|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
30 November 1990. Thought for the Week: "Not many matters are a ground for certainty nowadays, but on two of them it is possible to be fairly dogmatic. There will be no sensible improvement in world society until there is a radical decentralisation of money power; and there will be no decentralisation of money power by any centralised Government, no matter what it may call itself."
ZIONISTS OPPOSE FREE SPEECH IN CANADA
Eric Butler reports from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. David Irving may be a distinguished British historian whose work is gaining increasing attention and respect, but the Zionist totalitarians are determined that his views should be suppressed. As the League of Rights has found over many years, Zionist influence in Winnipeg, Canada, is formidable. During past visits I have personally experienced that influence, with meeting venues cancelled as a result of Zionist inspired pressure. A famous television debate with Zionist spokesmen came to a sudden end when my two Zionist opponents abruptly left the set shouting that they were not going to tolerate my comments any longer. Influence was brought to bear from Ottawa to ensure that this shortened debate was not shown by the C.B.C.
During David Irving's 1987 visit to Winnipeg I chaired a meeting that had to be suddenly removed to a different venue because of Zionist pressure. The same pressure resulted in a subsequent meeting; was to address, being cancelled at the last minute, with a well-known hotel cancelling the booking. This year's David Irving tour of Canada was under the auspices of the Free Speech Society. But once again the Zionists made it clear that everyone should have free speech so long as no views contrary to their views are expressed. Originally Irving was scheduled to speak in a public forum, the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Local lawyer William Martens was told that the booking had been cancelled because he had not revealed the nature of Irving's address, which was, in essence, an update of history with particular reference to the re-uniting of West and East Germany. Local Zionist leaders claim that they had not been responsible for the cancellation of the Irving meeting, but admitted that they had been closely "monitoring" Irving's Canadian tour.
A revealing aspect of the controversy about the Irving affair came from the local Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, the President saying that while his association believed in free speech, Irving's views on the "holocaust" were a form of "hate literature" and could therefore not be heard! An attempt to obtain an alternative venue was also thwarted when the owners of the venue were told Irving should not be heard. A local open line radio programme was abruptly ended with a well-known announcer stating that Irving should not be heard.
David Irving has hit back with a charge that "organised" pressure by the leaders of the Jewish community was being mobilised to prevent him expressing his views. As a result of the Leuchter Report, which appears to be a banned document in Canada, in spite of the fact that it was tended as formal evidence in the second Zundel trial in Toronto, Irving has openly admitted that he has been forced to revise his own original views on the "holocaust". He is now convinced that it has been a major hoax. For this reason he has completely revised his best-known history, Hitler's War.
As Irving points out the Soviet has now revealed that the death list in Auschwitz was approximately 76,000. Other Soviet revelations are making nonsense of what has been promoted for years, primarily to serve the policies of the Zionist State of Israel. Slowly but surely the truth is coming out and attempts by the Zionists to keep on suppressing it will eventually prove extremely counter productive. Irving's next visit to Winnipeg, next year, should be interesting.
BANKERS MOVING FEVERISHLY
from Jeremy Lee
The Financial Review (15/11) also
reported: "All 12 central bank governors of the European Community
have agreed on draft statutes of a proposed European central
bank, the Deutsche Bundesbank President, Mr. Karl Otto Poehl,
said in Basle yesterday
Meanwhile, hot on the heels of the International Monetary Fund, which as we reported in On Target recently, was in Moscow with its plan of action for Mr. Gorbachev, is the World Bank - the other 'ugly sister' of U.N. financial control. The Financial Review reported: "... Mr. Conable (president of the World Bank) will spend two days in the Soviet capital and meet President Gorbachev and the chairman of the State Bank of the Soviet Union, Mr. Viktor Geraschenko. 'The talks are expected to include a discussion of the Soviet request for technical assistance and the issues relating to the possibility of the Soviet Union joining the World Bank', the bank said "
What is the vision behind these coordinated moves? A half-page advertisement in The Australian (9/11) from Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German Foreign Minister, spelled it out in heart wrenching rhetoric: "... A new concept of the co-existence of nations is taking shape. It is based on the awareness of the global challenges and of global interdependence... It is the concept of ... limiting national powers through the transference of sovereign rights to community institutions, of the interlocking of economic interests, of regional solidarity and independence. ... The opportunities for developing a new world order lie in solidarity and joint action. They must be taken..."
There is just one little cost Mr. Genscher failed to mention. If his concept succeeds, national parliaments will longer be answerable to the people but to international instructions from Global Headquarters. How could he have forgotten to tell us?
THE MARKET BRINGS THATCHER DOWN
by David Thompson
Was Mrs. Thatcher out of touch with the British grassroots? Do the British people want to submerge their sovereignty in Europe, and could no longer tolerate Mrs. Thatcher's niggardly stalling? There is no evidence for this view. In fact, the opinion polls indicated that Thatcher's position on Europe was not a major concern among the British people. The major concerns were the politically damaging poll tax, and a carefully fostered perception that Mrs. Thatcher had become "bossy, willful, proud and arrogant". Mrs. Thatcher may have been all these things, but it is clear that, had she stood her ground and contested the second leadership ballot, she would have won it.
Why, then, is Thatcher gone? Mainly because of immense pressure brought to bear upon her by her ambitious colleagues and that latter day deity, "the market".
The "City of London"
Robert Hadler reports from London: "Within minutes (of the resignation) the F.T.S.E. index of 100 leading shares which was up around 8 points before the news, leapt to an increase on the day of almost 34 points... Investors were relieved that Mrs. Thatcher's decision had left the way clear for a new candidate. Word swept financial markets that Mr. Major might throw his hat into the ring. He would be a popular choice within the City of London. His tough stance against inflation and his softer line on Europe are both seen as attractive to the markets..."
The Fabian Triumph
THE VANDALISING OF RURAL AUSTRALIA
from Jeremy Lee
In previous world wars, Australia immediately devised mechanisms for keeping its industries viable, even when export markets disappeared for the duration of the war. The Commonwealth Bank was instructed to finance pools for rural commodities, and fuel costs were subsidised down at the consumer level. The famous J.O. scheme was used to stockpile wool for over six years. Every effort was made to protect producers from the inevitable results of military action.
The Hawke Government, however, while escalating an already existing rural crisis by what many regard as precipitate action in rushing in to save American and Israeli interests in the Gulf, has done nothing to protect agriculture. Conversely, it has tightened the screw on farmers with massive price hikes on fuel just prior to harvest. The result is an unfolding calamity. Tens of thousands are poised to follow the thousands who have already been forced off their family farms, to vent their misery in the dole and housing queues that are lengthening day by day.
In the early 70s the League of Rights was instrumental in the distribution of "The Little White Wool Book" - authored by an engineer who showed that if Australia started processing its raw wool into tops and finished woollen articles - using brilliant new machinery invented and built in Australia - the size of our export wool income could triple. The investment required was insignificant, and the resulting scouring and spinning plants would revitalise rural areas where off farm jobs were scarce. The then Minister for Primary Industry, Ian Sinclair, dismissed the concept as "uneconomic". The only plants built in Australia since have been by the Japanese.
The Weekend Australian (17,18/11/90) reported the chief of the C.S.I.R.O. Institute of Animal Production, Dr. Alan Donald, as claiming there was scope for increasing wool income by $3.8 billion by top-making the whole clip. Further increases of up to $15 billion could be gained by going a step further into spinning and weaving. But who's listening? The Opposition has done nothing, save to advocate that the slaughter of sheep be increased from 20 million to 50 million. This, plus the introduction of a consumption tax, is about all the Opposition can offer.
If farmers have any fight left, they must realise it is now a waste of time negotiating with a Labor Party openly committed to their destruction. They must focus their attention on their own industry organisations and the Opposition parties. The N.F.F., with its massive fighting fund, has not run one advertisement giving the nation the true facts of the rural crisis. Its executives have gone through the motions only to the point where there is no threat to their own comfort.
Rural Australia is now at war. Its generals are far behind the front line. Either they should get up and lead, or get out. It is now obscene for any politician elected to a rural seat to preside in Parliament over a situation where clearly there is no representation for rural voters. A 'gutsy' farm leadership would demand that rural politicians withdraw, and refuse to take part in the parliamentary process - at least until the dimensions of the rural crisis were tacitly acknowledged, and some genuine alternatives put forward.
A Box Hill Actionist (Vic.) has sent the following letter to the Melbourne newspaper, The Age: "In the eloquent opening paragraph of his 'Dirt & Debt' (The Age, 17/11), Kevin Childs paints a microcosmic picture of that most disturbing economic problem: poverty amidst plenty, enforced human misery amid material abundance. But it is virtual blasphemy to ascribe the problem to the 'hypocrisy of nature...' where it is entirely the 'hypocrisy of society'. "Nature's abundance is really God's munificence. And the Creator does not show forth his infinite bounty on the one hand, only to deny Man access to it, on the other. It is the flawed financial system, or the (anti-social) 'society' of debt merchants, constantly charging up to itself the national credit (wealth actual and potential) as unrepayable debt, that is militating against the community 'ready to embrace prosperity'. "In all justice, the community cannot possibly owe its wealth, as monetised to the financial system. Yet the Moloch of Money seems implacable: driven to desperation at paying off the unrepayable (debt), the community is 'forgiven' its trespasses (debts) only by dispossession of its assets. There's worse than hypocrisy there."
BILL FOR PEOPLE'S REFERENDUM COULD GIVE US TRUE DEMOCRACY
from The Age (Melbourne), November
21st "Mr. Ted Mack, the Independent Federal M.P. for North
Sydney, is striving to introduce a private member's bill for
the incorporation of a system of people's referendum into
our Constitution. "If successful, this would provide a much
needed check on government, and enable the electorate, by
majority vote, to stamp its will on government policies -
in other words, full democracy. As things are, the democratic
process is only evident every two or three years, whenever
an election is called; between times, the Government virtually
does as it pleases.
A CANBERRA ACTIONIST
There are others. We can be proud of our opponents.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|