|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
19 February 1993. Thought for the Week: "To alter the environment most effectively, we must first alter the financial system after which the next best efforts are clear. The most serious material danger facing mankind is the present destruction of natural wealth and chiefly the wealth of the soil. The first task therefore is to get people back to work on the land under conditions which will not only prevent its destruction or loss but will suitably feed the soil so that its fertility is maintained ... The agricultural changes would initiate other changes of incomparable benefit. Urbanisation would cease. Industry would be balanced against agriculture, and the sub-human life of the world regain its place and function. These changes alone would produce a miraculous alteration to the pressure of environment, but above all they would render men sensitive to the promptings of their higher nature."
Professor Thomas Robertson in Human Ecology
THE BANNING OF DAVID IRVING
Some days before Mr. Gerry Hand, Immigration Minister, formally informed British historian David Irving that he would not be granted a visa to enter Australia to lecture and to promote his books, the Australian Jewish News was reporting that Mr. Jerry Hand had said, at a private meeting with Zionist representatives in Brisbane, he would not be permitting David Irving to visit Australia. This action by Gerry Hand was a clear violation of the confidentiality provisions governing applications for Australian visas.
The Irving affair has demonstrated beyond argument that the present Federal Government at least is dominated by the Zionist Lobby. Zionist spokesmen have made the ridiculous claim that there was no orchestrated Jewish campaign to keep Irving out of Australia. Like the rest of Australians, the overwhelming majority of the Jews knew nothing about Irving's planned visit to Australia.
A study of the Jewish media provides striking evidence of a campaign, which involved former Prime Minister Bob Hawke and then the Australian Democrats. Why did the Democrats suddenly decide that they should join in the campaign against David Irving? They have constantly boasted that they are strong supporters of freedom of speech. It is true that Shadow Minister for Immigration Ruddock has expressed "concern" about the Irving affair, but promises no more than a "review" of the case if the Opposition wins government on March 13th.
The basic facts of the Irving banning are beyond dispute. Irving has made two previous visits to Australia, the last one in 1987 when he launched the best selling Churchill's War. During those tours Irving broke no Australian laws and incited no racial or other riots. Even his critics agree that Irving is a notable historian. He has never been found guilty of any criminal offences anywhere in the world. We are informed by David Irving's Australian representatives that he is engaging Australian lawyers to take legal action against Zionist spokesmen and journals, which have claimed that he has a criminal record. Needless to say, David Irving is also appealing the Hand decision under the appeal provisions of the Immigration regulations.
Irving is correct when he says that by forcing the Federal Government to ban David Irving, the Zionist totalitarians are helping to create the very anti-Semitism, which they say they fear. The blatant violation of the basic principle of free speech resulted in a nationwide backlash of protest right across the political spectrum.
Zionist opponents of Irving have done the great
majority of the Australian Jewish people a great disservice. The Zionists
claim that Irving's lectures could upset Australian Jews. Apart from
the fact there has been no publicity concerning what Irving proposes
to speak about, no one is compelled to attend his lectures. His books
sell freely in Australia. If Irving is not permitted to lecture in Australia,
then surely the next logical step would be to ban his books.
We urge all our readers to act immediately on the Irving issue, demanding of all Opposition candidates that their leaders immediately make themselves familiar with the issue and then publicly state that following the elections a Coalition Government will immediately issue Irving with his visa so that he may start his planned tour of Australia on March 17th. Letters to the media should stress that the Labor Party is clearly dominated by a small, unrepresentative power group, and that the banning of David Irving is an insult to Australian tradition of freedom of speech. Not one of the media commentators or interviewers has admitted to having even read one of Irving's books.
PROFESSIONAL SNAKE OIL MERCHANTS DOMINATE ELECTION
by David Thompson
The booksellers association proposes to mount a significant campaign concerning the immorality of taxing information with a GST on books, but finds it must compete with the disgrace of the main Parties using taxpayer-paid advertising to "massage' the electorate with insulting over simplification and misleading generalisations. No wonder the electorate remains surly and unenthusiastic!
A strong trend emerging within the campaign is that of electoral disgust with "the stark choices" between Opposition and Government. The truth is that apart from the GST, the choice between Keating and Hewson and their Parties is that between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. This is reflected in one pollster's comment that as soon as the election was announced, the proportion of uncommitted voters actually rose significantly. This may indicate that traditional Party alliances are being broken by the frustration of being unable to choose any genuine alternative.
NO ALTERNATIVE TO GLOBALISM
While it is clear that unemployment should be a major election issue, with over a million unemployed, it may quickly become a non-issue if neither Government nor Opposition can produce constructive answers. Both Keating and Hewson pander to the women's vote with proposals, which could actually disadvantage the family, and please only the feminists. Whoever wins this election it is clear that the result will foster internationalism, against the best interests of Australians.
Both Hewson and Keating are essentially internationalists who both propose to merge us into "Asia", and the "global market". This is already appearing, with a number of American chief executives being imported like hired gunfighters to assist "Australian" companies to compete with the multinationals. One international executive headhunter made the point quite bluntly: In the global market place you will find nationality an increasingly irrelevant consideration. Both Keating and Hewson regard such prospects without discomfort.
Whoever wins the election it is clear that there will be no change in basic financial policy. The debt will continue to rise. Dr. Hewson proposes to consider the merging of the trading banks into two megabanks, further centralising the financial system. The sale of State banks will be encouraged by an Opposition with no answer to Keating's financial deregulation.
BLAINEY CHALLENGES KEATING
The Prime Minister's obsession with Asia was dealt a blow by Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who said that the effort to make Australia part of Asia was "too extreme". Emphasising Australia's Anglo-Saxon majority, Blainey remarked that Keating's anti-British "nationalism" might well be termed racism by some impartial judges, given the large preferential subsidies his Government had made to minority ethnic groups.
The tone that has been set thus far in the 1993 election campaign will probably prompt a frustrated electorate to do the most sensible thing: vote against the two major power groups wherever possible. It may provide some comfort that the statistics indicate that it is all but impossible for either a Hewson or a Keating Government to control the Senate. Five of the seven Democrat Senators do not face re-election in this half Senate election. This means the Democrats may well take up to six of the available Senate seats, little as they deserve to do so. The battle for Australia cannot be won by changing the Government.
NOTE: The Queensland Council of the Australian League of Rights is publishing a pamphlet for coming election titled - "Towards Electorate Representation". This publication will promote the concept that a Member of Parliament should represent the electorate, and not a political party. It covers subjects such as the Flag, republicanism, and the "level playing field policy", as examples of issues where the Australian people should be consulted. The pamphlet will cost: 500 posted (Queensland) $25.00; Interstate $30.00. From 1,000 to 3,000 posted (Queensland) $38.00; Interstate $45.00 for 1,000. Over 3,000 $30 per 1,000 plus freight. Order from A.L.O.R., Queensland Council, P.O. Box 45, Karara, Qld., 4352.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|