|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
22 August 2003. Thought for the Week: Mammon: "Wages, therefore, must be kept down to the lowest possible level. It is the price of bread which, everywhere in Europe, determines this lowest possible level. Cheaper bread means lower wages. When the Money power demanded the Repeal of the Corn Laws and the introduction of a system of free imports it was demanding, in fact, a general reduction of wages, or rather, since wages had already in many cases been forced down below reasonable subsistence level, a higher standard of nourishment - and therefore of working power - for the same wages. The chief obstacle to repeal was the existing House of Commons in which the interests of agriculture were prominent. The Money power, therefore, began to agitate vigorously for Parliamentary Reform and to subsidize the 'Radicals'."
"Monarchy or Money Power," by R. McNair Wilson 1933.
CRUMBLING FAITH IN THE GLOBALIST NEW WORLD ORDER
by Jeremy Lee
Professor Toynbee's now famous statement about internationalism, "and all the time we're denying with our lips what we're doing with our hands" summed up the sheer dishonesty of the dialectic approach. Which was not to say there was no recognition of the need for inter-nation discussion and consultation. But the right of nations to 'contract out" of policies they disagreed with was a tacit part of the libertarian approach with seemed part of the conservative position. This appeared to be reinforced by the UN Charter, which forbade interference in members' internal affairs.
Nobody takes that seriously any more. All that has gone. When it comes to globalism there is no difference between John Howard and Paul Keating. Our Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been fairly derogatory about the ideal of national sovereignty - even though his oath of office was to that ideal, and the constitution under which he was appointed unabashedly national in nature.
It was at its 1962 Conference in Oslo
that the Socialist International - originally founded by Marx
- declared its intentions
The Fabian ideologues in the Labor Party have never deviated in their pursuit of this objective. This, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister and the first Gulf War was proposed, the Labor Party pulled its 'anti-American' elements into line. Paul Kelly, writing in The Weekend Australian (Dec 8-9, 1990) spelled it out clearly: His heading was WHY LABOR WOULD GO TO WAR FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
He said: "This week the Labor Party's left wing, renowned for decades for being anti-American, isolationist and pacifist, gave its authorization to a war, if necessary, spearheaded by the United States . Such a move, just six months ago, would have been inconceivable . During the left-wing's soul-searching .the best speech came from Victorian back-bencher Andrew Theophanous . "A new world order is emerging, as is shown by the unprecedented resolution 678 of the United Nations Security Council . When a situation arises in which the UN has gained a tremendous boost in its power, in its prestige, in its authority, and is able to carry resolutions and concrete actions as a result of those resolutions, then people who describe themselves as leftist or socialist should not be concerned about it, but should welcome such developments because the increase in the powers of the UN is a very significant development. It is something which the ALP has been committed to for many, many years - ever since the time of Dr Evatt ."
Whatever else is said about such a Labor position, they were at least true to their ideals, as expressed through the Socialist International, - and said so. But when did the Liberals and Nationals take up the socialist agenda, while managing never to spell it out to their supporters in their policies and to voters at election time? It culminated - as far as I'm concerned - with Howard's lame-duck statement in South Africa that "there is now nothing else but globalism".
Perhaps we should be a little sorry for the pathetic idealism of the labor-socialists. They seem to have envisaged a stately world parliament under the auspices of the United Nations, in which the nations of the world took their seats to determine in statesmanlike fashion the orderly and peaceful advance of a civilized world. They obviously knew nothing of the hidden powers to whom the United Nations was a mere plaything, for example, the bankers so well described in Professor Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", who were working steadfastly on their programme for a monetary world order of their own.
With the above in mind, it was almost
sad to read the disillusion which came through the writings
of Paul Kelly - the same man who wrote about Labor and the
New World Order in 1990 - in The Australian (8/8/03)
The new scenario resulting from President Bush's spurning
of the Socialist-International paradigms for the New World
Order obviously concerned him:
Kelly referred to a speech made by Britain's
Tony Blair in Chicago in April 1999, in which he gave five
tests to justify military intervention:
These words must be haunting the tatterdemalion figure who is the Prime Minister of Britain today. He failed to meet all his five tests in slavishly following the New York cabal to war. He danced all over the United Nations that he claimed was the "central pillar" for international decision-making.
With UN authority in tatters, and US nationalistic imperialism rampant, Paul Kelly advocated a new solution to the world's dilemma put forward by former Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans, and Algeria's Mohamed Sahnoun, recently reviewed in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs. It suggests a new list of conditions that must apply to any military intervention anywhere, to be authorized by the UN's Security Council. Shades of Tony Blair in 1999!
But what if someone as powerful as the United States ignores such conditions and initiates war on its own? The question is not addressed. The reason is there is no answer. As has been pointed out more than once, any New World Order will not be democratic, and will only observe such rules as suit its power-holders at a particular time. It will be the ultimate "might is right". The lovely ideals of the Socialist International are just that - a nonsense when it comes to reality.
How much longer can figures such as Tony Blair and John Howard claim, on the one hand, to be supporters of the United Nations? And, on the other, to slavishly follow the George Bush line, so contemptuous of the United Nations unless it can be used in the US imperialist programme? All of which bears thinking about as we hear Prime Minister Howard's latest proposal for a European Union-type regional bloc in the Pacific, to deal with the budget and defence needs of crumbling island economies, from the Solomons to Fiji and Papua-New-Guinea.
Sprung as though it were a new suggestion, the idea has been around for a long time, put forward at various times by Bob Hawke, Andrew Peacock and Paul Keating. It would obviously involve some sort of Pacific Parliament, with a subsequent integration of trade, defence and tax laws. In fact, the booklet "The Pacific Parliament" was written by former New Zealand Prime Minister and, more recently, president of the World Trade Organisation Mike Moore. Moore, a prominent Fabian and member of the Socialist International (as is current NZ Prime Minister Helen Clarke) was logically following the socialist programme for centralization.
It is not so surprising as it was that John Howard and Alexander Downer are tripping down the primrose Fabian path. The division of the world into politically-coordinated trading blocs, with their own common currencies, central banks, centralized parliaments and codified uniform laws was the theme portrayed by George Orwell in his "1984". A state of semi-permanent war existed between them, the citizenry regularly whipped up into crisis panics by the latest 'threat'.
There is nothing wrong with help by one neighbor for another when asked for. But taking over the decision-making process on a permanent basis is another. What if local people don't want it? Or must they be forced to accept such a proposition "for their own good"? It is the question the Iraqi people are asking. What if they don't want George Bush's version of their future? This is the real question the internationalists always sideline in the grand plans for our future.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND MONARCHY
I don't know what happens in your house, but in ours the conversation often turns to the present parlous state of affairs in this country and the lack of representation for their people by the politicians in Parliament - and the people's disenchantment, disgust and disrespect for the self-serving politicians. Therefore, it was with great interest I received a copy of Hilaire Belloc's "The House of Commons and Monarchy, " published in 1920. The following are but snippets from the paper, but they bear upon our own present troubles.
Although Mr. Belloc was writing about
the United Kingdom over eighty years ago, his words of warning
echo down the years. Belloc insisted:
The whole meaning of Aristocracy is the provision of a sort of worship addressed to the few that govern. Therefore, the House of Commons was vigorous and healthy in its function only so long as it was the Aristocratic organ of an Aristocratic State. For the definition of "The Aristocracy" in an Aristocratic State is, not a body recruited by birth or even from wealth, not a caste (though it may be a caste), least of all a plutocracy, but essentially an Oligarchy enjoying a Peculiar Respect from its fellow citizens.
The decline of that body into a clique
The only alternative is Monarchy
The history of the name "House of Commons"
The mere words "House of Commons" - the name - is older by far than the seventeenth century. It is a literal translation of the mediaeval phrases "Communz," "Communitas," and the rest; French and Latin titles for certain institutions common to all Christendom in the Middle Ages. But it was in the early seventeenth century that the thing which we call the House of Commons, as distinguished from the name, came into being: say, 1620-50, just as the figment called "The Crown" then first begins to replace the old reality of English Kingship These parliaments, springing up spontaneously from the body of Christendom, were based, of course, upon the model of the great monastic system, where the representative principle was born."
The verbal trickery of keeping the 'name'
but replacing the function
Further reading: "The Realistic Position of the Church of England" available from all League Book Services.)
Democracy is breaking down
One man must be sufficiently removed
Further reading: "Realistic Constitutionalism"
by C.H. Douglas;
All books are available from the League Book Services.
WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS U.S. TRIED TO 'PLANT' WsMD BUT FAILED
According to a stunning report posted
on the internet by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year
veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration's
assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to "plant"
WsMD inside the country.
Concerned for her own safety
A retired Lt Commander (US Navy), and
the author of a memoir called "The Conspirators: Secrets
of an Iran-Contra Insider," Mr. Martin, it is claimed,
is one of America's foremost experts on corporate and government
fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation
team was manned by former military personnel and "the unit
was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to
hide it, which is also very commonplace".
Another aspect of Ms Rogers' report concerns
a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam
Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry
and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident
when "the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom
apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called 'friendly
fire'. The scope of this operation included the penetration
of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks
in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential
palaces where monies and bullion were secreted."
He continued, "These people died, mostly
in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise
missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray
were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through
a variety of 'friendly fire', 'mistaken identity' and some
of them - their whereabouts are simply unknown."
After news of Nelda Rogers' claims reach the American public, one would expect the relatives of those who are reported to have died will call for an official investigation. After all, Ms Rogers is claiming over 100 Americans have been killed as a result of a botched-up CIA 'secret mission'.
Do what these folk have done. Take up your pen and express your Opinion to the newspapers an/or your Will to your Parliamentary Representative.
"Sick of Confusion"
NO!!! to TELSTRA SALE
SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB28th August is the Annual General Meeting, followed by two brief talks. To celebrate the 30th year of the SCSC, Roy Gustard will present a short history of the Club followed by Maurice Shaya on Afghanistan.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|