|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
15 April 1994. Thought for the Week: "Not many matters are a ground for certainty nowadays, but on two of them it is possible to be fairly dogmatic. There will be no sensible improvement in world society until there is a radical decentralisation of money power; and there will be no decentralisation of money power by a centralised government, no matter what it may call itself."
MORAL COWARDICE BETRAYS AUSTRALIA
by David Thompson
Dr. Hewson's endorsement of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras was, in effect, an endorsement of the very thing that the Tasmanian Liberals reject-the act of sodomy. How is it that the Tasmanian Liberals can clearly reject an act that is physically repugnant as well as morally wrong, but their Canberra colleagues cannot? This basic philosophical weakness will jeopardise the Coalition's defence of States' rights.
If the United Nations Human Rights Committee does condemn the Tasmanian legislation, Australia will be in breach of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Attorney General Lavarch has confirmed that the Commonwealth would seek to act to override the State legislation, in order to protect Australia's "international reputation". Opposition spokesman Peter Reith effectively states the position: "If you don't like the laws made by a State Parliament, then you should change your State Parliament. If you want to go off to Canberra to fix every problem and then go from Canberra to Geneva (the U.N.) then you will not have a system of parliamentary democracy..."
Mr. Reith correctly notes that if the Liberals cannot stand by this principle, then "we might as well say goodbye to the federal system". But Mr. Reith himself confirms that he does not support the Tasmanian legislation banning homosexuality. This obvious moral failure will be fully exploited by those who wish to centralise power not only in Canberra, but internationally by way of the United Nations.
What can the Liberals do? The best they can hope to achieve is to challenge the Commonwealth and Mr. Lavarch to defy the United Nations conventions, and demand that Australia withdraw from such 'treaty' agreements. But it is almost certain that in the attempt the Liberals will wilt when asked to support the Tasmanian legislation on homosexuality, and retreat from the field.
The failure of moral courage will again betray the genuine interests of Australian sovereignty, and mark the Opposition as politically helpless in the face of the humanist challenge. What should become the greatest ever challenge to the international centralisation of power in Australia could instead become little more than a squalid political obituary for the Liberals at the hands of the homosexual lobby.
THE MAN WHO REFUSES TO THINK
by David Thompson
In the course of his article, Henderson refers to other "studies" of the League by former communist K.D. Gott (Voices of Hate) and Andrew Campbell, as well as the forthcoming book by David Greason, I Was A Teenage Fascist. Such superficial studies have contributed little to genuine debate. Indeed, so biased and abusive was Gott's effort, that for years the League bought as many copies as possible to distribute as an example of the transparent rubbish of our critics Henderson's material is little better. He appeals to "genuine conservatives" like Geoffrey Blainey, Hewson, John Stone, Leonie Kramer, B.A. Santamaria, to confront the League, and vanquish it as a political force.
The truth is that Henderson, writing under the
guise of impartial investigative journalism, indulges in political abuse
of those with whom he disagrees. He exposes himself as little more than
a self-appointed arbiter of what is politically correct, and what is
not. The League, as usual, is accused of anti-Semitism and racism clearly
implied. But does Henderson reject the League's call for a referendum
on immigration? Is Blainey to be condemned for his warning about Asian
The day after Henderson's article appeared, the Immigration Minister, Senator Bolkus, was punched, spat upon and abused by an angry mob of 2,000 Macedonians in Wollongong. A severely shaken Bolkus might reflect on the "success" of Australia's multicultural nightmare. Another journalist, Padraic McGuinness, was much more honest in his assessment: "multiculturalism in Australia is largely a middle-class fantasy ..." It is notable, also, that Henderson studiously avoids mentioning Australians Against Further Immigration, and their support at the polling booths recently.
Rather than research the facts concerning banking, Henderson continues to lampoon those who have. He again criticises Paul McLean for his Bankers and Bastards in which McLean deals with the creation of credit, and the influences of banks. Like C.H. Douglas before him, claims Henderson, McLean believes that banks are part of an international conspiracy, to impose modern day slavery. Henderson incorrectly charges that the League has devoted considerable resources to attacking the Citizens Electoral Councils, with whom a common belief in the evils of international finance is held. "All is conspiracy, and conspiracy is all...." he writes. The truth is that other writers are drawing attention to similar issues.
Mr. B.A. Santamaria, who writes a column for the Weekend Australian, has also dealt with the creation of credit, debt and banking. He did so again in his column last weekend! McGuinness has also touched on the issue of "world domination'. Writing on the international centralisation of power, McGuinness wrote: ". . .the process has been stealthy, conducted behind a smokescreen of propaganda, and undemocratic..." (Australian, 22/3/94).
Henderson also makes the comment that the main influence on the League is "the all but incomprehensible teachings of Major C.H. Douglas..." and Social Credit. This reveals more about Henderson than Douglas. Mr. Henderson is the Executive Director of the "Sydney Institute" - an ideological "think tank" that assumes an intellectual status. Has Henderson been unable to understand what Douglas wrote? Thousands of others have had little difficulty. Can Mr. Henderson make no sense of "Economic Democracy" or even "Dictatorship by Taxation"?
If Gerard Henderson were to be honest, he comes from a long line of those who do understand Douglas, but fear his proposals, and reject his main objectives, which are the elevation of the individual above the institution. Henderson suffers from intellectual dishonesty and a form of moral cowardice, which prevent him from seeing reality, or even from telling the truth. Perhaps he can think, but refuses to try.
How is the League able to correctly predict the general course of events? Does Eric Butler have a crystal ball? There are basically only two views of history; that events "just happen" (the village idiot theory), or that events conform to a thread of policy.
LABOR ENDORSES KENNETT AMALGAMATIONS
The Labor Party has now openly endorsed the Victorian Kennett Government's amalgamation programme, confirming the League of Rights' view that the Victorian Liberal-National Party Coalition has been taken over by the Fabians. The League's campaigning has forced the amalgamation issue into the open, with the Labor Opposition in Victoria being compelled to declare itself. The Herald-Sun, Melbourne, of April 5th, quotes the Opposition Local Government Spokesman, Mr. Pat Power, as saying that the Labor Party favours the concept of the present Municipal Councillors being used to implement the amalgamation programme. Labor is seeking the best of both worlds: conceding that amalgamation is necessary, but trying to ease the pain by advocating existing Municipal Councillors implement the programme instead of appointing Commissioners.
The same Herald-Sun quotes the Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe as having described the Kennett programme as "a welcome initiative". The Fabians and their spiritual bedfellows are quietly congratulating themselves on the work of a Premier they can only regard as a "useful idiot". One anti-amalgamation campaigner in Melbourne has personally contacted the West Australian Liberal Government, which says it is "aghast" at what is being done by the Kennett Government, pointing out that W.A. is going in the opposite direction by breaking up bigger Councils.
The battle is far from lost in Victoria, but there are going to be some casualties. As more Local Councillors grasp the far-reaching implications of the Kennett amalgamation policy, resistance is stiffening. All League actionists are urged to increase their efforts. At the end of the day, the League's credibility will be higher than ever.
BEST CARE IS AT HOME
from Herald-Sun (Melbourne), April 8th
"The trauma that takes place when mother and child are separated is in itself proof of the importance of the profession of motherhood. "Unfortunately there is a strong movement out there to get mothers out of the home. Gently manipulating, it suggests you are too intelligent to be housebound and a fulltime mother: get a job, have a career, or otherwise do your own thing. Leave your children in childcare centres then you will be able to spread your wings. In other words abandon your home for better things. "This sounds very tragic to me. How a mother can hand over a small baby to childcare is beyond me. My question is: why have children? Is it to have a plaything from time to time?" (Joyce Raff, Seaford, Vic.)
from The Australian, April 7th
"The legislation breaches any form of anti-discrimination. The employer cannot sue an employee for wrongful resignation. Even if the employer has spent thousands of dollars training the employee on the machinery, equipment, materials, laboratory secrets and processes he uses, the employee can just up and leave, taking his added value with him to the opposition." (A.R. Pitt, Maryborough, Qld.)
THE BIGGEST STEPS ARE YET TO COME
Mr. Leon Gettler, Melbourne City Reporter of The Age (Melbourne), has this to say (among much else) in his column of April 9th
"The (Victorian) Local Government Minister, Mr. Hallam, yesterday described the Local Government Board's interim report as a 'major step forward in strengthening local government across Melbourne'. The report paves the way for further amalgamations for the rest of Melbourne's councils. The second review will focus on tidying up the boundaries of the new municipalities and their neighbours. That inquiry, which will extend to the outer suburbs, could be just weeks away. By comparison, it will raise issue far more complex than any facing inner Melbourne "
"The second review will not only have to
tackle issues including infrastructure development and economic growth.
It will also examine areas that happen to include marginal seats and
that should be the biggest test of the board's claims that it is truly
independent. Political interference could undermine effective reform.
The board had not even released its report when the Government made
it clear that it intended replacing the democratically elected councils
OUR MELTING POT IS BOILING OVER
from Sunday Herald-Sun (Melbourne), April 3rd - an article by David Hampson
All over the world, multiculturalism has failed. It hasn't worked in Canada, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Spain, India, South Africa, Somalia, Italy, Timor, Bosnia, Greece, Japan, Cyprus, Tibet, and especially America. "Of course, if anyone dares question multiculturalism, they are immediately shouted down as racists by some ethnic leaders. "Australia must be the only country in the world where migration policy is set by, and for, the migrants; not the host country. Anywhere else in the world, such antics would be laughed out of existence. "Imagine if the French were told to refer to themselves as Breton-Normans, just to appease their Algerian immigrants?
"Countries such as Holland and Italy have straightforward migration policies: bring them in when they're needed; send them back when they are not. "But it seems that Australians are such an easy going, good natured and tolerant lot, we just shrug and put up with it. You'd reckon a little thanks might be in order. "But no. The multicultural lobby denies Australia even has a unique culture. It insists on referring to us as Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Celts (meaningless terms, nearly as silly as calling the Swiss Austrian-Germans)
"The 'father' of multiculturalism in Australia,
the ethnic affairs adviser to both Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser,
Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, introduced the policy to Australia in 1973.
"Now he's woken up. Here's what he said two weeks ago:
"Professor Zubrzycki mentioned multiculturalism had degenerated into two factors: money and votes. And when such things enter any debate, lies and deceit automatically follow. "He said: 'We are doing harm by allowing politicians to use this system for their own electoral advantage and by promoting fragmentation. 'Both the Federal Government and the State ethnic affairs commissions advertise all kinds of grants that groups can apply for. I'm well aware of the fact that these grants are not always given to groups that need it, and they may be given grants in an open ended fashion.'
"So even the father of multiculturalism has reservations. If you reckon the sports rorts affair was dirty pool, you ain't seen nothing yet. "According to Stephen J. Rimmer's book The Cost of Multiculturalism, this policy of division costs Australia about $7 billion a year in infrastructure costs, grants, English language programs, etc. "Personally, I wouldn't buy a used car from a multiculturalist, much less a used country."
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|