|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
27 June 2014 Thought
for the Week:
WORLD ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS ‘MADNESS’ – SAYS POPE FRANCIS
ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 15/06/2014:
AN UNEXAMINED PREMISE IN THE RACIAL VILIFICATION ARGUMENT
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
This is interesting because it is always assumed that the “self-hater” cannot be prosecuted, or the “self-offender”. But there is no legal reason for this. Nothing in the Racial Discrimination Act excludes a person from racial hatred merely because of their race. Person X of race R vilifying, intimidating or offending anyone also of race R, is open to prosecution. For some reason, just because this event is unlikely or a bad political move, it has come to be taken as a legal, fact. It is not. Thus, if the race hate laws are here to stay, Anglo Saxon scribblers who express race hate about Anglo Saxons, are open to being pursued by this law. <
THE UTTER PERVERSITY OF GDP
by Chris Knight
But I was too hasty. Now it seems that Britain, Ireland and Italy, according to the Wall Street Journal, are including prostitution and other illicit activities in their National Accounts. Britain, by stooping this low, may add as much as US$ 9.6 billion by adding prostitution and US$ 7.4 billion from illicit drugs. All this comes from a EU dictate to broaden the GDP measure. In turn the EU directive comes direct from the godless UN 2008 “best practices” directive. I must say, that nothing surprises me anymore, especially where the UN is concerned.
AUSSIES NEED NOT APPLY: DISPOSSESSING THE AUSTRALIAN WORKER
By Peter West
An article in The WE Australian (7-8 June 2014, p.1) says that the government agency recommending the changes recognised that including chefs could result in “exploitation of the training system for permanent residency”. That, apparently, doesn’t matter. Then there is the case of the free trade with China, where China is clamouring to flood Australia with workers. (The Australian 2 June 2014, p.1) The Leftist playwright Berthold Brecht best summed up this state of affairs: “Would it not be easier… for the government to dissolve the people and elect another? That is exactly what is being done.
AUSSIES NEED NOT APPLY? FOREIGNERS BUY BEFORE ‘FOR SALE’ SIGN GOES UP
by Peter Ewer
Then there are the Australian-based sellers who have sales sites that can’t be accessed from within Australia. (The Australian 12 June 2014, p.1) There needs to be a movement to fight this. Unless these issues are tackled there will be nothing left to save with your favourite economic reform.
Why is it that freedom movement types can’t see what is coming? What’s with this obsession with economics – is this a new form of economic reductionism? What comes first is people, so that the race issue in its widest civilisational sense is the real issue. I expect that some of us, before our deaths, will deeply regret the silence of our movement on this issue since 1947.
THE JEWISH PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST AND BEYOND
By Gilad Atzmon
IRAQ, AMERICA AND THE LOBBY
15 June, 2014
But Zio-cons were not the only Jewish players in this iniquitous game, they were opposed by a Jewish progressive front largely funded by George Soros and his Open Society Institute. These so called ‘good Jews’ had a different strategy for the Middle East, they planned to ruin the Muslims through the use of Identity Politics by funding Gay, Lesbian, Feminist and Queer groups in the region.
Why do these Jews intervene in Arab and Muslim life? What motivates George Soros and Paul Wolfowitz to ‘revolutionize’ or ‘liberate’ people living thousands of miles away from Manhattan or Washington? Why did Lord Goldsmith give a green light to the war? What drove Jewish Chronicle writer David Aaronovitch to campaign for a series of interventionist criminal wars? What pushed Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy to the forefront of Blair’s fundraisers?
In 2007, American political science professors James Petras, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt reached the conclusion that American foreign policy was dominated by Israel’s lobby. Surely, Israel’s Lobby is just a polite, politically correct name for the Jewish Lobby. But what motivates the Jewish lobby to destroy Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is it their commitment to the Jewish State? It didn’t take long for influential Jews to learn that buying a Western politician is much cheaper than buying a tank. When you buy an American or British politician, he often comes with the tank and an army of young soldiers willing to die for Zion.
But George Soros, as a highly sophisticated light Zionist merchant, employed a cheaper method to advance the interests of the tribe in the region and beyond. Instead of buying professional politicians, he invested his money in marginal actors and ID politics. He made the NGO into an effective system of neutralizing potential leaders. He supports ‘very good causes’ that are also extremely good for the Jews.
But here there is a problem - these present day Jewish merchants and stockbrokers, who run AIAPC, LFI, CFI, CRIF and the Open Society Institute excel at selling commodities and stocks. They show talent in inventing false needs that quickly translate into mammon and a lot of it.
Although probably unintentionally, the Jewish Lobby often fails to bolster Israel’s long-term interests. The destruction of Iraq, for instance, has made Iran into a regional super power. The failure of the Jewish Lobby to foresee its own role in strengthening Iran is evident. Moreover, it has become clear in the last few days that Iran is uniquely positioned to rescue America from the total mess it was pushed into by the Lobby. Clearly, this is not good news for Israel and the Lobby.
If America and Britain want to remain major powers, each must identify corrosive factors within its own politics, media and finance. They must scrutinize the motives of the Jewish lobby and recognize its dangers. It is time to develop the necessary antidote to deal with this acute political poison. Source: here...
OPEN LETTER TO AUSTRALIA’S MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Allow me to explain what is unhelpful: being denied the right to travel freely between cities, to have permanent residency in my own home, to be deprived of my national identity, to be denied fair legal recourse and to live in a free and independent homeland. That is what it means to live under Israeli occupation, and I assure you, Ms. Bishop, East Jerusalem is occupied, par excellence.
Barring the fact that the entire international community including Israel's most dedicated ally, the United States, recognizes East Jerusalem as occupied territory, captured along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, let me offer you a humble snapshot of life under Israeli occupation. My neighbourhood, tucked away deep within the Old City is a microcosm of life in East Jerusalem and provides the perfect example of how Israel's occupation imposes itself on each and every aspect of our lives.
Only yesterday morning, our 17-year old neighbour was dragged out of his home, handcuffed by Israeli police. His house searched and his family harassed before he was carted off for interrogation and possible detention. Mohammed is in his last year of high school and will lose the year if he does not sit for his matriculation exam. But this is not Israel's concern. He will stand before an Israeli military court as an adult, not a child, because Israeli military orders deem Palestinian children as young as 12 a security threat.
According to DCI-Palestine statistics there were at least 31 cases of child detention in East Jerusalem in 2012. "Of those, 97 percent experienced physical abuse and 90 percent were subjected to intimidation and humiliation," the organization said.
On the western side of Jerusalem, just across the invisible but very palpable seam-line that separates East from West, I assure you Minister Bishop, this would never happen. You see, West Jerusalem is not occupied and Jerusalem is not united, like Israel would have you believe. Its eastern sector is mostly Palestinian-populated [pocked of course with the tens of thousands of Jewish settlements and enclaves illegally established on this occupied land]. And the difference is as stark as day and night.
Minister Bishop, international laws and resolutions are put in place for a reason. I am sure you respect that. East Jerusalem has always been considered an occupied city according to international law and Israel is obliged to withdraw from all territories it occupied during the June 1967 War.
It is irrelevant that Israel unilaterally annexed the eastern sector of the city after that war, declaring it the unified capital of Israel. Nobody recognizes this. Not the United States and I hope not Australia. The fact remains that there is nothing unified about it. I have lived in this city for over 16 years, have borne two children in it and for all practical purposes, consider it my home. You will be surprised to know that Israel has yet to recognize my right to live here. Like tens of thousands of other Palestinians living in Jerusalem, I have not been given permanent residence and therefore have no rights in it. I cannot drive, I cannot [officially] work, I am not eligible for national insurance and health insurance is riddled with complications. I must produce irrevocable evidence that I live in Jerusalem each year at the Israeli interior ministry just to be given a one-year permit to stay in the city. If I were Jewish, I would be automatically granted citizenship by means of Israel's Return Law. Instead I am a statistic, an invisible Palestinian. Surely you can recognize that these are not the policies of a democratic country that treats all of its residents equally.
The bottom line is this, minister Bishop. What is "unhelpful" is not calling East Jerusalem occupied, but endorsing an occupation that is illegal, illegitimate and immoral by all standards. Australia needs to be part of the solution, not the problem and statements such as the ones coming out of its government have served the contrary. Do not be on the wrong side of history. If you are truly a proponent of peace, you will take a stance. My children and those children whose homes have been demolished, who have been beaten, arrested and harassed by Israel's military machine, deserve to live freely. Not only does the world have a responsibility to call East Jerusalem occupied, it has an even bigger moral responsibility to end the occupation that has destroyed so much of its grandeur. Hasn't Israel acted with impunity long enough?
Gilad Atzmon thinks they have…Teaching Hasbara a Lesson - Watch the discussion here... 16 June 2014
IN THE MIDDLE EAST A WORD CAN MEAN A LOT
By Graham Cooke, Online Opinion 17 June 2014
The fact the Australian Government is surprised at the international reaction to what Prime Minister Tony Abbott now refers to as a "terminological clarification", over the word 'disputed' rather than 'occupied' regarding the status of East Jerusalem, reveals an appalling lack of knowledge of the sensitivities around the terms when used in the context of lands captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.
Even worse, this appears to have emerged from some domestic spat between the Attorney General, George Brandis, and the Greens which Mr Abbott, half a world away on his overseas tour, jumped into with both feet. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who appears to have been a spectator to the imbroglio, has been left with the repair job, blaming the media (as usual) for its "overreaction".
If the media is overreacting it is certainly not alone. Israeli lobbyists have been virtually dancing jigs over the Prime Minister's announcement while Arab countries throughout the Middle East are now giving serious consideration to what kind of sanctions they can apply against Canberra. An American diplomat and close friend, recently in charge of a well-funded program to strengthen Palestinian institutions in preparation for statehood, has written to me expressing incredulity at Mr Abbott's comments. He now tries to say that nothing has changed and Australia continues to support United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 aimed at finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. However 242 specifically refers to territories 'occupied' by Israel in 1967 while 338 simply refers back to 242 on the question of occupation. Mr Abbott cannot have it two ways. The very fact he has highlighted that Australia regards East Jerusalem as 'disputed' rather than 'occupied', puts Australia firmly in Israel's camp. It cannot, can never, be simply a question of semantics.
To explain further, I will quote the words of Robert Fisk, a multiple award-winning journalist who has covered the Middle East, first for The Times and subsequently the Independent newspapers for 38 years. Writing in his book The Great War for Civilisation, Fisk recalls that in 2001, George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell, issued instructions to US Embassies in the region that they were no longer to refer to occupied Palestinian territories as 'occupied' and should henceforth refer to them as 'disputed' – a ruling that was followed by most American publications and some British.
After Fisk continued to use the term 'occupied' he was asked to contribute to a BBC World Service program along with an Israeli Government spokesman. "The moment I referred to the Israeli-occupied territories an Israeli voice boomed back: 'But Mr Fisk the territories are not occupied by Israel!' I waited for a second. Aha, I countered, so you mean that the soldiers who stopped me on the road to Ramallah and Jenin last week were Swiss! Or were they Burmese?"
But as he continues, this is no laughing matter. "An occupied territory might generate violent resistance which could demand international legitimacy. But violence over a 'dispute' – a real estate problem, something which might be settled in the courts – was obviously illegitimate, criminal, mindless; indeed, it could be portrayed as the product of that well-worn libel 'mindless violence'."
There would be no problem with 'dispute' if there was a mechanism for the 'dispute' to be resolved; if the case could be brought before some impartial authority for judgement. But of course there is none, or at least not one that Israel will recognise. The International Court of Justice exists for disputes between states, and as Jerusalem will quickly point out, Palestine is not a state therefore the court cannot have jurisdiction.
So we are on the slippery slope. Palestine is not a state and its lands are subject only to a dispute. How long therefore before Israel claims the dispute is an internal matter, to be settled on its terms?
While in the Middle East in 2012 (by which time US diplomats had either abandoned or ignored Powell's dictum) I met a number of high-ranking Palestinian officials one, who on a strict condition of anonymity, set out what he believed to be a basis for settlement. The official said the more isolated Israeli settlements on the West Bank would have to go, but others might be consolidated and incorporated into Israel providing an equal amount of territory could be swopped elsewhere, presumably in parts where Israeli Arabs were in the majority. On Jerusalem he suggested that Israel and a future Palestinian state simply share a capital – "just because it has never been done before is no reason why it shouldn't be tried here". If these two things were agreed he believed other outstanding issues, such as rights of return, could be negotiated.
"But what happens?" he asked. "[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu keeps building more and more settlements on our land; the Israeli Army occupies large parts of the West Bank and launches raids into the rest when it feels like it. When we hit back and a settler is killed they call it a massacre and we are called terrorists; when the Israeli army bulldozes a house or shoots innocent women and children it is called a regrettable incident during an incursion. So we keep on throwing rocks. What else can we do?"
Which is why the Australian Prime Minister needs to choose his words more carefully if he insists on playing a role in Middle East politics.
REMEMBERING THE SECRET, RACIST, CAPITALIST LIVES OF THE MARXISTS
by Peter Ewer
As Goad points out Marx said some very nasty things about Blacks and Jews. This is seen in Marx’s correspondence to Engels, especially in his attack of Ferdinand Lassalle where he uses the “N” word as freely as Leftists today use the “F” word, say in discussing people that they hate like Tony Abbott. Then there is Marx’s essay “On the Jewish Question” (1884) which you have to read to believe. Why not go to https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/jewish-question/ and hear the words straight from the horse’s mouth. Well, at least read them.
No doubt all true. But what about other communist ‘greats’ – how well did they live the Marxist ideal? Mao comes immediately to mind, but cigar-chomping Fidel Castro may be an even better example. The Cuban leader told the world that he lived humbly in a fisherman’s cabin, but according to a new book written by Juan Reinaldo Sanchez, Castro’s former bodyguard, Castro lived like a king. While Cuba suffered a continuing economic collapse after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Castro, when he was not entertaining Irish republican terrorists, and indeed other terrorists , was womanising on his private island villa, or sailing in his luxury yacht.
According to the forthcoming book “Fidel Castro’s Hidden Life” he worked with Columbian drug cartels to ship cocaine to the United States. One can only guess how much money the communist pseudo-revolutionary got from this drug pushing.
A PLAGUE NOT A PARTY: HOW WORKERS’ PARTY BETRAYED ITS OWN
“Hating the Workers: Ed Miliband and his Shadow Cabinet”, The Occidental Observer, 15/6/14.
Even a figure such as Keir Hardie, founding father of the Labour Party, led a fierce, xenophobic campaign against the Lithuanians. Hardie, as a leader of Ayrshire miners, wrote an article for the journal, The Miner, in which he stated that: “For the second time in their history Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles [as the Lithuanians were described] to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.” (Lithuanians in Lanarkshire, BBC History, February 2004)
Keir Hardie wasn’t being “xenophobic.” He was doing exactly what a Lithuanian socialist would have done if the situation had been reversed: standing up for the workers he was elected to serve. By the time Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994, all that old-fashioned socialist nonsense had been discarded. Now the Labour party champions the downtrodden bosses against the oppressive workers.
Labour doesn’t seek to defend its traditional supporters; it seeks to harm them, as a Labour peer openly admitted in 2011: Labour let in 2.2 million migrants during its 13 years in power – more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely’.
The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, 16th April 2011)
Now, having spat in their faces, Labour wants to persuade its working-class supporters that it won’t do the same again. It will, of course: the hostility described by Lord Glasman has never gone away. Working-class Whites would be very foolish to vote for the party again. All the same, it is entirely possible that Britain’s next prime minister will be Ed Miliband, current Labour leader. If an adolescent narcissist like Tony Blair can win three elections, an adenoidal reptile like Miliband can win one. But even in Miliband’s own constituency in Yorkshire, the discontent is obvious:
There are clearly anxieties here, as elsewhere in the country, that are not being addressed. “There are places in Doncaster when you can’t hear an English voice,” claimed Johnnie Ray, 66, a former coal miner supping ale in the Trades and Labour club, as he waited for a country and western act to begin. Asked if Miliband is saying enough to assure him, Ray spits out: “I don’t even know what he is saying.” The potency of the issue isn’t lost on Miliband. Labour lost a million voters between 2005 and 2010. Research by Professor Geoffrey Evans and Dr Kat Chzen at Oxford University suggests that those people may have gone elsewhere not because of the economy or Gordon Brown’s unpopularity, but because of immigration. “I talked to Ed Miliband about this in his office,” said Evans. “He’s certainly aware of it. But he wants to be ‘decent’, he told me. It’s a tricky one. If you want to pick up Lib Dem votes, you don’t want to be banging on about immigration too much either. And they are so culpable for immigration that it becomes a bit implausible. It’s hard to think what Labour should do.” (Ed Miliband appears out of step on immigration, even in his constituency, ˆß, 31st May 2014)
Labour will simply have to lie, make big promises they have no intention of keeping and hope that people are foolish enough to believe them. I’m worried that they will be believed, but I hope that Labour’s intentions are becoming too obvious. The party wants to turn British Whites into a minority in their own nation. But then so does the Conservative party. The mainstream parties in the U.K., just like the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S., have two reasons for existence: to serve the interests of big business and to replace liberal democracy with cultural Marxism…
A Rootless International Elite Loyal Only to Itself…
While bankers’ profits keeping on rising, the Whites who built those nations see their wages stagnate and their cities flooded by non-Whites from the Third World. And parties formed to champion the White working-class, like Labour in the U.K. and the Democrats in the U.S., are fully in favour of both the bankers and the non-Whites. It’s a sick situation, and the disease starts at the top. The British working-class need to recognize Labour for what it has now become: a plague, not a party. Continue reading here...
An Earlier Report on the Miliband Family: 25 October 2013
A Socialist Voice from the Past?
“An Editor’s Progress” by A.R. Orage New Age Supplement No3 – November 22, 1934:
The whole movement of ideas, called Socialism, including, of course, the then burning question of parliamentary Labour representation, was in the melting-pot; and my little handful of colleagues and I had no intention of prematurely running ourselves into anybody else’s mould. The Socialists of those days were, in practice, individualists to a man… We had no objection to the trade-unions as such. On the contrary, our slogan that “the trade-unions are the hope of the world” was evidence that we attached even an exaggerated value to them – for reasons that will appear…
Nor, of course, had we any general, but only a particular, criticism in those days to make of the Socialist groups. But one distinction between Labour politics and Socialism seemed to us to be decisive – that whereas Socialism explicitly claimed to be nationally representative, the political Labour Party was avowedly based on a single class – that of the wage-earners or proletariat. To both sections, it appeared to us, the political Labour Party was making a false appeal.”
CANADIANS FIGHTING BACK
by Brian Simpson
Do any bells ring for Australians? Isn’t this what we should be doing? And – why aren’t we?
BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON’S VISA TO AUSTRALIA CANCELLEDTo the Editor of The Australian, 15th June 2014
It is a disgrace that, as a result apparently of representations by Jewish agencies, the government has cancelled Bishop Richard Williamson's visa to visit Australia. Just like the refusals of previous governments to allow David Irving to enter Australia, this decision is fundamentally unjust and an affront to the principle of free speech. The bishop undoubtedly has dissident views on the subjects of Christian theology and the history of Nazi Germany, but that should not mean that he is barred from speaking publicly in our land and that Australians who wish to meet him and hear from him are denied that access. Perhaps it is not only section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that needs to be revised but also the law relating to visa applications.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Victoria
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|