|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 April 2010 Thought for the Week:
“In 1962, Aldous Huxley, reflecting on his predictions made thirty years previously in "Brave New World", concluded that non-violent methods of control were most likely to be evolved, whereby people could willingly consent to a state of servitude, and become amenable to "mass production methods on the social level". It is not unreasonable to suggest that in the present state of affairs people will acquiesce to doing almost anything if there is a money income attached to it. Where the task offers prestige and job satisfaction, individuals will most strongly deny their servitude, obeying orders which go against their conscience or common sense in the belief that they are thereby acting for the common good. Hence the prevailing view that incomes are primarily derived from 'work', i.e., waged or salaried employment, has made it increasingly difficult for people to relate to Social Credit economic philosophy.
As Dresden James (1931-2008) observed:
If one wishes to move beyond 'flat earth' economics, it becomes necessary to make a serious study of alternatives. Over the past seven years, whilst I have been working on understanding Finance in Society, our tiny team of volunteers has struggled to offer some access to the rich legacy of literature from the Social Credit movement through the website, and through The Social Crediter, the back numbers of which are on the website. Social Credit may not be the whole answer, or the only alternative to business-as-usual debt financing of business, industry and farming. Nevertheless, it provides a powerful starting point for engaging in debate on alternatives to the status quo. If work does not create incomes - where does money come from?” Douglas Social Credit website: >www.Douglassocialcredit.com<
- - Frances Hutchinson “The Social Crediter” Volume 86 No1, Spring 2010.
WOMEN TALKING COMMONSENSE MACRO-ECONOMICS TO WOMEN
Women talking macro-economics, Ann Pettifor. “My conversation earlier this week with Elena Sisti - of Italy’s Altreconomia on macro-economics, reform of the finance sector, money, and yes, how we women have left the all-important matter of finance to the boys. Big mistake. It’s time to get in there, and exercise influence. Too much is at stake…
To create credit there is no need for our banking system to depend on the weather, on land, or even on labour.”
Elena: You have always been convinced that the complication of finance could be explained to everyone and masses could be mobilised even for finance issues. Why have you always considered the finance sector as crucial for people?
We have just lived through three decades of financial de-regulation where economic policy makers have encouraged reckless, privatised credit creation. This in turn led to crazy speculation and gambling - in derivatives, collateralised debt obligations, and a range of other parcelled up, sliced-and-diced securities.
None of economic gurus complained about inflation of assets: However none of the economic gurus of the time - from US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, to European central bankers, to orthodox economists - while ferociously opposed to the inflation of prices and wages, ever complained about the inflation of assets. Why? It is my belief that this is because it is the rich, on the whole, that own assets. The rest of us live by our wages, or by the prices we can obtain as farmers or small business women... The rich live on rent from their assets - be it property, stocks and shares or any number of assets. And orthodox economists allowed bankers and the rich to inflate the value of their assets with easy credit. This enabled the rich to enrich themselves over the period of financial liberalisation to an extent probably unknown in our history.
Debt-induced deflationary spiral:
They should be indicted /imprisoned – but so far, nary a one:
It’s a wicked old world:
BREACHING NORMS OF HUMANITARIAN BEHAVIOUR
Phil Shiner, Supervisor of Public Interest Lawyers, United Kingdom, said during the panel discussion on the Seminar on Assistance to the Palestinian People that the Advisory Opinion was extremely helpful as it had identified three different pre-empting norms Israel had breached, explaining that peremptory norms or jus cogens norms were actions recognized in international law that no State was ever permitted to commit, such as genocide, slavery and denial of the right to self-determination. The opinion was crystal clear that Israel was in breach of international law and set out the obligations of third States.
He said that customary international law was part of the common law of the United Kingdom and part of the jurisdiction of other European States. He had unsuccessfully brought two cases to Court where the United Kingdom was in violation of international law through, for instance, permitting the sale of arms to Israel, which had then been used in the Gaza offensive, and suggested that civil society, should identify EU States where legal actions in that regard could be brought.
The EU-Israeli Association Agreement is also in breach of jus cogens norms, as the Agreement includes a provision which says that relations between parties must be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles. That clause requires parties to respect customary international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter which prohibits acquisition of territory by force. He was working on a court challenge in that regard and suggested that what was being done in the UK could be done elsewhere.
Watch: Phil Sheiner Speech at UN 26.03.2010 from Kawther Salam on Vimeo.
RAUNCH-CULTURE, WOMEN AND CIVILISATION
by James Reed
The Cover Story in The Weekend Australian Review 13-14/3/2010 says it all: “In 1998, the British author and feminist Natasha Walter wrote a book “The New Feminism”, which attacked older feminists' censorious approaches
to sex and romance, fashion and body
Andrew Bolt’s blog carries on where James Reed’s article left off. 30/3/2010:
Update 1- Baird is the very model of modern academic:
THE HEINER AFFAIR
- Bronwyn Bishop 'whistleblower supporter':
“It’s not everyday, as Chairman of a Committee, you get an award like the one given to me in 2004 as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The inscription reads - Whistleblowers Action Group (Qld) - Whistleblower Supporter of the Year 2004.
Here’s the background
On the 5th March 1990 the Cabinet officially determined that documents containing evidence taken by Mr Heiner, and relating to child abuse, be destroyed. Prior to this the manager of the institution placed the Government on notice that he required access to these documents for the purpose of taking legal action. Knowing this, the Cabinet ordered the destruction of the documents on the 23rd March 1990. On this same day the photocopies of the original complaints were shredded by the Department.
The Cabinet relied on an opinion given by the Criminal Justice Commission, which was set up after the Fitzgerald Enquiry to ensure justice in Queensland. They failed in this instance to do so. The opinion interpreted the meaning of S)129 of the Queensland Criminal Code Act which makes it a criminal act, liable to imprisonment for three years, to wilfully destroy any document, book or other thing, knowing that any of these may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding.
The opinion said there was only an offence if legal proceedings had already begun. Many, including Mr Lindeberg, argued vociferously against this interpretation. The critics were proven to be correct when one, Pastor Enderby, was convicted of such an offence – that is destroying evidence which may be required in a judicial proceeding. The real problem for Mr Goss, his former Cabinet members and relevant public servants, including Mr Rudd, is that they were not prosecuted under S)129 but Pastor Douglas Enderby was.
On the 11th March 2004, whilst our enquiry continued, Pastor Enderby was found guilty under S)129 for destroying the diary of a child abuse victim, six years prior to the girl reporting the incident to police and the possibility of instituting legal proceedings. Therefore there seems to be in Queensland one rule for Cabinet ministers and public servants and another for ordinary citizens. One gets prosecuted and convicted – the others go scot free. But back to the award. The public hearings allowed the Heiner Affair to be aired and the conviction of Pastor Enderby to be known and compared with the disgrace of the Heiner Affair and cover up of the alleged rape of a young girl.
My committee recommended in our 2004 report that the Goss Cabinet members be prosecuted in the same way Pastor Enderby was and that under the COAG process ensure that all allegations relating to the abuse of children be kept for 30 years. Premier Beattie’s response was that it had happened 14 years ago – so forget it. Pastor Enderby’s offence was 6 years old when he was convicted and at the time of the enquiry a Goss Cabinet Minister was Treasurer of Queensland.
Meanwhile a young woman has had no justice after 20 years of enquiry, debate and cover up. The case is however now part of legal history and the Goss Cabinet, and those around him at the time, identified as abuses of the law and clear evidence. If we don’t continue to prosecute this case we set a most dangerous precedent.”
BOAT PEOPLE - WE TOLD YOU SO
Straight from the oppressive new world order’s mouth: The UN’s refugee agency has said that Rudd’s decision to allow dozens of Sri Lankans to jump the immigration queue will encourage more to head to the once-lucky country. Indeed, the queue-jumping, allowing the lucky 78 into Oz, was done at the expense of others who have been waiting longer to get into Australia. A high-ranking official from the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees told The Australian: “When you’re faced with an emergency and have people demanding resettlement, the (UNHCR’s) position is you should not give in to that because it does give the incentive for people to try this irregular movement”. (The Australian 25/3/2010 p.1)
In other words, the Rudd decision is ore ‘pinko’ then the most politically correct ‘pinko’ organisation on Earth! In fact, the Labor Party adores the 29 per cent increase in asylum-seeker claims; for refugeeism and immigration are their new religions. Thus the Labor party has gone from the party defending the white man, to the party burying him, his culture and his legacy. To be even fairer, the Liberals are but a nanometre behind them in the self-loathing steeple-chase.
OUR NATION’S BORDER SECURITY - A JOKE
What does “intercepted” mean? How Kevin Rudd’s navy “intercepts” boat people:
A media release issued by Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor announced:
In fact, the opposite was closer to the truth: the boat’s 41 passengers and three crew effectively intercepted HMAS Broome. Sources on the island said the boat sailed under the nose of the patrol boat as it lay at anchor before arriving at Flying Fish Cove, the island’s harbour.
The costs mount: The 100th boat ... brings the number of asylum seeker arrivals under the Rudd Government to 4386. At $80,000 each, according to official figures, boat people have already cost taxpayers an estimated $350 million to process on Christmas Island. The cost of running Christmas Island has already blown out by $132 million this year, according to revised Budget estimates.
TRUTH IS NEEDED ON POLICE ‘RACISM’ AND ETHNIC CRIME
by James Reed
But by the same token, there needs to be an open discussion of ethnic crime as well. “Tell the Truth on Ethnic crime” (Herald Sun 19/3/2010) details that the Victorian police are essentially gripped by political correctness and are reluctant to say that an attempted rapist is, say, an African, because doing so can “cause an offence”.
Nor do police release figures on ethnic crime rates to the public. But when such figures leak out, they are truly astonishing. For example, to quote the Herald Sun article, Sudanese refugees are four times likely to commit crimes than are other Australians and the rate of serious crime among Lebanese-born is almost double that of other Australians, and the crime rate of Vietnamese and Cambodians is higher.
Could it be that the frustrations of political correctness have led to individual police officers wrongly taking their anger out on perhaps innocent ethnics? As I have said before, political correctness itself is one of the principal causes of “racism”.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|