|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|
20 October 1989. Thought for the Week: "From the beginning, the destructive nature of Fabian Socialism was never made sufficiently clear to the British public. The good manners of the Fabians tended to veil their revolutionary purpose and render it improbable to all but the initiate. To gain popular sympathy, the Society concealed its will-to-power behind a series of apparently benign social welfare programmes and preached the brotherhood of man for the attainment of purely material ends. Whenever possible, its members attached themselves to existing reform movements which in the long run gained prominence and preferment for Fabian leaders. In every decade in the 20th century, Fabians have claimed the credit for every liberal reform."
Rose L. Martin, in FABIAN FREEWAY
THE GREEN 'MENACE'
"I speak of the green menace, which threatens now to do what 200 years of idiot trade unionism, exaggerated industrial protectionism, bigoted immigration policies and isolation from major markets have never been able to do - destroy the Australian economy. Greg Sheridan, in The Weekend Australian, October l4th-l5th.
Mr. Sheridan is a "mixed bag" to us: sometimes we find ourselves strongly in agreement with his views; at other times the reverse. We most certainly disagree with his views on Immigration; we agreed fully with his views on the breakdown of our education systems, expressed by him some few years ago. We agree with him now, on the "Green Menace". Thank heaven some journalist of note has sounded the alarm.
Described as "wowser greens", because of their "green" bigotry (intolerant of and hostile to, the opposing views of others), they indulge in, well, vandalism (harassing timber workers and truck drivers, invading military bases). What of the two major "green victories" of recent days; viz the blocking of the paper mill in Tasmania and the mine at Coronation Hill (Kakadu). No less paper will be produced, and the mine's extent would have been one square kilometer out of 25,000. Mr. Sheridan makes a good point: i.e. Australians disapprove of people/movements that grow too big for their boots. They like to see the "tall poppies" get their heads lopped off. It may be "astonishing" to Mr. Sheridan that Prime Minister Hawke spent some 90 minutes on the phone to the chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, yet could not take a call from Sir Arvi Parbo Chairman of B.H.P., who came up from nothing as a migrant from Estonia.
It is not astonishing to us. Indeed, it is what we would expect of Mr. Hawke. Reason? How many votes does Sir Arvi Parbo influence? How many "green" votes does the Australian Conservation Foundation influence? The next Federal election will be won or lost on the "green" preferences: so says Senator Graham Richardson, and we agree with him. Yes, we can foresee a scenario in which the broad Australian electorate "turns on" the greens over some issues. It may well be that the greens will adopt an anti-Immigration stance, seeing it (Immigration) as some form of "danger" to the traditional Australian environment, and this will throw the "green" cat among the political pigeons. A backlash against the greens is eventually likely.
POLITICALLY SMART TAX PROPOSALS
The Opposition's long awaited tax proposals are
designed to carry the Opposition parties to government at
the next Federal Elections. From a political point of view,
they could prove winners. There will, of course, be much wailing
from the welfare lobby groups, but middle Australia, offered
some financial relief, however small, is not overly concerned
about a cut in foreign aid or a reduction in the massive budget
for the Aboriginal Affairs Department.
By projecting itself as the party concerned about the traditional Australian family, the Liberal Party may at last start to score some political points. But the Opposition still has to overcome the widespread cynicism in the electorate. "Can you trust any of the major parties to keep even constructive promises?" is the question often asked. Andrew Peacock does not inspire the great majority of Australians. But, nevertheless, what is offered may prove just sufficient to overcome what is emerging as a major factor in the battle for the next elections: the ''green'' issue.
Labor strategists concede that their primary vote may well be down, but that they will obtain sufficient of the "green" preferences to hold on to office. One thing is now almost certain: there will be no early election. The Opposition now has some kind of initiative. But it is clear from what Andrew Peacock and his colleagues are saying, they have no solution to the basic finance economic problems confronting the nation. By inference they generally accept the broad thrust of the Hawke-Keating strategy.
Talk about the possibility of lower interest rates is wishful thinking, as is talk about a reduction in the inflation rate. The economic clime is going to become progressively more bleak next year and we still feel that it will be disastrous if the Opposition is elected and then fails dismally to cope with an explosive situation. Hawke should be kept there, with a small majority, to "face the music". With of course, a hostile Senate.
UNITING CHURCH 'KNOCKS' THE LEAGUE
Yet another half baked attempt to condemn the League has been drawn to our attention. This time it is the Social Responsibility Section of the Uniting Church's Queensland Synod. In a brochure titled "Christian Perspectives" under the heading "Logos & the League: Are They Conservatives?" it appears that Uniting Church Minister Rev. Dr. John K. Williams is quoted extensively. The brochure makes the point that: "Many groups who claim to be Christian Conservatives are not. Rather, they are committed to replacing all traditional forms of democracy with a radically different system of authoritarian rule. These groups include the League of Rights, the Logos Foundation, and the new religious right." No evidence is offered, no examples given, no sources quoted.
On the League of Rights, the brochure apparently quotes Rev. Williams: " it is a 'social and political movement based on the economic theory of 'Social Credit' as espoused (in the 1930s) by the English (sic.) theorist, C.H. Douglas'. Senator Ron Boswell ... described its philosophy in Federal Parliament in April, 1988: "Simply put, it states that if only governments would print more money and lend it at token rates of interest, then all problems would be solved and everyone could return to living in utopia" . . . The League denies that the Holocaust took place, blaming instead, a typhus plague for the extermination of six million Jews . . . The League of Rights, although it claims to be Christian, has ideological and historical roots in the classical Fascism of the 1920s and 1930s...A HODGE-PODGE OF HALF TRUTHS
All those who have had a passing acquaintance with the League (or Logos Foundation, who are similarly slated) will recognise much of this hackneyed nonsense. It does not surprise us that the Uniting Church uncritically quotes such rubbish; the standards of their scholarship are falling abysmally. What should concern all Christians is that an apparently Christian church like the Uniting Church should put its name to untruths and deceptive half-truths in the first place. Such tripe does the Body of Christ no good whatever. The Uniting Church has apparently produced a "study kit" on the Logos Foundation and the League. To order a copy, write to David Thompson, P.O. Box 39, Robertson, N.S.W., 2577, and enclose a stamped envelope.
ONE WORLD OR NONE CAMPAIGN
We have reported previously on this amazing campaign. We now suggest that it is time for actionists to begin asking searching questions about it. In particular, churches and church aid bodies should be questioned about "A Campaign for Global Change", which is run by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. The main question to ask: Where is the money coming from to run this campaign?
YOUR KIDS ARE THE TARGET
ONE WORLD DECLARATION
ARE THE POLITICIANS INVOLVED?
THE CHURCHES ARE ALSO TARGETS
CHECK YOUR SURVEY RIGHTSThe Australian Bureau of Statistics (A.B.S.) National Health Survey (N.H.S.) that started on October 2nd will collect some very useful health related data from about 21,000 households. "Unfortunately the A.B.S. is not being frank in its statements about whether participation in this survey is compulsory. All they will admit is that they are seeking the co-operation of respondents and that they do not expect to use the statistician's powers to direct compliance.
"The fact is that all A.B.S. surveys are compulsory. Last May the A.B.S. deliberately tabled the N.H.S. in Parliament to ensure it would have compulsory status. The N.H.S. contains some of the most personal questions ever asked by the A.B.S. and some people will baulk at them. "People have a right to know if and when the statistician will enforce his powers to direct compliance. They have a right to know whether the statistician will instigate legal action against them if they disobey a direction to answer questions. "It is not good enough for the statistician to say he does not expect to use his powers. The unexpected can and does happen.
"If you are chosen for this survey, you can exercise the right immediately to ask if it is compulsory. If you are not satisfied with the answer, contact your nearest Federal Opposition Member or Senator who possesses a copy of the N.H.S. questionnaires and ask for your legal rights in relation to the A.B.S. surveys." (Don Cameron, M.P., Federal Member for Moreton), The Herald (Melbourne), October 10th.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|