|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|
5 October 2012 Thought for the Week:
Isn’t what’s good for the goose also good for the gander? When the British tried to buy land in China at Kowloon, which became Hong Kong, as a base to gain access to the wealth of China, the Chinese declined to sell. Instead they allowed occupancy on a 99-year lease knowing by the end of the Lease they would have gained enormously from the transportable or mobile wealth of Britain, while still retaining ownership of their own source of wealth.
So successful was this long time strategy, the Chinese not only recovered their territory, they have been enabled to now dictate economic policy to most of the world, from the lessons of this bi-lateral agreement. The U.S.A. included.
Had the world’s third best Australian treasurer studied history, he would have had the wit to lease Cubby Station to the Chinese on a 99-year lease, ensuring the same reciprocal benefits that were delivered via Hong Kong to the Chinese for a century.
- - John Brett, Queensland September 2012
AMERICA CAN’T HIDE ITS CORRUPTION ANY MORE
by Wallace Klinck
C. H. Douglas (founder of the Social Credit movement) declared: "Political democracy without economic democracy is dynamite!" The central problem facing nations is a price-system that is increasingly non-self-liquidating, in that it generates financial costs and prices at an ever increasing rate of flow relative to the rate that it distributes effective consumer incomes required to liquidate those financial costs of production.
If we are to carry on, we must under the present unsound financial system rely upon exponentially increasing financial credit originating as debt issued by bank loans to consumers. This debt is an increasing inflationary "load" or financial charge against future incomes derived from future production.
Because of the inherent deficiency of purchasing-power there exists a growing tendency to produce non-consumer goods, i.e., capital plant and tools and war goods, etc., not because of real necessity but because this distributes wages, salaries and dividends in order to "bridge" the inherent and increasing deficiency of consumer buying-power.
Integrity of the electoral system is undeniably lacking and is certainly essential. But no matter how honest the electoral process, this, of itself, will not correct a fundamental overriding faulty system of national cost accountancy -- a system which is largely responsible for the pervasive deterioration of business and professional ethics as all sectors of society are struggling for financial survival on an upward sloping treadmill of expanding debt.
FOREIGN INVESTMENT DEBATE - SYMBOL OF WHAT IS WRONG
by James Reed
It is not too hard to see the logical incoherence of this idea, for how can it be foreigners develop – by “foreign” investment in an infinite regress? Hardly – they do it by national support. Even our critics of foreign investment want an economic exclusion zone up north, which will essentially set up another country.
We have become a zombie nation, no longer alive as nations in the past were, but merely the consuming dead. Sometimes it just gets to me and all I can do is scream – aaaaaaaaaaaagh! Doesn’t anyone see what is going to happen?
UTTER GUTTER OF THE WORLD MADE IN CHINA
by James Reed
The gutter oil scandal is only one of the many health issues arising from China’s ruthlessness in cutting costs to reap in the profits. I don’t eat any food labelled “Product of China”, or “Product of any Asian country” for that matter. I don’t trust them. Read your labels!
IT’S ALL IN A NAME: THE DRY WRY SIDE
by James Reed
Logic please! Iyer’s objection to names such as John, Paul and Ian was that it is hard to remember who is who. But what happens in a mass society with millions upon millions of people, with the same name or even similar names? The problem of identification is not solved because it is a memory problem. Any why can’t short names have big meanings?
The purpose of the article, I suppose, is to show how colourful and diverse Sanskrit names are and how, well, boring, are Anglo Saxon names. Okay, you win! Do anything but don’t throw me into the blackberry patch of “intolerance”. From this day forth, know me as “The One with the Lotus Flower Covering his Withered Private Parts”, whatever that cashes out as!
RACIAL IMPURISTS: ARE THEY SLIGHTLY NUTS?
by Brian Simpson
Taylor in the course of an otherwise good article says “North Asians… are smarter than we are, on average.” This is a good example of his Asianist sentiment. Actually the correct phrase should be: “East Asians that have been tested have an average IQ of 105, Caucasians 100.”
Now, I recall a leading IQ theorist saying that nobody knows the IQ of China: what is the average IQ of a billion people? Tests have primarily been on educated Asians in the cities, delivered by Asians. Presumably we should trust the researchers. Nevertheless, the Jewish IQ score of 127 has been revised down by an IQ researcher to 107.
An item in The Australian (6 July, 2012) “Women Edging Ahead in the IQ Stakes,” should concern Taylor and the racial realists. Women now outscore men in IQ tests. By racial realist standards, they should now be singing the praises of superior women. The problem with American racial realism is its blind faith in IQ tests.
The problem is that there are some decisive objections to the scientific use of IQ scores, as detailed by P. Bird, “The Impossibility of IQ,” Economic Letters vol.2, 1979, pp.95-97. The mathematics is a little beyond me, and probably most racial realists, but in a nutshell: Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem applies to IQ scores. The Arrow Impossibility Theorem is a mathematical result applicable to social welfare functions, but Bird shows that it models IQ as well.
The theorem arises from four conditions - unrestricted domain, the Pareto condition, the independence of irrelevant individuals and “no dominant ability” – which collectively imply a contradiction.
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION AND THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
by Chris Knight
Nor is open borders cosmopolitanism a programme of moderation: it is the paradigm case of an extremist policy. And as for honesty, have a look at them: the burden of proof is upon them to show that they are not scoundrels. In fact immigration policy in the Western world has involved deception and here in Australia, past prime ministers have said that it was necessary to deceive the electorate to get in place the racial changes.
As for responsibility, while immigrationists claim the monopoly on “compassion” their policies are a pathway to national suicide, which “will pull immigrants (so beloved by the immigrationists) to the level of squalor they fled.” No, the moral high ground is with those who want to preserve their nation, race and culture from one worldism’s relentless assault.
WHAT IS THE REALITY?
A correspondence wrote: “Last week, sadly, two Tasmanians were lost at sea. These boys were Tasmanian taxpayers but more importantly they were Tasmanian sons, brothers, partners of Tasmanians. The authorities searched the best they could with the resources they had at hand and then stopped searching.
I am not against helping anyone who needs a hand but you have to ask where the government's priorities lie - shouldn't we be helping our own with at least the same enthusiasm, if nothing else ??? If you agree with this point please send this email on and get it out there - we might get an answer if enough people ask the question!”
Response to the above:
THE BRISTOL POUND IS LAUNCHED TO HELP INDEPENDENT RETAILERS
Organisers hope currency will encourage shoppers to buy locally. The West Country city launched its own local currency to great fanfare yesterday with the Lord Mayor handing over a £B1 note in symbolic exchange for a round loaf of granary bread made by local baker Joe Wheatcroft, who said he would put his first piece of Bristolian cash towards buying a dairy cow.
Inspired by similar schemes in Totnes, Lewes, Stroud and Brixton, the organisers of the quirky not-for-profit project hope the notes – designed by local artists and coming in denominations of £B1, £B5, £B10 and £B20 – will encourage residents to buy locally produced goods from the independent retailers which accept them rather than chains and megastores. With a steady queue of residents soon lining up to swap their pounds sterling for "Brizzle" quids – with an exchange rate of 1:1 – the early signs are good.
The level of interest is far more than just local, too. Television crews from as far afield as Russia, China, Ukraine, Belize and Singapore were keenly questioning the organisers, and other towns across the UK are watching with interest to see if local currencies could be the answer to their own high-street woes.
Lynn Andres, from Guy Fawkes Hair & Beauty, was bullish that the Bristol Pound is not a gimmick and will bring new custom to her premises, saying the city needed to fight back after a mall heavily populated with chain stores opened recently. "It's hit trade," she says. "What we want is to get more people shopping here in the independent shops because we've got a lot to offer."
Around 300 independent businesses have signed up so far, but the organisers hope that more than 1,000 will soon be involved. One of the most attractive features of the scheme for small shopkeepers and stallholders is the ability of customers to pay for goods by text message – allowing independent retailers to accept non-cash payments without having to go to the expense of setting up a credit card machine.
The idea of spending money simply by showing a membership card to the seller and texting the cost of the item, the name of the shop and a personal pincode to the Bristol Credit Union, which is overseeing the system, might seem a little vulnerable to crime. But James Berry, the co-operative's chief executive, points out that the typical choice of items is unlikely to persuade Britain's aspiring fraudsters to move into the city.
"It's hard to imagine that someone who got hold of both your card and your phone would then think, 'I'm going to go and buy some local independent goods'," he says. Read more...
DON’T WE SHARE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRESENT SITUATION?
by Betty Luks
My question to him was: “What about the Ten Commandments? Are these people not under the same moral laws as the rest of us?” His answer was along the lines of: No matter what these people do, or did, they are still ‘God’s chosen’, implying they could do no wrong in His sight! Former Israeli and Jew, Gilad Atzmon, doesn’t see it that way (and neither do I) and has reminded the world of what happened to the Palestinian people in 1982.
“A Preventable Massacre” by Seth Anziska, 17 September 2012:
Thirty years later, the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila camps is remembered as a notorious chapter in modern Middle Eastern history, clouding the tortured relationships among Israel, the United States, Lebanon and the Palestinians. In 1983, an Israeli investigative commission concluded that Israeli leaders were “indirectly responsible” for the killings and that Ariel Sharon, then the defense minister and later prime minister, bore “personal responsibility” for failing to prevent them.
While Israel’s role in the massacre has been closely examined, America’s actions have never been fully understood. This summer, at the Israel State Archives, I found recently declassified documents that chronicle key conversations between American and Israeli officials before and during the 1982 massacre. The verbatim transcripts reveal that the Israelis misled American diplomats about events in Beirut and bullied them into accepting the spurious claim that thousands of “terrorists” were in the camps. Most troubling, when the United States was in a position to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended the atrocities, it failed to do so. As a result, Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had pledged to protect just weeks earlier.
Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbour. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally. The Israel Defense Forces soon besieged P.L.O.-controlled areas in the western part of Beirut. Intense Israeli bombardments led to heavy civilian casualties and tested even President Ronald Reagan, who initially backed Israel. In mid-August, as America was negotiating the P.L.O.’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Reagan told Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the bombings “had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered,” Reagan wrote in his diaries. The United States agreed to deploy Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational force to supervise the P.L.O.’s departure, and by Sept. 1, thousands of its fighters — including Yasir Arafat — had left Beirut for various Arab countries. After America negotiated a cease-fire that included written guarantees to protect the Palestinian civilians remaining in the camps from vengeful Lebanese Christians, the Marines departed Beirut, on Sept. 10.
Israel hoped that Lebanon’s newly elected president, Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite, would support an Israeli-Christian alliance. But on Sept. 14, Gemayel was assassinated. Israel reacted by violating the cease-fire agreement. It quickly occupied West Beirut — ostensibly to prevent militia attacks against the Palestinian civilians. “The main order of the day is to keep the peace,” Begin told the American envoy to the Middle East, Morris Draper, on Sept. 15. “Otherwise, there could be pogroms.”
By Sept. 16, the I.D.F. was fully in control of West Beirut, including Sabra and Shatila. I n Washington that same day, Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” He demanded that Israel withdraw from West Beirut immediately.
In Tel Aviv, Mr. Draper and the American ambassador, Samuel W. Lewis, met with top Israeli officials. Contrary to Prime Minister Begin’s earlier assurances, Defense Minister Sharon said the occupation of West Beirut was justified because there were “2,000 to 3,000 terrorists who remained there.” Mr. Draper disputed this claim; having co-ordinated the August evacuation, he knew the number was minuscule. Mr. Draper said he was horrified to hear that Mr. Sharon was considering allowing the Phalange militia into West Beirut. Even the I.D.F. chief of staff, Rafael Eitan, acknowledged to the Americans that he feared “a relentless slaughter.”
On the evening of Sept. 16, the Israeli cabinet met and was informed that Phalange fighters were entering the Palestinian camps. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy worried aloud: “I know what the meaning of revenge is for them, what kind of slaughter. Then no one will believe we went in to create order there, and we will bear the blame.” That evening, word of civilian deaths began to filter out to Israeli military officials, politicians and journalists.
At 12:30 p.m. on Sept. 17, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir hosted a meeting with Mr. Draper, Mr. Sharon and several Israeli intelligence chiefs. Mr. Shamir, having reportedly heard of a “slaughter” in the camps that morning, did not mention it.
Mr. Draper opened the meeting by demanding that the I.D.F. pull back right away. Mr. Sharon exploded, “I just don’t understand, what are you looking for? Do you want the terrorists to stay? Are you afraid that somebody will think that you were in collusion with us? Deny it. We denied it.” Mr. Draper, unmoved, kept pushing for definitive signs of a withdrawal. Mr. Sharon, who knew Phalange forces had already entered the camps, cynically told him, “Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed. That will be to the benefit of all of us.” Mr. Shamir and Mr. Sharon finally agreed to gradually withdraw once the Lebanese Army started entering the city — but they insisted on waiting 48 hours (until the end of Rosh Hashana, which started that evening).
Continuing his plea for some sign of an Israeli withdrawal, Mr. Draper warned that critics would say, “Sure, the I.D.F. is going to stay in West Beirut and they will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.”
By allowing the argument to proceed on Mr. Sharon’s terms, Mr. Draper effectively gave Israel cover to let the Phalange fighters remain in the camps. Fuller details of the massacre began to emerge on Sept. 18, when a young American diplomat, Ryan C. Crocker, visited the gruesome scene and reported back to Washington.
On Sept. 18, Reagan pronounced his “outrage and revulsion over the murders.” He said the United States had opposed Israel’s invasion of Beirut, both because “we believed it wrong in principle and for fear that it would provoke further fighting.” Secretary of State George P. Shultz later admitted that “we are partially responsible” because “we took the Israelis and the Lebanese at their word.” He summoned Ambassador Arens. “When you take military control over a city, you’re responsible for what happens,” he told him. “Now we have a massacre.”
But the belated expression of shock and dismay belies the Americans’ failed diplomatic effort during the massacre. The transcript of Mr. Draper’s meeting with the Israelis demonstrates how the United States was unwittingly complicit in the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila. Ambassador Lewis, now retired, told me that the massacre would have been hard to prevent “unless Reagan had picked up the phone and called Begin and read him the riot act even more clearly than he already did in August — that might have stopped it temporarily.” But “Sharon would have found some other way” for the militiamen to take action, Mr. Lewis added. Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, agreed. “Vintage Sharon,” he said, after I read the transcript to him. “It is his way or the highway.”
The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by “guilt” to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war. On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon “with our tail between our legs.”
The archival record reveals the magnitude of a deception that undermined American efforts to avoid bloodshed. Working with only partial knowledge of the reality on the ground, the United States feebly yielded to false arguments and stalling tactics that allowed a massacre in progress to proceed. The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all.
* Seth Anziska is a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University.
Where Does Religion Fit In?
On Target responded: “Men like Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin have as much to answer for as bin Laden. Israel and its intelligence organization Mossad have as much to answer for as Hizbollah… Nevertheless, Barbara Amiel's point of view deserves consideration in any free country. But, so that they (the readers) know who they are reading, it should also be explained that Barbara Amiel is Jewish, and married to Conrad Black, the media mogul who includes in his stable The Jerusalem Post.
“The massive preponderance of Jewish editors, broadcasters and journalists in the western world is obviously quite lawful. But, when writing of Middle East affairs, their likely allegiances should be made known to the reading public. Western nations are under threat from both fundamentalist Islam and from Zionism - both in their own way messianic movements. And what of Christianity? the question was asked. “Well, leaders from both major denominations in Britain say it doesn't apply any more.” Read further:
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|