|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
9 March 2007 Thought for the Week:
"The shape of The Plan seems plain. It was that British troops, if possible, and if that could not be achieved, American ones, should begin the new war. Quite clearly, this time, it would not be for any ideal or for British or American interests. It might promote Zionist power and found the Zionist Empire; of these, British or American fighting-men would undeniably be the servants. The supreme ambition, I judge, is to get American armies fighting in Arabia. If a carrot were needed for the public donkey, 'vital oil interests' could be dangled before him.
The word 'Declaration' seems ominous in our time and our affairs. The Balfour 'Declaration', which seemed harmless to the war-confused public of 1917, in the event proved to be a declaration of war on the Arabs of Palestine; it led to increasingly costly warfare against them in the Twenties and Thirties. It led also, by direct descent, to the United Nations 'Declaration' of 1947, which in the event, if it is followed through, is likely to prove the declaration of yet another war against them "
- - Douglas Reed in "From Smoke to Smother" (1938-1948). A Sequel to "Insanity Fair".
THE CRIMINALISATION OF FREE SPEECH
The Canadian resident Ernst Zundel, whose conviction for 'hate literature" was overturned by Canada's highest Court, was kidnapped, held in solitary confinement for two years without charge, and then illegally deported to Germany, where he has just been sentenced to 5 years in prison. Others have suffered similar penalties. Their only crime has been the expression of sincerely-held beliefs about historical events.
Traditionally, the right to express personal views - whether popular or not - has been upheld in Christian countries as "the right of free speech". As many historical anomalies about the Jewish holocaust in Germany came under scrutiny after World War II, pressure was applied to governments to outlaw any discussion and scrutiny under the accusation that to do so was 'anti-Semitic'. Germany and Austria were the first to succumb to such pressure, followed by France and other western European nations.
installed Human Rights Commission:
up the pressure:
Rickman's office has already defined 'anti-Semitism'. Included are the following:
Traverse the years to 2006, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is now under intense attack for his just-published book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" (Simon and Shuster). Whatever one's conclusion - and there will obviously be diverse and passionately-held differences - the right to disagree is vital in a free society. But a concerted campaign to paint Carter's book as "anti-Semitic" is designed to intimidate genuine inquirers.
about the criticism of Jewish leaders?
Not only gentile leaders are criticised. Many courageous non-Zionist Jews suffer intense criticism if they speak out. Professor Norman Finkelstein's books have strongly criticised what he calls the "Holocaust industry", where historical accuracy has been relegated to second place behind political goals and financial profits. Finkelstein's parents died in Germany's concentration camps. The continued payment of reparations by Germany to allegedly exaggerated numbers of Holocaust victims could not withstand dispassionate scrutiny; so such scrutineers must be intimidated into silence.
Loewenstein is simply the latest dissenter from Zionism. Authors from Alfred Lilienthal to Israel Shamir, Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak have been denigrated as 'self-hating Jews' by those who tread the Zionist path. A growing minority of Jews are expressing similar dissent. On February 5, 2007, the British paper The Guardian reported that 130 prominent Jews, in an association called Independent Jewish Voices declared their independence from the Jewish Establishment, arguing that it put support for Israel above the human rights of Palestinians. Is it conceivable that such a statement should be a criminal offence?
power of Israel
The argument is brought closer to home by the current controversy (February 2007) over the visit to Australia of Professor Raphael Israeli, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In a blunt warning reported in the Jewish Press, " .Professor Israeli said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of their adopted countries and said Australia should limit the intake of Muslim migrants to protect social cohesion and national security ." (Australian Jewish News, Feb 22, 2007)
In a tumult of controversy, some of the Jewish organisations which sponsored Professor Israeli's visit withdrew their patronage, while others defended his right to speak controversially. It is safe to say, however, that Professor Israeli won't be summoned by the Human Rights Commission, as was the fate of two Christian pastors who criticised Islam and parts of the Koran in a seminar. With the current crisis over the spread of Islam in Western Europe and Britain, such open discussion is essential and Professor Israeli's right to speak should be defended.
right to believe
That, I believe, is what this new globalist legislation is all about. It is an "outward and visible sign" of a war to the death between two irreconcilable faiths. On the outcome will depend the future of the world. As Lincoln said' "Silence, when we should protest, makes cowards of us all".
OUR MOST GRACIOUS QUEEN --- A BARGAIN!
The ABC's paranoia about the Monarchy is amplified by its total neglect of what all other visiting VIP's might cost, as they are all accorded security as required or requested, except when the President of Republican USA visits us, when the cost escalates at least seven fold!
1992 visit seven times more costly:
To and from the airports she used in Australia, people lined the roads to wave as she passed, for the briefest of a glimpse. At many of the places she visited, particularly the Opera House and St. Andrew's Cathedral, she spoke and received bouquets from hundreds of well-wishes along the barriers, where visible security was hard to spot, but certainly present.
George Bush Snr's star 'Air Force One'
Then there was "Air Force
One" the $500 million 747-200 carrying the President. It was equipped with 85
telephones, 4 computers, an 8 channel TV system, a mini hospital, a conference
room and a freezer capable of holding enough food for the 94 persons on board
for a week. Communications demanded 17 aerials protruding from all over the aircraft.
After landing Air Force One has its engines left running at idle, the whole time it is on the ground. Air Force Two has one or two engines running the whole time, like any other American gangster get-away-car. Prior to AF One's arrival at KSA, all aircraft using runway 34 were diverted to Bankstown, while runway 34 was electronically "swept". Then no aircraft were allowed within twenty kilometres of AF One as it landed.
George Bush Jnr's security measures:
This was the same stretch of road that saw the Queen drive into Canberra in the old un-armoured Rolls Royce at a sedate speed, that allowed the cheering crowds lining the road to see and wave to her. None so blind as those who will not see.
As the ABC obviously would not see the enormous extent and cost of a Republican visit and the paranoia of the U.S. security, yet they wanted us to believe they had discovered an outrageous cost of the Queens visit.
sort of people are they?
"The Americans almost hope something will happen, to justify and demonstrate their massive capability, knowing there are thousands of people who want to remove the President from this planet. To this end they have names, together with a constant flow of threats, with and without names attached.
One of their counter measures
is to have a highly visible counter force with as much armour as possible partly
visible, with suggestive help from the media, believing their massive visual presence
is the best deterrent to a would-be assassin.
It all rests on the belief that their President is some immortal all-powerful deity to be protected above all else in their politically divided nation and the world they continue to divide".
THE ANCIENT MYSTERY OF STONEHENGE
All of the history of our kind now stands threatened: that is what is at stake in the battle we now face against the racial acid of cosmopolitanism.
GERMANY WANTS 'COMMON' EUROPEAN HISTORY TEXTS
After reading the following news report, one wonders just what John Howard and his Liberal cronies have in mind for our young people as they make plans for a 'national curriculum'.
"British school pupils could soon be learning history from a European Union textbook
under a new proposal from Berlin to be tabled next week. Germany is to urge the
drawing up of a "European history book", to be taught in all schools to foster
a common cultural identity across the EU. The idea, said to have the backing of
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, is to be the flagship education proposal
of Berlin's EU presidency. Annette Schavan, the federal education minister, will
set out her plans at a meeting of EU education ministers in Heidelberg."
CHINA STOCKS 'SINK' AMID 'BUBBLE FEAR'
I know many readers will be exasperated at me writing this, but I saw the sun still shining on that day, the grass was still growing (albeit rather bedraggled in this land of the big drought) and the wild birds still enjoying the Golden Delicious apples on the trees I haven't covered with bird-netting.
It demonstrates to me very clearly there are two world views here and two entirely different systems operating. One is based on the very real Laws of Creation and the other based on the financial fraud known in history as Mammon.
The Social Dynamics or Releasing Reality:
CANADIAN JUDGES REJECT TERROR LAWCanada's Supreme Court has struck down a controversial system that allowed the government to detain and deport foreign-born terror suspects. The nine judges ruled that the security certificate system - in place since 1978 - violated Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The system allowed a suspect to be held indefinitely or deported on the basis of evidence presented in secret. [Note: On the basis of this system, Ernst Zundel was held for two years in solitary confinement as a threat to Canada's "national security," and then, in March 2005, deported to Germany, where he was put on trial for having violated Germany's "Holocaust denial" law. On Feb. 5 a court in Mannheim, Germany sentenced him to five years imprisonment.] Source: BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6391413.stm
SOME U.S GENERALS 'WILL QUIT' IF BUSH ORDERS ATTACK ON IRANAccording to highly-placed defence and intelligence sources, some of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office.
The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
Source: The Times (timesonline) Britain.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|