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

28 March 1991. Thought for the Week: "Grandiose plans require large groups of 'workers' or soldiers. The bureaucracy is simply the chain of command; the grander the scheme, the vaster the bureaucracy, from national to international. The commanding officers of little pyramids of power see in bigger schemes their way to their promotion as commanders of larger pyramids. Thus we see Heads of State, Heads of Departments, and droves of lesser commanders flying to confer all over the globe, visibly (for those with eyes to see) evolving the machinery of International Government - government of nations from outside nations, and ending in World Government without nations."
B.W. Monahan, in The Trap (1969)

GULF PUZZLES

"Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein has sent his new Prime Minister into southern hotspots to show the rebellion there has been crushed." Herald-Sun (Melbourne), March 25th

Whatever happened to the "Butcher of Baghdad"? Wasn't he the unspeakable villain who had invaded a defenceless country, massacred his own nationals, tortured women and children? Was he not, in the obedient mass media, compared to Hitler of the Nazi regime? Were there not calls in high political places for his arraignment on War Crimes charges? Was not the "international community" (the great majority of which would never have heard of Saddam Hussein nor Iraq) to expect another round of Nuremberg style War Crimes "trials"?

Well, what is happening? Regrettably, we don't believe very much that is reported on the Gulf (or anywhere else, for that matter) and never have. We are being told now that Saddam Hussein is still boss cocky in Iraq; he has appointed a Prime Minister; the Iraq Government is still made up of Saddam Hussein supporters. We read this three times, and pinched ourselves, to make sure we were reading right: "President Bush said Saddam Hussein appears still to be calling the shots… normal relations with the U.S.A. cannot be effective with Saddam still calling the shots, still in power."

We are still reeling around from this one: "U.S. Gulf commander, General Schwarzkopf, said ... that pilots on patrol over Iraq had been told to shoot down helicopters only if they approached Allied units." What IS going on? We were led to believe by the obedient mass media that General Schwarzkopf and his armies did Saddam Hussein like a dinner! The mass media, it is now obvious, grossly exaggerated the strength of Saddam's military capacity. WHY is Saddam Hussein still in a position of power, still? WHY is his Republican Guard still intact (we have seen nothing to the contrary)? Does Saddam Hussein have some sort of hold over the Allied armies? Is General Schwarzkopf being constrained by higher political forces? Are the Western politicians allowing Saddam to remain in power to control radical and revolutionary forces within Iraq, forces that the West does not desire to confront? Did Mr. Gorbachev "lean" on George Bush to allow Saddam to put down his own rebellious elements (Muslim fundamentalists?) to stop the "Muslim factor" spreading into southern Soviet (Muslim) Republics, and triggering a revolt there against central control from the Kremlin (Gorbachev's line)? Has Saddam Hussein mined the Iraq oilfields, these to be destroyed unless the West "backs off"? These are the "Gulf Puzzles". What do you think?


HERE WE GO AGAIN

"Citizens' Electoral Councils are campaigning around Australia for the introduction of citizens' initiated referendums, which have become a rallying point for the far right, including the League of Rights, as well as other more moderate groups .... The Age (Saturday Extra), March 23rd

We have been aware for some considerable time that there would be an attempt by the League of Rights haters to associate the League with the "thought" of Lyndon La Rouche, an American political economic guru, now in jail in the U.S.A. on fraud and tax evasion charges. There is nothing new about the citizens' initiated referendum; it has been law in Switzerland for well over one hundred years, and is now law in many of the States of the U.S.A., and also law in Italy.

What's the Big Deal? Sure the League of Rights advocates the Citizens' Initiated Referendum, among many other civic organisations. The Australian Democrats support the C.I.R. What's all the fuss about? This! It would not at all please the World Government mob. With the C.I.R. as law, Australians could invalidate all the Mickey Mouse social'' legislation which has been snuck through the Canberra legislation mill by the Evatt inspired trick of allowing Canberra to legislate on various treaties which Australia has with other nations.

The United Nations Charter is a treaty, and Senator Evans and his ilk have been very busy destroying the Australian Constitution, for the reason stated. The Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act, Affirmative Action programmes .. all the machinery and the staffs of these set-ups could be most probably abolished/disbanded once Australians learned what their powers were with the C.I.R. Immigration? Yes, we could have something to say, and do, about that, also. And the politicians know it!

The League is accused, and caned, for criticising and "exposing" this New World Order. We have never seen this "New World Order" defined with any sort of precision at all. According to Sheena MacLain, the journalist who wrote this feature article, "Seeds of Unrest" (above), Western leaders refer to "a more democratic and peaceful world in which ideological barriers have been broken down. The new world order is a promise, and inspiration". All very vague gooey stuff. We recall that World War I was "the war to end wars". We recall that World War II was for the purpose of "making the world safe for democracy". All we can say is that "there's one born every minute."

Jeremy Lee, in the issue of the League's monthly Intelligence Survey (April 1984) detailed and authenticated the United Nations Six Special Session of April 1974 of a "Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order". Also, the Lima Declaration made at the U.N. Industrial Development Conference (U.N.I.D.O.) in Peru in March 1975. It's all there: the international income tax/the international currency (the Eurodollar is just a start) /AND Ms. MacLain, a New World Information Order to control international media reporting, pushed for years by U.N.E.S.C.O.

The present Hawke Government proposal to ban advertising by political parties is nothing to what could come. We have commented in the past that the day could come when the incredible could happen: the media people coming to the League of Rights for advice on the ways to ensure their own survival. Dr. Paul Gardiner, of the Jewish B'Nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission, is quoted berating League policies which are "anti-democratic and deny human dignity". We would like specific details of those: we never get these details, only the innuendos. Yes, Mr. Jeremy Lee, and League executives, are certainly on the campaign trail, and having record meetings. The National Director of the League, Mr. Eric Butler, had a record meeting in Adelaide only recently; a record attendance.

Yes, Dr. Gardiner, you are right: the League of Rights does NOT advocate violence, never has, and never will, unlike the present Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Shamir, who was a political terrorist, associated with the Stern Gang leadership responsible for Lord Moyne' s assassination in Egypt in 1944, and also for the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte in Jerusalem in 1948. Enough said?


BRIEF COMMENTS

There is some merit in banning radio and television political advertising before elections, but only the most naive could possibly believe that the Labor Party is attempting to implement this policy as a matter of high principle. The Labor Party has got serious financial problems and it knows that the business community generally is not going to contribute to its election funds. While the Liberal Party objects to the proposed radio and television ban, its claims about principle - freedom of speech - can also be discounted. The Liberal Party strategists believe that under present conditions they are more likely to be able to out spend the Labor Party in the electronic media. Remember that it was the "principled" Liberal Party, which after initially opposing the public funding of political parties, then accepted the funding. If election advertising is to be confined to the print media, Labor believes that it might have some advantage because of the support of Rupert Murdoch's near monopoly in Australia. Labor is resisting any suggestion of an investigation of the highly centralised control of the print media in Australia, with Murdoch controlling an estimated 70 percent. Rather belatedly, former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser now says that he regrets the role his government played in allowing Rupert Murdoch to acquire so many newspapers in Australia.

Zionist propaganda is skillfully attempting to create the impression that the Palestinian people already have a home in Jordan, where they are a majority of the population. C.H. Douglas correctly described Zionist philosophy as that of the one-way street. Israel was established first by dispossessing the Palestinians of their land. This was done with U.N. backing. Israel further expanded its borders during the 1967 conflict and created tens of thousands of more Palestinian refugees. These people are morally entitled to return to their own land and to exercise control over the West Bank and other occupied areas. Even the U.N. has said this. But Israel has contempt for the U.N. It is also indicating it has contempt for President George Bush.

PLAYING WITH MORALS
from The Australian, March 22nd
"This association of retired printing workers was most concerned at the enormous media bias shown during and in the lead up to the Gulf War. "The conflict was presented as a moral crusade against a brutal Iraqi regime which breached international law when it invaded Kuwait. "You know and history reveals that the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran, when the media downplayed Iraq's appalling human rights record and the use of chemical weapons against Iran purchased from the U.S. "What of the U.S. invasion of Grenada and of Panama and its interference in virtually all of the South American countries - there was no call then for the United Nations to intervene.
"U.S. involvement in the Gulf area dates back over 50 years, during which the Western powers have claimed the right to intervene to shape the politics of this oil rich area. "Operation Desert Shield itself is the offspring of U.S. plans to seize the Gulf Oilfields drawn up at the time of the first OPEC crisis in 1974. "U.S. motivations and ambitions though well known were played down by the media and instead the 'moral high ground' of Bush was portrayed as established fact. "In this situation and in spite of the danger to world peace posed by a conflict which could involve the use of chemical and even nuclear weapons, the national news media overwhelmingly endorsed the position of the U.S. and the Australian Governments. "Having caused untold carnage in Kuwait and Iraq, both the U.S. and Australia and the rest of the so-called coalition are now competing to rebuild those countries at a price and to sell them goods. What hypocrisy." (Vic Little, Hon. Sec., P.K.I.U. Retired Veterans' Assoc. East Brunswick, Vic.)

POLITICAL ADS BAN IS TOTALITARIAN
from The Age, Melbourne, March 22nd
"I have just heard Senator Nick Bolkus advocating (advertising?) the Federal Government's scheme to ban all political advertising on the electronic media. Among many other vague and ill-explained excuses proferred, he suggests that the idea has been developed to 'protect small, newly formed parties which could otherwise be swamped by the advertising of the big ones!' "I want him to know that my brother-in-law has just opened a small mixed business and is having trouble competing with the big advertising budgets of the chains and supermarkets. "I assume that my brother-in-law can look forward to Mr. Bolkus leaping instantly to his defence by banning all television or radio advertising which may cause him difficulty. That is, unless government interference and regulation in so many other areas hasn't sent him broke in the meantime. "If the whole concept were not so dangerously totalitarian and fundamentally anti-democratic, it would be laughable." (Terry Buscombe, Kilsyth, Vic.)

JAPAN HAD A WALL
from The Age, Melbourne, March 22nd
"Paul Keating recently expressed the view that prosperity cannot be achieved behind 'an insular wall of tariff protection'. Japanese auto manufacturers relied on tariff protection for 25 years and still had a form of protection in the 1980s. If they're not prosperous, who is?" (John Turner, Vermont South)

A small item in the press discloses that during the first weekend of this month, 24 people were killed in Soweto Township, South Africa, in the worst factional fighting between blacks this year. In the meantime, the trial of Winnie Mandela reveals how the A.N.C. has no respect for any type of rule of law. Even some of the misguided white liberals in South Africa are expressing doubts about the future under an African National Congress dominated government. Will that "eminent person", Mr. Malcolm Fraser, express his regrets when the policy he has advocated for South Africa proves another disaster? We doubt it. Fraser has yet to express any regrets about Zimbabwe, which continues its slide down the same disastrous slope down which all of "liberated" Africa is moving.

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