|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
22 June 1990. Thought for the Week: "While complete self-determination of the individual is probably impossible... the smaller the genuine political unit the nearer we are to self-determination of the individual."
THE M.F.P. BATTLE IS ON!
When we first warned of the long-term implications of the semi-secret programme to establish a special type of a city, the Multi Function Polis, there was a degree of skepticism. Little was heard about the M.F.P. until Liberal leader Andrew Peacock raised the issue in a last minute effort to win the last Federal Elections. Since then there has been a degree of publicity, with the progressive distribution of the League's special Survey, THE PLANNED SURRENDER OF AUSTRALIA, and a spate of letters to the media, raising the level of public awareness. But the view persisted that the proposed treachery was such that the promoters of the M.F.P. would not be able to proceed. But, as we always feared, those behind the long-term programme to force Australia to surrender its sovereignty have made it clear they are in deadly earnest.
The announcement that Surfers Paradise is the preferred site for the M.F.P. was not unexpected by those who have been closely studying developments. Japanese planners have clearly looked ahead, as witnessed by the reports revealing that the Japanese have been steadily buying property in Surfers and now own 50 percent of the area. This programme of organised economic penetration has been with the approval of the Hawke Government.
As the economic conditions imposed by the Hawke Government further deteriorate, it is not surprising that many Australians take the view that they might as well "cash in" while they can. As Japanese economic expansion continues, increasing numbers of Australians will have little option but to work, directly or indirectly, for the Japanese.
Acceptance of the philosophy of economic determinism, accepted by both Marxists and many non-Marxists, undermines the concept of individual or national independence. The carefully fostered, and widely held view that foreign investments are essential for Australia's economic development is a deadly threat to Australia's future as an independent nation. The extent of the threat has been demonstrated in the fierce competition between different State Governments to have the first Multi Function Polis established in their State - in essence, a competition in support of national suicide.
Any prospect of Melbourne obtaining the M.F.P. was destroyed by the strong opposition of unions and the R.S.L. campaign headed by Mr. Bruce Ruxton. Bruce Ruxton's criticism applies to the M.F.P. wherever it is established: "This will be a vehicle for Japanese immigration. The Japanese will run it, control it, and gain most of the benefits. I haven't seen the Japanese place money yet for friendly reasons."
Reflecting Victorian R.S.L. policy, State Secretary John Deighton says that no M.F.P. should be established in any part of Australia until the Australian people have been consulted. Queensland Premier Goss does not believe that he should consult the Queensland people on the M.F.P. issue. As the Queensland National Party endorsed the M.F.P. concept at the last State Elections, possibly without understanding the far-reaching implications, Premier Goss probably feels that he will strike no opposition if he can overcome any obstructions to the Surfers' site. The M.F.P. issue may well decide the future of Australia. If Australians cannot find the will to resist what is happening, they are eventually finished as a free people.
One of the directors of the M.F.P. steering
committee, Mr. John Menadue, former Ambassador to Japan, and
head of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,
a man who has expressed himself in favour of a more "liberal"
immigration policy, insults the Australian people by stating
that they have a type of inferiority complex concerning the
M.F.P. project. He says, "With this project there appears
to be a feeling that we can't manage it properly; that we
will be taken to the cleaners and that we're not smart enough
to develop such a project."
The reality is that Japan and the other Asian nations could sink beneath the sea tomorrow, and 17 million Australians, with vast natural resources, and potential skills equal to any in the world, could provide themselves with a standard of civilised living surpassing anything yet seen in history. What is required is a strengthening of proper national pride, and a break from the treacherous finance economic policies imposed by all governments at Canberra in recent times. The first essential is a national rejection of the M.F.P. in any shape or form.
Have the planners of the M.F.P. for Surfers Paradise checked with their fellow planners seeking to exploit the Green House hoax? If the Green House scenario is correct, then the site for the M.F.P. will go under water as the seas rise! It would be instructive to hear from the Green House devotees on the subject.
Let us be grateful for small mercies. National leader Tim Fischer has again said something sensible on the immigration issue, claiming that intending migrants' religious and cultural backgrounds should be assessed before being accepted into Australia. Aboriginal leader Rev. Cedric Jacobs has stressed the vital importance of ensuring cultural unity to prevent fragmenting of the nation. Fischer's commonsense views have been rejected by a Liberal leadership, which increasingly demonstrates that it is devoid of any basic coherent philosophy or principles. The best contribution Mr. Fischer and his colleagues can make to the battle for Australia is to pull out of the Coalition and act independently in the Federal Parliament.
Developments concerning the Middle East situation appear to confirm the view of some American observers that there is now a major power struggle between the Trilateral international bankers headed by Mr. David Rockefeller, and the International Zionists. The Bush administration has now moved to a hard line against the expansionist policies of former terrorist Israeli Prime Minister Shamir, with predictable outrage from Zionist spokesmen around the world. Both international power groups are, however, in complete agreement on the necessity to build a World State. We anticipate explosive developments as the battle escalates. There was never a greater necessity for Australia to be developing policies designed to produce the maximum self-sufficiency and independence.
It is interesting that the Left-Wing of Australian politics is generally opposed to the Multi Function Polis. The Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party has now called on the Commonwealth Government to review the whole issue, and not proceed at all unless convinced that the M.F.P. is really in Australia's best interests. One can speculate on the various reasons for the general opposition to the M.F.P. from the Left, and indeed, there are many. One reason is that the "old" Left people are more inclined to be "traditional" Australians ("my father, and grandfather, voted Labor") and loyal to Australia than the current batch of Fabian Socialists who have control of the levers of power at Canberra. The Fabian Socialists are loyal to an ideal: they are ideologues, and their loyalty is to International Socialism and World Government, not to any one country. They believe (fallaciously) that they serving Australia's best interests by promoting World Government into which each country will fit snugly; pursuing peace and Socialist Brotherhood, with Secular Humanism in the schools and colleges, social equality everywhere; Affirmative Action laid on with a trowel: you name it. We well recall viewing a newsreel (remember newsreels?) back in the late 40s. Mr. Clement Attlee was Prime Minister of Britain, leading a Fabian Socialist Government. Clement Attlee was discussing the role of his (Fabian Socialist) Government, and he said plainly: "Our aim is World Government." The Fabians, everywhere, have been working for World Government for very many decades.
There are too many Banks associated with the drive for the Multi Function Polis. There are some half dozen or so Australian, trading and merchant banks, and no less than SEVENTEEN Japanese banks. There could be more banks "in it" now: we are inspecting an earlier M.F.P. prospectus. We have mentioned before in these pages that our suspicions are that the Multi Function Polis issue may not have been spawned in Japan at all: it may well have come from the Trilateral Commission and "fed" to Japan. We are as sure as we can be that the Trilateral Commission (an economic and political "think-tank" combining the interests of North America, Japan and Western Europe, maybe ALL Europe now!) sees the Pacific Rim as the world's great area of development in the 21st Century. Have you noticed that Senator John Button is now calling for Australia's economic expansion into the Pacific Rim, along with some (typical) detracting comments concerning the current relationship between Britain and Australia? We are not moved by remarks from politicians that Japan must be convinced that Australia wants the M.F.P. before taking further steps to make it a reality. Rubbish! This is what used to be called "soft soap". We are getting the "soft soap" treatment. We believe the decision for the M.F.P. was taken years ago, and rejection by Australians was not part of the deal.
from The Australian, June 8th "A great impertinence emerging from the immigration debate is that immigrants are helping to build a nation here. "There WAS a nation here with a patriotism and national dynamic second to none. Fifty years ago, given our present overseas debt, Australians could have been asked to work an extra hour a day, buy Australian and pull together, and they would have done that. "That couldn't happen today in divided Australia where the increase in ethnic population is in inverse proportion to the national feeling." (Judith McPherson, Mt.Lofty, Qld.)
"The juxtaposition of the articles on immigration written by Sam Lipski and Tony Abbott (31/5) makes it easy to highlight the real issues in The Immigration Debate. Their views are diverse and each writer, I thought, covered the things most Australians would mention if asked for an opinion. "I have been an avid reader of almost everything written on multiculturalism and immigration and until Tony Abbott's article, have not read anything that states so accurately and vividly what I, and I am sure many other 'ordinary' Australians, feel and think.
"The question of culture must be addressed. When Tony Abbott asks what sort of Australia we want our children to inherit, one that '... studies Shakespeare, follows cricket and honours the Anzacs; or will it be a pastiche of cultures with only a geographic home in common ....?' he brought to life something that had lain dormant in my psyche.
"As a fifth generation Australian I am naturally concerned about the changes to our culture and our way of life. It worries me that many of the things that mattered to me as a child and which were important to my forebears, will be devalued, if successive waves of migrants are encouraged to retain old allegiances and impose their own values on the local population.
"Sam Lipski's comments, in contrast to Tony Abbott's, seem to miss the point. His emotional diatribe adds nothing to the debate and ignores the writings of journalists and academics and others, who ALL acknowledge the contribution of post-war immigrants to this country. How could it possibly be denied? It is self-evident.
"We are not, as he states, saying that 'until now immigration has been bad for Australia'. What we are saying is that our national identity, our culture, the one that distinguished this country for generations, is being threatened.
"Old Australians have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by successive governments into believing that the development of Australia began with post war migration and that we should remember our Anglo-Celtic ancestors with shame - if we acknowledge them at all.
"Immigration has been beneficial to Australia for all of the reasons that Sam Lipski mentions. But we have to take a very serious look at our identity. We have to remind governments and migrants alike that this country had, long before they came, a very definite culture. A culture we want to retain.
"That is why we have to talk about numbers, about assimilation, about ethnic mix, about allegiance and not only immigration's impact on the environment and the economy. (Susan Stevenson, Murrumbateman, N.S.W.)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|