|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|OnTarget Archives||Newtimes Survey||Podcast Library||Video Library||PDF Library|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Library|
26 April 1996. Thought for the Week: "Zionism is a hard headed political creed which proposes to subject America's Jews to the sovereignty of Israel."
Dr. Alfred Lilienthal in What Price Israel?
ZIONISM AND TERRORISM
by Eric D. Butler
One of the earliest Jewish opponents
of Zionism described it as the most "stupendous fallacy" in
human history. One of the U.S.A's. most distinguished Jewish
authorities on the Middle East, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, started
warning of the far-reaching implications of the establishment
of the State of Israel starting with an article in The
Readers Digest in 1949, "Israels Flag Is Not Mine". This
was followed by his first major work, What Price Israel
What is happening in Lebanon today is but part of an ongoing saga of violence and terrorism, innocent civilians generally being the victims. Terrorist activities, which affect civilians, whether carried out by the I.R.A. or any other group, are completely unacceptable in a civilised society. A Zionist-Jewish dominated Hollywood has managed to create a picture of Islamic extremists being the main perpetrators of terrorism in the Middle East. This picture is badly flawed because it does not point out that terrorism as a political weapon was first introduced into the Middle East by Zionist terrorists.
Until the artificial State of Israel had been established, Arabs, many of them Christians, and Jews had lived together in relative harmony for centuries. They were "blood brothers", to use the title of one moving book on the history of the Middle East. The creation of the State of Israel was like injecting a poisoned thorn into the Middle East. The poison continues to spread.
No one is seriously suggesting that the Israelis deliberately bombed the U.N. refugee camp in Southern Lebanon, this resulting in a major propaganda defeat for Israel. But as with the last major invasion of Lebanon by Israel, civilian targets have been constantly hit by Israeli forces, using sophisticated military equipment made available in the main by the U.S.A.
Generally forgotten is that when forced to retreat from Lebanon in 1985, it refused, however, to withdraw from the self-described "security zone" in defiance of U.N. resolution 425. It was the establishment of this zone, which gave Islamic Hezbollah legitimacy. But the Israelis treat the U.N. with contempt, knowing that their main power base is the United States where President Bill Clinton must walk carefully and not upset the Zionist Jewish lobby, whose support he requires to gain re-election.
An Australian, David Forde, who spent three six-month tours with the U.N. in Southern Lebanon, writes of his experiences in a letter to The Weekend Australian of April 20th-21st. He describes the constant unprovoked attacks against civilian citizens by the Israeli forces. He concludes his letter by observing, ="As long as America blindly supports Israel and controls the U.N., nothing will change."
Like Clinton, Israeli President Peres
is facing an election, which at one stage the polls indicated
he might lose. Reports state that his popularity rating increased
substantially after he launched his massive attack into Lebanon,
one argument being that this offensive was designed to extend
the "Peace" campaign, and to bring Syria to the negotiating
A number of U.N. observers have, over the years, written about their experiences with Israel, which has, in accordance with its "Chosen Race" philosophy, consistently taken the view that it is a law unto itself. But it can only continue to take that attitude while backed by an international Zionist-Jewish movement with enormous influence in Western countries, including Australia.
The first essential step necessary for a genuine peace process to start developing in the Middle East, is for Western nations in particular, to apply enough pressure, including, if necessary, sanctions, to force Israel to negotiate a direct agreement with the government of Lebanon to withdraw completely from Southern Lebanon in return for secure borders. Unless this happens genuine peace in the Middle East is impossible.
WHY NOT SCRAP ATSIC ALTOGETHER?
by David Thompson
Mudrooroo, an award-winning author, questioned
the Keating administration's indigenous funding programme,
claiming that there was too much emphasis on Aboriginal affairs.
"Too much publicised money was going into Aboriginal affairs
- which meant it went into the bureaucracy, "he said. "You
can't have something like A.T.S.I.C. has become. It has been
ineffective. Only 3% of Aboriginal people voted for it in
the first place, so why try to save something we never wanted
anyway?" (The Australian 19/4/96).
The key to the present problem with accountability and Aboriginal representation is a matter of policy. Since World War II there has never been a time when Aboriginal people have not enjoyed the strong sympathy of other Australians because of poor living conditions, education, employment opportunities, etc. The policy of assimilation was designed to assist Aborigines and part-Aborigines into the western, European, Christian mainstream, in order to better enjoy the benefits of that culture. Some programmes, like that of taking Aboriginal children from their parents, and raising them in a European environment, have now been rejected as cruel. As a result, the policy of assimilation itself was rejected.
POLICY OF 'SELF-DETERMINATION'
When the Aboriginal "industry", under
the influence of the Marxists, as Geoff McDonald documented
in his books, "Red Over Black" and "The Evidence",
began to demand a new approach, the Commonwealth virtually
adopted the Marxist programme. The first thing to change was
Aboriginal Policy. Instead of being one in which Aborigines
and part-Aborigines could become a part of the wider Australian
culture, and enjoy its benefits, as many clearly desired,
a policy of self determination was adopted.
As an expression of self-determination the Aboriginal industry has successfully made many heavy demands. In the 1970's, the first "black parliament", the National Aboriginal Conference (N.A.C.), was created and elected by Aboriginal people. Other demands have been pursued, such as land claims legislation, a Makarrata treaty, and native title, all of which clearly point to the eventual objective of a separate black nation.
A.T.S.I.C. has never been representative of Aboriginal people. The 1993 election of A.T.S.I.C. councillors was little more than a charade. Of an estimated 147,500 eligible voters, less than 46,000 voted, of which 6,000 were rejected and 2,000 declared informal. In one region in the Northern Territory, four councillors were elected by only 10 formal votes. In three other regions, only about 4,200 votes elected a total of 54 A.T.S.I.C. councillors. For the entire process, it took about six weeks to count the votes, with some farcical delays. In Deniliquin it took 41 days to count just 66 votes.
As a general result of the policy of "self determination" the perception has grown that non-Aboriginal Australians have financed a process in which only "Aborigines" can say how the funds are spent, and accountability for the expenditure is regarded as almost a "racist" requirement. A recent survey, "A New Beginning: Community Attitudes Towards Aboriginal Reconciliation" prepared for the Council of Aboriginal Reconciliation, has reported "huge resentment" towards the extent of Government funding.
It is a common view that Aborigines received favoured treatment, and that much of the assistance provided by other Australians is, at best, wasted, and at worst, used destructively. This is an inevitable result of the policy of self-determination. The only reasonable alternative to further alienation between "Aborigines" and other Australians is to abandon self-determination. Australia is one nation. Any attempt to create separate "tribes" within it is a recipe for disaster.
GOLDSMITH'S 'REFERENDUM PARTY' CHALLENGES TORIES
The international billionaire, Sir James
Goldsmith, has followed up his threat last year to challenge
the Tories on their European policy. Goldsmith, the strength
behind the founding of the Referendum Party in Britain, has
announced that he will field 600 candidates in the forthcoming
British general election. The campaign budget will begin at
20 million pounds and "whatever it takes" has been pledged
by Sir James.
In an interview with The Times,
Goldsmith urged that a Speaker's conference be convened to
decide the wording of a referendum, saying: "We are trying
to obtain the right to a referendum. It is inappropriate to
determine what the exact terms should be." Prime Minister
John Major has promised a referendum on Europe after the election
if Cabinet agrees to British participation in a single European
Sir James Goldsmith has offered the Tories a choice: either go into the next election with a firm pledge to hold a referendum, with the referendum question already spelt out, or face a massive challenge from the new Referendum Party as well as the other parties. Goldsmith has announced that if Major sets up the Speaker's conference, and commits himself to a satisfactory referendum question, he would wind up the Referendum Party. "If he does not, we will not dissolve and we will fight our heads off" said Goldsmith.
Already the Referendum Party has poached several key Conservative Party staff to help run their anti-Europe campaign, which enjoys strong sympathy inside Mr. Major's Conservative Party. The Referendum Party will be launched in Brighton in October, with a long list of high profile British figures prepared to stand as candidates against the European Union. Some are former Conservatives.
Sir James is believed to be interested in running for Putney himself, Mr. David Mellor's seat. Mellor is strongly pro-European. Goldsmith, who regards the Government's White Paper on Europe as an act of appeasement, said, "The Prime Minister has tried to appease the Eurosceptics and the Europhiliacs by producing a pseudo-referendum pledge subject to winning the election. It satisfies no one."
NATIONAL PARTY IGNORES GRASSROOTS
Mr. Bill McGrath, Deputy Leader of the Victorian National Party, has further demonstrated why the Party is in decline in Victoria. In an address to 400 delegates at the State conference last week, Mr. McGrath rebuked delegates for belittling senior Party figures during the last election campaign. He accused some members of giving the press fuel, by claiming that support in seats contested by some of the Party leaders was declining. This sounds a note of desperation, as the Victorian State election clearly demonstrated one thing: the National Party is in decline.
In McGrath's own seat, he suffered a
swing against him in the order of 14%. Rather than blaming
the grassroots, Mr. McGrath might look to the Party's policy
position. Could it be that Victorian rural people are disgusted
with a National Party that tamely tags along with even the
most outrageous Liberal Party "reforms"? Like the devastation
of local government, for example? Or the "privatisation" of
utilities, like the power stations? Or the closing down of
schools and hospitals - many of them in country areas?
One issue that left delegates distinctly
unimpressed was the Kennett proposal to decriminalise marijuana.
After heated debate, only a handful of delegates voted against
a motion opposing "the legalisation of heroin and other illicit
drugs". Mr. McGrath is Victoria's Minister for Police, who
are strongly opposed to decriminalising marijuana, saying
it would "open up a minefield" of drug abuse. The South Australian
police are also very concerned. They share a border with Victoria.
Victorian police would rather increased powers to permit them
to deal with the drug trade, particularly dealers.
FAIRFAX PRESS - BATTLE FOR CONTROL
Last week's corporate struggle within the newspaper company John Fairfax Holdings resulted in the sacking of the chief executive, Mr. Bob Mansfield. This was achieved apparently at the behest of Mr. Conrad Black, the Canadian media entrepreneur who owns nearly 25% of Fairfax. Mr. Black has been asking the Australian Government to permit him to increase his holdings in Fairfax to 35%, which is presently prevented by law.
Why was Mansfield sacked? It is almost impossible for outsiders to tell what sort of executive he was, but newspaper reports describe him variously as "independent-minded", "a dangerous man" who "can't be bought, doesn't care about job security, he is a man of independent mind ..." Not only that, but Mr. Mansfield apparently refused to defer to Conrad Black, and his board nominee, Dan Colson, preferring to use his own judgment instead.
If such struggles take place at management level, what happens at editorial level? Are editors of the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age really independent? Perhaps Mr. Jeff Kennett is correct for once, when he observes that "Here you have a situation where this group ... is being dictated from overseas ... "
Why does Conrad Black need an additional 10% of Fairfax stock? To give him control of Fairfax? Mansfield's sacking demonstrates that Black already has plenty of control. He needs the additional stock to fight off Mr. Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch in any imminent takeover bid. This "Australian" company is heavily involved in helping to form the opinions of Australians every day. At least that influence could come from Australians, rather than trans-global profiteers. What is the purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Board, anyway?
SOME GOOD NEWS FROM THE BATTLE FRONT
It is too early to start cheering and throwing hats into the air, but there are signs that what Malcolm Muggeridge called "the great liberal death wish", is starting to look less menacing. One of the best known liberals of our times, columnist and radio and T.V. commentator, Phillip Adams, openly admitted at his recent Canberra Press Club appearance that he was "shattered' by the Federal election results, not primarily because he had been a firm Labor Party supporter, but because of the emergence of what he felt that he and his fellow liberals had buried forever - racism.
In a Weekend Australian column on the same subject, Phillip Adams could hardly hide his grief concerning what had happened. One got the impression that while the Katter affair was a shock, it was the Pauline Hanson election, which really shook him. It was difficult to argue with the fact that here was a previously endorsed Liberal candidate, given no hope of winning Bill Hayden's old electorate, Oxley, recording a stunning electoral victory. How could an electorate like Oxley bring itself to do this to Phillip Adams and his fellow liberals!
Having bared his deep anguish, the best that Adams could offer was that there was a big task ahead, "re-educating" Australians who clearly, deep down, were heavily infected with the "racist" disease. But Philip Adams and his fellow liberals must be noticing that the climate is beginning to change. There is a sprinkling of comment from journalists boldly stating that perhaps the days of being "politically correct" are over.
One sign of the times is that the Melbourne Herald-Sun has invited former Melbourne Age conservative and commonsense columnist Michael Barnard to contribute a weekly column. In his latest piece, Barnard says that the recent flapping of wings and some squawking was a sign of the "racist" chickens coming home to roost. Barnard left The Age because his conservative style did not suit the liberals dominating that daily. Barnard had been politically incorrect over many years, even standing up for the embattled Rhodesia before it was handed over to the Communist Mugabe. He had even dared to disagree with the Zionist-Jewish lobby about the alleged necessity to hold war-crime trials. Hopefully his return to journalism is really a sign of the times.
And the liberals have been dealt some body blows by former Labor leader and Governor General Bill Hayden. The liberals must be starting to realise that perhaps the "racist" and other worms have started to turn and that there is likely to be some more open and robust discussion on issues, which the liberals said, were verboten.
Perhaps it is only a political gesture, but the new Minister for Immigration Phillip Ruddock has let it be known that he would appreciate community input concerning immigration and associated matters. All League actionists should take Mr. Ruddock at his word and write to him at Canberra, first saying it is pleasing that welfare payments to some new migrants will be withheld for two years. Then other points can be made.
MICK YOUNG'S REFORMSThe following letter appeared in The Australian (18/4/96). Dr. Amy McGrath has studied electoral fraud for a number of years, and addressed the 1996 Inverell Forum on the issue:
"In his eulogy to Mick Young last Friday, Kim Beazley was reported as saying that Mr. Young 'had reformed the Electoral Act to make it safe for democracy'. Democracy, like beauty, may be said to exist in the eye of the beholder. Not all agree that these sweeping 'Mick Young amendments' were more democratic by becoming 'user-friendly'; rather, they were less so by becoming abuser-friendly.
"Outspoken critics of the 'reformed' electoral system were many and various after the controversial 1987 federal election: a fact which provoked the Greiner government in N.S.W into appointing the past and present Electoral Commissioners of N.S.W, R. Cundy and I. Dickson, to conduct a commission of inquiry. They reported in 1989 that the system was 'wide open to fraud and manipulation'. If so, how safe is our democracy?"
Amy McGrath, Kensington, N.S.W.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|