|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
10 May 2013 Thought for the Week:
Party Politics and Existing Financial System: The political machinery of this country is organised with one primary object - to make it, as an organisation, the best possible instrument for the support of the existing financial system. To this end every device which brains, money, time and opportunity can provide has been used.
I am willing to credit even congenital Party politicians with the best of motives, but anyone who supposes that this system can be captured by a frontal attack, is either, childishly ignorant of its mechanisms or is a dangerous megalomaniac.
People Power: On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that a different form of organisation can be brought to bear, not upon the political organisation, but upon the individuals who compose it.
- - C.H. Douglas, in Social Credit 29 July, 1938
Social Dynamics is the science of applying social power to social organisations in order that individuals may obtain the results they desire. Social power derives from the belief - faith - that individuals in society can in correct association get what they want. https://alor.org/Library/Social%20Dynamics.htm
- - Eric D. Butler in “Social Dynamics”, 1985
FEEDING THE HUNGRY? STORY OF A MODERN-DAY GOOD SAMARITAN
When reading this note from one of our friends I was reminded of that Great Depression headline in a Social Credit journal, “Poverty Amidst Plenty”. It wasn’t that the nations couldn’t produce enough food to feed the hungry or house the homeless. It was a matter of POLICY on the part of governments and banks that the production would not be distributed to the hungry and homeless without they worked for it first.
This Good Samaritan has spent many a year in rescuing good food products thrown out by business houses and distributing them among the poor and homeless in Adelaide. The time was 9.00am in Whitmore Square, in the centre of Adelaide and it was Easter Sunday morn. He had placed a sign readily seen that read:
“Free Milk – Happy Easter”.
Within 45 minutes all was gone, he had ‘sold out’. Along comes an Adelaide City councillor who warned the Good Samaritan that what he was doing was illegal because of S.A. health laws. To which our friend replied that he would keep on doing it and ‘bad laws are there to be broken’ inviting the Council- “to bring it on fellows!” Our Good Samaritan is now awaiting the legal action to take place.
THE ILLUMINATI WERE AMATEURS COMPARED WITH ICAP BROKERS!
“Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever” by Matt Taibbi in the RollingStone journal, 25 April 2013.
“Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that's trillion, with a "t") worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets." (wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal… OT: www.alor.org/Volume47/Vol47No39.htm)
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world's largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behaviour that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world's largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It's about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget. (emphasis added…ed)
THEY WERE SO NEAR -AND YET SO FAR
by Betty Luks
It would seem from first reports of last weekend’s general elections in Iceland, the same old parties are back in power and will be happy to continue the present financial set-up – along with some limited modifications, of course, to appease the people.
CENTRE ‘RIGHT’ CLAIMS ICELAND ELECTION WIN
ABC News reported: “Iceland's centre-right opposition has declared victory in parliamentary elections, as voters punished the incumbent leftist government for harsh austerity measures during its four years at the helm. They will now form a coalition government after a count of 45 per cent of votes suggested the rightwing Independence Party would get 21 seats in parliament, with the centrist-agrarian Progressive Party set to double its seats to 18. It marks a return to power for the two parties, which both want to end the Atlantic island nation's European Union accession talks.
The two parties have staged a remarkable comeback since they were ousted in a 2009 election after presiding over the worst financial crisis to ever hit the small country. After four years of tax hikes and austerity designed to meet international lenders' demands, the Independence Party has offered debt-laden voters tax credits. The Progressive Party, a historic coalition partner to the Independence Party, has vowed to go even further by asking banks to write off some of the debt. "We will change Iceland for the better very fast in the coming months and years," said the party's leader, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson.” (emphasis added…ed)
THE PROPOSAL TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2013
The Gillard government is purporting that they will hold a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to directly finance local government. The Hon. Anthony Albanese MP - Minister for Regional Development and Local Government has said that a referendum should take place in conjunction with the federal election in September.
It is of great concern that there will be little time for the public to absorb the implications of such change and it is to be hoped that the parliament will reject a referendum on those grounds alone – but of course with this parliament, nothing is ever certain. Labor party policy for many decades has been to expand local councils into regional governments thus making the States redundant and to eventually dissolve the federation and centralise all power into Canberra.
The Australian Monarchist League has always opposed any proposal to concentrate power at the expense of the States. Lack of time and finances make it uncertain whether there will be a positive NO case opposing the referendum. It is rumoured that the States of Western Australia and Victoria will oppose, but there is no definite opposition at this stage.
The Australian Monarchist League has always believed in democratic processes and the National Council has decided that, if we are to become engaged in the proposed referendum, it is necessary, as Australia's largest member-based monarchist organisation, to obtain the opinions of our members on whether they themselves are for or against such constitutional recognition. Brief arguments for and against have been incorporated below…
- - Philip Benwell National Chair Australian Monarchist League
Brief Arguments For and Against Constitutional Inclusion of Local Government
ARGUMENTS FOR RECOGNITION: (Taken from various news resources)
But the more immediate concern for federal and local governments is a financial one. Recent High Court decisions have raised uncertainty about whether the federal government can provide funds directly to local government. Pape v Commissioner of Taxation in 2009, a case about the legality of stimulus payments in the government's response to the global financial crisis, revealed the High Court's consideration that the Commonwealth was unable to spend money without explicit constitutional powers as set out in sections 51 and 61. While in that case it found powers did exist due to the global crisis, the general line of thought was that an explicit power was needed for spending.
In Williams v Commonwealth, a case about school chaplains, the High Court found the Commonwealth could not spend money outside some tightly specified circumstances without supporting legislation. A number of Commonwealth payments to local governments, particularly for roads and other infrastructure, do not have a specific legislative authority.
If the issue of commonwealth funding to local government were to come before the courts, the bulk of the academic commentary suggests a challenge to some or all of the Commonwealth's funding of local government might well succeed. Thus, including the ability for local government to receive financial assistance from the Commonwealth will be necessary to clear up uncertainty and avoid the risk that such funding might come to an end.
The federal government itself supports constitutional recognition of local government. It was a part of its agreement with the independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott to form government. The government set up an expert panel to consider the questions involved. It recommended an amendment to section 96 of the constitution (which allows the Commonwealth to make payments to the states) to add in local government.
Section 96 currently reads:
The likely referendum amendment would be along the lines of:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECOGNITION:
Local councils are a means used by the State Governments for exercising aspects of their own administrative governmental functions. Local government itself is created and maintained by State Government legislation, the geographic extent of local government districts is determined by the State Governments, the powers of councils are determined by and conferred by State Governments, the authority to make regulations is delegated and supervised by the State Governments, establishment of new councils and amalgamation of existing councils are matters for the State Governments.
Local government remained part of the States’ administrative structure over which the Federal (Commonwealth) Government and the Constitution had no authority. Local government is recognised in the State Constitutions of all six States. Each State and the Northern Territory has a Local Government Act. Australian Capital Territory has neither a Local Government Act nor, indeed, local government.
Recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution has been rejected three times. The first was when the Constitution was drawn up, the second was at referendum under a Labor government in 1974 and the third was at a referendum under a Labor government in 1988. There is now an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the three previous rejections, the reasons for now rejecting the proposal a fourth time and voting ‘NO’.
The purpose of the Constitution was originally to enable the Commonwealth of Australia to come into existence and then continue on a permanent and indissoluble basis with the States maintaining their own governmental structures (including local government). Inclusion of local government would change and impact on the responsibility and power of State Governments. Inclusion of local government in the Constitution would advance the principle of centralism to the disadvantage of federalism. More power would be transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.
The mere mention of local government in the Constitution might be sufficient to enable the Commonwealth Government to undermine policies of State Governments by direct funding for local government to do its bidding.
If the inclusion of local government were to authorise direct funding from the Commonwealth to local government, much additional power over local government would pass to the Commonwealth Government. While it is not possible to read the future, such power might be extended for the Commonwealth to control councils to the distinct detriment of the principle of local government.
Local government is not a ‘level of government’ but is a method of administration by a State Government of local matters.
There is no proposal to change the Constitution to establish local government. Local government is already established and has operated satisfactorily in the Commonwealth for more than 110 years since federation and it operated satisfactorily in the States before that. It is not inclusion in the Commonwealth Constitution that would give local government importance or significance. Its importance and significance derives from the State governmental functions it administers.
The undesirability of recognising local government in the Constitution is obvious. The only sensible vote in the interests of Australia as a whole, continuing proper State administration in local areas, protecting federalism and the States from further Commonwealth encroachment is a ‘NO’ vote.
"Back to post-WWI Labor, however. Even before that war broke out, a conga line of early Labor luminaries began proselytising what they called ‘unification’, the then-fashionable term for centralisation of power via abolition of the states and their replacement by what were then called ‘provinces’.
That policy was in fact adopted by Labor and remained in its platform for decades; and Ms Gillard has ensured that commitment survives. Today, Laborites and Greens no longer refer to provinces. They instead promote creating ‘regions’, which they now say must be “recognised”, meaning we become ever-more controlled by Canberra. Provinces or regions are exactly the same beast – centralism – under different names.
Labor in the 1920s even commissioned a cartographer to draw-up a map of Australia without states.
Since Blackburn’s blueprint meant scrapping the states, what inevitably followed was abolition of the Senate, state governors, state education, police, health and all other departments. Future recreated departments would be Canberra-directed entities with the provinces, now called regions, becoming administrative agencies resembling 19th century colonial entities but of a Canberra imperium, rather than London’s before self-government. There would only have been a single chamber, the House of Representatives. .."(emphasis added...ed)
AND... ALOR Library Section The Labor-Socialist Strategy for Destroying the States and Local Government.
MOTHER EARTH IN RIO
The push for World Government by some very powerful forces goes back a long way. It would be as well to keep in mind the fact that at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, not only was avowed internationalist, world government advocate, and prominent member of the Club of Rome, Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the "Earth Summit",But Australia's delegates included politicians from the two main parties.
“Australia sent a delegation of 40 to Rio, which was criticised as excessive by Senator Bill O'Chee. Mrs. Kelly defended the delegation, as did Opposition spokesman on the environment, Fred Chaney…”
EARTH SUMMIT ~ AGENDA 21
The United Nations programme of action from Rio
It can be summarized this way:
This is meant only as a primer, to open your eyes, to make you aware of this "secret" plan to "radically transform America" (and Australia…ed). If you are among the youth of today, feeling a bit aimless and uncertain of your future, the good news is you have a Life Plan, no need to fret. If you are a citizen that has diligently organized your life and you are obtaining the goals of your Life Plan, well, I have some bad news for you---your plan is being replaced by someone else's plan.
I am often asked what is the purpose to all this? What is there to be gained by all of this? First, the goal is Global Governance. It is also a massive global re-distribution of wealth. This is currently underway in a huge way, as Obama has already funneled 300 billion dollars into the IMF, and we are additionally obligated to give 80 billion dollars per year to "needy" nations through the Global Poverty Act that we signed in Feb. of this year. So what’s the point? In the most simplistic explanation possible, the answer is to make those with the power more powerful, and those with the most money, richer. Of the world's 6.5 billion people, only about 1 billion of them are consumers. By re-distributing the wealth, the idea is to make all 6.5 billion people consumers of the transnational corporations. It is that simple.
These transnational corporations have all signed onto the "co-operative" pacts. Go to any major corporation you can think of, type sustainable development into their search engine... you will find it there. Even corporations that should be most objecting to Agenda 21 (such as major oil companies), they are all playing ball.
Haven't you seen the BP Petroleum advertisements? Did you ever ask yourself why it is they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot? Hopefully I have provided you some answers. This is YOUR life, YOUR choice, and YOUR freedom. If you value your individuality, your hard work, your freedom of choice, and the future sovereignty of America, then STAND UP... let your voices be heard!
Whatever you think is so important, whatever it is in this bill or that bill you are all hot to trot over...forget it! All these Bills come from a singular source, and they all have a singular goal! Now it is time for us Americans (and Australians.. ed) to be united in our purpose to defeat this goal by cutting it off at the head!
THIS MAN HAS THE RIGHT IDEA! PEOPLE POWER! ACTION!!
He writes: “UN Agenda 21 has not been ratified by parliament. Nor have the people ratified it. The Greens party admits it's part of their policy. UN Agenda 21 is documented as part of ALP policy (Paragraphs from page 243 of ALP's 2004 platform) yet not publicly discussed. Some Liberal MPs have pushed it covertly for around two decades. It was stated in the 1990's as part of Liberal policy and likely still is. Some MPs reportedly have been pushing it yet deny doing so.
Graham Williamson’s detailed documents revealing UN Agenda 21 being implemented stealthily across Australia are available here: www.galileomovement.com.au/australia_democracy.php
UN Agenda 21 includes unfounded climate alarm fabricated and pushed by the UN to cede national governance and sovereignty over energy, resource use, property rights, finances, transport and mobility. It's our greatest threat to individual freedom. A second component is UN ‘Biodiversity' stealing private property rights. The third component is UN ‘Sustainability' regulating and restricting people, energy, resources, finances and property. These three prongs are underway in Australia, America and other nations. As Americans awaken, their states are now banning UN Agenda 21.
Why won't Australian politicians discuss UN Agenda 21? Some MPs seem genuinely ignorant of UN Agenda 21. Others are quietly and stealthily pushing this campaign for control by unelected UN bureaucrats outside Australia. Why the secrecy? They likely know Australians will reject it. It contravenes our constitution. See Appendix 14 in CSIROh! report: www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html.
Protecting freedom by understanding climate:
Copies of most of his letters are provided below the replies from politicians.
Registered Post envelopes were sent to all 226 federal MPs. The contents detailed extensive documented corruption destroying Australian sovereignty, governance and economic security. Taxpayers pay MPs large salaries to represent the nation's interests and the people's interests. MPs are responsible for expenditure and for our federation's constitution. Yet only thirteen MPs responded. None demonstrated that they take responsibility. Why not?
Here is one man who understands just what freedom (balanced by responsibility and accountability…ed) and democracy means! Go to his site, read it – then do your part: https://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM REIGN OF TONY RABBIT?
by Brian Simpson
Maybe the really crazy stuff, like the carbon tax will be dumped. Yet the really bad stuff – the migration madness, the Aboriginal Constitutional change, and most of the politically correct agenda of Gillard will continue. Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in politics? And what a pity there is no longer Australians Against Further Immigration to stir the pot.
OUR TOXIC LIFESTYLE
by Brian Simpson
Newton Creek in New York is across the East River from Manhattan’s skyscrapers, but it is home to an oil leak bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill – along with sewage and industrial pollution. Plastic bottles and other filth fill Newton Creek killing animals and plant life. The Mississippi River is also full of trash and pollutants but nothing is done about it.
‘VICTORY FOR THE BEES’ AS EUROPE BANS NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES
'Victory for bees' as Europe bans neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for destroying bee population.
Environmentalists hailed a "victory for bees" today after the European Union voted for a ban on the nerve-agent pesticides blamed for the dramatic decline global bee populations.
Despite fierce lobbying by the chemicals industry and opposition by countries including Britain, 15 of the 27 member states voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoid insecticides. That gave the European Commission the support it needed to push through an EU-wide ban on using three neonicotinoids on crops attractive to bees. Tonio Borg, the EC's top health official, said they planned to implement the landmark ban from December. "I pledge to do my utmost to ensure that our bees, which are so vital to our ecosystem and contribute over €22bn annually to European agriculture, are protected," he said. Britain was among eight nations which voted against the motion, despite a petition signed by 300,000 people presented to Downing Street last week by fashion designers Vivienne Westwood and Katharine Hamnett. The Independent has also campaigned to save Britain's bee population.
Four nations abstained from the moratorium, which will restrict the use of imidacloprid and clothianidin, made by Germany's Bayer, and thiamethoxam, made by the Swiss company, Syngenta. The ban on use on flowering crops will remain in place throughout the EU for two years unless compelling scientific evidence to the contrary becomes available.
More than 30 separate scientific studies have found a link between the neonicotinoids, which attack insects' nerve systems, and falling bee numbers. The proposal by European Commission - the EU's legislative body - to ban the insecticides was based on a study by the European Food Safety Authority, which found in January that the pesticides did pose a risk to bees' health.
Read further: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/victory-for-bees-as-europe-bans-neonicotinoid-pesticides-blamed-for-destroying-bee-population-8595408.html
HOW LONG WILL IT BE UNTIL THE “CHINA WAR”?
by James Reed
How does this attitude fit with the sentiment expressed by a recent article in China’s Liberation Army Daily advocating “full preparation” for war and an end to “romantic Pacifism”? (The Australian 25 March 2013, p.7) or China’s testing of a “killer missile”, based on technology given by the former Soviets to the Chinese, which can destroy an aircraft carrier up to 2,000 kms from China?
DEBT THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
"The New Age" of February 10, 1938
After scratching her head for some time she looked up at him and exclaimed: "But if I went round to the other side of the glass the orange would still be in my right hand, wouldn't it?"
"A very good reply--the best attempt I've heard yet," was his commendation.
Students of Social Credit will get some fun if they transmuted the orange into a book-entry.
This exercise throws a sidelight on the foundation of an exemplary policy put forward in the earlier days of Social Credit propaganda, namely, that of crediting the National Debt to the community. What? Share out among the people that which they owe? Distribute as a plus that which is a minus? Such is the reaction of the ordinary person. But the ordinary person always takes it for granted that because the glass shows him top-side up it shows him as he is in every particular. He is unconscious of the reversal of the credit and debit sides of him in the bankers' mirror.
In that mirror all of us appear to owe some of us £7,000 millions. In reality all of us paid some of us that amount of money. So some of us owe all of us the same amount. Not legally, of course. The bankers' mirror presents the legal aspect only. Actually, all of us are square with some of us. All of us have had the money; some of us have had it from all of us; and now none of us has it. The money came out of the banking system and went back to the banking system.
The Debt is a myth created by law based on figures. If it were an actual debt all of us would possess the money owed to some of us. Since all of us do not possess the money, and some of us are creditors for the money, the debtors are the bankers. Hence, if all of us are deemed liable to pay the money to some of us, then the bankers must be deemed liable to furnish us with it.
In other words, they must distribute the National Debt.
The Debt is a myth for the further reason that some of us do not expect or desire to be repaid by all of us. They want not-to-be repaid. The Debt Myth is the title-deed of Despotic Powers made out in figures. It is the basis of the legal power of some of us to coerce all of us. If all of us could pay them we would not have to obey them.
The Debt is a myth for the further reason that if all of us were taxed to pay it to some of us, practically the whole sum would have to be contributed by some of us. They would have to sell or borrow on their holdings to raise the money owing to them. Their attempt to do either would bring down the value of these holdings (and all other securities) to zero. Apart from this, even if they succeeded, they would have paid themselves back the debt owing to them, a result which is in accordance with the reality that all of us have already paid some of us the money that figures against us in the bankers' lookingglass.
Thus the Social-Credit concept of a distribution of this Debt, in the sense that it amounts to an all-round cancellation of the Debt (everybody has paid everybody) is theoretically intelligible and practically innocuous. It would be noxious only in one respect, which is that Economic Democracy would lift its head against Financial Autocracy! Some of us don't like that.
Further reading: Ray King, former bank manager explained just how the double entry book-keeping system worked. www.alor.org/Volume49/Vol49No14.htm
IS THIS WHAT AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ FUTURE WILL READ LIKE?
Clothing manufacturing in Bangladesh: Around 4,500 factories produce clothes for many of the world's major brands. Generates 80 per cent of Bangladesh's $US24 billon annual exports. Figures make Bangladesh world's second-largest apparel exporter behind China Employs 4 million workers. But wages are as low as $37 a month, with some employees working 10-15 hours per day. Some retailers are getting worried about their reputation.
HERE’S A PREDICTION FROM ABC’S THE DRUM
Andrew Bolt’s Blog carried this item recently:
Writing in The Drum yesterday, Mr Green said that we did not really know what happened during and after the Boston marathon bombing. But your man Green does know about the future. This is what he said on the ABC News 24’s The Drum program last Wednesday:
So, according to Jonathan Green, if Tony Abbott becomes prime minister he will not abolish the carbon tax and will introduce an emissions trading scheme. Within six months…” Andrew, methinks The Drum is ‘spot on’. We will see.
LEAGUE OF RIGHTS’ 2013 NATIONAL WEEKEND - FORWARD NOTICE
The 2013 National Weekend beginning with the 67th New Times Dinner on the Friday evening, 4th October will be held for the first time in Adelaide, South Australia.
The dates and events are as follows:
The South Australian League members and supporters are looking forward to hosting this annual event and welcoming interstate visitors into their midst. The advance notice will help you plan a holiday along with attending our New Times Dinner, National Seminar and Action Conference. |
The following accommodation addresses are within reasonable motoring distance of Lothlorien, Happy Valley. These are only suggestions, you may already know where you would like to stay.
The Internet-Google is very helpful for viewing the various accommodation venues.
The South Australian State Weekend will be replaced by the National Weekend in October 2013.
Please note the changes.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|