|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
29 January 1993. Thought for the Week: "State absolutism is the modern danger against which neither representative government nor democracy can defend us. If we do not bear this in mind we shall be led constantly astray by forms to overlook the substance, to think that right is safer against majorities than against tyrants."
Lord Acton in 1860
TAPES CONTRIBUTE TO RELENTLESS PRESSURE ON ROYALS
by David Thompson
A SINISTER CONSPIRACY
Who, then, has been monitoring the Royals' telephone calls? A former editor of The Times, Lord Rees-Mogg, draws his own conclusions in an article published in The Australian (15/1/93): "When sensational conversations can be leaked, it is natural to suppose that they are selected from a wider group. The tapers cannot have struck "Squidgy" or "Trousers" first time. In early 1989, someone, ... was systematically spying on the Royal Family. That someone subsequently used these taped conversations to damage the reputations of both the Prince and Princess of Wales by leaking them. The people doing the original taping are much more likely to be employees of the State security system than anyone else. If a single newspaper had done it, that paper would presumably have been the sole beneficiary; the editor would not have delayed publication of such a scoop for three years...
MONARCHY IN JEOPARDY
If it is true that some unknown individual, or group could reach right into the MI5 or M16 intelligence services, and make use of technical and organisational resources from such sources, the future of the monarchy is indeed at great risk. It is becoming increasingly clear that not only the gutter press but perhaps even the Princess of Wales herself has been manipulated by sinister forces of unknown magnitude. Who was advising the Princess about what course to take in what could understandably have been a stressful marriage?
As far as the infamous tapes are concerned, there must be great doubt about their authenticity. Returning to Malcolm Holland's Sunday Telegraph report, there appears to be doubt about whether the tapes were edited: "Mr. Reenan said he was mystified the published version of the tape differed from the version he recorded. He believes the published version of the tapes may have been edited, combining details from a version recorded on New Year's Eve by another amateur eavesdropper, Jane Norgrove. "'There were large chunks which I knew had not come from my tape,' he said. The 'Camillagate' tape of Prince Charles and Mrs. Parker Bowles also appear to have been re-broadcast a day after it took place.
It would appear that someone with sophisticated equipment has painstakingly recorded, selected, and perhaps edited conversations, which are purported to involve Prince Charles and his wife in compromising circumstances. These recordings were then re-broadcast a number of times to ensure that they were picked up, and passed on to the press.
Whatever the authenticity of such tapes, the result has been of such enormous damage to the institution of monarchy at an absolutely critical time. This is no accident. Under such circumstances, it almost becomes irrelevant whether the tapes are genuine or not. The result is the same. And even if such conversations did take place, who among the self righteous scandal mongers are in a position to cast the first stone?"
See also: "Prince Charles - Is History Being Repeated?" - Intelligence Survey, January 1993. $20.00 subscription, G.P.O. Box 1052J, Melbourne, 3001.
THE NEW POLITICALLY CORRECT LAWYERS
by Eric D. Butler
But in recent times a new type of Judge has started to emerge, rejecting the role of interpreting law, but of attempting to dictate what the law should be. There has been a storm of protest against the recent decision by N.S.W. Magistrate Pat O'Shane who not only dismissed a malicious damages charge against five Sydney art students, who openly admitted that they had vandalised a billboard advertising a well-known brand of women's bras, but then delivered a courtroom lecture claiming that the real crime had been by the advertisers!
Magistrate O'Shane went on to say that she was "disgusted" that a legal system had been used to protect the property of advertisers who had used images, which allegedly incited violence against women. No evidence was provided to support this astonishing claim. Those who have read Red Over Black, by top ex-Communist Geoff McDonald, will recall Ms. Pat O'Shane's long Marxist background. Media comments about Magistrate O'Shane's "politically correct" court decision falsely describe her as Australia's first Aboriginal barrister. She is, in fact, half Irish.
But the O'Shane case is relatively minor compared with how the new breed of "politically correct" Judges are dealing with constitutional questions. The late Lionel Murphy was one of the High Court Judges who used the External Powers to argue that Australia now had "international obligations". This development was serious enough. However, in the Mabo case one of the Judges, Justice Brennan, went further stating that not only a new treaty was necessary to extend the powers of the Commonwealth but that this could be done in the absence of a treaty, providing the new matter involved a question of "international concern".
In the Mabo case, Mr. Justice Brennan said in essence that he was rejecting existing legal authorities in assessing whether a group of natives owned the land in question. His Honour invented a new law stating that it was essential because of "the expectation of the international community" and "the contemporary values of the Australian people".
The term "international community" has become a type of cliché, never defined. And what about the "contemporary values" of the Australian people? The great majority of Australian people are in favour of a "fair go" for all Australians, including a small minority of their fellow Australians who are of Aboriginal background. But they have never been asked to express an opinion on radical "land rights" demands, which in practice would prove disastrous for all Australians.
Australians must face the reality that they are in the midst of a constitutional revolution. Presumably all that is necessary to radically change the structure of Australia is for any group, backed by enough publicity (often paid for by the unknowing taxpayer), to claim that some matter is of "international concern", and they can rely upon the new breed of Judges to invent a new law to take care of the matter.
BRIEF COMMENTIt is not surprising that a recent survey of young people, conducted by the Democrats, found that most of those between 15-25 years were "cynical and distrust politicians". Our assessment is that electors generally have become cynical about politicians. Paul Keating is attempting to exploit this cynicism, using Dr. Hewson's changes to Fightback to charge him with being untrustworthy. Dr. Hewson has provided Keating with further ammunition by flatly disputing that there was any evidence to suggest that the Opposition parties were in favour of a 24-hour access to the Sydney airport. But both the National Party leader Mr. Tim Fischer and Opposition spokesman on Tourism, Mr. David Jull, had clearly stated in letters that they favoured lifting the curfew on the Sydney airport. Power is the name of the game for the Party politicians, and they can all be relied upon to bend the truth when they feel it necessary to serve their purposes. Electors should only consider voting for candidates who will state in writing that they favour the introduction of the Swiss concept of the Electors' Veto.
Typical of the hypocrisy of the Keating Government is the allocation of $4.5 million to encourage Government agencies to buy more Australian goods and services. This is the Government whose policies have driven large numbers of Australian manufacturers out of Australia as part of the "level playing field" strategy.
Writing in The Age, Melbourne, of January 23rd, B. Ellis, Professor of Philosophy at LaTrobe University, recalls how academic fashions change, pointing out how when he was a student at Oxford University it was fashionable to claim that it was the policies of the "economic rationalists" who were responsible for the Great Depression. Professor Ellis observes that the Europeans do not favour free trade in agriculture because this would destroy their agricultural base and result in a rural depression. "Quite reasonably, they do not want a rural depression. Therefore, ... they will not allow free trade in agriculture. We, if we had any sense, would not allow free trade in industrial goods, and for just the same kind of reason."
Events will, demonstrate that the election of the Clinton Administration in the U.S.A. was an even greater disaster than re-electing George Bush. The Zionists now have their man in the White House as the U.S.A. slowly sinks into a New Barbarism. As never before, Australians should be seeking to become more independent in every field.
THE GOOD OIL ON SOMALIAfrom Sunday Herald-Sun (Melbourne), p.12, January 24th - article by Bruce Wilson from Baidoa, Somalia
Australian and other coalition troops may be risking their lives in Somalia as part of a long-term strategy to protect the interests of U.S. oil companies who control almost all the exploration leases in the potentially oil rich country... "This disturbing theory emerged last week when some aid agencies said they were concerned the U.S. humanitarian effort was more connected with oil than charity ..." We have really been puzzled at the extent of the U.S. (no, no United Nations, old chap!) operation in Somalia just for "humanitarian" purposes. We are not nearly so puzzled now. One American aid agency director says that, "we all know that the U.S. would never have gone to war over Kuwait if all it produced was, say, camel dung firelighters". Others have told Mr. Wilson that there were many more people facing death through violence, malnutrition, etc., in Bosnia, the Sudan and other parts of Africa, than in Somalia.
THE COST OF CHARITY
Whilst we have been induced into a doubting mood by the Somalia puzzlement, such has not been alleviated by the study of an article (above) in Herald-Sun, Melbourne, January 23rd. Name of journalist not given. The story concerns the international aid agency, World Vision. It's Melbourne based group executive is a Mr. Boyne Alley, a former chief general manager of the failed State Bank of Victoria, which was wrecked by the incompetence of the Cain and Kirner Socialist Governments. It was absorbed into the Commonwealth Bank. But let the figures speak for themselves.
Mr. Boyne Alley says, "You can't be a business (our emphasis) which is turning over $79 million without being serious". World Vision: Turnover - $79.2 million (1991-92). Administration - $8.8 million, plus. Fundraising/Community Education - $15 million. International Development, Aid & Relief - $54 million.
World Vision is spending $10 million on its new building in Melbourne. The figures do not tell a precise story; still, we expect that something like 65% of moneys raised would be available for aid and relief, internationally. What happens to the moneys raised after transfer from Australia may tell an unsatisfactory story. We do know this. The Smith Family charity says ALL the $1.5 million received in 1991-92 was spent on providing goods for the poor. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul works on the same principle. You can argue the pros and cons of aid agencies, and their methods, backward and forward. We know which charities we would support.
WAR CRIMESfrom The Australian, January 15th
It is difficult to understand Australia in the 90s pursuing war crimes over events that occurred half a globe away half a century ago. Even more difficult to fathom is why the evidence always refers to the killing of Jews, when many individuals of other races were also killed at that time. "Will Ms. Irene Moss please investigate this apparent racial discrimination?" (Ron Fischer, Talbot, Vic.)
WOMEN IN THE FIRING LINE
from The Australian, December 9th, 1992
"For generations young men were trained to be gentlemen. They were told that they had an obligation to protect women and families. Now, men are being asked to ignore their most noble duty and regard a woman soldier as just one of the boys. "The result has been disastrous and another step in the coarsening of relations between the sexes. In America it has led to the destruction of military families and more - not less - abuse of women. "Men and women have different needs and strengths. A nation that deliberately places women - including nursing mothers- in the line of fire is not taking a step up. It is taking a step down - into barbarism." (Richard Dent, Mansfield, Qld.)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|