Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

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

by Jeremy Lee
The highly-talented and controversial British historian David Irving has just been released from prison in Austria after serving thirteen months of a three year sentence. His crime? A remark he made 17 years earlier.

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.

International pressure:
Through the United Nations, 'anti-discrimination' legislation, on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status or religion, was presented to all members for signature and then ratification, whereby member-states were required to legislate domestically. The first attempt to establish a Human Rights Commission in Australia occurred during the Whitlam years at the hands of the Attorney General Lionel Murphy. It is instructive to read the heated criticism by the Opposition Liberal and National parties.

Liberals installed Human Rights Commission:
As soon as they gained office under Malcolm Fraser in 1975 they reversed their position and installed the Human Rights Commission in which they had thwarted Labor's Murphy. The ensuing powers of this body were at odds with traditional freedoms in Australia, including the right to free speech. Thus, a dual court system had to be installed in each signatory -nation - traditional Courts versus Human Rights tribunals. The latter resorted to antiquated "star-chamber" principles which had earlier been weeded out of the judicial process as inimical to individual rights and open, fair trials, where justice was not only done, but could be seen to be done. Denied the right to identify and confront their accusers, victims could be summoned on allegations to appear, at their own expense and before any charges were laid, in front of tribunals held in closed sessions. Legal representation was denied. Procedure at such hearings could later be used as evidence in legal trials that followed.

Ramping up the pressure:
Politicians who, in many cases, knew little of the law, had never read the Constitution and had, in any case, sold their consciences to their benefactors and the Party Whip, raised little objection to this subversion. The Church, without exception, "passed by on the other side".
On October 16, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, establishing within the U.S. State Department a special unit to monitor global Anti-Semitism and report annually to Congress.
On May 22, 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice swore in Greg Rickman to oversee the Office of global Anti-Semitism. Within a short time the United Nations, under its new Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, asked its member-States to sign, and then ratify, a similar resolution.

Greg Rickman's office has already defined 'anti-Semitism'. Included are the following:
§ Any assertion that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world is anti-Semitic.
§ Strong anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic.
§ Virulent criticism of Israel's leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic.
§ Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.
§ Criticism of the US government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community is anti-Semitic.
§ Criticism of the Jewish community for promoting Globalism (or the New World Order) is anti-Semitic.
§ Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.
§ Diminishing the "six million" figure of Holocaust casualties is anti-Semitic.
§ Asserting that there is a "Zionist conspiracy" is anti-Semitic.
§ Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.
§ Making 'derogatory statements about Jewish persons' is anti-Semitic.

Hiding history:
Go through each of the listed points, and it will be seen that between them they ban any research and debate on some of the most momentous issues of the past 100 years. The views of world leaders are to be struck from the pages of history. Take, for example, the origins of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Only three years after that catastrophe Sir Winston Churchill wrote:
"… There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by those international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders …"
Illustrated London Herald, February 8, 1920

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.

Gagged: What about the criticism of Jewish leaders?
§ Is it now forbidden to mention Menachem Begin's part in the murderous Irgun movement, cited as terrorist by the British at the end of World War II?
§ Are we to ignore the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila, under the instigation of Ariel Sharon, known widely as "the Butcher of Beirut during the first occupation of Lebanon?
Even an Israeli Court found Sharon culpable

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.

Israel's critics?
Or what about those courageous Jews who do not condone the one-sided presentation of Israel's policy in the Middle East? The young Jewish journalist Antony Loewenstein has been forced to run the gauntlet of attack from his own community for daring to publicly dissent from Israel's policies against the Palestinians in his meticulously documented book "My Israel Question" (Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, 3 printings in the year of publication, 2006) As Peter Rodgers, former Australian Ambassador to Israel said of this book, "Loewenstein shines a spotlight on Israel and its uncritical supporters. That will make them uncomfortable. For that reason alone "My Israel Question" deserves a strong readership".

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?

The power of Israel
Or take the just-published "The Power of Israel in the United States", again meticulously-documented by Professor James Petras, author of over 60 books, and contributor to such papers as The New York Times, The Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy and Le Monde Diplomatique. If there was any doubt of Israel's disproportionate influence in the White House and State Department, as well as over both Repubican and Democrat parties, it has been dispelled by Petras. Is he to be prosecuted under the new international law of global Censorship?

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.

The right to believe
And finally, what is to be done about the many Christian faithful who believe the New Testament accounts of the trial and sentence of Jesus Christ are true, and that the account as portrayed in Mel Gibson's The Passion is accurate?
Is the profession of such a belief to be regarded as 'anti-Semitic' and therefore illegal? Or will the Gospels and the Book of Acts simply be proscribed? They were in the Soviet Union at one stage.
Can we anticipate a day when the "Global Commission for World Religion" finally demands the confiscation of Bibles, and the outlawing of missionary work?

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!

by John Brett:
On the arrival of the Queen for her Commonwealth games visit, the last words on an ABC FM newscast told us her visit was to cost us 3 million dollars!
We knew the figure was false, because it is the ABC's habit to state false information about most things pertaining to our Monarchy. The ABC becomes progressively more paranoid about our original and under-girding institution, which has given us the stability no other nation enjoys (and) becoming the envy of most people in the world who flock here by all means possible. We suspect her visit was at no additional cost for the usual services provided for all visiting VIP's.

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!

President's 1992 visit seven times more costly:
After both the Queen and President George Bush senior visited us in 1992 a Senate Estimates Committee inquiry found that the President's 3-day visit cost the Federal Government seven times more than the Queen's visit of a week! ( 15/1 ? ) Federal Police Acting deputy Commissioner Adrian Whiddett, appeared before the committee to provide information and costs.
A brief look at the arrival and departure of each visitor, gives us a glimpse of the ABC's paranoidal stance.

Our Queen's security:
This last visit when security was up on her previous tour, the Queen arrived on a British Airways flight. The aircraft on arrival joined the landing circuit with an increase in distance from all the other aircraft in the circuit.
After removal of special items for the Queens flight the aircraft returned to normal scheduled BA service. The Queen returned to London in similar fashion.

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' security arrangements:
But let us take a brief look at the security and cost of George Bush senior's arrival in 1992, close to a visit by the Queen the same year.
His arrival was preceded by the arrival of two giant C-5A Galaxy transports, carrying everything from S.S. firearms to bullet proof armoured cars, including seven stretch limousines fitted with bullet proof glass and bomb proof armour. One hundred and twenty five media representatives were flown in, in a chartered TWA 747.

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.
All this was duplicated in "Air Force Two", another $500 million 747, the back-up aircraft in case of malfunction of AF One.

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:
Then when George Bush junior visited us, with even more heavy "gear", he travelled along the road from Fairburn Airport into Canberra, where for 300 metres each side of the road, every living thing was removed and the road lined with armed US security personnel, who were nearly sucked off their feet as the fleet of armoured cars roared past at 100 KPH , all covered from overhead by armed helicopters.

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.

What sort of people are they?
An army security officer gave an excellent description of the difference between Royal and Presidential security philosophy.
"It is almost impossible to identify some person or persons who want to shoot the Queen, but it is always a possibility. So we take the view it is unlikely, but make preparation for the worst event, keeping all precaution and preparation out of public and Royal sight. If our foresight fails, then any incident that may follow, engages what is available to any other citizen." (Police, Ambulance, etc.)

"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.

In the public arena they are more likely to harm or wound onlookers, if suddenly triggered into action, never being able to instantly distinguish between friend and new foe. This will bring into action a vast recovery operation that is not available to other citizens.

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

by Brian Simpson:
According to The Sunday Times, 5/2/07 Stonehenge, the 4,000-year-plus monument at Durington Walls, is part of a much bigger system of worship and feasting.
Archaeologists have discovered at Durington Walls, systems of shrines and houses and a giant wooden henge. Piles of animal bones indicate that Neolithic villagers must have conducted feasts - roasting pigs over fires.

The astronomical significance of Stonehenge is not in doubt, but the discoveries add further dimensions of sophistication to this. Ancient Britons were not savages as politically correct archaeology once portrayed them: Europe was indeed the cradle of civilisation.

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."
Source: The Telegraph (Britain) 22/2/07.

One wonders:
Will the "Book of European History" give a true rendition of Europe's history or are we to expect a 'politically correct' version? British people would say that British history is unique and should not be lumped in with that of the rest of Europe - as would all other European peoples who value their own race, customs, traditions, languages, histories, etc.


CHINA STOCKS 'SINK' AMID 'BUBBLE FEAR'

by Betty Luks:
We are informed $34 billion in American dollar terms was wiped off the world share market as a result of the very recent Chinese stock market 'slump'.
A few nought figures have been white-outed on the balance sheets by the money changers and those who invested their savings in the gamble of the stock market, and those who mortgaged their homes to 'get a bit of the Chinese action', may now find themselves in a vulnerable financial debt situation.

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:
The League of Rights conducts a four-part course explaining what all this means and we offer those who would like to take part in a Course the chance to do so.
The four parts cover Economics (or national housekeeping), Financial Credit compared with Real Credit, Productive Capacity and Leisure, Politics, and What Needs to Be Done.
IF you are serious about understanding the differences, contact one of the League's Book Services and ask for further details. Or ask about the Correspondence Course.


CANADIAN JUDGES REJECT TERROR LAW

Canada'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 IRAN

According 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