|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|OnTarget Archives||Newtimes Survey||Podcast Library||Video Library||PDF Library|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Library|
21 September 2007 Thought for the Week:
"The animals in a barn may be all very well feed and comfortably lodged. But for all this they do not live in a democracy but in a dictatorship. It is the farmer, their master, who decides everything for these animals; what they shall do; how they shall be fed, what kind of lodging they shall have.
Is not democracy commonly presented to us as the contrary to dictatorship? And does not dictatorship consist in the exercise of absolute power, by a chief or a party, over all the population, leaving no right of choice whatsoever to the individual? Consequently, it can only be in the decreasing of the government's power in order to increase the power of the individual, that the move towards dictatorship can be arrested and true progress made towards an authentic democracy; towards the power of the people.
"The people" is not a pure abstraction; it is composed of individuals. Thus it is the power of individuals which makes the power of the people."
- - From a paper by "The Union of Electors," September 1962
WITHOUT A STUDY OF MAMMON (MONEY) - HISTORY IS BUNK
by Betty Luks:
But what took my particular attention was
Woods' reference to Bruce as a "figure of substance both in Australia and on the
international stage, not the figure of fun of Labor mythology," but as "a man
of his time and class: the prosperous merchant class".
The Managerial Revolution
"Bruce," wrote Lang, "could see no point in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln had defined Democracy. He didn't really believe that the people were fit to govern themselves. (These) were his kind of people. Bankers, men of commerce, lawyers, accountants - they were the ideal managers. Bruce was one of the first exponents of the Managerial State."
Eric Butler also
recorded historical events of that time in "Enemy Within the Empire":
"In 1924 the Bruce-Page administration took the first step in making the Commonwealth Bank a Central Bank, controlled by the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements. This was in line with Mr. Norman's policy of a chain of central banks throughout the world."
As to former PM
Stanley Melbourne Bruce, Eric wrote:
Jack Lang noted: "Few Australians who entered their local polling booth on 17th November 1928 to record their verdicts on the record of the Bruce-Page Government realised that they were also closing the chapter of real self-government for their State Parliaments. They didn't realise that when they placed a simple cross against the word YES on the separate ballot paper to insert Clause 105A into the Constitution, they were sacrificing the sovereign powers of the States "
and the Commonwealth Bank:
Let's not forget, the original Commonwealth Bank was a creature of the Fisher Labor government! Mr. Paul Keating proved himself to be a different type of Labor politician to such patriots as Jack Lang, former Premier of NSW who fought for (but lost) the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales, and King O'Malley MHR who fought the battle for the instituting of the Commonwealth Bank. Both men took on very powerful shadowy forces in the dark world of finance.
It is many a year since ANY politician - no matter which camp - fought for the sovereignty of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia - former senator Paul McLean ("Bankers and Bastards") being the exception.
Essential books for ALL Australians:
WIDENING CHASM OF DISTRUST IN MULTICULTURAL BELGIUM
Is this the trickle that will in time lead on to a flood of break-ups within 'multicultural' nations? And the article is from a 'politically correct' source at that! "The Big Question," asks, John Litchfield, http://news.independent.co.uk, 11/9/07: Is Belgium on the brink of breaking apart, and would it matter if it did? Why are we asking this now?
Three months after national elections, Belgium still has no government, only a caretaker administration. Attempts to agree to a coalition have tumbled into a widening chasm of distrust between the country's two main language communities, the Dutch-speakers (roughly 60 per cent) and the French-speakers (roughly 40 per cent).
The core issue is the perennial thorn-bush of Belgian politics: the future of Belgium itself. Even the relatively moderate, mainstream Dutch-speaking, or Flemish, political parties want the country's loose, federal structure to be unravelled further. French-speaking parties believe that this would hasten the end of the Kingdom of Belgium after 177 years.
The immediate problem is one of personality and trust. For 30 years, Belgium has had a procession of Dutch-speaking prime ministers who could - just about - command the respect of both communities. Despite the efforts of the head of state, King Albert, no such person has emerged to resolve the new crisis.
this just another false alarm?
this seemingly endless argument?
Since the 1970s the economy of the Dutch-speaking north has boomed and the economy of the French-speaking south has suffered the fate of heavy industrial Britain and France. (Imagine the north-south economic and social divide in England, reinforced by the fact that people either side of the Trent speak different languages. Add chips and mayonnaise and chocolate and 400 kinds of beer, and you have a cartoon version of Belgium.)
After endless constitutional tinkering, Belgium has been divided six ways into the regions of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels and parallel "governments" for the three not quite overlapping "language communities" (Dutch, French and a small minority of German-speakers). With what remains of the national, or federal, government, that makes seven different parliaments and administrations to govern a country of 10m people.
The Flemish regional and language governments and parliaments have, in fact, been merged into one, making only six sets of Belgian legislators and bureaucrats. Arguably, this merger has already created the embryo of a separate Flemish state. Such Byzantine structures mean that French and Dutch-speaking Belgians now live almost entirely back-to-back lives. All the country's institutions, from political parties to the media to the Red Cross, are segregated on linguistic lines. Only the monarchy, the football team, the diplomatic service, the national courts and the military are still fully Belgian.
caused this crisis?
Most of Flemish politics leans to the right (and parts of it very far to the right). Most of Walloon politics leans to the Left (and some of it very far to the Left). After carving several national coalitions out of such unlikely material, the liberal Flemish Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstad, was the big loser in the elections three months ago.
The great winner was Yves Leterme, head of the Flemish Christian Democrat party (CD and V). He had campaigned for renewed shrinkage of the Belgian state and for more fiscal and economic autonomy for Flanders. Mr Leterme wants to give the Flanders and Wallonia and Brussels "regional" governments more power over taxation, social security, economic policy, justice, immigration and nationality.
The main French-speaking parties - especially Joelle Milquet, head of the centrists CDH party (ex-Christian Democrats) - have refused these demands. Mme Milquet has infuriated even moderate Flemings by making demands of her own. She wants a majority French-speaking part of the outer Brussels suburbs transferred from Flanders to Wallonia. This would connect Brussels geographically to Wallonia and open up the possibility of the French-speakers "capturing" Brussels in some future split in the country.
Are there any hidden agendas?
is Belgium falling apart?
SLASHING AND BURNING UNI ARTS
by James Reed
CARBON EMISSIONS POLICY - RISING COSTS DIMINISHING RETURNS
"I discovered some time ago that the
greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is not linear," wrote Roger Helmer member
of the European Parliament involved in the battle for Britain's last traces of
REASON, IGNORANCE, TERROR AND FREEDOM
by Ian Wilson
if Brennan would apply the same logic to, say, immigration law, if a flood of
refugees threatened to invade Australia and squat in our law courts and the homes
of lawyers and judges? In any case, Australia's Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) is draconian,
harsher than similar laws in Britain and the U.S., and even suppresses research
MAD SCIENTISTS IN SHADOW OF FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER
by James Reed
Sure, technology does give us some crumbs of benefits with so-called life-saving technologies. But most scientific work is related to weapons and military research. Scientists live in the shadow of Frankenstein's Monster.
THE BODY LANGUAGE SAYS IT ALLby Len the Cleaner
Thought it must be time to catch up with your readers once again. The Australian (7/9/07, p1) has two photos with interesting power body language.
In one photo the Chinese emperor Hu Jintao embraces John Howard. Hu, the boy, has his hands up high; John down low - Hu is male superior or, if you like, in the male superior position. John is passive and receptive, unable to meet Hu's eyes.
On the other hand, Georgey the Bush does an eye-to-eye, 'on the run' handshake. I'm busy and powerful, it says. Hu has a serious look on his face. With John he just smiles. Well, a picture sure does tell a thousand words.
AIDS AND THE SICKNESS OF AFRICA
Ian Wilson LL.B:
This material opened my non-scientific eyes to some criticisms of the orthodox view. In Africa the systems of law and order and public health have broken down. The alternative theory puts it: Peoples' immune systems are stressed to the point of near breakdown and AIDS is a reflection of the systems' overload rather than one simple disease. But apart from this there are physical and political limits to condom use as a preventive measure.
One story goes that "AIDS
Workers" who by day supplied Nigerian prostitutes with condoms, by night came
to the same prostitutes for "passionate nights" with no protection. And there
are other stories, a little too "raw" to repeat in this publication.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|