13 September 1996. Thought for the Week: "To anyone who is not willfully blind, it must be obvious that man's interference with nature, if it is not to be catastrophic, must be inspired by something very different from the rigid formalism of a Government Department. The modern Government Department has its roots in the departmentalised pseudo-science Enclopaedist forerunners of the French Revolution and its lineal descendent, Russian Bolshevism....Only megalomaniacs would claim that we have accumulated sufficient knowledge in about one hundred years (of "scientific research") to warrant us in undertaking the modest task of rectifying on a grand scale the errors of a Life Process which has evolved in untold millenniums."
C.H. Douglas in The "Land for the (Chosen) People" Racket
SADDAM HUSSEIN A MIDDLE EAST PAWN
by Eric D. Butler
Already trailing in the polls, Republican candidate Bob Dole has been upstaged by the man he claimed was being too soft on Iraq. Some cynical observers have recalled that it was not so long ago that the same Bob Dole was personally lauding Saddam Hussein in Baghdad when he was attempting to persuade Iraq to buy Kansas wheat. But these observers should have gone further and recalled that before and during his eight-year war with Iran, Saddam Hussein was being sustained in every possible way by the leading Western industrial nations.
While it is true that there were powerful economic motives for such support, clearly there was a high level strategic reason for this support, particularly in the U.S.A. The reason was to attempt to counterbalance what was perceived to be the growing threat of Muslim fundamentalism, which had not only humiliated the U.S.A. in Iran, but which was having growing influence throughout the whole Muslim world. The long suffering Kurds, one of the victims of the broken Western promises at the end of the First World War, hardly rated a mention during this period. But it became increasingly obvious that Saddam Hussein was, as a result of the massive financial and economic aid he was receiving from the West, starting to emerge as the strongman who might unite a fragmented Moslem world against a common enemy - Zionist Israel.
It has been loosely claimed that the latest strike by the U.S.A. against Iraq, losing the U.S.A. much of the Arab support it managed to obtain - generally by threats and financial bribery - was evidence that the U.S.A. lacked any coherent foreign policy for the Middle East. This is not true.
From the beginning of the Zionist thrust into the Middle East, its first major achievement being the Balfour Declaration during the First World War, American foreign policy has consistently sought to preserve Zionist Israel. Those Americans, who insisted that the U.S.A. was undermining its own long-term interests in the Middle East, by backing Zionist Israel, were pushed aside. Even prominent American Jewish critics of Zionism, like the distinguished Middle East expert Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, were either ignored or smeared.
American Middle East policy was Zionist policy. Every effort was made to ensure that Zionist Israel was not threatened in any way by a united Arab world. A blind eye has been turned against Zionist Israel's insistence that it has every right to build up its own nuclear capacity while claiming the right to violate Iraq's sovereignty to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme.
Few observers now disagree that Saddam Hussein was deliberately "set up" with his invasion of Kuwait. The Gulf War provided a frightening example of modern technological destruction. How many now recall that the strange alliance the U.SA. created under George Bush was allegedly concerned about the destruction of Kuwait's "sovereignty" with much talk about the establishment of "democracy" in Kuwait. Then suddenly the Gulf War ended without the destruction of Saddam Hussein. Clearly he still had further purposes to serve.
The complete destruction of Saddam Hussein and his regime would have created a major vacuum in the Middle East, with a widespread destabilising influence. Alleged Western concern about the plight of the Kurds did not extend to how they were being treated, for example, by Turkey. Turkish military attacks against the Kurds have not resulted in U.S.A. military power being unleashed against the Turks. The Turkish Government violated Iraq's national borders in its offensive against those Kurds supporting the Kurdistan Workers' Party. But then Turkey is a member of N.A.T.O.
Not surprisingly, many of the U.S.A. allies in the Gulf War have found the Clinton policy too hypocritical to support. The hypocrisy of the Clinton-Zionist policy may be judged by how Zionist Israel's last invasion of Southern Lebanon, with hundreds of civilian casualties, and the blatant attack on a United Nations camp for refugees, created little more than some wrist tapping. The U.S.A. used its influence in the United Nations to ensure that there was no criticism of Israel.
The International Money Power threw its complete weight behind Boris Yeltsin before the recent Russian elections - agreed by independent observers to have been as phony as the South African Elections, which allegedly established "democracy". The Russian attempt to crush the predominantly Muslim population of Chechnya has resulted in an estimated 100,000 casualties. There is no suggestion of any American intervention.
The overall result of the Clinton military attack on Saddam Hussein has been to help to further unite the Moslem world against the U.S.A., and to foster the type of terrorism which is placing American civilians at risk everywhere. Until such time as the U.S.A. ceases to pursue pro-Zionist policies, it must expect the type of reactions it has been experiencing. There will be more acts of terrorism.
It is probably too much to expect Prime Minister John Howard to attempt to pursue a foreign policy, which puts Australia's long-term interests ahead of those of the Zionist-Jewish internationalists. By blindly following Zionist Yes-man Clinton, John Howard invites the same type of terrorist attacks, which the Americans have been experiencing.
CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH
by David Thompson
Having published our assessment of the
Constitution for the Federation of Earth two weeks ago, our
further enquiries reveal more information, but give us no
cause to change our assessment. Our enquiries from The Minister
for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. Downer, yielded only marginally
more information from the Executive Director of the Treaties
Secretariat, who wrote (in part):
* World Government is not Australian Government policy, but Australia has been a proponent of various suggestions for the reform of the United Nations."
There is no sign of deliberate tongue-in-cheek in the material from the Department of Foreign Affairs, so presumably the Director of the Treaties Secretariat can be taken at his word for the present. It does appear, however, that a number of Australians have offered full support for this 'constitution'. As we reported previously, Doug Everingham was a signatory, as was Mr. Rod Welford, M.L.A. Mr. Welford is a serving Member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly for the seat of Everton in Brisbane (A.L.P.). When asked about his sponsorship of the "Constitution for the Federation of Earth", however, Mr. Welford was horrified to discover that he was listed as a signatory.
Some time ago, Doug Everingham, who was an A.L.P. Member of the Federal Parliament from 1967-75, had distributed a précis of the "constitution". Welford was one of the recipients, and replied to Everingham that he sympathised with the intentions. This was subsequently used without his knowledge to indicate that he was a "signatory". Other research indicates that the A.L.P's. Gordon Bryant, former Member for Wills in Victoria, was also a signatory. This would reflect Bryant's background; he served as an Australian delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union on several occasions.
But the W.C.P.A. appears to have some questionable supporters and members. It was to have met in Innsbruck, Austria, late in July, but was prevented from doing so, because the Austrians had refused visas for some of the delegates. The conference was re-scheduled for this week in Spain.
In our view, the W.C.P.A's. Constitution for the Federation of Earth is a "motherhood" document, which makes the small "1" liberal feel warm and fuzzy; another one of those "good causes" which those with more money than sense can support in the mistaken belief that they are furthering "world peace". But the idea that mankind can only be successfully governed centrally is quite satanic.
It is of much greater concern to us that this idea is being pursued daily in a thousand small ways in almost every Federal Government Department, rather than once a year among a couple of hundred rather nutty idealists in an international talk-fest. Let us focus on the greater danger in our own backyard, while "the eyes of the fool are on the ends of the earth. As C.H.Douglas remarked in Economic Democracy: "We must build up from the individual, not down from the State."
INDIGNANT FISCHER LECTURES POLITICIANS ON ASIA
In the annual parliamentary winter recess, when the Federal politicians usually like to take their foreign junkets (preferably to the northern hemisphere or the tropics) Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Fischer is angered that his colleagues tend to ignore Asia. He is said to be "deeply angry" that so many M.P's. prefer Europe or North America to pursue "essential research", while he has given up his own free time over the last 19 years to curry favour with the Asians. Presumably this has made Mr. Fischer an "expert" on Tibet, or helped forge valuable links with Brunei. But it does have the virtue of being frightfully politically correct, no matter how uncomfortable it has been!
Mr. Fischer has obviously not read the powerful and challenging "The Asian Mind Games", by Chin-ning Chu, the Westerner's survival manual, in Asia. Few of his colleagues would have read it either, but perhaps they regard it as unnecessary if they refuse to engage Asia personally. This is a great mistake. While ever there are blindly pro-Asian politicians in a position of influence, the West needs to understand more about the Asian long-term programme.
"The Asian Mind Games": $20.00 from all League book services, or $23.00 posted.
ONE NATION OR TRIBAL MISH-MASH?
Drafts of the Northern Territory Constitution in preparation for Statehood are reported to include the acknowledgement of Aboriginal "civilisation" pre-existing European colonisation, and provision for Aboriginal traditional law (organic law). It also heavily restricts the Governor's role in curbing government, binding him to act on the advice of his Ministers, except in unconstitutional circumstances. But what is the purpose of acknowledging the Aborigines? What about acknowledging the British contribution to settlement? Or the Afghan camel drivers who opened up so much of the interior? Or are others to be regarded as "honorary Aborigines"?
Such an approach to Statehood is dangerous, without some debate-taking place on exactly who were the original inhabitants of Australia? Aboriginal groups naturally behave as though there was no doubt that they are the "original" inhabitants, and any evidence to the contrary is ruthlessly suppressed.
A recent book that examines such evidence had to be published privately, because no publisher was game to handle it. "CAPE YORK- The Savage Frontier", by Rodney Liddell, examines the cover-up of false Aboriginality, and studies available evidence of the genocide of occupants prior to the Aborigines. The League can provide a limited number of this hard cover book, which includes colour photographs: $35.00 or $38.00 posted.
THE NEW ZEALAND ELECTIONS
The New Zealand General Election is set down for October, and the 1996 election will be the first under a revolutionary new electoral system for New Zealand. The new Mixed-Member Proportional (M.M.P.) system borrows from the German system, in that Members are still elected to the New Zealand Parliament by their constituency, as usual, although the number of seats has been reduced. However, in addition to this, any political party that polls in excess of 5% of the overall vote, is also represented in the Parliament by candidates listed by the party for the purpose (the "list" M.P's.), according to the proportion of the overall vote achieved by that party.
This means that the New Zealand political system splits into two streams: the M.P's. with identifiable constituencies (and identifiable constituents), and the "list" M.P's., who answer only to the party, and effectively have no constituents at all. Provided the "list" M.P's. can satisfy the political party, and otherwise keep their record clean, they theoretically answer to no one else at all. This places the traditional constituency based M.P. at a considerable disadvantage, and the political party's powers are vastly enhanced.
Will it improve representative government? We doubt it, but only time will tell. "Representative government" is not seen to be functioning, as it should in any case. Perhaps New Zealanders take the view that the new M.M.P. system could hardly be much worse! New Zealand, of course, is a "unicameral" Parliament, meaning that there is no Upper House of review to check the vagaries of the Lower House. Perhaps the M.M.P. system is an experimental compromise.
NEW ZEALAND FIRST
The new political party, New Zealand First, under the leadership of one of the more successful Maori M.P's., the very capable Mr. Winston Peters, continues to poll strongly in the lead-up to the election. New Zealand First is the only party in New Zealand that has taken an unequivocal stand against an immigration policy out of control. The Asianisation of New Zealand has alarmed many with its pace, and Mr. Peters has a significant following, even among some of the Asian New Zealanders.
While probably not "typical" of general
sentiments among immigrants, the following letter, published
by the Christchurch paper The Press (15/7/96), makes
a strong point:
FROM THE PRESSThe true role of Royalty, which has for centuries been above the corrupting influence of party politics, is more than just serving as a constitutional "umpire". The following letter touches on this, although fails to observe that the fascination with monarchy and Royalty has made the British Monarchy not only a constitutional anchor, the epitome of acceptable social standards to which others may aspire, but also a booming tourist attraction, and therefore a financial asset! The following appeared in The Australian (2/9/96).
ROYALY'S REAL ROLE"Carmen Hill's contention in her article, Will Loyal Camilla Save The Queen? (Opinion, 27/8) that the British have hated the monarchy for centuries brought to mind a line from Oliver Stone's film Nixon. Addressing a portrait of John F Kennedy in the White House, the anguished President says: 'when they look at you, they see themselves, as they want to be. When they look at me, they see themselves as they are.'
"The British might not always love the monarchy, but they seem to need an exemplary public office above the often distasteful politics of their elected representatives to maintain their faith in their system of government.
"Ms. Hill says the British need an opportunity to decide whether they really want a monarchy or not. Oliver Cromwell gave them one and that brief experiment ended with the Restoration.
"The British still believe in devotion to duty. They also have an ideal of behaviour in public, for which the Royal family is trained from birth, and that would be difficult if they lived in a council flat in Brixton instead of Buckingham Palace. Whether their impeccable manners are worth the current cost to the public purse is another matter.
"I don't think, as Ms. Hill suggests, that the relentless publicity about the Royals' private lives means that the British don't love them or want to make their lives wretched. Perhaps they are just sending a reminder 'we want to see ourselves as we want to be, not as we are, Your Majesty. That's what you and your brood are paid for."'
John Radovan, Balgowlah Heights, N.S.W.
"On Target" is published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.