Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

21 September 1990. Thought for the Week: "…the old Liberalism of Locke and Jefferson was an entirely different breed of ideology from the New Liberalism of today. The Old Liberalism stressed individual not collective enterprise, less government not more, states' rights not federal control, laissez-faire not welfare, liberty not security, evolution not revolution. Moreover, none of the great liberals of the past, in spite of their ringing appeals to equality, was willing to admit the equality of races."
Wilmot Robertson in The Dispossessed Majority

CONMONSENSE FROM SENATOR EVANS

As our regular readers know, we have "crossed swords" with Senator Gareth Evans, Australia's present Foreign Affairs Minister, on many occasions over the years. But as objective observers, we are obliged to say that for once Senator Evans has been talking some commonsense. We refer to his address last weekend at a Melbourne meeting of the Labor Friends of Israel group. Senator Evans was clearly asking the Government of Israel, via his audience, to use the current Gulf crisis for a compromise on the Palestinian issue. Senator Evans correctly observed that the on going uprising (the intifada) was "about democracy, about people's rights to determine their own political destiny, about the claim of the Palestinians to self government" and that "The Palestinian issue and the Palestinian people will simply not go away".

Real authorities on the Middle East, men like the American Jewish expert, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal (author of the classic The Zionist Connection, $25 posted), have been warning for years, constructive resolution of the Palestinian problem was a major requisite for any long-term stability in the Middle East. It is not the only problem, far from it, but if President George Bush could bring himself to take the initiative on this question, forcing an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, if Saddam Hussein will do likewise in Kuwait, he would dramatically change the whole Middle East situation overnight.

But as Senator Evans is going to discover, there are powerful forces which do not want stability in the Middle East. The One Worlders are openly stating that the current situation, with a closer association between the West and the Soviet Union, must be used to create the much-publicised New World Order. It will be recalled that no sooner had Hitler been used to get the Second World War under way, than the call went out that the conflict must be used to help lay the foundations for a New World Order. In his major speech last week, President Bush, representing the powerful groups who "advise" him, stressed how the current crisis must be used to establish the New World Order. The groundwork for the projected New Order has, of course, been laid over a long period, and includes the many steps taken to merge the national economies of the world into an International Economic Order.

Back in the days of the Roman Civilisation, whenever a crime was committed, the question was asked, Cui Bono? Who benefits? In assessing the Middle East situation, we can immediately dismiss the shallow view that "it is all Saddam Hussein's fault". Saddam Hussein is a totalitarian who came to power in a bloody coup and who operates a Police State. But such men can always be manipulated to serve the long-term ends of others.

It is indisputable that the Soviet Union is one of the main beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait: A massive increase in Soviet revenue from increased oil and gold prices, with the prospects of even closer economic links with the West and access to the Western technology so keenly sought. Saddam Hussein is no fool and it is unthinkable that he believed that he could challenge the whole world, including the U.S.S.R. Iraq has long been advised by thousands of Soviet military experts. What advice was Saddam Hussein given concerning Kuwait? What benefits is President Bush deriving from the massive Middle East military build up?

Shakespeare's advice to rulers is still as valid as ever: "Be in thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels." The Middle East crisis has taken, temporarily, American minds off their mounting domestic problems. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher's waning popularity has lifted, and we have no doubt that Prime Minister Hawke sees himself as some type of a statesman helping to solve the Middle East crisis. There is every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has been astonished by the course of events. Things have not gone quite as he was assured they would. He is being pushed into a situation where it is hoped there will be justification for a direct military strike against Iraq. But as we can consistently stress, the elimination of Saddam Hussein by Western military force will not resolve the basic problems of the Middle East.

We were not among those astonished by the sudden rapprochement between Iraq and Iran, even after an eight-year conflict which costs at least a million lives. Arab detestation of the West generally, and the U.S.A. in particular, which is blamed for driving the poisoned Zionist thorn into the Arab world, along with the Islam religion, is a unifying force which Western policy makers ignore at their peril. We believe that we are on the eve of the unfolding of dramatic events concerning the programme designed to create the New World Order. The programme must fail, primarily because it defies reality, but this is the time when Australia should be making every effort to put its own house in order, to insulate itself economically and, as far as possible, militarily, from the turbulent period ahead.


HUMAN RIGHTS 'OPEN TO DEBATE'

"The Chinese regard human rights as a relative concept, meaning different things to different people, former Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, was told during his recent visit to Beijing." - The Australian, September 17th.

From what we glean the Chinese Marxist-Maoist leadership is given to deft "double-think" (Orwellian). The Australian has obtained a confidential Department of Foreign Affairs record of the conversation between Mr. Whitlam and Mr. Li Peng. Mr. Whitlam's "line" was that he, himself, had been more instrumental than any other Australian person in the furtherance of Australia Chinese relations. Because of this, he could report (apparently impartially) that very many Australians, across the board, were upset at the massacre in Beijing in June 1989. Premier Li says that he attaches great importance, also, to human rights - but there is a "but"; and that "but" is that such "human rights" had to exist for the great majority of the people. So there must be an "interpretation". And who are to be the "interpreters"? Obviously the Chinese leadership...Premier Li and his colleagues, for the present.

Premier Li assured Mr. Whitlam that there could be many differing "interpretations", e.g. Western, Eastern, or Islamic. There are no absolutes, you see. We feel that we have heard that "line" somewhere before. Yes, in our schools and colleges from the Secular Humanists (No God, no absolute morality, no guilt, no blame). Small wonder that we have "no fault" divorce in Australia, by courtesy of the late Mr. Justice Murphy, of the High Court...a former "Humanist of the Year". It all fits.


BRIEF COMMENTS

The hoary myth about banks lending their depositors' savings continues to persist. David Tomlinson, financial writer for The Australian assures investors that in spite of everything, including rising bad debts, the banks still offer "healthy yields". Mr. Tomlinson writes that "Mr. Keating wants the banks to cut interest rates because he says they are making too much money from the difference between the rates at which they borrow money and the rates at which they lend. In other words their margins are too high". Mr. Tomlinson then asks, "How ... can you explain the very attractive dividend yields being offered by the major banks?" The answer is very simple. Banks do not make their financial profits by taking in money at one end of the counter and lending it out at the other, but by creating new money in the form of bank credit, and then charging interest on it. Bank dividends are one of the few features of banking which ensures that some of the new credit gets into the hands of individuals outside the debt system. It is not the banks' financial profits, which should be concentrated upon, but the rapid expansion in bank assets. As quoted in The Money Trick ($7 posted from all League Bookshops), the basic facts about money creation have been candidly admitted by many prominent banking authorities. Australia's future as a free nation depends upon enough people freeing themselves from the Black Magic associated with banking.

Leaders of the totalitarian National Socialist Movement in Western Australia were back in prison last weekend awaiting long sentences after being convicted of Crimes against Asians. It should be noted that the Nationalist Socialists were appropriately dealt with under existing legislation, highlighting the fact that draconian "antiracist" legislation is unnecessary. Those promoting this type of legislation want to stifle any open, national discussion on immigration, multiculturalism and associated issues. Zionist spokesmen have been prominent in the campaign to have this type of legislation introduced in Australia.

As the mass slaughter of blacks by blacks in South Africa continues, we await with interest to hear what some of our local liberal "experts" on South Africa have to say about this. But perhaps they believe the incredible story that some of the blacks engaged in the violence are really disguised white "racists"? The mass killing in South Africa is the shape of things to come if the theorists have their way and impose a one-man-one-vote system in South Africa.

Yet another manifestation of the drive towards monopoly was the deal which gave Japan's second biggest brewer Asahi Breweries Ltd. a 20 percent stake in John Elliott's IXL, manufacturer of the well known Foster's Lager, the result being that Elders is now in the top world league of breweries. But in what way will this affect the brewing of Carlton Lager? Will it taste better or differently? Will it be any cheaper? And the answer is NO to all questions. Centralisation has to do with financial manipulation and power, not about any better quality production.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159