ONE WORD OF TRUTH SHALL OUTWEIGH THE WORLD

From Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 1970 Nobel Prize lecture
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence.

Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.

And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let it even reign in the world - but not with my help. But writers and artists can achieve more: they can CONQUER FALSEHOOD! In the struggle with falsehood art always did win and it always does win! Openly, irrefutably for everyone! Falsehood can hold out against much in this world, but not against art.
And no sooner will falsehood be dispersed than the nakedness of violence will be revealed in all its ugliness - and violence, decrepit, will fall.

That is why, my friends, I believe that we are able to help the world in its white-hot hour. Not by making the excuse of possessing no weapons, and not by giving ourselves over to a frivolous life - but by going to war!
Proverbs about truth are well-loved in Russian. They give steady and sometimes striking expression to the not inconsiderable harsh national experience: ONE WORD OF TRUTH SHALL OUTWEIGH THE WHOLE WORLD.

And it is here, on an imaginary fantasy, a breach of the principle of the conservation of mass and energy, that I base both my own activity and my appeal to the writers of the whole world.

THE HOLY LAND CHRISTIAN LEADERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST OPPRESSION

“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice”.

- - Letter to three students (October 1967) as translated in “Solzhenitsyn: A Documentary Record” (1970) edited by Leopold Labedz (1970) “The Struggle Intensifies".

Dear Friend, Please distribute the attached letter for a world wide distribution. Many thanks… Rabbi Meir Hirsh, Neturei Karta, Palestine Nov. '12:

First a message from Christian religious leaders: Palestine, the Holy Land, is our homeland. Our roots here stretch for centuries. We, Palestinian Christians are the descendants of the first Christians. We are also an organic and integral component of the Palestinian people. And just like our Palestinian Muslim brothers and sisters, we have been denied our national and human rights for almost a century ... We Christians have a duty to confront oppression. In our Kairos document, we Palestinian Christians declare that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God.

Outcry of Authentic World Jewry
Stop the Genocide of our Palestinian Brothers of Occupied Palestine! World religious Jewry unequivocally condemns and denounces the genocide currently being perpetrated by the Zionist occupational forces against the Palestinians people, with their bombing of Gaza City, killing innocent men, women and children. Their goal is to oppress the Palestinian people and its leaders, and withhold from them their legitimate right to lead the Palestinian people. They expel innocent men, women and children from their homes, denying them basic humanitarian aid and other essentials. The Zionists commit these atrocious violations of human rights and international law to “punish” the Palestinians for their refusal to recognize the Zionist entity as a state.

We, as believing, authentic Jews in the Holy Land, proclaim once again that Zionism has no connection with the Jewish people. Zionism and Judaism are diametric opposites. All of their crimes and murderous actions against the Palestinian people throughout their history, and especially this most recent war against the peaceful residents of Palestine, should arouse every straight-thinking person - anyone who has any humanity in him - to protest. Their crimes are completely opposed to the holy Torah, which forbids murder, as it is written in Genesis 9:6, "He who spills the blood of man, through man shall his blood be spilled, for man was created in the image of G-d." And this is also one of the Ten Commandments given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, "Thou shalt not kill."

The Jewish people has always been known as a merciful people, but with their despicable and murderous acts, the accursed Zionists slander the good name of the Jews, who are totally removed from such crimes. They have cast away their humanity, and they do not belong to the Jewish people at all.

We hereby call to the enlightened nations of the world, the human rights organizations and the Arab countries - all who seek righteousness and justice - to use any means at their disposal to stop this genocide by the Zionists.
We feel that the time has come to bring the Zionist leaders, army officers and all who are responsible for these genocidal war crimes before an international court, so that justice should prevail and, once and for all, there should come an end to the murders and crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinian people.

We, Jews who believe in G-d, hereby declare that the Zionists do not belong to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, which strongly opposes murder. Zionists are not Jews at all, and their use of the name "Israel" is a forgery.
They are only brazen terrorists running a state of international terrorism. They do not represent the Jewish people at all, nor do they have any right to a single clod of earth in the Holy Land.

We convey our deepest condolences to all the families of those murdered, and to the Palestinian people and its leaders; and we wish a complete recovery to all those wounded by the bloodthirsty Zionists.
We pray to G-d for the speedy salvation of the Palestinian people and its leaders from the arms of the Zionist wild beast, and we hope for that great day when the full sovereignty of the Palestinians over the entire Holy Land shall be restored, with Al-Quds as its capital.

The Zionists will be expelled from the Holy Land by the power of G-d. May we merit the fulfillment of the prophets’ ancient promise, that G-d’s kingdom will be revealed throughout the world and all nations will join in serving Him.

- - Signed in pain and anger, Neturei Karta Al-Quds, Palestine [nkp@neto.bezeqint.net ] 

Let it, finally, be said: In praise of the ever-martyred but ever-heroic and ever-renascent people of Gaza. May they live to see the full brightness of dawn.
- - Norman Finkelstein

ELITES MAKE GAZANS OF US ALL

by Chris Hedges
Chris Hedges, whose column is published on Truthdig, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years. He wrote:

Gaza is a window on our coming dystopia (i.e, ‘vision of very bad place’). The growing divide between the world’s elite and its miserable masses of humanity is maintained through spiralling violence. Many impoverished regions of the world, which have fallen off the economic cliff, are beginning to resemble Gaza, where 1.6 million Palestinians live in the planet’s largest internment camp. These sacrifice zones, filled with seas of pitifully poor people trapped in squalid slums or mud-walled villages, are increasingly hemmed in by electronic fences, monitored by surveillance cameras and drones and surrounded by border guards or military units that shoot to kill.
These nightmarish dystopias extend from sub-Saharan Africa to Pakistan to China. They are places where targeted assassinations are carried out, where brutal military assaults are pressed against peoples left defenceless, without an army, navy or air force. All attempts at resistance, however ineffective, are met with the indiscriminate slaughter that characterizes modern industrial warfare.

In the new global landscape, as in Israel’s occupied territories and the United States’ own imperial projects in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan, massacres of thousands of defenceless innocents are labelled wars. Resistance is called a provocation, terrorism or a crime against humanity. The rule of law, as well as respect for the most basic civil liberties and the right of self-determination, is a public relations fiction used to placate the consciences of those who live in the zones of privilege.

Prisoners are routinely tortured and “disappeared”. The severance of food and medical supplies is an accepted tactic of control. Lies permeate the airwaves. Religious, racial and ethnic groups are demonized. Missiles rain down on concrete hovels, mechanized units fire on unarmed villagers, gunboats pound refugee camps with heavy shells, and the dead, including children, line the corridors of hospitals that lack electricity and medicine.

The impending collapse of the international economy, the assaults on the climate, the resulting droughts, flooding, precipitous decline in crop yields and rising food prices are creating a universe where power is divided between the narrow elites, who hold in their hands sophisticated instruments of death, and the enraged masses. The crises are fostering a class war that will dwarf anything imagined by Karl Marx.
They are establishing a world where most will be hungry and live in fear, while a few will gorge themselves on delicacies in protected compounds. And more and more people will have to be sacrificed to keep this imbalance in place… Read further….

THE ACT OF RECOGNITION : LIBERALS TRUE TO FORM

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The headline says it all: “Liberals Fall in Line on “Act of Recognition” (The Australian 14 November 2012, p.7). “The Coalition has dropped its hardline opposition to the Gillard government’s “act of recognition” bill acknowledging indigenous Australians and will vote with Labor to avoid a dispute”.

Avoid a dispute!? Isn’t this Parliament where the name of the game is disputing issues? Abbott had objected to such an Act because it was an attempt to tie up the next Parliament, and that still holds. Gillard says that the proposed bill will not bind a future parliament (it cannot anyway). The Coalition has said that the Act is essentially “symbolic”, ignoring a wealth of argument that has been given indicating that this is not so.

Consequently get ready for the Constitutional challenge. The new class politically correct elites need to be defeated in the referendum, a defeat that will be more than just “symbolic”. Spread the word to friends, and a message to all – don’t get sleepy on this one.  

THE NEXT “ANDREW BOLT” CASE

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
A Sydney barrister gave a dinner address at the residential college at the Sydney University on the topic of the importance of people being tolerant and respectful of each other. But the barrister in opening his address paid tribute to “the traditional custodians of this place, the Benedictines who came from the great English nation”. (The Australian 14 November 2012, p.12) All hell broke lose when these remarks were published. An indigenous student at the dinner was “deeply traumatised” and multiculturalists, feminists and Aboriginalists were springing up everywhere, commenting on the “rot” and “racism” and saying, “You owe the indigenous people an apology”.

Does he? Did the indigenous people build the great structures at the University of Sydney? No, they did not. Nor did their culture concern itself with liberal tolerance and being “respectful” to everybody. On the contrary, the archaeological evidence indicates that “primitive/pre-modern peoples were engaged in “constant battles” with very high relative death tolls from tribal warfare. (There is much on this topic and Brian Simpson is preparing a review article on it. For supporting evidence see Lawrance Keeley, “War Before Civilisation” (Oxford Press, 1996). The custodians of the values of the University were not Aborigines, but the English. The barrister was right.

Then we have the case of Emeritus Professor Don Aitkin who issued a blog 27 August 2012.
He commented on Shane Mortimer, who was wearing a possum-skin coat when he conducted a welcome-to-country ceremony at Parliament House in August. Aitkin said that he looked “about as Aboriginal as I do”. (The Australian 12 November 2012, p.1)
There is $500,000 personal damages and $10 for every indigenous person counted in the last census, making $5.5 million. Bingo! Now he faces a $6 million damage claim for “racist” comments. The slur was said to reflect on all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Aitkin has refused to retract his statement, so it looks like a legal battle will follow. I personally am glad that Aitkin is making a stand. There needs to be a decisive defeat delivered to the politically correct law brigade. Basically the law hangs on one statement, which is a statement of opinion rather than fact. Aitkin could have some fun with this. Looking “about as Aboriginal as I do” – why Your Honour, we all know from the Bolt Case that being light skinned does not disprove Aboriginality. As he has already said: “There is nothing offensive in saying that [he] doesn’t look Aboriginal because looking Aboriginal isn’t one of the criteria. The criteria are, do you claim to be, and are you accepted by others as one”. He is off to a good start.

The Illogic of Offence and Aboriginal Identity by Chris Knight
Anthony Dillon (“Too Quick to Take Offence”, The Australian 16 November 2012, p.12) offers a sensible response to the Aboriginal identity issue. He points out we live in a time when it is easy to be offended “particularly if there is some social mileage in it for them or a financial gain”. And “Those who make certain words offensive do so because there is something to be gained. For many, to feel offended is to feel important, validated”.

Dillon goes on to say: “It is sad and strange that 200 years ago this country’s first people were strong and adaptive, able to live under harsh conditions. But today, some of them claim that they are traumatised, simply because someone remarks about their skin colour”. That just about sums up the absurdity of the existing race hate legislation and its philosophical legacy.  

ISRAEL AND THE NUKES : THANK OBAMA

by Peter Ewer
Israel has Obama to “thank” for the great delay which has occurred in the attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities. It now seems that a conventional weapons-attack will fail because Iran has had time to move its nuclear enrichment plant beneath a mountain (The Australian 12 November 2012, p.11).
Ground forces could, in principle, be deployed, but this is highly risky and could be defeated by Iran’s vast army. Thus the use of a nuclear weapon in a Jericho-3 missile has come as the leading option. It is a strategy with enormous ramifications.

If a nuclear weapon is used, Iran would conduct war against Israel. If the missile fails to halt the weapons programme, then use of a nuclear weapon by Iran in future is assured. This is a situation full of grim dilemmas, and Obama bears responsibility for what follows.  

SELLING OUR LAND IS NOT IN ‘NATIONAL INTEREST’: AUSBUY PETITION

Petition Background (Preamble): We have a “For Sale” Sign on our wealth creating assets (our non renewable energy resources, our farms and our businesses). This means Australia does not get the benefit of these assets as our tax laws favour foreign companies and countries. Our high interest rates are locking Australians out.

We keep no register of the sale of our land or businesses. The FIRB thresholds for land or businesses are $244M for all countries except the USA which is $1001M before Governments count the cost, whereas some of our governments do count if foreign interests buy an apartment in a city. Put simply these high FIRB AUD$ thresholds do not meet the national interest test.
The excuse is we cannot do this because of Free Trade Agreements. FTAs cover the sale of goods and services not the sale of land and businesses.

We are concerned about the sale of our land to foreign countries and companies, especially those countries which do not reciprocate the opportunity. China, the Arab States, India and USA are buying our land for their use. They are also allowed to buy businesses beyond the farm gate which means our farmers are price takers not price makers, and we do not get the full benefit of our exports.

The countries buying our land have long recognised the importance of food security, yet for successive decades our policy decisions have forced our farmers off their land. This is an issue of national importance. New Zealand recently applied the national interest test to stop the sale of eight dairy farms to the Chinese as the assets would no longer be used in the interests of New Zealand citizens.

We are not saying no to foreign investment, but we do want Australia to have controlling interest in assets which are necessary to Australia's long term security and prosperity. We are concerned how we will pay off our debt if these assets are working for other countries and companies not to the benefit of Australia.
We want an immediate moratorium on the sale of our wealth creating assets (our land and strategic businesses), until a clear definition of "the national interest test" is established for Australia. As concerned Australians we want to be part of the discussion which impacts our future for generations to come. Go to AUSBUY PETITION …

IS IT SEXIST TO ASK WHERE THE $5,000 CAME FROM? (YES JAMES, IT IS)

by James Reed
After reading Ian Wilson’s piece on the Julia Gillard affair, I opted to do this one even though it will tax my ageing brain joining a line between the dots. Now, let’s see: The Australian’s “Cut and Paste” (14 November 2012 p.13) has done a good job of setting out the latest facts. On 6 November 2012 Gillard said that she was not in charge of the conveyance file. But then The Age of 13 November 2012 reports that Gillard’s law firm Slater and Gordon confirmed that Gillard “acted directly” in the conveyancing work.

Chris Kenny in The Australian 10 November 2012 concluded: “Gillard clearly knew of the existence of the slush fund that she had helped to establish. On the evidence so far, it seems that neither Gillard nor her firm alerted their client (AWU) or the police to this slush fund’s existence in 1995”. So doesn’t this mean that Julia lied? Not necessarily; memories are fallible after 17 years. Maybe Julia just forgot?

But wait! What about the $5,000 given to her? Well, more accurately Ian Cambridge, former national head of the Australian Workers Union made diary entries at the time of the affair. The diary entries were supplied to The Australian and were confirmed as authentic. One entry says that a particular employee was told to put $5,000 in cash into a bank account in the name of Julia Gillard in 1995. The employee told The Australian that the diary account of events was accurate.
The Australian put a series of questions to Gillard (see The Australian 14 November 2012, p.4) about this and suggested some scenarios for how the $5,000 would be owed to her (e.g., was she being paid back money she had lent, was it a gift?). There are many perfectly legitimate ways of accounting for all of this, all of which would show no wrong doing at all on Gillard’s part.

However Gillard’s response to The Australian’s questions was that she “was not involved in any wrong doing”. I also note that, despite repeatedly being asked to do so, The Australian has been unable to substantiate any allegations of wrong doing”.
From a purely legal standpoint of proof beyond reasonable doubt, Gillard is right. But any good crime investigator would still be interested in collecting more evidence, especially given inconsistencies noted by Kenny. There could be an innocent explanation for all of this, but my own view as an ordinary “reasonable person”, is that there is clearly something not right with this picture. The probing will not cease until the truth about Julia is known. If she has been dishonest then she should face the full measure of the law; if not, then it is politics as usual.

The Truth Will Out: It is quite legitimate to test and probe our political leaders. Gillard though has lashed out at “misogynists and nut jobs on the internet” making defamatory statements about her. (The Australian 15 November 2012, p.15) It is true that there are misogynists and nut jobs in the blogosphere making utterly vile remarks about her. Some of the material is truly ‘sicko’ stuff. But the media investigation of Gillard has been fair and balanced.
She has the opportunity to rebut anything raised by highly respectable investigative journalists. And yet, she does respond to the new documentary evidence, hoping that yelling “sexism” and “misogyny” will; make it all go away. Julia, this is not going to go away. The truth will out. Good luck with that one.  

YOUR SUPERANNUATION, NOW A UNION WEAPON?

Andrew Bolt’S Blog, 20/11/2012
If super-funds are to become weapons used by unions in industrial disputes, perverting the basis on which members’ funds are invested, then the trustees could well face legal action and perhaps the rest of us should be released from the 12 per cent super guarantee levy that gives those union such muscle:

Victorian building unions have asked Cbus chairman Steve Bracks and chief executive David Atkin to front a meeting to explain the $18 billion superannuation fund’s links to builder Grocon. The unions, including the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Electrical Trades Union, are demanding that Mr Bracks and Mr Atkin set out the corporate governance and ethical policies that govern the scheme’s investments. Cbus, through its $2 billion property arm as well as specialist managers, invests in large building developments, some of which have appointed Grocon, with which the CFMEU is in a bitter legal dispute. This privilege, identified by the IPA, will also have to go:

The role of some Australian superannuation industry funds as ‘default’ funds in Australia’s industry relations system constitutes government-granted special financial privileges. While customers can opt-out of industry funds defaulted by the industrial award system, few do so.  

EASTERN-EUROPEAN JEWISH BANKERS SUPPLANTED GERMAN-AMERICAN ONES?

Joachimt Cries - It's Those Naughty Zionists!
by Betty Luks
While we are directing our readers’ attentions to what financial analyst Joachim Martillo has to say on the following youtube video, pause for a moment and ask yourselves, why should this video be promoted just at this time in world history?
What goes with the revealing of such ‘secrets’ now, i.e., private banks creating credit-money out of thin air (and legalised by governments world-wide) and/or the push now for government controlled banking/ financial systems, don’t you think the gullible public is being herded into a more centrally controlled world system?

Tell me gentle readers, after looking back over world events during the last heart-breaking century, do you really believe modern politicians (a percentage of whom make up the government of the day) are any more to be trusted with the control of a centralised financial system than the private banksters themselves? Having ‘googled’ the name of Mr. Joachim Martillo I came up with the following:
• Joachim Martillo, Anti-Semitic 'Financial Analyst' With Strange Views ...
• Holocaust Denier Joachim Martillo: Jews Behind Collapse of US ...
• Martillo is a Yale and Harvard graduate who developed Internet technology at MIT and worked with American and Israeli defense corporations.
I suspect that the 19th-21st century world-wide financial elite of German-American (don’t forget the British connections, and now Eastern European connections) are working on the final details/agenda of their New World Order plan.

Great thinkers of the 20th century long ago clearly grasped what was planned
Clifford Hugh Douglas was just such a man. In the “Brief for the Prosecution”, 1945, C.H. Douglas issued a clear warning: “If you imagine that there is anywhere in the world either a democracy or any other system, which confers on Mr. John Citizen an effective control or a beneficial share in those powers which he has been persuaded or jockeyed into transferring from a tangible to an intangible executive, then you are labouring under what may quite possibly prove to be a fatal delusion. At the time of writing these lines (January 1944) it is already evident that "monetary reform" is coming out of the wilderness into the most respectable circles.

That is good. But the idea that John Citizen must automatically benefit thereby, is premature. Various well-meaning if somewhat naïve organisations have stated, as though it were both axiomatic and desirable, that only "the State" has the "right" to issue purchasing power. That is the Divine Right of Kings complex once again.

Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of "England" may be heard to murmur "Nationalisation? We welcome it." A much abler, if less theatrical banker, Sir Edward Holden, Chairman of the London, City and Midland Bank (Midland Bank) during the 1914-1918 war, when told that his policy was leading directly to nationalisation of banking, replied "Well, I don't care. I should still manage it." To put the matter quite shortly, transfer of power almost certainly means transfer of policy.

We have seen the transfer of power. What is the policy? Whose is the policy? The policy is MONOPOLY…

Perhaps the most useful phrase in the lexicon of the world plotter or planner, is "common ownership". To the simple man "common ownership" means ownership divided amongst common men, of whom he counts himself. But any lawyer would tell him that common ownership means transfer of control to an administrator, who in theory, distributes the usufruct (not the thing "commonly owned," which must on no account be touched by any one of the common owners).

You, reader, are a common owner of the Post Office, which is nationalised (now ‘privatised’ …ed). Go into the nearest branch, and remark that you will take your share in office pens, collect all the pens in sight, and move for the door. You will receive a lesson in common ownership. You may now observe that as you are a common owner, either you ought to be served by the Post Office free of charge, or, alternatively, obtain your share of the usufruct in the form of a handsome dividend…

The distinction between joint shareholders and "common owners" should be noted. You will be told, not merely by large "capitalists," but by their ostensible antagonists, the Labour-Socialists, that monopolies are inevitable, competition is wasteful, and "industry demands large units on the score of efficiency". Conflict not so much between cartels, monopolies and nationalised industries but as between small businesses and privately owned properties: You will be perhaps puzzled to find that the conflict in the economic world is not so much between cartels, monopolies and nationalised industry and property, as between all three and small businesses and privately-owned property. Let us not jump to conclusions. It is not difficult as we shall see, to identify monopolisation, in its varying forms of cartel, "public corporation" on the model of the "B" B.C., the London Transport Board, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, or outright State ownership of the Russian (Soviet) type, as being a policy, not an automatic and inevitable process, as we are asked to believe. That by itself does not condemn it, although it does put it on the defensive. We are concerned to know whether the New Order is better, for the majority, than the Old…” Read document in full here….

Worth reading: “There was a Russian revolution with Bolshevik involvement; but that does not make it a Bolshevik revolution, as shall be explained. Indeed, there is as yet no word in any languages which represents exactly the complex meaning of what happened; so we are compelled to use expressions like "Russian revolution" and "Bolshevik revolution" in this article until the long-concealed full meaning can be unfolded.

Historical Revisionism on the subject of the Revolution has made more progress in the Soviet Union than in the West, for a reason which can be stated quite simply: the populations of that vast empire, and especially of Russia, know more and think more about it because they have suffered most; and there is nothing like suffering to awaken and enliven the mind…”

“Russia 1917-1918: A key to the riddle of an age of conflict” by Ivor Benson

WA ABORIGINAL FOLK AND THEIR TROUBLES WITH MINING COMPANY

by Betty Luks
We have reported before on the battles the Yindjibarndi people are having with FMG (Fortescue Metals Group). It has now come to the attention of Australians generally via The Australian, "Native title boss didn't reveal ties with FMG" by Paul Cleary, (19 November 2012, p.6).
“The National Native Title Tribunal has admitted a senior executive failed to declare her ownership of a consulting firm that facilitated access to Aboriginal land by mining companies. Nor did the NNTT's former West Australian state manager, Lillian Maher, declare her relationship with two employees of Fortescue Metals Group, which benefited from tribunal decisions.

It is alleged Ms Maher regularly briefed her partner, Michael Gallagher, about proceedings at the tribunal that affected FMG, according to a lawyer who worked with Mr Gallagher.
At about the same time, Ms Maher's firm MGA Consulting produced a heritage report that dismissed concerns raised by other consultants about potential destruction of indigenous sites. Ms Maher worked for the NNTT from 1994 until August this year, when she left as a result of a "restructure".
Mr Gallagher worked for Fortescue Metals for several years until late 2010, before being appointed as a consultant to native title group Wirlu-murra Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, heavily funded by FMG. Ms Maher's daughter Lisa also works for FMG.

The lawyer, Kerry Savas, who was seconded by the Perth law firm Corser & Corser to work for the WYAC throughout last year, told The Australian that Ms Maher and Mr Gallagher had discussed hearings at the NNTT concerning the WYAC on a "daily" basis. "I lived with Michael Gallagher when this was all happening", Mr Savas said. "He spent all day checking on the NNTT business. I know he was talking to her (Ms Maher). This was a daily occurrence".

Mr Gallagher did not deny this and wrote in an email: "It would seem that Mr Savas has forgotten his ongoing professional obligations to his former clients". Mr Savas denied the charge, noting that his obligations were to the WYAC and the court. Ms Maher did not respond to an email and phone call to her new employer, RCD Consulting.

Ms Maher and Mr Gallagher are the co-directors of MGA Consulting, which is wholly owned by Ms Maher's company, Sillytown Pty Ltd. MGA produced a report in September last year for FMG and the WYAC that was used to obtain approval for iron ore mining within FMG's Solomon Hub lease. Ms Maher's name was not on the report…. Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation

WELL, WELL, WELL – A PROPOSAL FOR A STATELESS NATION

This fellow is promoting ideas that come direct from Lenin And Stalin!
by Betty Luks
The latest proposal comes from no other than former deputy secretary of the Treasury Richard Murray and was recently flagged – again- in The Australian Financial Review (27 September, 2012). The proposals include the Constitution to be rewritten and its powers, including revenue raising, to be distributed between the two tiers of government, that is, the central government and the city and regional councils.

Has anyone told Mr. Murray there is nothing new or unique in his proposals?
The Soviet oppressors liked that form of government very well. The late Jeremy Lee exposed the pedigree of the ideas for such a system in his 1994 “Australia on The Bloc”.
“The idea of "regionalising" the world as a prelude to some type of world order has been around a long time. It has emerged both in western nations and in the former communist bloc. When former Soviet President Gorbachev ran full page advertisements in The Australian at the end of the 'eighties, he made it clear that regionalism was the policy he was seeking.
He was merely reiterating ideas which had first been formulated by Lenin and Stalin, and which were formalised into the communist agenda by the Comintern in 1936.
More recently, the formation of such organisations as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission has resulted in a sophisticated version of the same idea.
When Australia's Foreign Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, addressed the Trilateral Commission in Tokyo in April 1991, he dwelled extensively on three policies he advocated; national disarmament world-wide, to be replaced by an international military force; the benefits of an Asia-Pacific trading bloc; and the golden advantages which would accrue from a finalised GATT…”

We are now entering the final stages of the battle for our liberties and freedom. Are you ready to join the battle?
You could start with downloading your very own Do It Yourself Action Kit. Then recruit others to work with you. Set up your own network for ‘cross pollinating’ of ideas and strategies and tactics. Communicate with likeminded groups in other states who are working on the issue you want to tackle.

The League’s records show we were already warning Australians about these various groups and their true agenda - long, long, ago.
ALOR - OnTarget Vol.13 - No.22 Jun 17, 1977... Dr. Peccei, President of the Club of Rome, one of the front movements ... when the Rockefellers invited him to join their Trilateral Commission.
ALOR - OnTarget Vol.17 - No.8 Mar 6, 1981... the speaker was Aurelio Peccei, leader of the nefarious Club of Rome, ... Strong also happens to be a member of the Trilateral Commission!
ALOR - OnTarget Vol.18 - No.46 Nov 26, 1982... One can only wonder why the Fabian Society, the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relations, ...
ALOR -A Carbon Currency Rationing Future? The background details are set out in this document. As the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome recently stated, “The ..... of historic Technocracy, exactly what the Trilateral Commission ultimately had in mind ...

The Heritage Book Services and Veritas Online carry the DVD “Australia on the Bloc” by Jeremy Lee. Price: $10.00 + postage.  

DO IT YOURSELF ACTION KIT: NOW IS THE TIME – TO TAKE ACTION!

Have you downloaded your copy yet? We urge you to start doing your bit. Make use of this worthwhilepaign. The details are here… https://www.madeinaustraliacampaign.net/ or from K Grundy, Box 177, Naracoorte SA 5271