DISCONTENT REIGNS IN CENTRAL EUROPE

Under the heading, "Fringes tugging at Central Europe," 18/3/2007 the Tribune's foreign correspondent Tom Hundley is warning those he serves that "Discontent reigns as Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia struggle with their post-communist transformation."

Hundley continues, "When British Holocaust denier David Irving is the honoured guest at your National Day celebrations, you know something nasty is brewing in the body politic. But there was Irving, fresh from serving his jail sentence in Austria, firing up a large crowd in Budapest's Heroes' Square last week on the 159th anniversary of the 1848 Revolution, the upheaval that brought Hungary its first taste of independence from the Habsburg emperors."

THE BUDAPEST TIMES ALSO WARNED:

"Irving Speaks in Hungary":
"Notorious revisionist historian David Irving, who was released last December from an Austrian jail after serving 13 months for breaking that country's laws on Holocaust denial, is to speak in Budapest on Monday, 12 March. He is here at the invitation of his Hungarian publishers, Gede Brothers, to promote the Hungarian version of his latest work Nuremberg - The Last Battle.
Sándor Gede told news agency MTI last Thursday that Irving plans to attend book signings in several towns around Hungary ... He characterised the first two days of the 1956 revolution as a popular anti-Jewish pogrom."
https://www.budapesttimes.hu/index.php?do=article&id=2261&issue=130

WHAT DID IRVING SAY TO THE HUNGARIAN PEOPLE?

On a sunny afternoon, at Heroes Square in Budapest, 15 March 2007, Irving delivered the following message to around 10,000 Hungarian people: PROTECT YOUR INDEPENDENCE FIRST!

"I bring you greetings from all the friends of Hungary in my country England the Hungarians who live in England - and there are many who fled from the first communist regime in 1956 - and from all your friends and admirers, and there are many of these too.

There is one ugly truth -- and it is a bitter truth -- which links our two great countries: we now both have prime ministers who lie. One of them, my own prime minister, Tony Blair, has so far still to confess it. These are bad times for freedom. Perhaps one day Englishmen like me will be seeking freedom in Hungary!

Because the lights of freedom, -- the right to think what we like, to say what we think, and to print and publish what we say -- are slowly dimming as the ugly light of enforced socialism is dawning again. I know what I am saying. Governments do not like historians, and they like those of us who write real history even less. They prefer the kind of writer they can buy with money, or bribe with knighthoods and peerages (Sir and Lord).

You know that something is foul with your own government, when you see it bringing in two hundred foreign police troops to help it stay in power. You know then that your government is, in real history, in the hands of a foreign power.

British government made no protest
For all the 400 days that Austria held me in solitary confinement in prison in Vienna, since you last saw me here, -- punished for an opinion on history that I had expressed sixteen years before, -- the British government made no protest.

We were once a great world power. Some powerful Hungarians even wanted to have our Lord Rothermere as the next king of Hungary! A great world power no longer, we have been destroyed by the foreign enemies within.
Jack Straw was Britain's foreign minister when Germany first demanded that I be turned over to them for punishment: he secretly agreed, -- I have seen the documents -- but he could not get his hands on me because I was in freedom in America….and Straw went to the same school as I! Some comrade!

Innocent in gaol, guilty in positions of power
We are now all part of Europe, and one European country can mistreat any other European country's citizens as it pleases. Petöfi Sandor must be turning in his grave. Several of my good friends, writers like me, are in prison in Germany right now, and have been for years, because of what they wrote and believed to be true: I mention today the names only of Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf, the scientist. What hypocrisy!

In today's world, the system of international law that was so painstakingly and carefully created for the Nuremberg trials is now in ruins. The innocent are held in jail. The guilty are in the seats of power. The electoral system in the democracies has been twisted and distorted to ensure that the criminals gain office - not ordinary criminals like those who walked the prison yard with me in Vienna, but the mega-criminals in the pay of Big Money and foreign powers. Will we ever see them in handcuffs? Don't make me laugh!

Under rules of Nuremberg Bush and Blair did what Hitler did: George Bush and Tony Blair, the leaders of the USA and Britain, launched a criminal attack on Iraq in 2003, a few months before I spoke on the last occasion at this spot.

Under the rules of Nuremberg, what they did was precisely the same as what Hitler did from 1938 to 1944: they have attacked countries for their own purposes, and invented the pretext to justify their actions. The world's newspapers and television stations have shamelessly trotted along beside them, applauding vigorously.

Shall we ever see Blair and Bush hang for their crimes, which have caused the Holocaust in Iraq today? A Holocaust which has caused the deaths of over 600,000 innocent people, and far more if we include those killed by **the sanctions campaign which preceded it. We shall not see them hang; they even deny that this holocaust has occurred!

Bush says he has only killed 30,000 so far, that is his best estimate. He and Blair are the real holocaust deniers, not the historians like me. Yes, in Washington and London the guilty are in the seats of power.
Can you tell me that it is any different now in Hungary? Are the days of Rakosi, Revai, Gerö and Farkas returning? You tore the evil out of the heart of your Hungarian flag then. If the evil returns you must tear it out again.
The world will never forget: You cast the first stone in 1956 that led to the end of the Soviet empire of evil.

It is for you, the ordinary people of Hungary, to protect your freedoms, just as you paid for the world's freedom then with your own blood. Szabadsag!
I leave you with this message, written in the spirit of Petöfi Sandor: there is one word that is even more important than freedom, for a country as small as Hungary. And that is Independence. Függetlenség. Protect your independence first. Otherwise all is lost."

**Downer: Zimbabwe, Iraq and economic sanctions:
The media has informed us the Federal government is planning a possible evacuation of Australian citizens from Zimbabwe as President Robert Mugabe vows to "keep cracking down on dissent". Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer publicly stated the Government was concerned for the wellbeing of about 700 Australians in the "catastrophic" African nation.

But get this:
Mr Downer ruled out expanding sanctions against Zimbabwe to include economic measures because of the pain it would cause in a country with 80 per cent unemployment and inflation of around 1800 per cent. His words were: "You can imagine imposing economic sanctions would just condemn people to death."

Yes Mr. Downer, just as the governments of the western world imposed 10 years of sanctions on the Iraqi people prior to invading their country and thereby making the situation indescribably worse. The western govermnents contributed to the death of many a premature baby, children, the elderly and the sick in Iraq. The hospitals could not import medical supplies nor equipment, such as humicribs. We reported on this barbaric, inhumane treatment of innocent Iraqi people quite some time ago.

Another point Mr. Downer:
If you grasp the fact that such economic sanctions harm innocent people more than they harm harsh regimes, why did the Fraser Liberals impose sanctions on that tiny nation of Rhodesia? Do you think the Black people of Zimbabwe are better off under the savage Black regime of Mugabe than they were under the White regime of Ian Smith?
There was a nation of people who truly did their best to make the White/Black mix of their nation work for all.

Your words may yet come back to haunt you Mr. Downer.

THE REAL ISSUE IS NOT PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR

by Betty Luks
Before continuing with the news report about Barack Obama, the Black candidate for the next presidential election in America, I want to make something quite clear.
The League fights the battle against multiculturalism/multiracialism because the western world is deliberately being swamped with alien peoples and cultures. Unless the people come against this destructive treasonous policy imposed by all major political parties, we as a western nation will cease to exist.

No nation or peoples can tolerate more than a small portion of alien peoples or races in their midst and still expect to survive racially and/or culturally.
A local chemist whom I have known for well over thirty years, and highly respect, is a practising Muslim. He is a most gracious and honourable man who makes his living among us and serves the local community faithfully. I am sure he would have many, many, family and personal friends who are not Muslims. He is treated with the same courtesy and respect that any other decent human being, as a fellow human being, should be treated.

As an individual, that man is absolutely no threat to any fellow Australian. In fact, his honesty and decency would put many another Australian to shame. But, in this case, the political issue is not about individual behaviour. Individual anti-social behaviour is a matter for the authority set up to protect citizens. It is about a nation. Any nation and its survival.

Mr. Obama, a presidential candidate, is accused of being a 'closet' Muslim and is finding the going tough at the moment. His opponents are using the anti-Muslim religion card for all its worth. Politics in America is just as dirty as it is in Australia as Barak Obama is finding out. New 'revelations' about Obama's Muslim past could provide ammunition for his critics - and political opponents. One such critic is Chicago-based Internet journalist and broadcaster Andy Martin, who wrote earlier about Obama's connection to Islam. Reacting to the claim from Obama's sister that the family went to the mosque only for "big communal events," Martin responded: "Tens of millions of 'Christians' flock to churches for Easter and Christmas. And they would slap you down if you told them they were not Christians merely because they only appear twice a year for 'big communal events.'"

He also wrote: "Obama no longer denies he was a Muslim. Now he says he wasn't a 'practicing' Muslim. People in general will accept most anything from public officials as long as they don't lie about it."

Now I understand that in Indonesia, predominately a Muslim nation, everyone, no matter what their religious persuasion, is required, by the Constitution, to attend a religious centre on certain days throughout the year.
A visiting cleric once explained this to me although I am a bit hazy about details. He spoke from personal experience. Obama was obliged to attend a 'holy place' on certain days. So?

But I ask: does a half-truth count as a lie? I think Mr. Martin should wash his mouth out. And while he's at it, could he name one or two of the current batch of his nation's politicians who don't tell 'half truths'. Come to think of it, do two half-truths equal one lie?

What about the elephant in the corner?
I am not hearing or reading too much in the mainstream media about those of the Jewish faith who are in our halls of power. Would Barak Obama, as an individual, serve the American people any better than these people as individuals serve the American people? Who knows?

But the following report tells me who Mr. Obama will serve faithfully - no matter what!
"In a speech delivered before AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) lobbyists in Chicago, US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reveals strongly pro-Israel platform:
US must preserve `total commitment to unique defense relationship with Israel', work to stop Iran's nuclear program even if military action is necessary.
"But in the end," he added, "we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.""

WHAT DOES ISLAM TEACH?

Having said the above, world traveller and diplomat, Sir David Kelly would have a better idea than such as I, who have no experience whatsoever of living in a Muslim country. Once again I have appealed to his work in "The Hungry Sheep".

There are curious resemblances to Christianity but these are, Sir David assures us, only incidentals.

The incidentals are: "Mahomet started under Jewish and Christian influence" and "changed his views on many subjects becoming anti-Christian during his second or Medina period".

Examples are:
the duty of almsgiving, it is called "purification" linking it with atonement for sin; the six great previous prophets are: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, perhaps even Elias; Jesus was the son of a virgin mother; every human being at birth is touched by Satan except Mary and her son (though original sin is unknown to the Koran). Ramadan is the Moslem Lent. Before the end of the world an Anti-Christ will march on Jerusalem and Jesus will descend and kill him.

The essentials are:
"First belief in God, the angels, the holy books, the prophets, the resurrection and judgement, predestination, the prayers five times daily; and secondly, the doctrine of the Holy War."
This is not an accidental development mixed up with politics or popular pressure as so much Christian persecution has been, "but an integral part of the Islamic Constitution."
Mahomet laid down that the faithful "must slay the unbelievers wherever they found them," that "fighting for Allah was the most meritorious of all actions."
Mahomet said he would have no monks; "Holy War is the monasticism of Islam."

Sir David notes:
"The practice of Islam has been that once conquest is achieved, the unbelievers are an inferior subject minority, not privileged to fight but made the main source of revenue.
This made a great economic appeal to its converts in Asia Minor, by relieving them from Byzantine taxes and debts and making them one with the conquerors. But conquest whenever possible is a duty.
Hell is the irrevocable penalty of all unbelievers, while Moslem sinners after a temporary period in Gehenna reach heaven and are served by eternal youths with a wine which gives the elect no headaches ("nor shall their wits be dimmed") …polygamy up to four wives, and unlimited slave concubines are allowed."

Their great philosopher Averroes, writes Sir David, "distinguished between the intellectual elite with an intelligent faith, and the masses who must have uncritical faith in the external literal sense of the beliefs."
Averroes also boldly said "the inferior position of the women was one of the reasons for poverty, as it made them a burden on men."

Sir David concluded: "the strength of Islam lies in its simplicity, its easy attitude to sex for men, and in its essential fanaticism which creates a real feeling of brotherhood among the elect."

MULTICULTURALISM AND RAPE

by Brian Simpson
In the wake of the controversy generated by the comments of Sheik Taj as-Hilali - where among other things he alluded to the Sydney (race-based) gang rapes (where Anglo women were targeted by Middle Eastern men) and where he suggested that the victims were abandoned 'meat' that attracted voracious animals - it is relevant to examine the issue of multiculturalism and rape.

The defence of the rapists and that of the Sheik is along the lines of "my culture made me do it." The Sheik goes further and says that the Anglo "meat made me do it," but "it" probably isn't so bad anyway and perhaps could even be a multicultural right. Anglos are the meat that the mighty Other can freely eat. That seems to be the implication of the "cat" metaphor. Cats naturally eat meat and prey upon it.

So where are the protests of all the academic feminists who support multiculturalism? Certainly some feminists complained, but no major member of the cultural feminist elite responded. Germaine Greer, for example, freely commented on the death of Steve Irwin (the hated rugged heterosexual male), but as far as I am aware has been silent on this matter. In fact, when the war in Iraq was impending she suggested that women protest by donning burkas (The Australian 9/11/2005 p.16). Feminists are dominated by a culture of loathing of Western civilisation.

Accepting politically correct relativism - that all cultures are equal except our own, which is the one true evil - no culture but our own can be criticised. This has led to the cultural defence for Aborigines and ethnics. It has been used to get Aboriginal men off murder charges (reduced to manslaughter) in the Northern Territory and this argument was also used by the lawyers for three Pakistani brothers convicted of gang-raping two teenage girls in Sydney in 2002. The offenders were "cultural time bomb(s)". But it is multiculturalism which is the real cultural time bomb and that bomb is now exploding. Everyday.

SOME GOOD NEWS - ACCESS CARD STALLS

The Howard Government has been forced to delay the introduction of laws for its new Access Card after caving in to the demands of an all-party Senate committee. Human Services Minister Chris Ellison, who planned to introduce legislation for the card to the Senate next Thursday, has agreed to put the plan on hold.

The decision followed the release of a report by the Senate's Finance and Public Administration Committee in which government senators joined with the Opposition to call for a delay and reconsideration of the proposals. They were particularly worried about a proposal that the card include a biometric photograph, warning it would increase the likelihood of it becoming a "de facto national ID card".

Although the move heads off a split within Coalition ranks, it is likely to derail the swift implementation of the card, which was designed to provide access to government services.

THE QUEEN AND HER AUSTRALIAN GOVERNORS

What we weren't told: from David Flint's Opinion Column:
"Dr Anne Twomey is to speak at an ACM function on 28 March 2007 on her new book which has come as a bombshell in legal and political circles. It reveals precisely how our constitutional system was brought home in 1986. Had this been known at the time of the 1999 referendum it could have had a significant effect on the result.

Dr Twomey lays bare the wheeling and dealing of high politics, with Whitlam, Murphy, Wran, Fraser and Hawke playing central roles. Most of us thought Australia was fully independent by some time during the Second World War at the latest, but the fact is that our politicians so mistrusted one another that important functions were still left to British ministers as late as 1986.

While we assumed this was a mere formality, Dr Twomey reveals the startling fact that as long as we wanted the British to have these powers, they were determined to exercise them conscientiously and independently - and certainly not as mere letterboxes for the Premiers.

This is no dull law book - it is an exciting account of something the politicians preferred to keep from us. Bringing our constitutional system home was no easy task, and the solution finally and reluctantly extracted from Canberra represented a singular victory for the States.

It was astounding then to the No case in 1999, that the states were so willing to throw this away in 1999. That solution, the Australia Acts, 1986, depended not only on a consensus between the federal and state governments and the concurrence of the British, but also the approval of The Queen, who was far from being, as is generally assumed, a passive rubber stamp.

Until now, we Australians were left ignorant about a major chapter of the Australian story. As a result of Dr. Twomey's skills and perseverance we now know the truth. This must significantly change our understanding of the role and function of the Crown and of proposals for constitutional change."

Dr Twomey, is a leading constitutional lawyer, author, and Visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales, will speak at a luncheon at Parliament House, Sydney at 12 for 1230PM on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007. (We have raised with Dr. Twomey the possibility of her speaking in other states.)
Her subject is: "The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors" Reservations may be made at the National Office of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.