|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 February 1993. Thought for the Week: "If Man's nature and his relation to God are as Jesus taught them to be - then His prophecy of disaster is just as relevant now as it was then, for, after a period of at least partial Christianity, the world has reverted, only on a far larger scale, to the pre-Christian era. If the Christian European tradition had been carried forward into the industrial era so that Man, increasingly liberated from the burden of work, became ever more free to develop spiritually, who knows what achievements might have emerged."
B.W. Monahan, in Mystery, Magic, Music & Metaphysics
THE HIGH FARCE OF AUSTRALIA DAY
by David Thompson
The high farce of phony nationalism was completed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Keating, announcing that the Australian of the Year was to be Aboriginal rock singer and teacher, Mr. Mandawuy Yunupingu. Mr. Yunupingu's selection by the Australia Day Council, in the United Nations Year of Indigenous Peoples, heavily reflects a commitment to political correctness. The top rating Sydney radio presenter, Alan Jones, described the choice of Yunupingu as an "insult". Jones said: "Australians are entitled to feel - as I'm sure Mr. Yunupingu would feel - that he got the award because he's an Aborigine. And that is an absolute insult to all Australians - including Aborigines
CONTEMPT FOR AUSTRALIAN PATRIOTS
Mr. Yunupingu's achievements as a rock singer and teacher are doubtless impressive. However, his choice as the Australian of the Year is dubious in the light of his entering a competition sponsored by Channel 9's A Current Affair programme to find a new flag. Yunupingu's entry had to be withdrawn because he has been asked to be one of the judges in the competition!
The selection of Yunupingu as Australian of the Year reflects more upon the Australia Day Council than it does on Yunupingu. How is it that the Australia Day Council could demonstrate such contempt for patriotic Australians by choosing someone who cannot honour the flag? Such a decision makes much more sense when it is revealed that the Chairman of the Council is Mr. Phillip Adams. In an address to the National Press Club on January 27th, Adams called for the replacement of the Queen and the flag with such national 'icons' as Mr. Barry Jones and a "damp Dickies towel" (whatever this may be).
A PARODY OF NATIONALISM
In their Australia Day addresses, both political leaders strove to outdo each other in a shallow parody of nationalism. The Prime Minister urged Australians to face their greatest peacetime challenge, and "find a place in Asia". This was necessary, according to Mr. Keating, to secure "the freedom, comforts and security our generation has enjoyed". He overlooks that our freedom, comforts and security were secured by sacrifices made by genuine Australians - many of them giving their lives in battle under the flag that he belittles.
Opposition Leader, Dr. Hewson, was content to promise that a Coalition Government would create a National Council of Citizenship to promote such qualities as idealism, hard work, giving people a fair go, and "larrikinism". In the face of the greatest challenge to Australian heritage, the Opposition Leader's proposal is pathetic. What is his position on the Oath of Allegiance? The flag? Loyalty to the Crown? It would seem that the politically correct thought-police have thoroughly intimidated the Opposition. "Nationalism" is old-fashioned; loyalty an embarrassment.
Dr. Hewson's position is almost indistinguishable from Mr. Bob Carr, ALP Leader of the Opposition in NSW. Mr. Carr has announced that the oath of allegiance to the Queen would be replaced in NSW to one declaring allegiance "to Australia". Any reference to royalty in the titles of statutory authorities or public servants would also be abolished. Dr. Hewson is hardly proposing such a programme himself, but will he actively oppose it? The choices available to Australians in the forthcoming Federal Election are hardly inspiring.
THE KEATING ELECTION STRATEGY
All political attention this weekend will be upon the WA election result. Keating & Co. hope that if the Lawrence Government is to be defeated, that WA voters will vent their spleen on the WA ALP, not upon him a few months later. For Western Australians, the choices are limited to an apparently competent Premier leading a rabble tainted with the WA Inc odour, and a lack-lustre Opposition. But as in Federal politics, electioneering becomes more 'presidential' with the proposal for televised debates between the Leaders, Lawrence and Court.
Mr. Keating's recall of Parliament on February 23rd has been described as a cynical strategy to corner Dr. Hewson in an environment where the Prime Minister already has a psychological advantage, and verbally trash the Opposition Leader on his personal taxation record. Keating, smarting over personal attacks about his investment in a piggery, wants a full debate. There is no evidence that either Dr. Hewson or Mr. Keating have done anything illegal. Keating hopes to highlight Hewson's double standards - of having arranged his affairs so as to minimise his tax liability, but criticising tax minimisation schemes in Fightback. This may well be a case of selective morality, in that Keating was the Treasurer who administered the tax legislation.
The Keating strategy is simply to do as much damage to Hewson's integrity, and then call an election probably for April 3rd. Hewson needs the electorate's trust to campaign successfully on the GST. "Only 15% GST ... Trust me!" Keating wants to destroy any basis for trust.
A DIRTY CAMPAIGN
Keating's strategy heralds the development of a 'dirty' campaign, characterised by bitter personal abuse. This was inevitable, since there are few policy differences (except the GST) upon which the two groups can campaign. The main issue is who should administer the policy of internationalism, Hewson or Keating. Keating proposes to ruthlessly destroy Hewson's integrity, and if Hewson responds in kind, as he seems determined to do, the only certainty is a deepening of the cynicism, disillusionment and sense of betrayal in an already disgusted electorate.
MORE TROUBLE BREWING IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The continuing conflict between the Allied coalition forces and Iraq can best be explained in terms of President Bush becoming entrapped in his own misunderstanding of Arab political culture. Many in the West are mystified to observe that Saddam Hussein is still in a position to thumb his nose at President Bush, the Allied military coalition, and the United Nations. Did the West "win" the Desert Storm conflict, or not?
Western double standards, however, play right
into the hands of the Iraqi dictator. David Pryce-Jones, an apparent
expert on Arab culture and political subtleties, points out that Hussein
can argue that he has as much right as Israelis or the Serbs to defy
UN resolutions. At the very least, he can argue such a case convincingly
in Arab or Moslem circles. Hussein appears to be taking all the points
in the Moslem world; he has twisted the tail of the mighty West, aimed
a psychological kick at the tail of the departing Bush, and exhibited
both a capacity for survival against the odds, and strength to peoples
whose culture values such attributes highly.
His regime was supported - militarily - by the US in the Iran-Iraq war, because Hussein was assessed as the lesser of two evils. As an apostate Moslem, Hussein was preferred to the fundamentalist Muslims who had captured Iran, and destroyed the Shah. An essentially apostate 'Christian' West is obviously much more comfortable with an apostate Islamic leadership. Yet Hussein's defiance of the West, and his daring contempt for a Western dominated "new world order" gives increasing encouragement to rising Islamic fundamentalism.
George Joffe, who writes for The Economist Intelligence Unit, concludes that the coalition's military raids in southern Iraq in mid-January were deliberately stage managed to enable President Bush to leave office on a high note. Joffe maintains that Iraq had UN agreement to retrieve equipment from the southern no fly zone, and had merely failed to notify the UN of what it proposed to do.
Joffe makes the following important observations: "Arab support for muscular action against Iraq has ebbed noticeably in recent months. Even if most Arabs dislike and condemn the Hussein regime, they cannot avoid noting the strange discrepancy between Western readiness to strike at Iraq and its reluctance to act in the case of Muslims in Bosnia or, particularly, over the 415 Palestinian deportees. "The result is that Arab support for the Middle East process is ebbing away, while support for Islamic fundamentalism is growing rapidly, for it is the only way most people in Arab and Muslim worlds can see to regain their sense of self respect and authenticity. In fact, Western leaders, as they pursue their relentless crusade against the Iraqi dictator, are throwing away the only fruits of the elusive victory they won in 1991 - and that, far more than military action against Iraq, will eventually be the true epitaph of the Bush Presidency."
MUSLIMS IN EUROPE
Further fuel for Western discomfort is found in the form of disturbing reports that Iranian revolutionary guards are now fighting alongside Bosnian Muslims. These elite forces - 2,000 specially trained holy warriors - herald an attempt to establish a fundamentalist stronghold in Europe itself. Iran has also provided shipments of Soviet and Chinese made arms for Bosnian Muslims. As the West blunders from one strategic mistake to the next, only the Israelis stand to benefit. And the Iranian arms build up is such that a possible Iran-Iraq alliance may well again ignite the whole Middle East. Only this time, the West cannot count on the same Arab support enjoyed by Desert Storm.
Race Bill Would Gag Media
Don Chipp struck a chord (S.T.17/l) when he wrote:
'So it is prudent that the most dangerous form of power is that which
cannot be monitored or that which is held by persons not subject to
control by our elected representatives.'
"This Bill was passed on the second last sitting day of Parliament last December and was 'tabled' until Parliament resumes this year. "The insidious part of the exercise is that the Attorney General's Department withheld the information to notify all voters of their rights to submit comments or objections. "The only parties privy to this information, not surprisingly, were members of the immigration lobby, all of whom are making quite a lucrative living out of our taxes. "The time for submissions was even shortened to February, and not a word from the so-called Opposition. "This Bill, if allowed to go through, would virtually gag the press and media outlets, who would be subject to one person." (Eric Di Losa, Padstow, NSW)
Law Sneaked Through
The Racial Discrimination Bill was introduced to Parliament on December 16, second last sitting day of 1992. It was voted for by all politicians on both sides of Parliament with the exception of Senator Walsh and Senator Campbell. "Apart from ethnic radio calling for submissions (admittedly the first was in English, followed by two requests for submissions in foreign languages), there has been no information released to the general population except for a small ad placed in The Weekend Australian four weeks ago.
"As submissions for this bid close on February 5, it is vital that people send in their submissions immediately - a page will do. "The draft Bill has adopted the recommendations of the Human Rights Racial Discrimination Officer to impose prison sentences on those found guilty of breaching its terms. Even gestures, which are interpreted as being racially offensive, are made crimes by this Bill. "We already have legislation to cover any breaches of the law. They are sneaking this one through." (Valerie Campbell, Mt.Pritchard, NSW)
ATTACK ON ROYAL FAMILYfrom "Behind the News", The Canadian Intelligence Service, January, 1993
There seems to be an orchestrated attack today upon members of the Royal Family, some of whom seem to conduct themselves in a manner which invites rebuke. But this unprincipled media attack seems to go at times beyond the persons involved and constitute an attack on the institution of the Monarchy itself. "The Toronto Sun, December 24, published a revealing letter by K.W. Arnott of Toronto on this question. Here is the major portion of his letter:
"'(Columnist) Walter Stewart has repeated the lie that journalists constantly print concerning members of the royal family. This lie is that members of the royal family are supported by money provided by the British taxpayers. They are not. Members are supported by money derived from the revenue of the crown estates.
"'Every sovereign since George III has made an arrangement with Parliament whereby he or she transfers to the British treasury the revenue from the Crown estates (except the revenue derived from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall) in return for a civil list to provide for royal expenses). "'In 1990 (the last year for which I have figures), Elizabeth II transferred £101 million and received in return slightly under £6.5 million. The amount paid by the Queen in the course of her 40-year reign must be staggering. By the way, this payment is voluntary and not made by parliamentary compulsion. "'The Prince of Wales has the use of the income from the Duchy of Cornwall (of which he is duke). He voluntarily transfers one quarter of this to the treasury. "'If I, resident in Toronto, can obtain this information, why is it that journalists are unable to obtain it?...' "A very valid question, indeed."
RIGHTS FOR FARMERS
from Port Lincoln Times, January 12th
"If a miracle occurs in the form of a State Government declaration of a natural disaster act for devastated farmers, fruit growers and flood victims, and if they did allocate government rural assistance, we sincerely hope farmers are not confronted with a repetition of selective eligible applicants as was the case in 1989.
"Governments and banks may also take the opportunity to further reduce farmers by a former act of labeling smaller farmers as unviable and refusing financial assistance. "The Fabian Socialists NWO planned policies since 1972 during the Whitlam reign advocated the gradual reduction of farmers from 175,000 down to a manageable 90,000. "This was to be achieved by the gradual elimination of protection, subsidisation and natural disaster assistance as well as many other factors associated with the rural decline. These policies were also applied to secondary industries.
"During 1989-90 GRA was granted to some viable farmers who were able to extend their properties and so ensure a decrease of the selected small farmer, as well known fact among politicians. In 1989-90 GRA advisory committees closed doors to small farmers for financial assistance in one hand, while bank panel advisers refused carry on finance in the other. "We were informed by reliable information that some 300 farmers were listed by banks to be dispelled on Eyre Peninsula alone, regardless of sentiment. "Evictions had begun in NSW and if the Calca Action Group had not intervened to justify this action many farmers could have been forcibly evicted in some States. Are we about to witness a second invasion on the farming enterprises?
"The real issues affiliated with the high costs of production leave little equity to be set aside to absorb a natural disaster. The out of date tax system does not allow this to happen. Farmers have only one alternative left for their survival and that is to unite through a national combined action group and form a national front to get their voice loud and clear across to State and Federal politicians if they need NDA protection affiliated with high production costs, lower financial loans interest rates, better negotiations with the ALC and many other factors.
"If farmers fail to unite they may well become vulnerable to socialist treaties, conservation laws including bureaucratic monopolised control that will leave farmers with little equity after accumulated governmental drain on a year's profits. "The wrongs are all aimed at farmers - how about introducing some rights for farmers? "Our biggest national disaster has to lie within the political arena where it has manifested during the last twenty years." (C. North, Wudinna, SA)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|