|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
14 August 1992. Thought for the Week: "In crisis hours peace must be sacrificed for freedom but never freedom for peace."
WHAT NEW WORLD ORDER?
It is only a year since President George Bush proudly announced the initiation of 'a new world order'. But we seem to be hearing less and less about it as the U.S. Presidential election approaches." - Peter Robinson, in The Sun-Herald (Sydney), August 9th
The question is posed whether or not the whole Big Idea of the New World Order is 'just a bit of political waffle'. We don't think it was just that; we think that the concept of the N.W.O. will be "on" again, with a vengeance, after the U.S. Presidential Elections are over. Yes, we do expect that Mr. Clinton, if elected President of the U.S., as seems likely as we write these lines, will heartily announce his full support for the N.W.O.
Readers will recall that President Bush announced the onset of his marvelous N.W.O. at the time of the "United Nations" attack on Iraq in January 1991; it 'was all the go' in the world press for months. Everyone was saying what a wonderful idea was this N.W.O. If ever there was a phony war, it was that of 'Desert Storm'. Who knows how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed; the T.V. coverage was carefully "sanitised" before going to screen. General Schwarzkopf could have easily seized Baghdad, but was ordered to bypass that capital. Saddam Hussein could have been removed without any bother - permanently; but he was left there "for another day", it seems.
The "might" of Saddam Hussein was ridiculously exaggerated in the world media. Israel had the threat of Saddam removed" (for the time being) without itself having to fire a shot. Then there was the concealed fact that Saddam was virtually given the green light to invade Kuwait by the American Ambassador at that time; he was told that the U.S.A. had no particular policy with respect to Kuwait. Curiouser and curiouser!
One expert has written that it may be generations before we have the true story of the "Desert Storm" war.
Senator Gareth Evans will not be happy to observe the flight of the Cambodian peace initiative, which he has championed; let's give him credit for that. Mr. Peter Robinson writes: "The Cambodian peace initiative teeters on the edge of collapse and seems to lack any really enthusiastic support from ASEAN - the immediate neighbours of that experiment in the imposition of order."
There is the tragedy and suffering in Africa: Somalia, Ethiopia -millions starving and suffering ... but Mr. Robinson shows that the Balkans and Cambodia have the "limelight", for now. Senator Gareth Evans does not escape from Peter Robinson's barb, viz. "Closer to home, our own Foreign Affairs Minister (Gareth Evans) seems to believe that there is a better chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize in Cambodia than in Africa.
VITAL NATIONAL SURVIVAL QUESTIONS
Submitted by The Australian League of Rights
in the National Interest
* The Countryman of 28/8/91 quotes the Federal Opposition spokesman on Industry and Commerce, former N.F.F. leader, Mr. Ian McLachlan, as having said at the W.A. Rural Press Club that until such time as there was a massive write off of rural debt - suggesting the write-off be as high as 35% - rural Australia could not emerge from the present recession. What steps, if any, has the N.F.F. taken to promote a campaign to insist that the banking system implement the type of major debt write-off recommended by Mr. McLachlan?
* Who advised the N.F.F. to support the disastrous policy of deregulating the Australian banking system, this policy being implemented by Mr. Paul Keating as Treasurer in the first Hawke Government, with the false claim that deregulation would result in greater competition, better services and more reasonable interest rates?
Low Interest Bank
* Is it a fact of history that Australia, under the Whitlam Government, subscribed to the United Nations Declaration to create a New International Economic Order, and that the Lima Declaration of 1975 outlined a broad programme for the transference of resources from developed nations like Australia to under-developed nations in pursuance of this N.I.E.O. objective? Why has Mr. Rick Farley, the Executive Director of the N.F.F., attempted to misrepresent the clear intentions of the Lima Declaration, seizing upon the technical point that some critics of the Declaration have inadvertently described it as an agreement?
* The New International Economic Order initiated by the Whitlam Government, and continued by the Fraser, Hawke and Keating Governments, has already resulted in Australia losing over 50% of its industrial capacity, with established Australian industries moving to Asia, while at the same time Australian primary producers are threatened with an annual flood of over $2 billion of cheap foreign primary production, the total result being the economic disarmament of Australia and growing social disintegration. Has the N.F.F. opposed this disastrous programme? What Is Mr. Rick Farley's Game?
* Where does Mr. Rick Farley derive his authority to attempt to smear the numerous Rural Action Groups and the Bank Watch Movement, whose members are all concerned with the Australian rural community, giving generously of their own time and substance? Does this promote unity? Surely they are entitled to more respect than from this man who is adequately paid to serve rural Australia? Is it not reasonable to ask why Rick Farley creates the impression that he is a defender of a banking system, which clearly has failed the rural community?
* During the rural crisis of the early seventies, tens of thousands of Australian farmers became victims of the get bigger or get out philosophy. Twenty years later the Inverell Times of 16/3/92 quotes current N.F.F. President Blight as saying that another 10% of primary producers should not be provided with anymore resources for survival. Is this not a policy of progressive surrender by those supposed to represent the primary producers?
THE STENCH OF THE WAR CRIMES TRIALS
Critics of Western efforts to conduct Nazi war crimes trials are claiming that the recent collapse of some cases has confirmed concerns about the feasibility of mounting prosecutions after 50 years and the reliability of evidence provided by former Eastern bloc regimes. - John Masanauskas, in The Age (Melbourne), August 8th
"Ivan the Terrible", extradited from the U.S.A. to Israel, there convicted and sentenced to death in 1988 - now an "embarrassment" to the Israeli prosecution because of new evidence that U.S. Justice Department officials may have withheld witness testimony indicating Demjanjuk's ("Ivan the Terrible") innocence.
At Mikolay Berezowsky's committal hearing during the Australian war crimes trials in Adelaide, an elderly witness from the Ukraine "identified" an American tourist to Australia as the accused! The magistrate dismissed the charges against Berezowsky. We quote from John Masanauskas' article: "A U.S. war crimes expert and lawyer, Paul Zumbakis, told The Age (Melbourne) that Communist security services such as the K.G.B. had clearly been orchestrating war crimes trials in the West. "... bodies such as the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations (O.S.I.), had been caught out withholding evidence favourable to the defendants.
* Three K.G.B. officers, who had given evidence
against a U.S. citizen tried for war crimes in Germany in the early
80s, now admit that they withheld evidence favourable to the accused.
We hear that a Voters' Veto Bill has now been passed by the Tasmanian Government, and will most probably become law during this coming October. Not one "Green" supported this Bill. More details to come.
Sir Arvi Parbo, former Chairman of B.H.P., says Australia is in danger of losing its political freedom. He criticised "the creeping intolerance of expressing a diversity of views which goes under the label of 'political correctness'. As someone who has had the misfortune to live under both Stalin and Hitler, I recognise the early symptoms of starting to chip away at democracy". He was referring, of course, to legislation of the type advanced under the "racial vilification" banner. He blames "financial pressure breakdown associated with unemployment" for much of the violence, alcoholism, family breakdown that bedevils Australian society. On the economic front, he correctly asserts, "sweeping the unemployment problem under the carpet by encouraging people to train is not the solution". Yes, we go along with all of the above.
LET PEOPLE HAVE A SAYfrom The Mail (Melbourne suburban newspaper), July 23rd
I was most interested to see in the July 23 edition of The Mail Cr. Duffy's proposal to conduct a plebiscite to establish resident's priorities of services. "This is precisely how things should be done. Councillors are our representatives - re-presenting the views of residents. "It was interesting to note that some councillors saw Cr. Duffy's move as a threat to their position. Clearly these councillors need to learn that they are our servants and not our masters. "We residents don't want higher rates to finance debt repayments on more loans for such effort and money wasting exercises as endless paving of shopping areas, or annoying roundabouts which are more of a hazard than a help. We do want to be consulted before new projects are undertaken. "I applaud Cr. Duffy's attempt to consult 'the people' and now the seed has been sown, maybe it will, in the not too distant future, take root. But we have all been so brainwashed with the idea that 'Joe will do it' that it may take an ongoing educational programme to get people to take more interest in the affairs of local, State or Federal Government and to make their voices heard. Otherwise we have an 'elected dictatorship'." (Mrs. Pat Lander, Mt.Eliza, Vic.)
THE CHURCH AND THE RACIAL & RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION BILL
In a recent issue of On Target we commented that we knew of no prelate of any Christian Church who spoke out against the evil stemming from our Parliamentarians: we mentioned the proposed odious "dob in" legislation, referring to "dobbing in" any person suspected of being a welfare/tax cheat. We've still seen no Church leader attack this nasty piece of evil. BUT, the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, has attacked the proposed Victorian Racial & Religious Vilification Bill. He issued a long statement on this proposed Bill, and stated:
"It is disturbing that the question of defining what is religion would, as a consequence of the Bill becoming law, be likely to be resolved in a criminal context with the pressures of proving a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. I am advised that the role, function, status, nature and scope of religion and religious practice and dialogue within the Victorian community would be likely to be called into question and to a certain extent given restrictive legal definition by resolution of the matter in a criminal proceeding where the emphasis is on proving an offence rather than on examining the place of religion in the community."
Full marks to Archbishop Sir Frank Little. We anxiously await the pronouncements from the pulpit from other prelates, against the many evils stemming from our Parliaments. This is the role of the Church, in our view. It is NOT to indulge in Party politics (now mostly rotten!), but to expose and condemn Evil wherever and whenever it is brought forward by politicians, who may even think such beneficial to the community - The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions. The Master of Deceit sees to that.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|