|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
26 October 1990. Thought for the Week: "The bulk of the money supply is thus 'created out of nothing' by banks, and all banks are, directly and indirectly interlinked, with the international banking system, which is 'privately' controlled by International Bankers ..This control of the source of over 90% of 'money' represents enormous power, and it would be naive to suppose that such power is exercised in the absence of any coherent policy. The first principle in the exercise of power is to preserve that power, and in the case of finance, the prime objective is to secure the supremacy of finance over politics. This is achieved by economic 'laws' which keep political governments in debt - not to individuals, but to organisations controlled by individuals, from the national to the international level ."
B.W. Monahan, in ZIMUNISM (1977)
NEW ZEALAND MOVES TOWARDS ADOPTING C.I.R.
Eric D. Butler reports from Auckland,
N.Z., after participating in the Annual New Zealand League
of Rights Seminar
"But while it becomes clear that a Bolger Government would have no uncompromising opposition to the Citizens' Initiated Referendum and Recall concept, Mr. Bolger now asserts that there must be provision for governments to consult more with the people. He now supports the concept of referendum, but without the result being binding on the government. This is called 'indicative referendum'. "When it becomes obvious that the C.I.R. is necessary to tackle the Nation's basic problems the pressure for the adoption of the C.I.R. will become explosive. At this stage Mr. Bolger will have to make further moves or be swept away. "There is no doubt that the C.I.R. issue is starting to dominate New Zealand politics."
THE MYTHS OF 'EDUCATION'
"How can we improve our education system and our schools? Everyone seems to have their own theories as to how this can be done, but very few rely on any real evidence." - Padraic P. McGuinness, in The Weekend Australian, October l3th-l4th
We do not always find ourselves in strong agreement with Mr. McGuinness; however, this time there is no doubt in our minds that he has "struck" gold. He refers, specifically, to a recent publication put out by the Brookings Institution, a U.S. "think-tank". No, the name of the publication is not mentioned. You can be as sure as it is possible to be that our Socialist Left pollies in Victoria, and all the humanists and loyal Marxists who infest Victoria's Halls of Education, would not want to know about it. They have their Humanist, Marxist ideologies, and they will go to their graves hugging their fallacies.
A few facts:
What is important is discipline, an acceptance of the importance of learning, well planned classroom work, regular homework. The elderly in Australian society recall these requirements. The number of qualifications degrees, do NOT necessarily make a good teacher. Much post-graduate attainment is a waste of time and money. It may swell the pay packets of these degree seekers, under the system, but the kids will not be taught more proficiently, overall.
Many theories which are popular with teacher unions are dismissed as rubbish. School "tone" (a necessity) is higher in schools that are truly independent, with no great education department bureaucracy flattening them down from on high. The greater the choices of parents, and the greater the freedom from external constraints, generally, the better educational outcome for the students. Parents should have the right and the freedom to choose the school for their children. A reduction of teacher numbers by as much as 25% would be a good thing. Schools must have the power to select and dismiss staff; get rid of the dead wood. A reliable guideline is, "fewer but better teachers".
MANY A SLIP.
from Jeremy Lee
Hussein's propaganda, aimed at fellow Arab States, did not seem to be getting anywhere. Recent events in Jerusalem have changed all that. Gershon Solomon, leader of a sect known as the Temple Mount Faithful, stated his movement aimed to lay the foundation stone for the rebuilding of the Temple. The site for the rebuilding happened to be a revered Muslim shrine - the Al Aqsa Mosque. Palestinians, moving to defend this site against the anticipated desecration, ran into the gunfire of Israeli security. The 21 dead and 140 wounded Arabs have forced the West - including the United States for the first time - into a position which many leaders would rather have avoided - a strong and united condemnation of Israeli atrocities.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir attempted to minimise the incident by claiming it had been organised by Baghdad but, in the words of The Bulletin (October 23rd) "quickly backed off under fire from the Israeli press". It is clear that Israel is desperate to see a quick military finish to Saddam Hussein. Whatever his blackest attributes - and they are many - he has the potential to rally the Muslim world, if not behind a figure, at least behind a cause. The self-indulgent sheiks and monarchs in a number of gulf kingdoms who have used vast oil earnings for their own investments are now shivering with apprehension at an Arab leader with the potential to fire their erstwhile servile populations.
In early September, Israel stated that if the West did not take a military offensive they might have to do it themselves. President Bush faces a dilemma. The boycott does not appear to be succeeding. A report in The Financial Review (October 18th) expressed amazement at the volume and variety of foodstuffs in Iraq. There has been a bumper grain harvest, and fresh dairy products, fruit and vegetables are freely available. Saddam Hussein can hardly fail to have noticed the escalating financial crisis in the West, fuelled by escalating oil prices by the West's own embargo. If President Bush succumbs to Zionist goading to "strike first" the end results may be very different to what the instigators expect.
STIFF 'RACE' LEGISLATION IS SNEAKED IN
from David Thompson
According to "The Australian's" legal editor, David Solomon, the two proposed changes are extremely complex, and are designed to outlaw "indirect racial discrimination". The changes to Section 9(1) would make it illegal to impose a "term, condition, or requirement which is not reasonable" and which impairs the enjoyment of any human right or fundamental freedom by people of that person's race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. While this could have far-reaching consequences no examples of the application of the changes are given.
The second change is equally significant. According to Solomon: "Previously it (Section 18) made it clear that a case of racial discrimination was illegal only when the dominant reason was the race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of a person." Now, however, it will only be necessary to show that the race, colour, etc., was only one of the reasons. "And," said Solomon, "not only is it no longer the case that the racial reason has to be 'dominant' - in future it will not even be necessary to show that it was a "substantial reason", "to achieve a conviction".
WHY THE CHANGES?
'SUNDAY' COVER STORY ON GREENHOUSE
by John Daly*
Interestingly, one of the questions Murphy asked me on camera was whether it was inherently "dangerous" for me to raise doubts in public about global warming, in case this might undermine the public and political will to act against it. Such a question implies that it is acceptable to exercise censorship against dissenting views, on the grounds that such views are 'dangerous'. Who, then, decides what is, or is not, dangerous? Channel 9? The Government? Such abuse of information control is the first step to totalitarianism.
Those who monopolise the megaphone of the electronic media have no right to set themselves up as unelected self appointed arbiters of what is, or is not, "dangerous" information. Channel 9's decision to give only a one sided view cannot be defended on the basis of ignorance, since I gave them copies of scientific papers showing the contrary case, including a list of names of eminent dissenters, especially in the U.S.A. They cannot plead lack of footage, as they had 20 minutes of footage in the interview with me. They cannot, claim my views were "not important enough" to warrant air time, as they spent a bundle in sending Justin Murphy and a film crew from Sydney to Tasmania just to do the interview two weeks ago.
* John Daly is the author of the authoritative book, "The Greenhouse Trap", which successfully debunks the 'greenhouse' theory by taking apart the scientists' own statements. Invaluable material, available from League bookshops for $17.00 posted.
THE ARCHBISHOP AND THE POLITICIAN
from Edward Rock, Chairman of The Christian
The Archbishop had offered a very mild criticism of the current interest rate policy describing it as a "blunt instrument" by which the moneylenders demand excessive proportions of the individuals' income, thus exacerbating poverty. It could be further pointed out by Christian leaders that knowledge and understanding of the Holy Trinity will lead to right policies. Such an understanding would quickly establish the correct role of money, government, and the distribution of purchasing power.
Had Mr. Hawke been the astute politician he likes us to think he is, instead of savaging the Archbishop he may have enquired of him what policies governing the trinity of wages, fiscal and monetary control would emanate from the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost? That would have put the ball firmly back in the Archbishop's court, and perhaps forced him to face a basic question regarding money the modern church refuses to tackle, that money is merely a symbol representing reality, and that God will always supply the reality and those who will accept the responsibility to release it for the benefit and enjoyment of all.
All men (governments) have to do is to ensure the just and impartial distribution of the symbols which represent God's reality to ensure both the freedom and security of both producer and consumer, with the firm understanding that an increasing part of God's reality is that producers are a declining percentage of the consumer population, therefore monetary distribution should start with each individual member of society.
The consequence of adopting such policies
emanating from Father, Son and Holy Ghost, would be an increase
in understanding God's purpose for mankind, and a parallel
decline in the corrupting power of men who reject the authority
of God. The destruction of the life forces within the nation
would cease, and the desert created by the philosophy of death
- socialism - would be replaced by renewed, decentralised
growth throughout the length and breadth of the nation.
DEFENDING THE RIGHTfrom The Newcastle Star (N.S.W.), September 26th : "I wish to challenge the statements of the Member for Newcastle, Mr. Morris, concerning 'unsourced' material distributed on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Newcastle Star, 19/9/90). As far as the League of Rights is concerned, none of our material is 'unsourced' as Mr. Morris implied. "Further, I particularly object to the statement attributed to Mr. Morris that the League of Rights 'promotes racial hatred in all its forms'. This is a disgraceful allegation, made without a scrap of evidence, which Mr. Morris cannot substantiate, because it is false. I believe Mr. Morris owes your readers an apology. "It is true that the League opposes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Australian legislation is quite adequate, and where it can be shown to be inadequate, State Governments are responsible for relevant changes.
If, as Mr. Morris wrongly claims, the Convention will not change existing laws, why do we need it at all? "When Mr. Morris says the Convention will result in few changes, he is either misinformed, or being blatantly misleading himself. Ratification of any U.N. treaty will have the effect of making its contents law, even without having to pass through the Parliament. The Convention would have the legal status of a treaty, and according to the High Court's interpretation of the External Powers Section (51) of the (Australian) Constitution, would override any legislation in any State, thus centralising more power in Canberra, and upsets the delicate Federal balance unique to Australia.
"It is notable that a great many churchmen are warning their people about the possible effects of this Convention. In many respects, Mr. Morris may serve his constituents well, but his blind support for this Convention - in the best traditions of the Party hack - is a gross disservice to both parents and children throughout Australia. (David Thompson, State Director, Australian League of Rights N.S.W.)
CHILDREN'S CONVENTIONfrom the The Newcastle Star: "I make reference to a recent statement apparently made by the Member for Newcastle, Mr. Allan Morris, regarding the circulation of information pertaining to the U.N. Convention on Children's Rights. "I take strong objection to Mr. Morris' public knee-jerk reaction to citizens who are attempting to divide truth from error. It would appear Mr. Morris has not succeeded in this area either. "Concerned parents, as Australian citizens, have a democratic right to investigate and formulate an opinion on any matter which they feel may affect the well being of their family.
"Fortunately, I have a complete copy of the U.N. Convention on Children's Rights, and after reading it, I find from a Christian perspective there is definitely cause for strong concern in certain areas. "The protection, well being and education of children is a high priority of all well meaning parents. But in places the Convention appears to definitely erode parental input into their child's life. And it can easily be seen to imply that children take precedence over the parents.
"Article 13;l states: 'The child shall have the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers... through any media of the child's choice.' "The liberty given to children without parental control is most dangerous and damaging to the family environment. "There are many other areas of the document which I believe need public comment, investigation, alterations and clarifications, and this will not happen unless the people of Australia ask for a public forum.
"My final point is this: the 'document' can be signed by the Governor General or his appointee and it can be discussed in Cabinet. But it will not be presented, submitted or discussed by Federal Parliament. "Surely this is contrary to the principles of democracy. Some people have posed the question: 'Is this a whitewash job?'
"Some churches and schools have been targeted as being the propagators of the distribution of 'deliberate misinformation, distortion, half truth and lies'. Having the complete document in my possession and having read it, I could not draw the same unequivocal conclusions. "If sporting groups, social clubs, business organisations and other upright bodies were given a full copy of the U.N. Convention on Children's Rights, I wonder if their response would parallel that of some of the churches and schools.
"Shouldn't all Australians know what our Government is signing on behalf of our children, and what measures they may be taking which could alter the structure of the family'? (Rev. John Wolfenden, of Charlestown, N.S.W.)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|