THE LION OF FREEDOM

IF-
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And don't look too good, nor talk too wise;…

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
- Rudyard Kipling
The above poem was one Eric Butler was fond of and over the years delivered it after a dinner address to League friends

DETAILS OF THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ERIC DUDLEY BUTLER

COMRADS, LET'S TAKE OUT THE SCIENCES

REED ON THE NEW CLASS AND ABORIGINAL VIOLENCE

by Brian Simpson
James Reed in following the feminist response to the terrible Aboriginal violence situation is ignoring some facts. Yes it is true as Rosemary Neill points out that traditional Aboriginal societies treated women as chattel and property - but so did many other societies including our own - wrongly of course - until modern times. The giving of "young girls" to older men has universally occurred. The "young girls" in question have, in all societies, been of past-puberty ages. Marriage of young girls of 16 was common in the American frontier where life was uncertain. It is also found in Islamic societies. The practice did not lead to paedophilia because the societies defined the age of consent as lower than ours. I make no moral comment on this, I am just stating an anthropological fact that Reed has not considered. Neither he nor his source, Rosemary Neill, explain how a patriarchial attitude towards women leads to the rape of babies and children. One could argue for exactly the opposite conclusion.

Male rape is also rife among Aborigines. (The Weekend Australian 20-21/5/06, p.1) Aboriginal boys are 10 times more likely to be raped than other Australian males. A survey by Aboriginal researchers from the Queensland University of Technology found that 33 per cent of Aboriginal men said that they suffered some sexual abuse; 15 per cent were victims of attempted anal rape and 10 per cent victims of actual anal rape. These shocking - indeed appalling - statistics are not readily accountable by the idea that some sort of cultural misogyny is behind the scenes in Aboriginal culture pulling the strings.

Even the racism/dislocation of cultures thesis doesn't really explain the implosion of Aboriginal societies. What is happening now didn't happen fifty years ago. The decline began in the 1960s when the racial egalitarianism of the 1960s bleeding heart liberals changed the law which prohibited the supply of alcohol to Aborigines. This was based upon sound racial observations that Aborigines biologically and psychologically, could not cope with alcohol. Today that idea is coming back: I heard a young girl on a trendy left radio station say: "Aborigines' bodies can't cope with alcohol." She would be shocked to realise that she had admitted that racial differences exist.

Most importantly Aborigines need to become more responsible for their own actions - even the victims have unintentionally perpetrated a culture of crime. This is not my idea: Northern Territory Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers has been quoted as saying: "[One] of the features of the paper is that I say that Aboriginal people in central Australia must take more responsibility for not only talking about the general issues surrounding Aboriginal male violence and the violence of men in remote communities but also taking responsibility for following through if they're a witness to the matter, following through and giving the correct evidence in court. When I say correct evidence, the evidence that's contained in their police stories. Because often what we get is that Aboriginal people will provide a statement about a particular offence then refuse to come to court, or, when they're in court, refuse to give the evidence because they say: "No, I didn't see it. No, it's not my responsibility." (Source: The Australian 18/5/06, p.13)

Yes, it is your responsibility. Victimology and rants about 'White racism" by well-paid academics, will not solve the problem of Aboriginal violence. Wesley Aird of the National Indigenous Council (The Australian 18/5/06, p.12) summed up the situation well in saying that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was one where "big man" elites through "grace and favour", "wielded tremendous power over an impoverished people with poor literacy and even poorer governance skills." This led to a "breakdown of Aboriginal society."
Increased funding will not solve the problem of Aborigines: "No amount of increased funding will improve the lot of indigenous Australia without Aboriginal community leaders taking a genuine role in redressing the problems."

THE DANCE OF DEBT

by Jeremy Lee
Sheltering behind the babble that passes for economic comment lie the ever-compounding levels of debt afflicting each sector of the economy. Latest figures on the farming debt are sobering. We can bet our bottom dollar they won't be mentioned by National candidates next time they face election! Australia's farm debt has almost doubled in the seven years since 1999, now standing at $43 billion (The Weekly Times, Victoria, 15/5/06).

This is a sector which produces over a tonne of wheat for every living Australian, 25 kgs of mutton and lamb for each Australian, 600 litres of milk per head and 220 kgs of beef for everyone in the country; PLUS sugar, fruit and vegetables of every description! Between 1965 - the time the League of Rights drew attention to the impending crisis in its startling little booklet "They Want Your Land" - and 2005, the rural debt grew by 9.1 per cent, compounding, per year.

There was a time when a few politicians dared speak out about this compounding debt and the effect on rural Australia. Prior to the advent of the Whitlam government in 1972 the Labor Shadow Agriculture spokesman, Dr Rex Patterson, outlined a realistic crisis policy for farmers, which included a five-year holiday from debt repayments and interest, to enable them to regain their feet. He proposed the use of the 'peoples' bank' (the Commonwealth) for this purpose. Of course, this programme never saw the light of day, and the Commonwealth Bank was subsequently sold off to the private money lenders. Since then, Australia has lost almost 200,000 farmers - and they are still leaving the land.

So convoluted has the argument become that spokesmen (mainly bankers) quoted in the Weekly Times article hailed the current debt figure as "a sign of farming investor confidence!" Presumably, if and when the debt doubles again, the few remaining farmers will have reached the promised land!

FULLY AUTOMATIC NONSENSE

by John Steele
Just a technical point: at the time of the 1996 Howard gun grab, the media constantly spoke of the ban as being of fully automatic and semi-automatic rifles. The Advertiser (22/4/06, p.43) "Did the Gun Fight End at Port Arthur" says "fully automatic… weapons were commonplace." For the punters out there this brings to mind machine guns, blazing away as in Hollywood movies (violent movies of course were not banned - that would violate freedom of exploitation - sorry, freedom of speech). But fully automatic guns were never legal in any Australian State at any time in Australian history. Even in the US, such guns require a special federal permit, which has been so since the 1930s.

If you believe the establishment story, Martin Bryant killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle. All of these people were unarmed. Bryant did not have a gun licence as he himself considered that he was too mentally deficient to own one! The gun used was an illegal gun. Such weapons can be obtained today, largely from ethnic and Asian gangs in Sydney who do a roaring trade selling illegal guns. The gun ban merely disarmed innocent people and has done nothing to prevent another Martin Bryant (if you believe that he really did it) from killing. The new "Bryant" could buy a real fully automatic gun from the criminal underworld which increasingly rules the streets of Australia.

Of course the government's agenda to disarm the population to meet its new world order obligations was always clear. Why ban semi-automatic .22 rifles, used primarily to shoot rabbits? No massacre has ever occurred with such a gun. The gun scam was more than just a symbolic castration of Australian manhood.

Alex Robson, economics lecturer at the Australian National University (The Australian 28/4/06, p.14) wrote on the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre that there is no statistical evidence to support gun abolitionist rhetoric. Firearm related deaths had been declining since 1991. The attempted murder rate and the manslaughter rate have not significantly changed since the 1997 gun-buy-back. Nor is, he says, the evidence of gun-buy-backs reducing crime elsewhere in the world. US evidence by John Lott indicates that the right to carry handguns drives down the murder rate. Robson says:
"Finally there is little evidence to suggest that buyback schemes or more restrictive gun laws make Australians safer by limiting availability of guns to criminals. Indeed, the main effect of the 1997 buyback scheme may simply have been to reduce the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, making it harder for them to defend themselves against criminals.

Of the firearms' homicides that are committed in Australia, the vast majority (more than 90 per cent) are committed with unregistered weapons by unlicensed owners. Of course, this comes as no surprise to the police, law-abiding citizens, or criminals themselves. Criminals will not bother selling a gun at all if they plan on using it to commit future crimes. Knives are now the most common weapon used in murders and other violent crimes. Gun buybacks simply help criminals to dispose of unwanted, low-value weapons at a price that is guaranteed by taxpayers.

Criminals can then use the funds to purchase knives and other weapons to commit crimes against a defenceless citizenry, safe in the knowledge that a firearm will not be used against them. And even if criminals decide to sell highly valued weapons, they will not bother in participating in a legitimate buyback scheme when they can obtain far higher prices on illegal secondary markets in exchange for cash, drugs or other weapons."

ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND THE WAR ON TERROR

by Peter Ewer
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (who defended O.J. Simpson) has published a new book, "Pre-emption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways," (Norton, 2006). Dershowitz had previously published a book "Why Terrorism Works," where he suggested that a legal framework to regulate the use of torture in the "war on terror" be implemented. The core reason for this is to keep Israel safe and sound, come what may.

In "Pre-emption" Dershowitz puts his obviously brilliant legal mind to the doctrines of pre-emptive and preventive war and of pre-emptive and preventive assassination. The US now uses preventive detention, expansive surveillance, pre-emptive attacks on terrorist bases and murder - sorry, "targeted killing" of potential terrorists, and of course, full-scale preventive war against the enemies of Israel - sorry, of "democracy". So, being a hard-nosed realist, Dershowitz says that the law should adapt to political reality.

Dershowitz disapproves of America's war on Iraq but only because no WMD were found. He disapproves of none of Israel's activities in making preventive attacks except the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, but only because the response by the Israelis was not reasonable in relation to the threat. On Iran he wants a pre-emptive strike even is there are huge civilian casualties due to Iran putting nuclear centres in civilian areas. It is selfish to put human rights of Iranians over the lives of Israelis he argues.Dershowitz puts in personal anecdotes where he describes how he watched guided missiles being radar directed on the cars of Palestinians. The book is sprinkled with mathematics.

What these types of books are legitimating is really the end of the moral rule of law. Something resembling a technocratic rule of the jungle is being put into place.

OUT FOR A SMOKE

PLAYING THE GOD-CARD

by Betty Luks
A recent article by American Chuck Baldwin sparked my interest. He is writing of the pro-republican Bush voters who are outraged by his criticisms of the man and his party. The American Republican party has played the God-card for all its worth, and now the Democrats are saying they have to start wooing the religious voter.

He writes:
"It never ceases to amaze me how politicians play the God-card every election cycle. "Vote for me, I teach a Sunday School class." "Vote for me, I am a member of such-and-such church." "Vote for me, I am a conservative Christian." Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.
Unfortunately, these tactics work! Why else would intelligent people pay thousands and even millions of dollars to promote these kinds of ads? That Christians have become stupendously gullible is the understatement of the year! Just about all a politician has to do is say, "I'm a conservative. I'm pro-life and pro-family," and Christians sing his or her praises all the way to the voting booth. That is, if he or she is a Republican. You see, in the eyes of many Christians, the Republican Party is "God's Party."
"In fact, many Christians have come to regard partisan (translated "Republican") politics as much more than a political exercise. It is sacred, even holy to support the Republican Party, and in recent history, to support President G.W. Bush in particular."

"I could not count the numbers of emails I have received that have ascribed my future soul as suffering the torments of the damned because I have dared to challenge the policies and political decisions of President Bush," he writes."

The Liberals' use of the God-card:
American politicians are not the only ones to 'play the God-card'. Who remembers the recent TV pictures of John Howard, Peter Costello and even former premier Bob Carr dutifully attending or on the platform of the mega-pentecostal 'Hillsong' church in Sydney?

But my memory goes back much further than that. I can remember Liberal politician Andrew Peacock 'confiding' to some reporter he had taken to reading the Bible - just before an election of course. And even former US president Jimmy Carter announcing he was 'a born again' Christian - just at the right time - of course.
The same Andrew Peacock was one of the first Liberal politicians to publicly speak of the New International Economic Order. In August 1978 the League's Intelligence Survey reported on Mr. Peacock's address to the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. His report was on the progress the Liberals were making towards the New International Economic Order.
It included details of the planned "structural adjustment" of our industries; the "immigration barriers" that were to go; the "regional developments" (ASEAN, etc); the dismantling of our "national sovereignty". Not in so many words - Australians at that time would have panicked and thrown the blighters out of parliament.
But how many gullible Christians voted that man back into power and the rest of the traitorous Fraser government - and continue to do so today?

"Touchy-touchy feely-feely Christianity"
Writing as an American, Chuck Baldwin insists:
"Christians need to wise up! Instead of succumbing to trite, meaningless cliches and marketing propaganda by the "God-card" professionals, we need to demand fidelity to constitutional government as the chief requirement for public service. This should be done even if that means voting for someone outside our religious persuasion or from another political party! Try it this November. The results cannot be worse than what we have already!"
"No matter which party is in power, nothing changes! Taxes continue to strangle the life out of the American people. American jobs continue to be outsourced overseas. The American military continue to be used as pawns for international bankers and oil companies. Millions of illegal aliens continue to invade our country with impunity. Encroachments continue upon private property rights. Government schools continue to indoctrinate our children in secular humanism. Unborn babies continue to die."

Aren't the same things happening in this country? Church leaders teach their people they must 'love' one another, but with never an explanation of what the word means. This politically-correct 'love' is a 'touch-touchy feely-feely' emotion. And if ever a brave soul questions the teaching or direction the church leader is taking the church, that brave soul will soon be ostracised and marginalised. That brave soul will soon find he/she has become 'unloved'. That is not Christian love - that is tyranny!
Archived at https://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2006/cbarchive_20060601.html

LETTERS

Editor, Ballarat Courier: 18/5/06:
In commenting on opposition to the Budget the Prime Minister is reported (the Courier 11 May) as saying: "There are some people in the community who will never agree with anything I do because they don't like my politics and they may not like me…" Therein he has highlighted a major flaw in the concept of an elected president. Let's assume there are three candidates for president, Mark, Kim and John. Mark's appeal is mainly to rural dwellers while John and Kim are city-centric.
As there are few people outside the capital cities Mark receives few votes although his policies might be more beneficial to the whole country.
John is elected with 40 per cent of the primary vote, Kim just misses out on 30 per cent while Mark drags in at just 21 per cent.
However, John's committed following is only 25 per cent, the remainder of his voters voted for him only because they couldn't accept either of the other two. It is also obvious that 60 per cent of the electorate didn't want John anyway.
An elected president is a divisive concept which brings out the statement, "Don't blame me I voted for Kim."
Yours truly, Ron Fischer, Sebastopol Vic.

Physics Prof. Says Cutter Charges…
Have just read On Target 19/5: (World Trade Centre) The process described sounds like a bushman's technique for emergency welding. I've never seen it done, but the method is, I'm told, to firmly support parts, (e.g., broken axle), pack aluminium shavings, filings, etc. and iron oxide around broken area. Pack clay/mud outside that with magnesium wick, light wick and (optionally) boil the billy while the fused parts cool.
Some of your outback supporters would know more about this. While proving nothing, it seems to add to the credibility of Prof. Jones.
P.S. In suburban electrified railway systems, the expansion gap between ends of rail track lengths are bridged with heavy, many-strand wires (for electricity conduction). I'm told the same process is (was) used to affix wire to rails.
Dan McSweeny, Goulburn NSW.

'Civilised' nation:
Editor, The Australian, 2nd June 2006:
Sir, Oliver Kamm is wrong to claim that there is 'no more civilised and tolerant nation than post-war Germany' ('Pope still thinks in a square', 1/6). It is this nation which sought to destroy Judge Wilhelm Staglich's important book on Auschwitz in 1979 by ordering that the printer's plates should be obliterated. It later allowed the punishment of two judges whose decision in a case against Gunther Deckert, leader of an important nationalist party, was deemed politically incorrect. It is modern Germany which currently imprisons heroic men like Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf purely because they have expressed views on controversial scientific and historical matters which do not accord with the officially promoted account. Fundamentally unjust laws are in place and the means to mount an adequate legal defence is denied by the courts.
The overall number of those who have experienced intellectual and cultural persecution by this Germany runs into the hundreds, perhaps the thousands. Valid and honourable German nationalism continues to be muzzled in a variety of ways. So to argue that today's Germany has been 'purged of authoritarianism' is the exact opposite of the truth.
As for the Pope's visit to Auschwitz, it was not merely a noble gesture of solidarity with those who unjustly suffered in that camp; it was also a diplomatic and strategic event designed to avoid unnecessary hostility from a worldly political power to which even the Vatican feels it must defer.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic.