|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
11 April 1997. Thought for the Week: "There may have been a time when all the members (of Parliament) responded to the cut and thrust of debate before deciding how to cast your vote. But that was a few hundred years ago. Now you vote the party line which is decided outside the parliament, so the debate is not relevant, most of the speeches are just hot air"
Former Victorian Labor Minister of Police and Transport, Steve Crabb, in the Sun-Herald, Melbourne, April 3rd, 1997
THE ZIONIST FACTOR IN AN UNSTABLE WORLD
by Eric D. Butler
Anyone who takes the trouble to read the international Zionist Jewish press is well aware that there are disagreements between different sections of the Jewish people. This has been the case since the Zionist influence on global politics emerged during the First World War. It was a prominent American Jewish leader who attacked Zionism as "the most stupendous fallacy in history". The Zionist factor in modern history has been generally misunderstood.
No realistic assessment of the current
international situation is possible without consideration
of the fact that the U.S. Clinton Administration is the most
Jewish dominated in history. This fact is openly admitted
by the Zionist Jewish media. Anyone doubting this statement
might care to consider a report featured in The Washington
Times of February 28th, 1994. Headlined, TOO-MANY-JEWS-POLICY
TRIGGERS PROTEST, the report states
The Washington Times report said, "Several senior State Department officials involved in Middle East policy are Jewish men. The two top officials in the National Security Council are also Jewish." The reports continues, "Mr. Gilman wrote the letter just weeks after Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright disclosed she had learned that while she was brought up Catholic and then became Episcopalian, her Czechoslovak parents were originally Jewish." The Washington Times is Jewish controlled and never ceases to take a pro-Zionist stance.
It is inconceivable that Clinton's masters are going to agree to any Middle East policy, which does not further Zionist long-term objectives. One of the early Zionists said, that the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel was but "a peg" on which to hang a "far-reaching" programme. That programme has been masked by a number of confusing and often conflicting concepts about the meaning of Zionism.
There has been the romantic concept of the Jewish peoples of the world returning to their "homeland". But events have demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of the Jews of the world have no intention of moving to Israel to live. Large numbers of Christians have accepted the establishment of Zionist Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, obviously completely unaware that the great majority of today's Jews are of non-Semitic origins. This has been documented beyond all argument in works like The Thirteenth Tribe by famous Jewish author Arthur Koestler, and also dealt with in Dr. Alfred Lilienthal's classic The Zionist Connection.
If President Clinton were a genuinely independent President, he would have little difficulty in dealing with the Middle East threat to the whole world. But he is not independent. He is not even independent of the Chinese problem, which the Zionists can be relied upon to attempt to exploit. The Arabs themselves are little more than pawns, even if unconscious pawns, in a global scenario. Once again the question of the remarkable Saddam Hussein is being discussed. Why was he allowed to survive at the time of the Gulf War? The answer is simple: he was essential to prevent the destabilisation of the whole of the Middle East. He is a convenient whipping boy, as witnessed by Clinton's pre-election military strike against Iraq.
Now comes the news that Israel is co-operating militarily with Iran. After visiting the Middle East, National Party leader Tom Fischer was unwise enough to criticise what he saw as Israel's aggression against Lebanon. There was a period when Fischer was regarded with some suspicion by the Zionist hierarchy in Australia. But according to recent reports, Fischer has been forgiven by Isi Leibler and other Zionist leaders.
The almost uncanny influence of the Zionists on politicians of all persuasions is one of the most disturbing features of modern history. One thing is certain: as the world drama unfolds, no one can ignore the power and influence of the Zionist factor. Those politicians who have dared to attempt to stand against the Zionist factor have been brutally smeared. A study of the Zionist factor as it operates reveals the influence of a power, which can only be described as evil, an evil that unless countered, will also engulf the rank and file of the Jewish people.
"RIGHTS" INSTITUTIONALISE INSANITY
by David Thompson
Once "discrimination" was outlawed in principle, it naturally followed that governments of every stripe must eventually begin to change laws or make new ones to accommodate new standards. Those who break the new laws must be punished, and the victims compensated. Which brings us to the incredible case of one Christopher Tsakalos. Fourteen-year-old Sydney schoolboy Tsakalos is to sue the N.S.W. Department of School Education and 50 schoolchildren for victimisation on the basis of his sexual preference, having declared himself a homosexual. The Department, it is alleged, failed to provide a secure environment in which he could attend school. Tsakalos has the full support of his mother and the Gay and Lesbian Teachers and Students Association, and presumably the bevy of boards, committees and commissions, which investigate "discrimination" of all kinds.
Tsakalos is reputed to be claiming $200,000 and is quoted as saying that it should help him buy a Mercedes-Benz convertible. But his homosexual supporters deny that he is milking the system, and that he should be compensated for "pain and suffering" as well as for loss of future earnings - "he has missed a lot of school because of what has happened". His father (separated from his mother) is reported as being dubious of his son's claim to homosexuality.
The N.S.W. Teachers' Federation, although strongly dominated by the political left, is apparently outraged by the threat of legal action, and claims that "education" is the answer to "homophobia", not litigation. The term "homophobia" itself is an addition to the new language that has sprung up alongside the new "rights", and is purported to mean a morbid, unnatural fear of "gay" people. (Even recent computer dictionaries do not recognise it.) This in itself is almost the essence of insanity; what could be more sane than schoolchildren vigorously rejecting one of the most unnatural acts man could devise - sodomy?
If such cases as that of Tsakalos are successful (which is only now a matter of time) where can the insanity end? Will fat schoolboys sue their classmates for teasing them? What about children who wear glasses, suffer from acne, speak with a stutter, or suffer from dyslexia? Teasing them is sheer discrimination! Off to the courts! Sue for damages!
In the wider community there can be no limits placed upon "discrimination". Marriage of homosexuals would appear merely a matter of time, and the use of sperm banks for lesbians permitted. What about incestuous relationships, or marriages of more than two people? Insane? Yes, it is, but such relationships already receive official sanction in Spain, although as yet only at local government level. The northern Spanish town of Cambre recognises "love triangles" and incestuous relationships, and offers them the same legal rights as conventional marriages.
How did Australia begin upon a path
of such lunacy? Surely it was just an accident, we didn't
realise what we were letting ourselves in for? Not at all.
The Fabians and others have long realised that the erosion
of social standards, and the legitimising of deviant behaviour
has a devastating long-term effect. Much of the momentum for
this assault has come via the United Nations, but not only
through new treaties and conventions, like the Convention
to Eliminate all Discrimination Against Women, for example.
The attack has many prongs, and includes bodies like U.N.E.S.C.O.,
which has undermined education systems. It eventually surfaces
in almost outlandish areas, such as the "rights" of "indigenous"
people to claim land.
The only possible answer to the steady decline into institutionalised insanity is a return to the underlying standards that produced the social structure in the first place. Whether we are enthusiastic about it or not, the fact is that the West was a response to Christian teaching and the application of that teaching to all aspects of life. Christians, even more than others (even more than churches), have a responsibility to speak up in the face of mounting insanity. The application of the Christian faith is the only answer to the eventual obliteration of the West.
MR. HOWARD'S NEW ADVISER
The Prime Minister's appointment of a new adviser on "women's affairs" casts an unwelcome meaning to the office of women's affairs. Have selected A.B.C. radio host Ms. Pru Goward to the office, Mr. Howard must surely accept some responsibility for offending other women who strongly reject some of Goward's more outrageous suggestions. For example, she apparently advocates that if their wives are unavailable to meet their sexual needs, that husbands should feel free to visit brothels instead.
Having campaigned on issues such as the importance of the family, Mr. Howard has some explaining to do if Ms. Goward is retained in her new post as an adviser on women's affairs. Is adultery acceptable advice? Why does Mr. Howard need an adviser on women's affairs at all? Does he have an adviser on men's affairs, or children's affairs, or the affairs of convicted racists? Why not? If Mr. Howard wants advice concerning women, perhaps he should do what any sensible man does first - ask his wife. In his case, he appears to have an eminently sensible wife, offering exemplary standards of behaviour, and having provided a sound environment for a young family as a full-time mother and wife. Not all families enjoy such an opportunity for many reasons, chiefly financial.
Why Mr. Howard, who does enjoy such benefits, needs to waste untold thousands of taxpayers' dollars on immoral advice from Ms. Goward when he could just as easily ask his wife is a mystery.
Mr. Bill Peach, one of those journalists who blatantly boasts that he and his fellows used the A.B.C. as a battering ram to demolish traditional Australia, exults in the new multicultural milieu. In his Sun-Herald column (30/3/97) Peach writes: "Can anyone watch The Food-Lovers Guide to Australia (on S.B.S.) with its terrific dishes from a whole world of cuisine and still doubt the benefits of multicultural immigration to Australia?"
Although almost completely illogical, this appears to be the main (certainly most frequent) argument advanced in favour of multiculturalism. It is illogical because Peach apparently assumes that the benefits of say, Chinese food justifies the present large-scale Asian immigration. It also assumes that groups like, say, the Germans who established the wine industry in the Barossa Valley, have deliberately set out to remain German, which is not false, but an insult to the vast majority of Germans who became Australians first, and have not insisted that we honour their German origins as they do themselves.
Perhaps those who live in Victoria may differ from Peach at present, where at least three outbreaks of salmonella poisoning could have been attributed to "multiculturalism". In fact, in one case an Asian owner of a hot bread outlet who was found to have made over 100 people ill with a type of food poisoning, accused food inspectors of "racism".
The truth is that different cultures hold different standards on different matters, and it appears that the standards of culinary hygiene of some of our more recent immigrants are certainly "different". If Mr. Peach wants to partake of such differences, we suggest that he travel widely, rather than inflict them upon the rest of us.
LA ROUCHE MISLEADSIn spite of our warnings over the years concerning the activities of the American-based La Rouche movement, operating in Australia through the "Citizens' Electoral Council" which publishes The New Citizen, we continue to come across sad cases of sincere people who have been pressured on the telephone to donate thousands of dollars to a movement which claims it is the only movement which can save Australia. Like all such movements, some of what they say or write is correct. But much is dangerous rubbish. The Royal Family is constantly alleged to be behind the international drug problem, while the Republican cause is constantly advocated. It is not without significance that the La Rouche movement constantly targets conservative movements. Whatever the motive, the effect is one of tending to neutralize the genuinely conservative cause.
MASSIVE VICTORIAN LAND CLAIMSThe Kirnai people of Victoria are expected to lodge a Native Title claim to about one fifth of Victoria, which includes four national parks and the Mt. Hotham ski resort. The claim is reported to be based on 18,000 years of continuous occupation of East Gippsland, and could give Aboriginal groups control over substantial parts of the Victorian timber industry and the tourism industry. No evidence has yet been tendered to substantiate 18,000 years of continuous occupation, which would be extremely interesting. If such evidence could be demanded and properly examined, it may actually undermine the Native Title claim, because whenever it has been possible to examine such claims, doubts arise about the "fact" that the ancestors of present-day Aborigines were actually the original inhabitants of Australia.
We recommend the book "Savage Frontier", $34.00 posted.
YET ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL TREATY
The Commonwealth is considering another international treaty, which could potentially have a substantial economic impact on Australia, as well as the diminution of Australian sovereignty. The Kyoto climate change protocol will be under consideration in Japan later this year, and Australian industry groups regard the treaty as a threat. This treaty will call for limits to greenhouse gas emissions in member nations, and Australia has called for the limits to be expressed as specific targets for each individual nation. Who would set the targets is not yet clear.
Although green groups have been scathing about the industry response, the Business Council of Australia is asking the Australian Government to conduct a treaty impact analysis prior to signing the protocol. "The convention could end up with a series of timetables, targets, objectives and indicators, and we want the government to step back and analyse its effect on Australia before signing on," said B.C.A. director Tony Beck.
As yet, there is little hard evidence of which we are aware that demonstrates that climate change can be attributable to man's industrial activity. The main question for Australians is whether, having agreed to accept a lowered standard of living to meet greenhouse targets, such targets would arrest global warming. Further, there appears to be no question whatever of asking voters whether they regard global warming as a good thing or as a bad thing. But global governance of the type represented with such things as climate change protocols, etc., obviously pays little attention to the wishes of the great unwashed. What would we know? We certainly couldn't be trusted to decide what was good for us!
FROM THE PRESS
From Weekend Australian, 5/4/97
Adultery not acceptable - Herald-Sun,
Racist tag confuses food debate - Herald-Sun,
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|