|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
23 April 2004. Thought for the Week: "It appears to us to be axiomatic that religion, in the sense of binding back to reality, is of primary importance. Until you have some kind of reliable chart, you are a mere waif on the ocean. Clearly religion in this sense is a seven-days-a-week matter, and requires to be distinguished carefully from 'good conduct'. It ought to result in good conduct, and in fact is the only test of good conduct, but that is something else again."
Clifford Hugh Douglas.
THINKING ABOUT NEOCONSERVATISM
by Kevin MacDonald Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. https://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm While Prof. MacDonald is dealing with the situation in the USA, Australians will have no trouble in relating the article to what has happened in this country - as well as the U.K. "Over the last year, there's been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it "anti-Semitic" to say so? The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives -'paleoconservatives'- is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.
Neocon foreign policy fits well with
plausible version of Jewish interests: Hopefully, some
of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable
recent article by neoconservative "godfather" Irving Kristol
("The Neoconservative Persuasion," Weekly Standard, August
25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that
"the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism
would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and
American conservatism in general, against their respective
wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to
governing a modern democracy." And, equally frankly, Kristol
eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in
terms of American national interest:
'Ethnicity' is a practical matter
not a moral one: Count me among those who accept that
the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become
a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness
of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance
with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion
is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like
any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion
My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work. I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests.
Key founders originated as followers
of Trotskyite theoretician: In all of the Jewish intellectual
and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish
identity among the core figures. All centre on charismatic
Jewish leaders-people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud- who
are revered as messianic, god-like figures.
Astonishing number well placed to
influence political leaders: By the 1970s, the neocons
were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union,
which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition
to Israel. Richard Perle was the prime organiser of Congressional
support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered
the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom
of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to
Israel and the United States.
Nothing 'conservative' about their
goals: While Strauss and his followers have come to be
known as neoconservatives - and have even claimed to be simply
"conservatives"- there is nothing conservative about their
goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy,
where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East
in the interests of Israel.
Common 'rhetoric': But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science-languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principal actors " to be continued.
LIBERALS (NSW) HAVE RESCINDED 'REPUBLIC' MOTIONAccording to a paper received by us, the NSW Young Liberal Movement has unanimously passed a motion rescinding the original statement calling for Australia to become a republic. In fact they go so far as to ask a Mr. John Brogden who has publicly committed himself to a republic, just which one of the over 140 models in the world did he have in mind?
They thought he could be reasonably asked: Which type of republic did he support - the Indonesian, the USA, the Ugandan? What about the present Zimbabwe one?
The paper does go on to ask all Australians to support Liberal values. Well, first we need to know just what are those values. Australians can only go on their 'fruits' and we haven't seen to many good ones for quite some years. What's the saying? One swallow doesn't make a summer.
The original 1949 Liberal Party Statement of Beliefs including the following:
We believe that national financial and economic policy are not to be designed to control men's lives, but to create a climate in which men may be enabled to work out their own salvation in their own way. (How can Australians 'work out their own salvation' under the present oppressive debt-monopoly financial system supported by all politicians of all parties.)
We believe in the great human freedoms; to worship; to think; to speak; to choose; to be ambitious; to be independent; to be industrious; to acquire skill; to seek and earn reward." (Not any more you don't! What about the anti-Discrimination Legislation for one example?)
A LESSON FOR US ALL
by Betty Luks:
I do think he has put his finger on
part of the problem when he writes:
I am in agreement with that as far
as it goes. But I have a problem with the following:
And for myself, I think this is where
many of us have gone wrong. Let me explain further by quoting
C. H. Douglas.
"What IS Social Credit?" I hear you askingThe following is taken directly from, "The Essential Elements of Social Credit," an introductory Course of Lectures published with the authority of The Social Credit Secretariat. October, 1946.
Social Credit is: "The power of human beings in association to produce the result intended, measured in terms of their satisfaction."
"As the interests of Life have expanded, so there has spread the recognition that Law operates on other planes than those which are the special interest of physicists and chemists as such; and that such Laws are as inviolable as any others.
"But it is as generally recognised, perhaps, that assessment, of the mode of operation of these Laws is difficult and uncertain in proportion as the individual lacks experience of their consequences, while their range and time of action outspans the lives of individuals, who are nevertheless subject to them.
It may well be that the charting of this cumulative experience of mankind is subject to distorting agencies -- that the social credit is, in this respect, falsified, as in so many other cases. But the very existence of a Social Credit movement is evidence that the effect of this distorting agency is not absolute.
It is not a matter of speculation but of fact that there have been relatively settled times in history, when men seemed to advance towards their dimly perceived but real goal, when Life was more abundant, when manners were inspired by a general if not an universal apprehension or intuition, of the sources of satisfaction, when Faith (" the substance of things hoped for") was wider spread, and "the evidence of things unseen" more credible You may decide now whether human beings have or have not any such power: whether two or more persons can help each other to produce a result they intend to produce. If they have no such power, Social Credit does not exist: if they have it does."
Doesn't there come a time when the knowledge gained has to be put to the test by practical application? Is it true? What do you think? Put it to the test! "Was Life more abundant?" What were people doing which made it so?
What about Faith? Have we enough Faith "to permit the emergence of self-governing, self-conscious individuals, exercising free will, and choosing good because it is good. The energising factor is attraction, inducement "
Not all will understand the finer technicalities of the money system, nor be able to follow and quote the A+B Theorem, but each in our own 'neck of the woods' with the talents and inspiration we have, can choose to make a contribution to our world for the better, and thus release and increase the Social Credit.
LETTER TO THE EDITORI always knew that things go round in circles, but I find this ridiculous. A headline in the International Express dated 23rd-29th March 2004. 'PRISONERS MUST BE CALLED MISTER'. One part of the article said "The proposal by the board of visitors at the Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire .... was seen as a move to make the regime more politically correct". One prison officer said, "The idea is bloody stupid and too ridiculous to contemplate".
I served in the Correctional Services for almost 15 years. When I first joined the prisoners were called by their surnames, (except for a few exceptional cases). The officers were addressed as Mister .. by prisoners and chiefs and other officers, generally. We also wore a smart uniform, with collar and tie and cap.
In later years we were encouraged to address them by their first names, but most of the officers did not, but did sometimes use nicknames. Dress went by the wayside and some took off their ties and hats, the smart uniforms went, hats were only for musters, and at the same time discipline was waning. There was even talk of wearing blazers and slacks so it would not be as intimidating as a uniform. (i.e. to make it more social than military, I suppose).
A few years later, the powers that be decided that the prisoners should be called "CLIENTS". I wrote a letter to head office with a few queries about customer/client relations. One of the points I raised was, "Is the customer always right??" Otherwise I cannot see the change being any use at all. (Not that I thought it was anyway). Of course I had no reply although one of the Chiefs somehow got wind of the letter and tried to carry it through, but had about as much success as I did.
I think this is a world-wide trend, not only in prisons but in the Military as well, to a point. What do you think of the uniforms now? I can't for the life of me see why soldiers wear camouflage uniforms in the street, or even worse senior officers, on TV., wearing scruffy looking camouflage uniforms when they DO have smart kaki uniforms.. Not a very good example is it'? Where do we go from here? I am reminded of two old songs which were very popular about 40 years ago.
"Things ain't what they used to be" and "I'm Glad I'm Not Young Anymore"
Doug Holmes, South Australia.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S REPORTSenate Committee meeting on republic in Melbourne
Five Senators sat, and the meeting was chaired by Senator Bolkus. Thirty two people were in attendance with two thirds of them republicans. The witnesses called were all republicans except a 99 year-old very-British Major who was an Australian by choice and "I have a vote". He was so deaf he couldn't hear the chairman, he had his grandson there to shout messages in his ear. He good-heartedly injected some humour into the day.
He had rung up the particular newspoll the terms of reference had quoted: of 1200 people 52% voted for a republic -- and the newspoll told him 39% voted for a republic, 13% were neither for or against and 48% didn't want a republic. The chairman tried to quote different figures for the same poll.
Most of the republicans spent a great deal of time agonising how they could educate the voters of the need for a republic.
One let the cat out of the bag! He was at the Corowa conference and at the conference in Brisbane, where the Democrats had undertaken to set up this Committee.
Points to learn:- Don't all sit together, scatter throughout the audience. Some sat near the front and they had an open microphone for 30 minutes at the end of the meeting. The Chair took only those who had identified themselves as republicans.
Constructive suggestion: Run a training session at Albury Weekend in October for speaking into a microphone and reading a speech.
MAGNA CHARTAFor those who thought we quoted the wrong date for Magna Carta in the 8th April 2004 issue. "Magna Carta, the Great Charter of English liberties, was first issued by King John at Runnymede in June 1215. Immediately upon John's death in October 1216, it was reissued in the name of his successor, Henry III, with substantial excisions and alterations. Two subsequent reissues in 1217 and 1225 incorporated further revisions. In the form of the third and final revision of 1225, it was confirmed in 1297 by Edward I and a copy of this confirmation was afterwards placed on the first or 'great' roll of English statutes."
Taken from "The Making of Magna Carta".
"One Land, Two Peoples" by Ilan Pappe:
A history of modern Palestine. Ilan Pappe's book is the story of Palestine, a land inhabited by two peoples, with two national identities. It begins with the Ottomans in the early 1800s, the reign of Muhammad Ali, and traces a path through the arrival of the early Zionists at the end of that century, through the British mandate at the beginning of the twentieth century, the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent wars and conflicts which culminated in the intifadas of 1987 and 2000. While these events provide the background to the narrative and explain the construction of Zionist and Palestinian nationalism, at centre stage are those who lived through these times, men and women, children, peasants, workers, town-dwellers, Jews and Arabs. It is a story of coexistence and co-operation, as well as oppression, occupation, and exile.
Ilan Pappe is well known as a revisionist historian of Palestine and a political commentator on the Israel-Palestine conflict. His book is lucid and typically forthright. It is a unique contribution to the history of this troubled land which all those concerned with developments in the Middle East will have to read. Ilan Pappe teaches politics at Haifa University in Israel. He has written extensively on the politics of the Middle East, and is well known for his revisionist interpretation of Israel's history and is a critic of its policies towards the Palestinians.
Price: $45.00 Includes Postage & Handling: Order your copy today from your State bookshop.
Other Suggested Reading:
Bitter Harvest -- Palestine 1914-79 by Sam Hadawi Price $17.00 posted.
Facts Are Facts by Benjamin H. Friedman Price: $14.00 posted.
Jewish History Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak Price: $33.00 posted
The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler Price: $20.00 posted
The Zionist Factor by Ivor Benson Price: $18.00 Posted
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|