when the police set up camp, gran and my aunt had
chains tied around their ankles to prevent them from escaping.
My mother, who was then a child, followed them to Fitzroy.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|