|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|
30 August 1996. Thought for the Week: "Before Soviet Communism is allowed to slip quietly into the night, a full accounting is required of those who offered it political life support without which it might have died much more quickly. A non-judicial forum....should be held to indict those in the academic, financial, political, artistic and religious communities, past and present, who gave aid and comfort to Marxism-Leninism.
American columnist Col. Thomas in Washington Times, January 2nd, 1992
WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT PROFESSOR MANNING CLARK?
by Eric D. Butler
Australia's most celebrated poet, Les Murray, claims that he had observed Clark wearing the medal at a dinner with poet David Campbell in Canberra in 1970. He says, "Many thoughts went through my mind. How could a mediocrity like Manning have won one of those. That's a high order gong. Doesn't he know how much blood is on it...... What could he have done to be awarded one of those by a government which has been responsible for over 40 million deaths - mostly of its own people."
Murray's evidence is supported by a report of senior Australian National University lecturer Geoffrey Fairbairn before his death in 1980. Fairbairn was strongly anti-Communist and took a close interest in Soviet policies. While living in Australia, Vladimir Born, the former top Communist official from Czechoslovakia, told me that he regarded Geoffrey Fairbairn as one of the best-informed anti-Communists he had met in Australia.
Fairbairn claimed that he had seen Clark wearing his Soviet award at private "drinks" at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. According to Fairbairn, Professor Clark had phoned him and his friend David Campbell inviting them to meet him at the Embassy and to wear their military decorations. Fairbairn said that he was so shocked when he saw Clark wearing what he was certain was the Order of Lenin that he abruptly left the function. Understandably, Manning Clark's family have sprung to his defence, denying that he was a spy.
The Courier Mail article and others who have contributed to what has developed into a major controversy in the media, have not charged that Manning was a spy. Manning Clark's widow recalls Manning Clark having been presented with some type of a medal handed out to delegates to an international conference in Moscow to celebrate the 100th birthday of Lenin. The medal cannot now be found.
But the controversy concerning what type of a medal Clark received from the Soviet tends to obscure the fact that the Manning Clarks of the Western world, some of them spies, others agents of influence in influential sectors of the Western world, all helped to contribute to an erosion of the traditional Western value system. They were like a cancer eating away at the very foundations of the Western world. Large numbers of them were academics like Manning Clark, who clearly was pro-Communist.
The head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who investigated those involved in the Gouzenko Spy Trials in Canada, provided a graphic picture of the type of people involved. They did not fit a picture of criminal traitors. Most were academics or holding important government positions. They had one thing in common: They were intellectually arrogant; they knew better than the lesser educated. All were "internationalists".
In this week's Thought For The Week, a distinguished American columnist indicates the type of investigation into the Communist conspiracy, which might profit mankind. Such an investigation would not merely deal with the "useful idiots" (Manning Clark may well be listed as one of these), but with those who financed the Soviet initially and over the years provided the economic blood transfusions to ensure it did not collapse.
One of the major criticisms directed against the League has been its insistence that no realistic assessment of the Marxist-Leninist movement was possible without examining the role of International Finance. Such a suggestion was always described as "extreme" or, because influential Zionist Jews were involved, evidence of "anti-Semitism".
As the writer will be recording in his Memoirs, alarm bells started to ring around the world when, as an international Chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, the Crown Commonwealth League of Rights, presented a commissioned report on the financing of the Communist Conspiracy. The League was immediately refused the right to attend World Anti-Communist Conferences.
When the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn gave his New York "Legacy Of Terror" address, in which he charged that those in the West who were financing the Soviet Empire must be numbered amongst those responsible for the Soviet terror, he was subjected to a mounting wave of criticism. He had touched upon a verboten subject. And if there is to be a listing of the treacheries, which sustained the Soviet tyranny, mention must be made of those responsible in the West for sustaining the Soviet with massive economic aid during the Vietnam War.
It was the Manning Clarks who attempted to smear the League of Rights when it had published and distributed Dr. Antony Sutton's classic, National Suicide. Perhaps Phillip Adams and other exCommunists might care to come forward and to testify concerning these matters. Unfortunately the collectivist disease, which Manning Clark and similar academics helped to spread, still flourishes.
Top Communist officials still operate a "reformed" Russia. They are now called "Social Democrats". And they are sustained by the same Money Power, which first promoted and sustained Communism. These are all matters, which should be examined. But it is extremely unlikely that this will happen; it is much safer to concentrate upon the agents of treachery rather than its main promoters.
HOW THE 'RED NETWORK' AIDED THE MARXISTS
by David Thompson
Professor Manning Clark's son, Andrew, is presently editor of the mass-circulation Sydney Sunday tabloid, "The Sun-Herald". The Brisbane "Courier Mail" published the allegations concerning Clark senior's Order of Lenin on Saturday, August 24th. By Sunday, August 25th, Mr. Andrew Clark was able to publish a full op-ed-page indignant article in defence of his father. Such a facility is rarely, if ever, available to conservatives.
That bias of the press should exist is no accident of history, but that Australian taxpayers should be forced to subsidise it is outrageous. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is the classic example. It has been protected in much the same way as India's sacred cows. If any suggestion is made that the Government should move to force the ABC to account for bias, it is met with protests about press censorship by the State. As a result, the ABC has been free to continue to drip-feed poison into the bloodstream of the Australian body politic for many years.
Perhaps the best example is that of the foremost television current affairs programme of its day, This Day Tonight, now known as the 7.30 Report. This programme began in 1967, with Bill Peach as the programme host, and Peach's outlook on the issue was published in his book "This Day Tonight". He wrote that when the ABC management did attempt to exercise some control over biased programmes, those producing the proposed programmes simply lied about their content. The outright deceit of management was smugly justified as a clever defeat of press censorship.
ASSAULTING CONSERVATIVE VALUES
Media guru Stuart Littlemore also published a revealing memoir, "The Media and Me", in which he acknowledges that a serious problem for This Day Tonight was the advent of the Whitlam Government. In his "Sunday Telegraph" column (28/7/96) Piers Ackerman quotes Littlemore:
"The problem was that TDT had built its
success on assaulting the conservative values post-war Australia.
Values that rationalised white Australia, our lickspittle
subservience to America in Vietnam, and our cultural prejudices,
and permitted ordinary decent Australians to tolerate discrimination
against Aboriginal people and migrants.
Peach and Littlemore were obviously not alone in the ABC, or in the press as a whole. No wonder the left-wing icons, such as Manning Clark, were able to influence an entire generation of Australians so heavily. If Clark did not receive the Order of Lenin, as his son maintains, then perhaps it should have gone to the Littlemores and the Peachs in newspapers or broadcasters like the Red Network. Perhaps this is the kind of bias and deliberate distortion that Mr. Bob Mansfield should be examining when his enquiry into the ABC gets under way.
THE MOB ATTACK ON PARLIAMENT
The riot that took place at Parliament House in Canberra last week was clearly provoked by hard-line union and Aboriginal organisers. Press photographs and television footage showed many Aboriginal "flag" motifs, and a number of other badges, like that of Greenpeace. A key union organiser for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union even managed to force his way onto the stage where A.C.T.U. leaders were addressing the 30,000 strong crowd of protesters, to inform them of the riot and mass break-in into the Parliament.
This bloodstained orator, Mr. David
Thomason, first acknowledged that they all stood on "Aboriginal
land", and then expressed outraged indignation that when 100
of the protesters broke into the Parliament, police were forced
to deal with them. A.C.T.U. President, Mr. Bill Kelty who
addressed the protesters, might well have cause to remember
his most provocative contribution to the election campaign
only a few months ago, in which he promised "industrial war"
if the Coalition was elected. Such a threat embarrassed even
the A.L.P., but now that such scenes have occurred, will Kelty
be accepting some of the responsibility?
Ms. Jenny George also incited the protesters. But in general terms, each individual is personally responsible for their behaviour. Ms. George did not instruct the rioters to attack the Parliament. Those who did attack the Parliament, and those who encouraged them, should be held responsible for the result.
Individual freedom carries personal responsibility with it. It is instructive to draw a comparison between the Parliament House demonstration and the many shooting rallies around the nation in the last few months. There was not a single instance of irresponsible behaviour at the huge shooting rallies, let alone destruction of property, police hospitalised and demonstrators arrested and injured. If the anti-gun crusaders indulge in idle speculation about whether some passionate letter-writer to the letters page of a newspaper should be permitted to hold a firearms licence, perhaps shooters might ask whether unionists should be permitted to hold firearms licences? If this is how they behave, should unionists be permitted to demonstrate at all? Should all unionists be punished for the actions of perhaps two hundred "extremists" at Parliament House?. Should all shooters be punished for the actions of one man at Port Arthur?
BOB HAWKES' LEGACY
Bureau of Statistics figures for last year show that New Zealand became the source of our greatest number of immigrants for the first time. This is the first time that Britain has not been the greatest source of Australian immigrants for 20 years. The source of the third greatest number of migrants was Communist China, with only 20 less than from Britain. This is a threefold increase in Chinese immigration over the previous year. How can this be?
The Bureau of Statistics report explains the leap in Chinese immigrants: "Two-thirds of the Chinese migrants came under the family migration system sponsored by the Chinese students given resident status after the Tienanmen Square massacre in 1989." Many Australians can remember Prime Minister Bob Hawke in a tearful television appearance, guaranteeing that the Chinese students would not be forced to return to China, where they allegedly could face significant persecution for supporting the pro-democracy movement in China. There was little evidence published that the Chinese students in Australia actively supported the pro-democracy movement. This is another of Hawke's follies that have turned out to be easy to commit, but difficult to reverse.
When Coalition Immigration Minister Ruddock announced that the family reunion programme was to be cut (slightly) the outrage from the ethnic industry was perhaps enough to dissuade Ruddock from pressing the issue further.
A CONSITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH
Several supporters have asked for information concerning a document being circulated called "A Constitution for the Federation of Earth." As its name suggests, this is a proposal for an international "parliament" to govern the globe. Our research so far suggests that this is a private document, and although it is available for nations to sign, like a foreign treaty, none have yet done so to our knowledge. The Commonwealth Minister for Finance, Mr. John Fahey, advises that enquiries he has made indicate that this "constitution" "has no status with the United Nations, (and) carries no official weight or intent with the Australian Government's."
We quote from our copy of the "constitution" concerning its background": "The Constitution for the Federation of Earth was originally ratified at the second session of the World Constituent Assembly held at Innsbruck, Austria, in June 1977; and was amended and ratified at the fourth session of the World Constituent Assembly held at Troia, Portugal, in May 1991.
The Amended Constitution is being personally ratified by outstanding personalities throughout the world as the campaign for ratification by the people and governments of the world gets under way." Signatories are mainly from third world countries, although a significant number also appear from the U.S.A. - mainly private individuals of whom we have no knowledge. Four signatories appear from Australia. Ronald Liechman and Rose I. Chesney signed at a 1977 conference, while Douglas Nixon Everingham signed in Portugal in 1991, and Mr. Rod Welford M.L.A. is also a signatory. In our view, this "constitution" is a "motherhood" document, which makes the small "1" liberal feel warm and fuzzy, another one of those "good causes" which those with more money than sense can support in the mistaken belief that they are furthering "world peace".
If it was available for signing at the Atlanta Olympic Games closing ceremony, no doubt many thousands of signatures could have been obtained. But there are also dangerous and committed minds behind this document. The proposals have not been entirely cobbled together by an idealistic dreamer; they appear in one guise or another among such groups as the Fabian Society, the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateralists.
It is with documents such as this that serious attempts at world government could be expected to begin. Other signatories include people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Lord Donald Soper and Anthony Wedgwood Benn of the United Kingdom. Many academics from countries like France, Switzerland, Norway, Poland, Russia, India, U.S.A., India, Zambia, etc., appear. As further significant information on this issue comes to hand we shall continue to publish it.
"INTELLIGENCE SURVEY" ON CRIME AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY GUNS
The August edition of "Intelligence Survey" carries an article concerning authoritative research on firearms. The following is an edited version.
According to research that will dismay anti-gun campaigners in Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., a properly conducted study shows that allowing people to carry concealed firearms helps to reduce violence. The comprehensive study by the University of Chicago found that major crimes such as murder, rape and assault fell dramatically in States where the carrying of concealed handguns has been legalised. The results of the research will eventually have an impact in Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as other States in the U.S., where already 31 States have "concealed carry" laws.
Experience m the United States especially shows that the right to carry concealed firearms deters criminals because they never know if they will face the muzzle of a gun when committing a crime involving another person. The report, released last week in the United States, for the first time analyses crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992. In States where it is now legal to carry handguns, murders were down on average by 9.5 percent. Rapes were 6 percent lower, and serious assaults 7 percent lower.
Gun control campaigners have long insisted that the right to carry concealed handguns increases accidental and impulsive shootings. But Professor John Lott, the author of the study, was quoted by The Guardian (U.K., 3/8/96) as saying that he found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides. "Total deaths unambiguously fell by a large amount, "he told The Guardian. "If people are interested in saving lives, they are going to have to allow people to carry concealed handguns."
According to The Guardian, other studies have differed on the impact of such legislation. One study of five cities last year found the murder rate increased in three, and fell in only one. But Professor Lott insists his is the first to examine crime figures across the country - adjusted to take into account a general fall in crime. In cities with populations above 250,000, Professor Lott found murder rates dropped after the law was changed by an average of 13.5 percent. The most dramatic falls in murder rates came in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high. "For every woman that carries a concealed handgun, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would if another man had carried a concealed handgun."
Professor Loft said the fall in crime did not result from people using guns, but from potential criminals trying to avoid confronting them. Property crimes, such as car theft and stealing, increased in States with the law, apparently because criminals switched to lower-risk offences.
The United States research indicates that Prime Minister John Howard's approach to firearms regulation is not realistic, if he is serious about attempting to make Australia a safer country. If Australia continues to become a more violent society, more attention should be paid to the experiences of the United States.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|