|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
20 June 2014 Thought
for the Week:
And President Reagan expressed his thoughts on democracy as follows in his remarks at Moscow University in 1988: Democracy is less a system of government than a means of limiting government, preventing it from interfering in the development of the true sources of human values that are found only in family and faith.
“Democracy” is today a supremely fashionable word in our country, mouthed in endless variations, flaunted, brandished, and exploited for personal advantage. But there is no tangible evidence that we have given close thought to the exact meaning of this term.
WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN UKRAINE?
Readers of On Target would do well to look up Eric D. Butler’s February 1990, Vol. 54, No. 2 article in The New Times in the online archives. Eric was a keen student of history and had studied Communist tactics and strategies in great detail. That is why the question is asked: How can you know the tree if you have not studied its roots?
He wrote: “Why Internationalism Must Fail: In one of his early articles, "The International Idea", C.H. Douglas examined the history of the idea that it was both possible and desirable to create a type of World State, and concluded that the idea was doomed to failure because it contradicted reality. Douglas said that the true evolution of Mankind had been the result of diversity, not uniformity, with the flowering of different nationalities with their own distinctive cultures…”
Eric continued whilst observing, “Soviet leader Gorbachev is learning something about reality. As a declared student of Stalinism, Gorbachev is aware of the importance, which Lenin attached to the “National Question” as did also Stalin. When Stalin successfully defeated Trotsky in the struggle for power following the death of Lenin, large numbers of people, led as usual by the so-called intellectuals, were deluded into believing that Stalin was some type of Russian nationalist and that any threat by a world-wide revolutionary movement had receded. Those who had taken the trouble to study Lenin and Stalin, and the use of dialectics, attempted to point out that nationalism was regarded as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Stalin summarised the issue with his observation that nationalism was being used so that eventually it could be abolished…
When Hitler’s armies were driving deep into the Soviet Union, with large numbers of the Red Army surrendering to those they believed were liberators, Stalin had to put aside Communist ideals, for which there was obviously little enthusiasm among the peoples of the Soviet Empire. Stalin’s propaganda now started to appeal to history and traditions. “Mother Russia” was at stake. The Christian Faith was exalted. And Hitler made a major strategic mistake by treating the Slavonic people as inferiors…
Assuming that Gorbachev remains a dedicated Leninist, as he claims to be, the Soviet leader remains committed to the international ideals enunciated by Lenin. One of Lenin's most significant statements stressed that a World Communist State could not be created until there was an international economic system. Soviet as well as Chinese Communist leaders, who also revere Lenin, have openly supported the concept for the New International Economic Order, stating that it is an extension of Leninism. International bankers and other internationalists are prominent in the thrust to establish the New International Economic Order. Clearly they see Gorbachev as at least a spiritual ally, while no doubt Gorbachev sees the integrating of a "reconstructed" Soviet economy as a means of advancing internationalism in a much more acceptable form.
A study of the history of movements to centralise power reveals that there have sometimes been some strange allies. The Jewish-backed Social Democrats of Germany supported the Bismarck policy of crippling the separate German States, and subverting the culture of Goethe and Heine. Bismarck later observed about his relationship with the German Socialists, that “We march together but we fight separately”…
An Unrehearsed Event:
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's refusal to make the final and complete surrender of British sovereignty, by accepting the Monetary Union with other European Economic Community nations, is one of those dramatic unrehearsed events of history mentioned by C H. Douglas, which, if sustained, could prove of far-reaching significance. It may even be seen historically as one of the decisive turning points in the battle for World Power, confirming Douglas's view that the international idea must ultimately fail.
However, from the beginning of time there have been those who have believed that global central planning was possible, providing the planners had enough power to impose their plans. The growing convulsions throughout the world are the result of policies, which attempt to defy reality…”
Read full article here… www.alor.org/New%20Times/pdf/NT5402.pdf
Comment: And so the convulsions become more frequent and tactics more brutal as these mad ‘planners’ attempt to defy reality. While he is presented as a possible ‘people’s saviour’ one wonders just where Vladimir Putin really stands? Is he just another Gorbachev? We were advised: "By their fruits you will know them".
THIS SHAM ‘DEMOCRACY’
"In an article in The New Age of January 14, 1932, 'The International Idea,' Douglas examined the reasons for the campaign to establish the World State:
The simplest explanation of this is that if you can make a subject large enough and involve a sufficiently large number of people in the solution of it, you can rest assured that you will never get a solution. A democracy of a thousand voters can be personally approached and convinced on any subject within a reasonable period of time, but if you enlarge the franchise to include everyone over twenty-one in a population of 45,000,000 you can be reasonably sure that any general conclusion at which it will arrive, it will arrive at twenty-five years after that conclusion ceases to be true.
If you can superimpose upon that by means of a controlled Press, Broadcasting, and other devices of a similar nature, something that you call 'public opinion' (because it is the only opinion which is articulate) you have a perfect mechanism for a continuous dictatorship, and moreover, it is the form of dictatorship which is fundamentally desired by the collectivist mentality - a dictatorship which has power without responsibility."
THE CRASH OF ‘DEMOCRACY’
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
This book is sympathetic, or at least continues this critique to some degree, arguing that democracy is under attack from unelected judges, international law and supranational bodies such as the United Nations, as well as from the political correctness of the Left.
Allan understands democracy as majoritarianism “counting all citizens as equals and letting the numbers count”. (p.xi) Even in this minimalist sense, democracy is in decline or under threat. The book has numerous examples, such as the same sex marriage issue in California. The California Supreme Court struck down the statute that the only valid marriage is between a man and a woman in the case of In Re Marriage Cases (2008). The issue was then taken to a citizen’s initiated referendum to change California’s Constitution to reflect the orthodox view on marriage. This was done but the gay lobby then went to the US Supreme Court which in Hollingworth v Perry (June 2013) found on a bewildering technicality that the majority of Californians opposing gay marriage lacked standing.
Another example is Arizona’s 2010 immigration-enforcement law. Not only did the Obama regime sue the state of Arizona but the courts struck down the law. The Obama State Department submitted its first-ever report to the UN High Commission for Human Rights, depicting its own state as violating human rights and it apologised to the UN. This was done even though opinion polls showed that the majority of Americans supported the law. (pp.146-147)
Immigration is briefly discussed by Allan. (pp.157-159) He recognises that democracy itself, or at least the constituents of “we, the people” can be changed by immigration. He cites the example of the three million people taken into Britain in the Blair/Brown years. He doesn’t mention that Labour did this to rub multiculturalism in the faces of conservatives. Allan is optimistic about legal immigration, but concerned about illegal immigration. (p.159) There is no recognition that the Anglo countries are being radically ethno-racially transformed and that this will impact more on the survival of democracy than any of the other factors discussed in his book. I see this neglect as a major defect in most academic conservative writing.
Finally, Allan does not see democracy in the Anglo countries as facing “imminent collapse” (p.162), but as I see it, the evidence in his book shows that the death of democracy has already happened. In any case, it is not clear to me from my reading of his book what his plan is for saving what is left of democracy. What is to be done about the attacks of the politically correct Left, and judges who make law in accordance with politically correct ideology and internationalist sentiment?
What is needed today is a comprehensive programme for fighting back against the evils discussed in “Democracy in Decline”. This is though a very good exposure of the problems and well worth reading. Allan is a superb writer – one of the clearest legal writers I have ever read, and readers will have no difficulty getting through this book. Buy two and give one to a friend who needs awakening.
THE MYTH OF THE LAZY AUSSIE
by James Reed
I, for one, am with the unions on this one. It is all about getting cheap and compliant foreigner labour that is readily exploited. Why, offer better wages and sick as I am, I will come out of retirement to work picking fruit or in the heavy manufacturing sector. The I will die. Happy Tony and Joe?
Here is the other side of the story. So far this year capitalists have recruited 37,620 foreign tradesmen, managers and professionals, even though there are 191,000 unemployed Australians qualified for this work. (The Australian 29 May 2014, p.4) There are 67,000 tradesmen and technicians looking for work but capitalists brou ght in 10,210 foreign workers on 457 work visas. There are also 83,700 professional Australians unemployed but 19,260 professional foreigners were brought in, and even though there were 40,200 managers unemployed, 8150 managers on 457 visas were brought in. The rhetoric that foreigners are only doing jobs Australians “would or could not do” made by big business is just nonsense. Maybe some isolated farm can’t get fruit pickers, but to suppose that this is so for over 100,000 trained Australians is just… well…. you know the great Australian word I want to use but the editor won’t let me.
Even Australian tradesmen are having trouble finding work as foreign workers on 457 visas take their jobs. Further, two-thirds of migrant workers have taken jobs that did not have to be advertised to Australians. (The Weekend Australian 31 May-1 June 2014, p.7) We need a new Anti-Immigration party. What does it take for the sleepers to awake?
THE MUD AND DIRT OF POLITICS: MARTIN HAMILTON-SMITH
by Uncle Len the Shocked.
I expected fireworks, but all we received was silence as Hamilton-Smith warned the Libs that if you “Throw Mud and I’ll Spill Dirt” as The Australian 29 May 2014, p.5 put it. (I didn’t buy the paper but just noted this down on a scrap of paper so my article would look semi-professional just like the other guys here). And, lo and behold, the state Libs went quiet, oh so quiet. Wouldn’t you like to know about the “years of treachery and betrayal”? I, for one would really have liked to see the dirt spilled and the mud thrown.
THE UKRANIAN CONFLICT: A UKRANIAN NATIONALIST VIEW
“The Conflict with Russia” by Pavlo Khomenko, Part 3 The Occidental Observer 9 Jun 2014.
The aggression commenced at the moment when the previous government fell, before the new government had appeared. It was essentially a moment of anarchy, a moment when well-trained nationalist street mobs ran things in the capital, a moment when key police stations and army bases were captured, when a complete nationalist coup d’état was within reach.
Everything started in Crimea. It is here where Russian troops first entered the country and overthrew a government - in this case, installing the only truly pro-Russian movement of Crimea in power, a movement that during previous elections in Crimea obtained only 4% of the vote and had never led any large protest. The “president” and member of this movement, Sergei Askonov, turned out to be a known figure in organized crime in Ukraine, known as “goblin” in the “salem” gang in Ukraine.
Crimea itself is a unique region and worthy of its own article, and I will try not to speak much about it. The region itself already voted to be part of Ukraine in an internationally monitored and recognized vote in 1991. It was indeed a cosmopolitan region in history, however. It was run by numerous different countries, peoples and empires - including Ukrainians, on numerous different occasions. It was a region also controlled by Greeks, although for the longest time it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. In fact, one cannot find any trace of Russian life in Crimea until around the 18th century.
Indeed, in the earliest known census of Crimea, conducted in the 16th century by Turkish explorer Evliya Chelebi Ukrainians were said to have been “4/5 of the population, mostly slaves” with the rest being Turks and Tatars. It is true that, currently, Russians are majority of Crimea, composing 58% of the population, while Ukrainians are 25% of the population and Tatars are 12%. Although it’s also important to understand that, since Soviet times, a lot of people say they are Russian when, in reality, they are Ukrainian or even Tatar, especially amongst the older generations. Also, the ethnic composition of Crimea changed hugely as a result of Stalin’s policies there, turning Russians into the strong majority during Soviet times.
But to be fair, one could indeed say Russia has a claim to Crimea - a claim, albeit, no greater than Ukraine, Greece or Turkey has to it; and a claim no greater than numerous European countries have to territories outside of their borders. It is true that Crimea was transferred to Ukraine during the Soviet Union in 1954. What is not mentioned as much is that this was in direct exchange for very fertile Ukrainian lands that were equal in size to Crimea, centering around Taganrog (today in Rostov region, Russia) that were transferred to Russia from Ukraine. At the time, these Ukrainian lands were a centre of Ukrainian life and Ukrainians composed over 70% of the population and historically, the lands were always part of Ukraine. This was done as it was thought it would be easier for the Ukrainian SSR to develop Crimea, which was then an area without any industry, agriculture and scarcely inhabited.
This annexation was in sharp violation of the Budapest memorandum, which Ukraine signed with the US, Britain and Russia, and which guaranteed to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine surrendering what was then the third strongest nuclear arsenal in the world.
The fact that the US and Britain did absolutely nothing to stop this annexation again enraged many in Ukraine and made public opinion of them sharply decrease. Yet despite this, thankfully virtually no one in the world recognized the annexation. Combined with the complete lack of help from those who guaranteed to help Ukraine, it again appeared that things might head in a positive direction - the fact that we were completely betrayed by those who run the US and Britain gave hope that the vast majority of the population did not trust the West, and supported heading toward a third path, away from both Russia and the West (indeed, even previously liberal politicians made numerous statements hinting at that); and the fact that we gave up nuclear weapons for nothing made many seriously talk about completely rebuilding the Ukrainian army - it gave the nation a national idea, something to unite around.
People even talked about seriously defeating the ever-present corruption to rebuild everything. We would unite around rebuilding the country and, eventually, take back our dear Crimea - either through force or a proxy war. We couldn’t rely on the West anymore, only ourselves.
By strange coincidence, Russia annexing Crimea actually made Ukrainians more nationalistic, anti-Western/liberal and united. A nationalistic, independent and deeply insulted country rising in the centre of Europe? What a nightmare for global oligarchy and those very same people who run Britain and the US! The Russian Federation seemed to agree, and again, as if ordered to do, did all it could to save the image of those who run the West and turn the hate away from them. In mid-April, again with virtually perfect timing to save the image of the West, the Russian Federation started sending mercenaries into eastern Ukraine.
Make no mistake: the conflict in eastern Ukraine is no different from the conflict in Syria.
A while ago, when the Kyiv-Mohyla University tried to house, quite literally, an exhibition of completely degenerate liberal art - the first of its kind in Ukraine - with attacks on the family, Christianity and the heart of Ukrainian identity, it was Ukrainian nationalists who raided the exhibition, destroyed it, and even met with the head of the University and eventually succeeded in banning the group who supported it. They were later called “neo-Nazis”, “fascists”, etc. by Russian-sponsored groups in the media.
Politicians like Jewish oligarch Mykhailo Dobkin, or Vadim Kolesnichenko - both openly sponsored by Russia - wholeheartedly support anything and everything to do with the EU when it comes to attacking Ukrainian identity. A prime example of this was the so-called “regional language law” which essentially would be like making Arabic a regional language in London or Paris (meaning it would be a law to put it on all road signs, have an equal amount of television and radio in it, etc.). Another was the law that stopped official state recognition of Ukrainian Soviet dissidents of the 1970s as heroes, along with anti-Soviet nationalist partisans. The language law was justified as being an example of “defending minorities, like we need to do, since we want to join the EU,” while the second law was justified simply because of “responsibilities before the EU, where we want to go”.
In the fall 2013, Ukrainian nationalists brought a Celtic cross and a Ukrainian nationalist flag to a football match. Nobody in the stands cared; in fact, the “ultras” who brought the symbols were adored by the rest of the fans. It was not a big deal in Ukraine, because all football fans in Ukraine are nationalists, except for one (now defunct, since winter 2013) club: FC Arsenal Kyiv, who view themselves as anti-fascists. This group, whose anti-fascist fans were and are controlled by leaders directly financed by the Russian Federation, was most usually known for attacking innocent people with patriotic symbols on them or defending homosexual demonstrations. Yet, after the match, their leader, member of “anti-fascist” trade unions in Ukraine funded by the Russian Federation - also a member of a so-called “anti-racist” and “anti-homophobic” commission at UEFA called FARE - immediately told UEFA of “Ukrainian fascists”. An international scandal ensued, as Ukraine was originally banned from having any fans present at its next home game.
While the fight against pro-family, patriotic “Ukrainian fascists” inside Ukraine is heavily financed by the Kremlin, the cultural Marxism coming from the West is completely untouched by the very same Kremlin. It is only Ukrainian nationalists who openly oppose Western funds, embassies and grants in Ukraine which aim at spreading every value that has destroyed the West. It is only Ukrainian nationalist parties who openly make statements against them and openly fight them on the streets.
The Russian embassy, which actively engages in an information war against Ukrainian nationalists, saying they are “dangerous to society” - has never issued even one statement on the destructiveness of such Western funds, embassies and grants, in Ukraine. They have never been even slightly countered by the Russian Federation in Ukraine and, in fact, when it comes to stopping the “heroization of Nazism” in Ukraine, the Russian Federation actively works with such Western funds, embassies and grants.
The first protest of the Russia-funded Eurasian Youth Movement in Ukraine discredited it in the heads of virtually all Ukrainians. One would think that a movement claiming to be fighting global liberalism would, in the very least, destroy the office of a George Soros-sponsored liberal fund in Ukraine; or at least spread some anti-liberal leaflets. Instead, it climbed to the highest peak in Ukraine, the Hoverla mountain, where it destroyed yet more traces of the omnipotent ‘Nazism’ - this time, the state coat of arms of Ukraine, the “Tryzub” (which, of course, it calls a “symbol of Nazism”), and also a copy of the first Ukrainian constitution. Not only did it do that, it also renamed the mountain from Hoverla to “Stalin’s Mountain”, the entire process. How did the Russian ambassador react? “It doesn’t matter, it was just an unsuccessful joke.” Really?
One of the leading and largest nationalist organizations in the Right Sector movement (a united front of nationalist movements created during the Maidan protests), the Patriot of Ukraine movement, even proposed that nationalist Ukraine should aim to form a confederation with nationalist Russia and Belarus a few years ago at a meeting with Russian nationalists in Kyiv.
Perhaps the only thing the current Kremlin hates almost as much as Ukrainians are ethnic Russians. Ethnic Russians have been driven out of the Caucuses region, as well as Moscow. In fact, only a few weeks ago, in mid-May, mass anti-immigration riots of Russian nationalists erupted in the city of Pushkino after a Russian football fan was murdered by an Armenian immigrant. The demonstrators were treated harshly by police and there was a complete blackout by the Russian media. Quite naturally, Eurasians (supporters of Dugin) pretended nothing happened.
Crimes against ethnic Russians from immigrants from the Caucasus region are very common in the modern day Russian Federation. The last major nationalist explosion inside the Russian Federation came in December 2010, when again a young football fan was stabbed by an immigrant - who himself was shortly after cleared and released by police. Ukrainian nationalists immediately responded by conducting numerous rallies of solidarity with their repressed Russian brothers.
Of course, the Russian Federation itself is a multinational state and thus, it is not logical to try to build a completely homogenous society inside Russia. Yet all the same, inside the Russian Federation any form and sense of ethnic Russian identity is completely discouraged and immediately attacked; and despite different nationalities being native to Russia, it is quite possible to form a national identity around the ethnic Russian, Slavic identity - as has been done historically. But this is not done and anyone who wants to do so is attacked by the establishment, just like in the West.
Yet even worse is the fact that now the influx of immigrants comes from countries from outside the former Soviet Union, such as African countries, China and so forth. One who thinks Paris is multicultural has not been to Moscow. Today, much like in the West with White people, in the Russian Federation if two people are in a fight - an ethnic Russian and a non-Slav, it will always be the ethnic Russian attacked by the media and charged. Numerous examples of this exist. In fact, the modern day Russian Federation even created a new word that translates into English as “Russian” when describing nationalities - the traditional word Russky, has been completely replaced in all state media by the fake word “Rossiyanyn” which denotes anyone living in Russia, regardless of nationality or birthplace. Needless to say, virtually every speech made by Russian politicians interpreted as being nationalistic by Western dissidents actually used the word “Rossiyanyn” not “Russky”, and actually has quite negative, anti-nationalist connotations.
Beyond any doubt, ethnic Russians are treated far better in Ukraine than in the Russian Federation. Continuing their tradition of promoting friendly relations with Russkys, Ukrainian nationalists during the recent protests in Ukraine even created special Russian legions. Indeed, the Right Sector itself created a special battalion for comrades from Russia to join and defend Slavic Ukraine, which has become quite popular and is quite active. There has also been a special committee created by independent nationalists from the Maidan named RUNA (which means “Rune” in Ukrainian and Russian, and stands for Russian-Ukrainian Nationalist Association) aimed at facilitating co-operation. Long before the current events began, an ethnic Russian member and regional leader of the Ukrainian nationalist Svoboda party said it best: “You won’t find even one ethnic Russian amongst the leaders of Kremlin-funded Russian movements in Ukraine” - words that are quite interesting and accurate.
Every pro-Russian force in Ukraine is financed from the Russian Federation - from Jewish millionaires like Mykailo Dobkin, to political parties united around organized crime like the former ruling Party of the Regions. Ideologically, these groups are liberal and (surprisingly, perhaps) they are pro-EU - for example, the Party of the Regions signed many laws needed to get closer to the EU before backing out of the Association agreement, which the current government also backed out of and obtained a lot of money from Russia; the same with “anti-Fascist” groups. They merely wish there was less presence of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian identity in Ukraine. A gay parade - no problem, so long as the signs held are in Russian. Their enemy is not Ukrainian liberals, Western agents and so forth - their enemies are Ukrainian nationalists.
EUROPEAN POLITICS WHILE AUSTRALIANS SLUMBER
by Peter West
The political elites desire to destroy the British people has been met by the UKIP’s victory in the EU elections. Also the French National Front winning 26 per cent of the vote, the Danish People’s Party 26 per cent and Austria’s Freedom Party with 20 per cent. This indicates that Europeans are starting to show they have had enough of the one-world delusion. In Australia the anti-immigration resistance is virtually at a hobby level. Even actionists who should be able to see the writing on the wall, do not, distracted by other pastimes. Does anyone want to bet that Australia will be the new South Africa within 20 years?
GET READY FOR “CATASTROPHIC RESULTS”
by James Reed
Johnston and the globalists are right to be worried because “Asian War” will mean the end of mantras such as this is “China’s Century”, as if economic domination is like some sort of sporting event. On second thoughts, maybe it is: something like professional wrestling or boxing matches fixed by the Mafia. Only bigger. And more corrupt and destructive for the common good.
Personally I look forward to such “catastrophic results” because it will bring all the lies to an abrupt end. And I may not have long to wait. Recently the Chinese rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat. The boat was attacked by about 40 Chinese boats and encircled so that it could not escape. The Vietnamese prime minister said that China was “seriously threatening peace”. (The Australian 28 May 2014 p.9)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|