|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
5 June 1991. Thought for the Week: "The mighty totalitarian structures of Germany and Russia looked impressive, but they were very brittle; they had no flexibility, and must crack. Where the central government assumes control over everything, they also gather to themselves the blame for everything which goes wrong. And things are always going wrong. Gradually the capital city is looked upon as a foreign city - as the headquarters of an army of occupation living on, and extracting taxes from, the natives."
James Guthrie, in Our Sham Democracy (1946).
THE FRANTIC PURSUIT OF 'PEACE' IN YUGOSLAVIA
"The European Community sent a second peace mission to Yugoslavia tonight after a ceasefire agreement between secessionists and the federal authorities fell apart within two days." - The Age (Melbourne), July 1st.
What is happening over large areas of Europe is a resurgence of nationalism as the tyrannous yoke of Communism is being lifted. An informative article on Yugoslavia, published in The Australian (July 1st), itself republished from The Times (U.K.), has its author, Norman Stone, writing "Nationalism does not usually solve problems - except maybe the problems of mediocrities looking for bogus bureaucratic jobs".
We take his point, but he is not right. He would be right if there were no finance economic alternatives known, which would "free" the various national states from imposed federations. We do not mean federations of the types of Australia, and the United States of America, where the populations are largely (but not exclusively), homogeneous, The Yugoslav federation is far different: different languages, different histories, different religions. Without attempting to go into really necessary, details, we shall assert that small independent states could well be viable under a realistic system of finance economics, and that, ultimately, probably well down the time track, this solution will be forced to emerge by unfolding events.
No, we are not trying to be mysterious, just making a point to mark our difference with the assertion (above) of Norman Stone. The latter is correct, of course, when he states that Yugoslavia is a Communist State - "in many ways a replica of the Soviet Union itself": and he adds, "what with its many peoples and its centralised ministries and its Monopoly money and its pollution and its subsidy from the West" . Yes, right again; "Power in Belgrade (the Capital of Serbia) has fallen into the hands of a mainly Serb Communist clique"...
To understand the situation in Yugoslavia right now, one must have an adequate understanding of its histories. Why all the fuss about Yugoslavia anyway? Why can't the "international community" mind its own business, and let the states within Yugoslavia fight it out themselves? We'll give you the reason in three little words: NEW WORLD ORDER. That's what it's all about!
We heard President Bush, on radio, some days ago, being reported as expressing disapproval of the breakup of the Yugoslav federation, and stating that the U.S.A. would not recognise any state in that Federation which asserted sovereign independence. We presume the same would be the case with respect to the Soviet Union's various states. That is the central reason for "the West's" support for Mikhail Gorbachev, the self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist. Centralisation of all political and financial power is Holy Writ (Scripture) to a dedicated Marxist-Leninist.
The New World Order gang are not having things their own way. If Europe breaks up into independent, sovereign, states, then the cause of the New World Order (including World Government) could be put back a century or two. The "European Community" (meaning a virtual handful of politicians in Europe, in the European Parliament, dedicated in various ways to the N.W.O. and World Government) is bending over backwards to maintain the centralised, political status quo in Yugoslavia, as the Bush Administration in Washington is backing Gorbachev in his attempts to "save" the Soviet Union, and also attempting to get Boris Yeltsin on side. At present it looks as though Yeltsin is being "appeased" (Yeltsin is pro-decentralisation within the Soviet Union).
With nationalism resurgent in the Soviet Union, the New World Order brigade in the Halls of World Political Power (including the power of International Finance) are treading warily. Yugoslavia is scaring the wits out of them. No more aid from the European Community, or the U.S.A. if the political fragmentation continues. The Money Power at work, as usual.
"Is a "Republican" Australia Necessary For The New World Order?" Yes, it is. Why? A Republican Australia is necessary for the (coming) "new" alliances, which Australia must make for full incorporation into the New World Order. Vestigial links with Britain could possibly be "messy". It is likely that Britain is not "trusted" by the World Government plotters and planners: the anti-European ripples from London are not pleasing to them, and could be seen as a warning of things to come; things "going wrong".
World Government is impossible. We understand why C.H. Douglas made this observation, and are in no doubt that history will confirm it. But that won't stop the drive for it by its faithful. We have mentioned in these pages recently that David Irving has predicted the eventual breakup of the European Union (Common Market) as Germany "explodes" (via trade, particularly) into Eastern Europe (again, particularly Poland and the Soviet Union, which "must" be held together!). C.H. Douglas predicted the same, but much earlier in time.
Where does this leave Britain (not to mention the other Common Market members)? We can foresee a resurgent Britain, as the Common Market dissolves, and nationalism re-asserts itself in nations. And this is where Australia comes in. Unless we have been swamped, submerged under deliberate multiculturalism by that time (we think unlikely), the Anglo-Celtic majority of Australians will want to re-establish traditional links with kith and kin overseas. The Fabian Socialists now in power in Canberra think they have 10 years to brainwash the Australian electorate into acceptance of Republicanism. We don't like their chances.
Role of Monarchy
The telling of lies is quite O.K. in politics, and parliament: it can't always be avoided. Who says so? The Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe! An ordained clergyman, we understand (Uniting Church). We wonder what other theological "pearls" he has stored away in the recesses of his mind. But he does try to avoid lying to the people (how nice!). Quite quaint, really. This is "HoweSpeak": "In a sense, politics is always a matter of change, and one doesn't always say what is the latest reality" (Herald-Sun (Melbourne), June 10th, page 2). But this is 1991, and all the Humanist-controlled bureaucracy insists that we must not be "judgmental": that is very bad, you know. The "correct decisions / courses of action" are what are best for you at the time. There are no absolutes at all. All is secular humanism. And so the madness rolls on towards its certain obliteration in those Mills of God working away yesterday, today, and forever.
INDEPENDENTS POLITICS' SAVING GRACE
from The Australian, June 28th
POLITICIANS AND THE MONARCH - from The
Australian, June 28th
AN EDUCATION IN REPUBLICANISM from The
Australian (July 1st)
AN EDUCATION IN REPUBLICANISM from The
Australian (July 1st)
FLAG HONOR INCONSISTENT from the Herald-Sun
(Melbourne), July 1st
VOODOO VOTE A BLOW TO ALL ABORIGINES
from the Sunday Telegraph (Sydney), June 23rd
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|