The Chairman of Austand – which stands for ’stand up for Australia – is John Cumming, who served as an Officer in the Australian military forces in World War Two).
For this (and other reasons) the Government has been selling off our public utilities. Privatisation, they call it.
Billions of dollars have been flowing out of Australia into multinational corporations for years. Australia, the richest country on earth, has been looted, pillaged and plundered for many years, with the full support of all major parties: Labor, Liberal, National. The Australian Democrats and the Greens have either gone along with this or have been irrelevant.
Foreign multinational corporations will not employ Australian workers in Australia when they can have the same work done in certain overseas countries for a fraction of the cost. This is another factor in Australia’s unemployment.
THE LINK BETWEEN THE A.L.P.- FABIANISM – SOCIALISM – COMMUNISM – THE REPUBLIC PUSH-THE COALITION AND WORLD GOVERNMENT
The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/98, is now openly calling for a World Government.
But first let us start with the Fabian Society.
The objective of Fabian Society is to achieve socialism by gradual means, rather than by sudden revolution. The Fabian Society is an international organisation.
Rose L. Martin, writing in the book, the Fabian Freeway, p. 19, published by Western Islands, USA, 1966, said, in reference to Fabianism and their objectives:
“The Fabian Society consists of Socialists…the Fabian Society looks to the spread of Socialist opinions, and the social and political changes consequent thereon…
“…nothing less than social revolution, to be achieved by devious means over a period of time rather than by direct action. Violence as an ultimate measure was not renounced – it simply was not mentioned”.
Fabianism is creeping socialism (NDCC, p.28).
In his speech to the Fabian Society Centenary Dinner on 18/5/84 (Principals In Practice – The First Two Years; R.J.Hawke; ISBN 0 909953228) , Labor politician and then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, stated:
“It is of course the classic concept of Fabianism – the inevitability of gradualness – and nothing is more widely misunderstood or more frequently misrepresented…Let me insist on what our opponents habitually ignore, and, indeed, what they seem intellectually incapable of understanding, namely the inevitable gradualness of our scheme of change.
“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless”.
These excerpts are from the book, NDCC, pp 25-31:
“If you study Marx’ Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said the proletarian revolution would establish the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished: (1) The elimination of all right to private property; (2) The dissolution of the family unit; and (3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the “opiate” of the people, religion.
“…Marx went on to say…the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state socialism would give way to communism…But first, all communists must work to establish socialism.
“The drive to establish socialism, not communism, is at the core of everything the communists…do. Marx and all of his successors in the communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building socialism. If you go to hear an official communist speaker, he never mentions communism. He will speak only of the struggle to complete the socialisation…If you go to a communist bookshop you will find that all of their literature pushes this theme. It does not call for the establishment of communism, but socialism.
“Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analysed this means government control over everything, including you. All controls are “people” controls. If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do – destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion”.
Note that the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was not called the Communist Republics but the Socialist Republics. Solzhenitsyn, in his address to the BBC on 26/3/76, said that socialism cost the Soviet Union 110,000,000 lives. Note that he said socialism, not communism.
But there is no question that he was talking about communism. The USSR was a communist union.
There is a wealth of evidence in the history books to prove that the objective of communism, and of the USSR, was total world domination (world government). When the former USSR collapsed, the world’s communists did not simply disappear, they still exist. They further infiltrated many organisations and, if anything, are even more insidious and subtle.
There is a thread running through Fabianism, socialism, communism. In essence, there is no difference between them.
So, let us now return to Bob Hawke’s address to the Fabian Society on 18/4/84. Hawke said:
“Almost from the beginning, its (The Fabian Society’s) founders envisaged that the vehicle would be a Labor Party…The (Fabian) Society drew its strength from its vision of the future of Labor and the Labor Party…
“Australian Fabianism and Australian Fabians have made a specific and significant contribution to the Australian Labor movement and the Australian Labor Party.
“I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own Government to Fabianism”.
Also in his speech, Hawke named several prominent Labor politicians as Fabians, and former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, as their own Fabius Maximus.
We have seen above that the objectives of communism include the removal of the right to own private property and the destruction of the family unit and of religion.
So too, does the Fabian Society call for the extinction of private property in land and the traditional liberties of Englishmen exchanged for a system of State socialism. (See the Fabian Freeway, p. 19).
Again, Mr Hawke’s speech to the Fabians gives us further insights:
“1947 was also a year when the challenge against bank nationalisation forced on us a realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution, and in particular by Section 92. Consequently, this led to a rethinking of our approach. Because, unless the platform was just to stagnate into irrelevance, the search had to be made for alternative means of achieving our objectives.
“In that search – and it was a search and a development of policy that went on for more then 20 years – Fabians were in the forefront…”.
The realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution and the search for alternative means of achieving their objectives!
We have seen some of the objectives above, of Fabians, socialist and communists.
Readers are reminded of the ALP’s Platform and Rules, 1982, described above in the chapter, The Real Reasons for Attempting to Asianise Australia. These include commitments to: an Australian republic, international socialism, a New International Economic Order (NIEO) (economic rationalism), a UN Bill of Rights, changing the Australian flag, emasculating the Senate and reducing the power of the Governor General.
All commitments designed to centralise power in Australia to facilitate take over by a World Government.
But wait, there’s more. Again, in Mr Hawke’s Fabian speech:
“We all have to face the fact that if our Government is to make really great and worthwhile reforms – reforms that will endure, reforms that will permanently change this nation – then it is not enough simply to obtain a temporary majority at an election, or even successive elections. For our reforms to endure, the whole mood and mind and attitudes of the nation must be permanently changed.
“…That specific task must go hand in hand with the more general and deeper, longer range task – the task of establishing, in the mood and mind of this nation, permanent acceptance of the naturalness and inevitability of change and reform, as the authentic way of life.
Here we have a former Labour Prime Minister calling for the control and manipulation of the minds of the Australian people. In the same speech he drew attention to the restrictions imposed by the Australian Constitution on Fabian objectives. Labour’s agenda is to get rid of the Constitution and make Australia a republic.
The Constitutional Heritage Protection Society, P.O. Box Q381, Queen Victoria PO, Sydney NSW 2001 Newsletter 1997, and The Australian newspaper 28/8/97 contain this quote from Kim Beazley, present leader of the ALP. Whilst this related to another matter, the comment is of the utmost interest:
“I believe these things are done incrementally. You prepare a public mind, a public attitude; you create an acceptance of the unacceptable…”
The Fabian Society exists to this day.
Perhaps, upon considering the above evidence, the Australian people will view through different eyes the push to make Australia a republic, and the ALP’s motives?
What of the present Government, the Liberal-National Coalition? On many issues there is no difference between the ALP and the Coalition Government. Former MHR, Graeme Campbell, calls them tweedeldumb and tweedeldumber.
On the television program, “Insight”, on Chanel SBS, former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser admitted that there was no difference between Labour and the Coalition. He actually called for a Labor-Liberal-National Coalition!
For many years Labor and the Coalition had a bi-partisan agreement to maintain high immigration (despite public hostility to it) and to keep it off the election agenda. (What contempt for democracy).
Labor opposed the GST in the last election, but had it won office, it would only have been a matter of time before they introduced a GST, no matter what they might say now.
The PM, John Howard prevaricates as to his position on the republic, but many, if not most, Coalition politicians are pro-republicans.
The Coalition is controlled by international forces. It favours the NIEO, it has been party to the destruction of Australian industries, to numerous UN treaties, and to emasculating our military forces and disarming the people.
The Age, 20/7/98, reported: “For almost two decades, during the age of globalisation, the two major parties in Australia have conducted a democratic experiment in elite bi-partisanship, largely excluding from the policies and considerations signs of deep popular resistance to sweeping economic reform and cultural change”. (Comment: A ‘democratic’ experiment?).
Both major parties collaborate to bring in World Government.
The following comments of A.K.Fuss, in the booklet, The Role of Finance in Government and Decentralised or Centralised Government, 1970, pp 12-18, (The Institute of Economic Democracy, PO Kingstown, via Armidale, NSW, 2350) highlight the threat to the rights we take for granted if we needlessly tamper with our Constitution:
“Constitutions are both the licence to govern, and the limit on excessive government. It is often argued that constitutions become outdated. This is a superficial and shallow view. Constitutions are principles on paper and principles don’t change like the design of a motor car. They are a barrier to the power-seeker, and the spirit in which constitutions are born makes possible satisfactory associations between men.
“The Triads of Molmutius, who ruled Britain about 450 BC probably provide the first simple constitution in British history. They were simplicity itself, and started from the base that each man was entitled to certain freedoms, which no vote or law could remove from him. This unique concept – that freedom, a spiritual quality, started from the individual – has always distinguished the British form of government from any other.
“Habeas Corpus, the essence of English common law, states quite clearly that no man may be held guilty until his crime has been proved. The great law authorities have always held that the Molmutius laws can be regarded as the foundation and bulwark of British liberties, distinguished for their clearness, brevity, justice and humanity.
“…It was the same principles which were to be found in the Magna Carta (in the year 1215), described so vividly by Sir Winston Churchill in his ‘History of the English speaking Peoples’, in these words, ‘…when in subsequent ages, the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success’.
“The famous English constitutional authority, Sir William Blackstone, pronounced upon Magna Carta as follows: ‘It protected every individual of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty and his property, unless declared forfeited by the judgement of his peers or by the law of the land’.
“It is important to note that all totalitarian contenders for power have directed their attacks upon the Constitution and the Upper House. Hitler, on his assumption of power in Germany in the thirties, abolished the Upper House in Germany. It stood in the way of his bid for power.
“In considering the value of our written Federal Constitution in Australia, it is essential to grasp that it was a grant of special powers from the States to the Federal Government. Those who framed the Constitution attempted to embody in it what their forefathers had learned about governments over centuries. They realised the menace of centralised government particularly in a vast country like Australia. The people of the States were only persuaded to vote for Federation on the understanding that State sovereignties would be protected.
“Undoubtedly the most urgent task of all is to rally the entire community to defend the existing Federal Constitution, which stands as a barrier to the policies of those who would subvert our heritage”.
Becoming a republic and changing our flag will divorce us from our Christian heritage and English system of law which we inhered from England. This includes the rights we take for granted. Our rights to:
* ownership of private property
* freedom of speech
* freedom of assembly and association
* freedom of movement
* freedom from unjust arrest and search
* trial by our peers
* face our accuser in open court
* legal representation.
These are the rights we fought and died for in Two World Wars and Other Wars.
We take for granted the right to freedom of movement, e.g. to travel around Australia without being questioned by government authorities as to our reasons for doing so.
Freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement have recently been denied to people wishing to attend speeches of Pauline Hanson. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ms Hanson is beside the point, people have been denied their rights. Some people only wanted to hear what she had to say, and were assaulted, sometimes seriously, abused as racists and intimidated by violent thugs. Insufficient Police numbers were in attendance to prevent this happening. In Ipswich, Queensland, on 4/8/98, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party was refused permission by the local Council to use the Council hall. One Nation was forced to hold the meeting outside the Council in close proximity to protesters.
The Whitehorse Gazette, Victoria, reported on 5/8/98 that Whitehorse Council was considering whether to refuse to allow One Nation to use their hall to hold a meeting in the future.
At the risk of belabouring the point, it must be emphasised that divorcing us from Christianity, our system of law and the rights we take for granted, are some of the real reasons for the determined push by certain people to make us a republic.
Another reason is the fact that Australian Governments have for years signed many hundreds of treaties with the United Nations, unbeknown to the Australian people. These treaties relinquish power of the Australian Government to a centralised UN. We are surrendering our sovereignty as a nation. But the actions of surrendering ourselves to UN treaties is of uncertain legality.
By becoming a republic, the Australian people will unknowingly put their stamp of approval on the relinquishment of their rights and remove any doubt about the legality of these UN treaties. See the report by constitutional lawyer, Dr David Mitchell, BA, LLB, Ph.D, LLM in the National Focus, PO Box 182, Nanango, Qld. 4615, February 1998.
Some pro-republicans use the specious argument that becoming a republic will make Australia a sovereign country. But becoming a republic will not increase our sovereignty one fraction. And if we are so keen on increasing our sovereignty, why have we surrendered our financial system to international financiers? Why have we surrendered ourselves to UN law by signing hundreds of treaties? Why have we down-graded our military forces and disarmed the civilian population?
Becoming a republic will, in one fell swoop, repeal all the rights we take for granted. Our rights will be what the politicians tell us they are. Numerous recent media reports in Australia clearly indicate the complete contempt in which politicians are held by the Australian people. Are we seriously considering giving more power to politicians? What they give they can take away at their whim.
Worse, our rights will be what the UN and big business tell us they are. The UN is a body known to be dominated by global business and finance (see ERADA. See also, The Unseen Hand, by Ralph A.Epperson, 1985, Publius Press).
Becoming a republic will not increase our sovereignty one bit, it will be the catalyst for the complete loss of our sovereignty, rights and freedoms.
Under our present Constitutional Monarchy, The Crown is above party politics; it is above the nonsense and deceit we have to tolerate every election time. The Governor General represents all Australians. Politicians are elected to Parliament by those who vote for them.
We are a republic for all practical purposes, but with our rights and freedoms protected by the Constitutional Monarchy. We have the best of both worlds.
Becoming a republic will clear the path for Australia to be swallowed by a World Government.
We are playing with fire.
AUSTRALIA IS DEFENCELESS AGAINST MILITARY INVASION FROM ASIA
The present economic turmoil in Asia does not rule-out a military attack on Australia.
Australia today is defenceless. With a population of 19 million people, we occupy a continent almost as large as the USA, rich in minerals and resources. We have a relatively pristine environment. We are a glittering prize.
To our north in Asia are teeming billions of people, many living in indescribable poverty, pollution, filth, congestion. They are also armed to the hilt. Indonesia’s military forces are several times greater than ours. China’s military is several times greater then Indonesia’s. (See HS 25/5/97).
The late B.A.Santamaria, who wrote regularly in TWA has said:
* The day will come when China will condemn us in the United Nations for occupying such a vast area of land with such a small population and will sharply demand that we hand it over to the starving millions.
* The Land of The Lotus Eaters will not be permitted to slumber forever.
Australian Governments, under their policy of economic rationalism have driven thousands of farmers off their land. If this land is not used productively pressure will mount for this land to be made available to millions of people living in poverty in other countries.
Sir Phillip Baxter, former vice-chancellor of the University of NSW said in 1982 that conflict over food, energy and resources is inevitable (ANR July/August 1997).
China’s population is about 1.2 billion and increases every year by about 16 million people (almost the total of Australia’s population).
India’s population is about 1.2 billion and increases every year by about 18 million people (about the total of Australia’s population).
The nations of S.E. Asia were spending great sums of money on new, high-tech armaments in the world’s most dynamic arms race (The Australian 10/11/97). (Most of this spending occurred before the recent economic crisis).
“Think for a moment, not using our logic, but as our northern neighbours must think. As populations rise, the cost of land in Asia is constantly rising. Here is a country to the south that has huge amounts of land and is vastly under-populated” (Business Review Weekly, 18/11/96).
(They see the vastness of Australia and our small population but they do not fully understand the limits placed on our population by our dry, harsh, fragile environment and soils).
“In Japan, Korea and Singapore, Australians are seen as sitting on a treasure chest of raw materials which they are too lazy to exploit to advantage and hence do not deserve” (HS 4/1/98).
On previous occasions, Australian political ‘leaders’ have gone to Asian countries and grovelled to Asian leaders. What must they think of Australians? Does this induce them to think we do not deserve this country?
“There is a very strong view in Asia that we are wasting (land) resources which they simply do not have” (The Australian 3/1/95).
The HS, 24/11/96, reported that one of the world’s leading defence experts warned that:
* Australia was a glittering strategic prize;
* several Asian countries were spying on us.
The report also said that a survey revealed that members of the Howard Government believed that:
* Australia faced security threats from China and Indonesia.
Readers are reminded of the billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money our Governments have given to these countries over many years, including the report (above) that Australian taxpayers gave Indonesia $114 million in 1993 for military aid.
Much of Asia is now embroiled in economic chaos, causing these countries internal problems. The ramifications of this to Australia’s ‘defence’ are unclear and unpredictable. What is clear is that we live in a very unpredictable, unstable, dangerous and volatile world.
Who foresaw the economic collapse of Asia? Who foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union?
What will be the situation in Asia in 12 months, or two years? Will they look to military conquest to resolve, or alleviate, their problems?
General Douglas Macarthur said that the history of the failure of war can almost be summed up in two words: too late.
* Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy.
* Too late in realising the mortal danger.
* Too late in preparedness.
* Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance.
* Too late in standing with one’s friends.
General Macarthur also said:
* Beware not the enemy from ‘without’ but the enemy from ‘within’.
* Wars are caused by unprotected wealth.
General Sir Walter Walker, KCB, CBE, DSO: “The only safe prediction today is that the unexpected must be expected”.
Professor Geoffrey Blainey: “Major wars…were not really foreseen even 5 years before they arrived” (HS 26/1/98).
Machiavelli (Italian statesman, 1469-1527): “The Gauls invaded ancient Rome because…the population of Gaul had become too large and they did not have enough food” (The Discourses p. 295).
Toynbee (social reformer, 1852-83): “No great civilization ever collapsed as a result of external attack. If external attack appears to be the immediate cause, it has been preceded by long decades…of corruption from within”.
General Sir Walter Walker: “As long ago as the year 500BC, the Chinese practised subversive warfare. They said:
* The greatest art is to break the enemy’s opposition without a fight on the battlefield. The direct art of war is only needed on the battlefield.
* A true victory, and a lasting one, can only be won by indirect and subversive methods, and so, corrupt all that is good in the enemy country.
* Destroy, with all manner of means, the enemy’s armaments, his supplies and the orderly functioning of his armies.
* Spread dishonesty and quarrel among the citizens of the enemy country. Push the young against their elders.
* Abase his traditions and his religious faith.
* Be generous with presents, so as to be able to buy intelligence and accomplices.
* Place your secret agents everywhere.
The above example of the ancient Chinese is used to show that ANY potential enemy may use these methods.
Consider the ominous relevance and similarity, of the above, to Australian society today: the destruction of our economy; disarming our military forces and the civilian population; unemployment (20)%; youth unemployment of 30% (Channel 10, 6/8/98) and in some areas 70%; drug addiction; poverty (one person in three in poverty); suicide; family break-down; the quarrel between the multi cultures, black against white, republican against Monarchist, young against elderly, poor against rich, womens’ liberalists against men, homosexuals against heterosexuals, and the erosion of our traditions and Christianity.
Robert Rice, writing in the ANR, April 1998, (p.8) reports that money laundering and corruption flourish in Australia but the media rarely reports the truth of the situation. Entertainment rather then investigative journalism appears to be the self-limiting role of our newspapers and newsrooms. The guilty go free and unhindered because of powerful influences on what can and can’t be reported.
He states:
“Australia is awash with drug money, corruption now reaches into the highest levels of society – government, the judiciary, legal profession, the police and local government administration – yet the media is strangely silent on the subject.
“Hearsay and rumour names prominent people involved in this web of illegal practice but the same persons are reported uncritically in the media…
“There is something terminally sick at the heart of Australian life when these creatures are held up as an example to the people, and the real sleazy and criminal underside of their lives is censored and withheld.
“This is not paranoia. The fact is that corruption is now so widespread and self interest so paramount in the professions, which once used to discipline their own members, that it is very difficult for the truth to get out.
“Sydney perhaps personifies the problem. There, criminality is now part of the establishment, and the only conspiracy is that which seeks to prevent the ordinary citizen from being aware of it”.
Remember the warnings of Toynbee and General Sir Walter Walker above.
Our traditions, and history have been abased and rewritten. Dr Robert Birrell, of Monash University, Victoria, states that nationalism is no longer intellectually fashionable, partly because of the extensive denigration of our history that has occurred (TWA, 31/1/98-1/2/98). He further writes that links with Australia’s recent decline in pride in our past with recent “revisionist” rewriting of our history of writers keen to promote multiculturalism and republican visions of Australia (The HS 4/11/95).
We can see here the incessant denigration of our treatment of Aborigines by our ancestors and the shame we should feel, even though we cannot be held responsible today for events, or alleged events, in history. This serves to destroy pride in our nation and nationalism.
Senator Bronwyn Bishop, Defence Industry Minister stated: “The Australian Defence Force was virtually unable to defend the country because of poor military planning…The defence forces could not even defend themselves” (The Age 3/6/98).
The National Focus, November 1997, reported Brigadier E.P.Serong, DSO, OBE (retired):
“Australia’s defence condition is, in a word, disastrous. We have witnessed a massive decline in the numbers, equipment, money, operational experience and political status of our armed forces, particularly the combat element.
“Now we have two questionable effective battalions, which would be about enough for crowd control in Bourke Street (Melbourne).
“We could not sustain one battalion in ongoing overseas combat operations within Australia.
“Now, would you believe, we bring students from overseas countries to Canungra to teach them our methods.
“And now, further down the track, we propose gun laws. Every one-man incident is beaten up into an exercise to disarm the entire population. We disarm the population, so they can’t defend themselves.
“The present and mid-term future position is stark and clear. The armed forces cannot defend the nation. The Police Force cannot defend the people.” (The National Focus, November 1997).
The Sunday Age, 28/6/92, carried a report that suggested that in a drawn out war, and if necessary, The Australian Army would abandon all areas north of a line from Newcastle, NSW, to Port Augusta, SA. All areas north of the imaginary line would be abandoned to the enemy. The Army said it was only a proposal and would not be endorsed. Defence Minister at the time, Senator Robert Ray, confirmed the existence of the plan but said it would not be released.
This is similar to the plan during World War Two to surrender vast areas of northern areas of Australia to the enemy.
The first and foremost duty of a Government is to protect its people against military invasion. This is even written into The Australian Constitution. Section 119 states that the Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion.
So, why have Australian Governments (whatever Party has been in power) for many years downgraded our military forces, leaving us defenceless against foreign miliary attack?
Following the recent tragedy in Port Arthur, Tasmania, what was the real reason for disarming the civilian Australian population? Having seized these weapons, why did the Government destroy them instead of storing them securely?
You don’t disarm the people, punish the people, by keeping responsible people from firearms, because of the actions of one madman; you keep the madmen from firearms.
A population armed with light weapons, properly trained, is a very significant deterrent to any would-be aggressor. This was a factor in deterring Japan in World War Two. No matter what heavy equipment or how high tech the enemy’s arsenal, a determined, widely dispersed, lightly armed civilian population who chooses when and where to fight, to hit and run, is an extremely formidable foe.
Let us remind ourselves of the situation in China today. We saw above the appalling over-population (increasing every year by almost the total of Australia’s population), the pollution, poverty, filth. As they continue their industrialisation, conditions will become even more intolerable. China could be a time bomb ticking away. China is a nuclear power and is arming itself way beyond its defence needs.
China is the most aggressive country in the world in the acquisition of military hardware (ANR Sept. 1997). Will China seek a military conquest of other countries to solve its problems?
See also the comments below regarding China’s relations with the USA.
India is in a similar position to China and is also a powerful military, with nuclear weapons.
Japan has re-armed and is a very technically advanced country.
Indonesia’s military strength is many times that of Australia’s. Their military plays a role in the decision making processes of their government.
The HS 1/1/98 reported that the release of top secret documents after 30 years revealed that the Australian Government still fears Indonesia. We saw above that members of the Howard Government regard them as a threat to our security. Yet we give them huge amounts of money!
With Indonesia’s current economic disaster, will millions of unarmed Indonesian boat-people set sail for Australia, on the assumption that we would not shoot unarmed people? What would we do? Would they be followed up by armed Indonesian military invasion. What of the Indonesian troops training in Australia to this day? (Recent written advice from the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Australia is still training Indonesian troops in Australia).
In 1975 Indonesia invaded and occupied East Timor and killed hundreds of thousands of East Timorese – we will probably never know the full number. Indonesian troops committed atrocities, torture, rape on a large scale.
Despite fearing Indonesian aggression and its history of invading East Timor, our Labor and Liberal-National Governments have weakened our military forces and disarmed the civilian population. The Democrat and Greens Parties have remained silent or been irrelevant.
On 19/7/98, Channel 9’s “Sunday” program reported that Australia was the only country in the world to recognise Indonesia’s sovereignty over East Timor. The report also stated that Australia has been implicated with Indonesia in exploiting oil in East Timorese territorial waters. The “Sunday” program showed an Australian Minister drinking Champagne with an Indonesian minister in an aircraft after signing the deal. The Australian Government and military trained Indonesian military in Australia and they practised their newly acquired skills against the East Timorese.
As mentioned, our Governments have given billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money to Indonesia, China and India. Australia is only a small economy.
It takes many years to build up an adequate defence, even if we started now. We must have a strong manufacturing industry (we don’t), in place, so that it can be adjusted to manufacture military hardware.
Some people argue that to have an adequate defence capacity we must fill this country up with people, and this will prevent other countries attacking us. To start with, Australia, the driest continent on earth, is limited by our harsh environment. One hundred million people, or even 50 million, will turn Australia into a giant dust bowl. We are one of the most, if not the most, highly urbanised countries on earth. Imagine what our cities would be like with a population of 50 million? Would the result be any different to if we had been militarily invaded?
Having a population of 100 million would be no guarantee that we would not be attacked. With the populations of India, China and their annual increases, and populations of the rest of the world, 100 million is totally insignificant.
Becoming an Asian country with a large Asian population would be no guarantee that Asian countries would not attack us. Asian countries have been at war with each other for many years.
With the mindless rush to privatise our public utilities, what are the repercussions of this for our ‘defence’? We have recently seen Sydney’s water supply being contaminated on two occasions. How easy would it be, for example, for our enemy to sabotage our water supplies or electricity supplies by corrupting private suppliers? Do the mainstream political parties even care?
In conclusion, with our vast coastline and small population, we must have high-tech, scientific, sophisticated military equipment, and highly mobile military forces. We must have the best intelligence, be skilled in the art of diplomacy, and carefully select potential allies.
But we Lotus Eaters don’t have much time left, we better get cracking.
WOULD THE UNITED STATES DEFEND US?
Can we rely on the USA to defend us? The late Sir Robert Menzies said that the ANZUS Treaty was a superstructure on a foundation of jelly. ANZUS only committed us to ‘consult’ (HS 25/5/97).
The US Government is controlled or influenced by multi-billionaires and multinational corporations. These people are behind the economic rationalism dogma sweeping the world. Australia must break free from economic rationalism or we are doomed.
Here lies the dilemma for us. There are other complications.
“We could not rely on the US to defend our national interests unless they coincided with those of the US. Can the (Australian) Government point to one instance where the US has defended Australia’s interests when the US interests were either opposed or not engaged. It is silly to just allow our Forces to be used for US interests when we leave Australia undefended” (The Age 4/12/97).
There are accusations that President Clinton received illegal campaign contributions from China, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea (The Age 26/10/97).
“President Clinton has clinched a lucrative deal for nuclear and aircraft sales to China. Over one third of Americans have hostile feelings to China and 72% want a strong nuclear stand against China” (HS 31/10/97).
The US is to sell billions of dollars of nuclear reactors to China (Ch. 10 news, 10.30pm, 30/10/97).
“The US approved the sale of sophisticated military technology to the Chinese military…welcomed the most notorious Chinese arms dealer into the White House. The Chinese Communist Government has launched an all out offensive to infiltrate America’s political, military and security apparatus, while penetrating the US economy in unprecedented and hitherto unnoticed ways. US technology controls are too weak to prevent Chinese entities from purchasing military secrets. The Chinese Government can now sit in Long Beach Harbour and eavesdrop on communications throughout the Los Angles area. Chinese influence in American policy and finance continues to grow with Clinton’s encouragement”. (ANR Sept. 1997).
“China is the most aggressive country in the world in the acquisition of military hardware” (ANR Sept. 1997). ” China has about 3 million personnel in their Armed Forces. China is modernising its huge military forces” (HS 25/5/97). Bear in mind also the comments above regarding China’s population problems, industrialisation and pollution problems.
On 7/6/98 Channel 9’s “Sixty Minutes” program reported that large numbers of people in the USA are deeply worried about the sovereignty of their country and the numerous treaties the US Government has signed with the UN. Civilian militias have sprung up and are training in anticipation with violent conflict with their own government.
So, if the American people don’t trust their own Government, why should we?
WOULD THE UN MILITARY FORCES DEFEND US OR ARE THEY A POTENTIAL ENEMY?
Would the United Nations Military Forces defend us? The UN is a body known to be dominated by global business and finance (see ERADA, and The Unseen Hand, above). So, again, our defence would be at the whim of international financial forces, which are aggressively pushing economic rationalism which is destroying Australia.
The ANR, Sept. 1996 reported that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for over 85% of the world’s conventional arms trade and two thirds of the sales are to the poorest countries in the world.
The UN’s record in defending countries is appalling. Over many years, many millions of people have been butchered in Cambodia, Timor, Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam and Bosnia.
The Age 6/11/97 reports that UN soldiers have carried out killings and torture of Somalian civilians and these practices were common. Somali people took up arms against the UN because they saw them as an occupying force. There is deepening antagonism between many Africans and UN Agencies. The UNHRC (UN Human Rights Commission) has been expelled from Eritrea and the Congo.
Our military armed forces are inadequate. Our civilian population has been almost disarmed. Australian Governments have signed numerous disarmament treaties with the UN. Both major political parties enthuastically embrace globalisation, economic rationalism and centralised world control.
There is much anecdotal evidence that many Australians fear UN military domination of Australia. If Australia is occupied by UN military forces this means we would be under the control of foreign military forces, who are controlled ultimately by international big business.
We must politely decline the United Nations’ offer to “defend” us.
MULTI-CULTURALISM WEAKENS OUR DEFENCE AGAINST FOREIGN MILITARY ATTACK
“That most, if not all, multiculturalists are actually internationalists is beyond doubt. As an example, the Government-sponsored document, Australia as a Multicultural Society, saw fit to propagate the belief that Australia’s interests may have to be over-ridden by so-called international interests: ‘we also wish to emphasise that questions of immigration policy (like many other questions) are embedded in a much wider concept of social cohesion than this: namely, the social good of humanity as a whole. From this point of view, Australia may be a sectional group in a wider international system and the good of the wider system may over-ride the well-being of Australia considered in isolation”. (See The Menace of Multiculturalism, by Cameron McKenzie, 1997, p.6, published by the Institute of Australian Culture, PO Box 64, Watsonia, Vic. 3087; Australian Ethnic Affairs Council publication, Australia as a multicultural Society, AGPS, Canberra, 1978, pp. 4, 14).
It seems that the defence of Australia against a military attack by a foreign country is not of paramount consideration. We must prostrate ourselves for the good of humankind, the betterment of the world. Our global masters will decide what is good for the world and what is not.
It is time we recognised the dangerous game we are playing when we promote multiculturalism.
‘Divided and conquered’ is an old military tactic. Australia is certainly a divided country in many ways, as described above. We are a weak, demoralised, defenceless society. A glittering prize ‘up-for-grabs’.
Instead of promoting the assimilation of migrants into the Australian culture, our Governments have for many years encouraged and promoted the policy of multiculturalism. Under this policy, ethnic groups in Australia are encouraged to maintain their separate cultures.
Maintaining their culture instead of assimilating into Australian culture, ensures that they maintain:
* allegiance to their country of origin;
* hostilities to their traditional enemies;
* the division of Australia.
Australian taxpayers have funded this policy. An example of this is the use of taxpayers’ money to teach children of ethnic people about the folklore, dances and games of their parents’ homelands (Sydney Morning Herald 25/5/96).
In Australia there are many obvious examples of specific ethnic groups congregating in certain suburbs.
A homogeneous nation, proud of its race, is a far deadlier and more powerful fighting machine than will be found in a multicultural country. You are less likely to find draft dodgers and conscientious objectors in a racially homogeneous nation. (See The Dispossessed Majority, by Wilmot Robertson, 1972, Howard Allen, USA).
For many centuries, different ethnic groups have butchered each other in wars around the world. Yet for some reason we seem to think they can be transported to Australia, encouraged to maintain their ethnic separateness and rivalries without tension.
It is only the strength and stability of our Australian culture and traditions that have limited racial violence. But the more we promote cultural separateness (which is fuelled by high immigration) the more the Australian culture is slowly suffocated. As the Australian culture and traditions recede, the prospect of racial tension increases.
On Easter Monday, 1998, Pope Paul warned that ethnic rivalry was sewing the seeds of death (Channel 2 News, 7pm).
Hitler used propaganda to divide multicultural Czechoslovakia and apply pressure for a separate state for Germans living in that country (Red over Black, by Geoff McDonald, pp 95-97, 1982, Veritas). As history records, after dividing the country, Hitler’s tanks rolled in.
The HS, 16/8/95, reported:
“The lessons of war forgotten”, says Professor Geoffrey Blainey. “World War Two taught us that national unity and high morale were vital, especially in February and March 1942 when Japan seemed likely to invade Australia.
“One day, Australia will face another regional threat or crisis that might lead to fighting.
“In the world’s history, many nations, lacking unity, have collapsed in the face of a determined enemy. Will national unity, vital in every past wartime crisis, be attainable if Canberra continues to subsidise ethnic groups to retain loyalties to their former homeland?
“The parallel idea that multiculturalism will ensure that Australia remains at peace with South-East Asia is close to nonsense but is still widely believed in Canberra.
“…the failure in the 1930s of Australia and especially…the Labor Party to sanction reasonable spending on the nation’s defence. If Australia had operated the best fighter aircraft, Singapore might not have fallen”.
Several chilling words of Professor Blainey stand out: national unity; high morale; South-East Asia; defence spending.
Solzhenitsyn said: in his BBC Address on 26/3/76, “When courage is lost, all is lost”.
Inherent in that is morale, will, and determination. Are these qualities present in what remains of our Military Forces, our unemployed youth, our nation?
Brigadier R.T.Eason, MC, ED, said in 1976:
* Race is a dominant factor. It is fashionable to deny this simple truth but no real strategist would do so. Race will be the thing that decides ultimately, even beyond religious belief, what people do and what they will not do.
* Study racial behaviour throughout history and there is no room for doubt as to its potency.
* Can the Jew live with the Arab? Can the Greek live with the Turk? Can the French live with the Anglo-Saxon in Canada? Can the Malays live with the Chinese?
But rather than ask whether the different races can live with each other, it might be more to the point to ask (in multicultural Australia) would they die for each other if Australia was at war?
Would they kill members of their own race? For example, if Australia was at war with China, would a Chinese Australian drive a bayonet into the chest of a Chinese from the Peoples’ Republic of China? Its a reasonable question to ask, surely.
If we were at war with China, what of Chinese living in Australia? Many Chinese would probably be loyal to Australia, but would there be any who were not? What do we do about them? Do we have to divert our scarce resources to monitor them?
We saw above the report in the HS, 24/11/96, regarding several Asian countries spying on Australia. Whilst many migrants migrate to Australia for legitimate reasons, how can we be sure that some do not migrate to spy on Australia? What better way to carry out espionage activities on Australia, the glittering prize.
Different religions is a very divisive factor. Religion has been the cause of many wars throughout history.
“Christmas celebrations have been stripped of their Christian symbolism to ensure children from different religious and cultural backgrounds do not feel alienated. Nativity plays and overly religious activities have been scrapped in many Melbourne kindergartens concerned about their culturally diverse proteges” (HS 20/12/96). This alienates, and is extremely offensive and provocative for Christians. Whilst not everybody in Australia is a Christian, we are a Christian country, it is one of our traditions. Christianity is even written into our Constitution.
The HS, 29/1/97, reported that ethnic schools are springing up in Victoria which critics claim are socially divisive and create ethnic enclaves. It queries what Islamic schools teach about the Holocaust and Israel; what Jewish schools teach about the Palestinians; what the schools teach about the Greek Macedonian dispute, about Australian history, equality of sexes and the separation of religion from the state.
In certain cultures, polygamy is practised, women are oppressed, arranged marriages occur, female genital mutilation occurs, crimes are punished by mutilation and the penalty for drinking alcohol is jail. In India, certain religious sects practice the most appallingly bloodthirsty rites.
How does all this unite us and make us “a deadly, more powerful fighting machine”?
Language difficulties is another factor. If Australia was at war, how do we communicate with each other when many of us do not speak the same language? How do our warriors on the battlefield communicate with each other?
It is common knowledge and well reported that for many years the major political parties and the mainstream media had a pact to keep ‘immigration’ off the political agenda, despite clearly demonstrated public hostility to immigration. The Democrats and the Greens either went along with this or were irrelevant. This meant that ‘immigration’ was never allowed to become an issue at election times.
The Government sponsored policy of multiculturalism (dividing the country) was in place and multiculturalism is fuelled by immigration. Multiculturalism weakens our defence against foreign military invasion.
The importance of this cannot be over-estimated.
Our democracy, the people of Australia and our defence against military attack were treated with contempt.
The costs of immigration and multiculturalism is another consideration. A report titles, Giving Our Money Away, by Des Moore, in the ANR, Sept. 1996 states that grants for special interest groups were probably close to $200 million.
The Barbarians (see above) deals extensively with the costs of immigration and starkly reveals the costs of ethnic crime, welfare abuse and immigration abuse. On p. 112, Paul Sheehan writes, “Suffice to say at this point that the problems have been covered up as part of Labor’s prodigious bluff, a bluff that has cost Australian society uncountable billions of dollars and ruined lives”.
And on p. 97, Sheehan quotes Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister of Australia in his maiden speech in Parliament, “…the enormous cost of bringing migrants to this country. We must bear in mind this cost when we consider the cost of subsidising Australian families…These figures may sound high but they are not when we compare the cost of bringing migrants to this country. After all, the best migrant is the infant Australian”.
Columnist, Michael Duffy, writing in The Daily Telegraph, 4/7/98, reported, “It is widely asserted in newspapers across the land that mass immigration is undeniably an economic boon for Australia. This is completely wrong. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite, from reputable academics around Australia”.
The BRW, October 1989 reported that immigration adds approximately $9 Billion annually to our foreign debt.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has admitted that immigration increases unemployment.
How much does Australia borrow overseas to fund the costs associated with the increased demands on our infrastructure: our roads, rails, sewers, schools, power, water, hospitals, etc.?
The indirect costs associated with immigration and multiculturalism are usually overlooked. Some of these indirect costs are:
* lost productivity in the workplace (itself a huge cost);
* lack of language skills alone costs Australian taxpayers $4.8 Billion every year (The Cost of Multiculturalism, by Stephen J.Rimmer, 1991, Flinders Press);
* extra training for Police to deal with ethnic crime;
* language difficulties a school teacher experiences with students with poor English;
* employment of interpreters;
* lack of social cohesion;
* riots at soccer and other sporting events between fighting ethnic groups;
* diseases introduced into Australia by migrants, the costs of treatment and attempts to prevent them.
The Age, 20/8/98, reported, “It is believed (research shows) high levels of drug-related convictions amongst Vietnamese migrants and that other recent arrivals are more likely to be represented in certain prison statistics than Australian-born citizens”.
“Government research confirming stereotypes between race and crime (prepared for immigration authorities) is being suppressed because of racial tensions and sensitivities surrounding One Nation” (Ibid).
The HS, 3/7/98 reported that Police, when publishing the descriptions of offenders wanted for crimes, were not allowed to give descriptions of certain racial groups. The HS, 20/3/97, also reported, “Our politically correct crooks”. The report stated that Police will be forced to drop racial descriptions of crime suspects after pressure from ethnic groups.
If some criminals remain undetected and go on to commit further crimes, perhaps rape and murder of children and old women, what is the cost to the community in terms of suffering and money? This is political correctness gone mad.
Channel SBS’s “Insight”, on 25/9/97, revealed that the 1914 Crimes Act was amended in 1994 so that courts would have to take into account the cultural background of people before proceeding to conviction and sentencing.
This is discrimination against Australian offenders, and breaches the principle that we should all be equal before the law. If migrants wish to live in our country, they must live by our customs and laws, not require us to change our laws and customs to suit their customs.
Also, this breaches the principle of the separation of the judiciary from politics, one of the pillars of our democracy (or what’s left of our democracy).
The indirect costs associated with the relentless pressure on our fragile, finite, often degraded soils, is another indirect cost invariably overlooked.
This is money we could have spent on our military forces, to ensure we remain a free country. Money we could have spent on our manufacturing industries, to provide employment and to form the basis of military hardware manufacture.
With Australia’s vast coastline and small population it is essential that we have high-tech, sophisticated military equipment and a highly mobile military force. This requires money.
Multi-Culturalism is multi-madness and must be unceremoniously buried immediately.
DO WE ILL-TREAT OUR ABORIGINES?
The HS, 19/6/98 reported that some members of Melbourne’s Wurundjeri tribe plan to charge residents of Melbourne’s north eastern suburbs rent. Nillumbik Councillors Lex de Man and Natalie Woodley have called on residents to oppose the plan after Council staff proposed charging a $5.00 levy on all ratepayers.
“Aborigines currently possess inalienable freehold title to just over 40% of the Northern Territory. It is expected that this will eventually rise to around 50%” (written advice, dated 12/6/98, from the Office of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs).
50% of Victoria is now under Native Title claim (ANR June 1997).
Aborigines will be able to claim native title on up to 79% of Australia (The Age 8/6/98).
Black activism has cost Australia many millions of dollars in lost mining and general business activity.
The ANR, February 1998 reported that the ACT Legislative Assembly recently voted to place the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in their Chamber.
Talk about dividing the nation on racial grounds! And how do you put the flag of one race there without putting all the flags of all the races living in Australia today? The Chamber would look like the United Nations. Perhaps that’s what they want? We would be the laughing stock of the whole world (if we’re not already).
Eminent barrister, Vernon Wilcox QC, writing in the HS, is highly critical of the High Court’s Mabo decision, saying it has gone beyond its role of interpreting the law and is applying “social justice” as it saw fit. He said, “The Australian people must assert themselves, otherwise courts and parliaments might do anything”.
TWA 6-7/12/97 reported that Cape York Aborigines were involved with known terrorists.
The HS 1/12/97 reported:
War would be declared on white Australia if Federal Parliament passed the 10 point Wik plan, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has warned. He said young Aborigines would abandon peaceful strategies in their land rights campaign if they lost the native title struggle…Mr Pearson said Aborigines would launch a desperate fight if the Government killed native title. “If they tear the law up and they tell the law to get stuffed, the (High) Court to get stuffed, I tell you, there is no other answer than war, “Mr Pearson said.
I wrote to the Minister for Defence expressing my concerns about these reports and requested his advice. His Ministry replied, informing me that they had no knowledge of the reports, but stated that, anyway, ASIO handles these types of matters, and the activities of ASIO could not be revealed.
I wrote again, enclosing copies of the actual reports, and informed them that I was completely dis-satisfied with their reply. They again replied, informing me they take their responsibilities seriously, but could not release any information.
Channel 10 5pm News on 16/12/97 reported that Noel Pearson may stand as an ALP Candidate for Parliament and Kim Beazley, ALP Leader said that he would make a very good ALP Candidate.
The HS, 14/1/98, reported that Aboriginal leader, Noel Pearson, has been awarded the prestigious “Beggars Medal” for his crusade on behalf of Aborigines. The Medal is given to those who have helped promote democracy and fought against dictatorship.
On the 25/1/98 I telephoned Jim Forscutt, Mayor of Katherine, NT and informed him of the reports of Aborigines and involvement with known terrorists. He informed me that Australia was in a very bad way, that he believed there could be civil war in Australia and white Australians were extremely dissatisfied with native title claims.
But there is considerable evidence to believe that many, if not most, Aborigines do not want native title claims made, but are manipulated by certain parties. But first, what has white Australia done for Aborigines?
Graeme Campbell MHR, founder of new political Party, Australia First, has stated that respected Aboriginal leader from the Kimberley, Billy King, said recently any debt to Aboriginal people was paid in full in 1942. From available documents it is clear that, had the Japanese conquered our nation, they would have gotten rid of (killed) all the Aborigines. As Mr King said it was overwhelmingly white Australia that fought and died, fighting for everyone’s freedom (Breakthrough, the Australia First Newsletter), March 1998).
Whilst some Aborigines fought in World War Two, it is obvious that without the sacrifices of white Australians, the Japanese would have killed every single Aborigine. Aborigines are alive to day because of that. Has the Aboriginal community publicly acknowledged that?
With the hindsight of the behaviour of the Japanese in World War Two, one can use one’s imagination about what they would have done to Aboriginal women before killing them.
And the only “land-rights” they would have given Aborigines would have been about the size of their graves.
Since the Whitlam Government of the 1970s an estimated $25-$30 Billion has been spent on Aboriginal affairs (Aboriginal activist, on ABC radio, Toowoomba, Qld., on 18/11/96 - reported in ANR Jan., 1997). That is, in 21 years, Australian taxpayers have given $25-$30 Billion to Aboriginal affairs. Today there are about 350,000 Aborigines, many of whom are only part Aboriginal ‘blood’.
Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, one third of royalties from mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory would be paid to Aboriginal Land Councils (written advise, dated 12/6/98, from the Minister). (This is for the Northern Territory alone). Further written advise from the Minister, dated 12/12/97 stated that Aborigines in the NT have received $350 million from mining royalties. (There are 46,277 indigenous Australians in the NT).
The Australian, 24/7/98 reported that $1.8 Billion a year would be paid to Aboriginal aid.
Written advice, dated 12/12/97, from the Minister stated:
* 15% of the Australian land mass is owned or controlled by indigenous Australians.
* Since 1980, $121 million has been spent purchasing 341 properties for indigenous Australians.
* Over the past 5 years, $210 million of Commonwealth taxpayers’ money has been spent on native title claims alone.
* The Keating Government established the Indigenous Land Fund which will grow to $1.289 Billion by 2004. Indigenous Australians will have $45 million per year forever to buy and manage land. There are 350,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. (The actual figure now is 386,000. That is 386,000 people to share $45 million every year forever for land alone).
Media Releases from the Minister dated 16/12/97 state that:
* $1.6 million will be spent on a National Library for Aboriginal oral history purposes.
* Close to $6 million for further development of indigenous family support and parenting programs.
* $9 million boost to culture and language maintenance programs.
* $11.25 million to establish a national network of family link-up services to assist individuals.
* $17 million to expand the network of regional centres for emotional and social well-being, giving counsellors professional support and assistance.
Note: the actual indigenous population is now 386,000 (ANR May\June 1998).
Channel 9, 6pm News, on 29/6/98 reported that loans of 1.5% interest are being made available to Aborigines.
The above may not necessarily represent all the benefits given to Aborigines, but gives some idea.
Despite all this, we have reports about Aborigines being involved with known terrorists and Noel Pearson threatening white Australians with war!
But it appears that many, if not most, Aborigines do not support native title.
The HS, 29/12/97, reported that Jim Forscutt, Mayor of Katherine, NT, and former president of the Local Government Associating of the NT said that Elders of traditional Aboriginal communities in the NT have stated categorically that they want no more land, do not support Wik and wish only to live in peace with all other Australians.
The HS, 18/6/98 reported that it was a shame the Howard Government has not done enough to get more moderate Aboriginal voices heard over the warmongers’ clamour. There are plenty of Aborigines desperate for some calm reasonable leadership. The real Aborigines of Australia have forgiven the white men of yesteryear for their cruelty towards Aboriginal tribal elders, said Rodney Rivers, a spokesman for 20 tribes in the Kimberley, after some stunt by (a black activist). One third of married Aborigines have a non-Aboriginal partner according to census data. They know in their hearts we can get along. Activists are making a rod not only for their backs but for our backs too.
“The so-called “beautiful spiritualism” lauded by The Australian council of Churches has been terrible in its consequences. The investigator should talk to the young full-blood Aboriginal men and women in the NT about what they think about being dragged back to the old ways” (Red Over Black – Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights, by Geoff McDonald, 1982, p. 80, Veritas).
Graeme Campbell’s (Independent member for Kalgoorlie) Press Release, 27/8/97, reported that native title was causing a lot of stress amongst Aboriginal people. His Press Release of 23/10/97, reported that from the north to the south of Australia a lot of Aboriginal people were telling him that they want the Native Title business scrapped. A prominent Aboriginal leader in the Kimberley, Dicky Cox described the legislation as “white fellow humbug for the benefit of white lawyers”. (Graeme Campbell’s electorate covers most of Western Australia and he has had long experience in dealing with Aborigines).
So, if there are grounds to believe many if not most Aborigines do not support native title, what have Australian Governments (and opposition parties) done over the years to ascertain the real position? Nothing apparently. What is really behind “black activism”?
(A black activist) has threatened to boycott the Sydney Olympic Games. He has tried to set up an Aboriginal embassy in Libya and get Arab support for a black nation (Herald Sun 18/6/98).
Channel 9’s 6.30pm News on 16/2/98 reported that American extremist, Louis Farrakhan, during a recent visit to Australia said, “If we (white Australians) say we not going to give you nothing, I’m in power, then the God will take the country from you. You not as secure here as you think. You too can lose what you took from them. If you don’t confront reconciliation then the savage human will destroy your beautiful cities in civil strife. The indigenous peoples of the world will rise up”. (Sic). The report also indicated that Farrakhan is behind Aborigines and Farrakhan has President Gaddafi of Libya, and Libya’s wealth behind him. Libya has the Islam nations’ wealth behind them.
The book, Red Over Black – Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights, by Geoff McDonald, 1982, Veritas, gives some background information to black activism in Australia. A one-time Communist who saw Communist methods at first hand, he became disillusioned and left the party. Some excerpts from his book are enlightening:
* The Church of the Friendly People in Devonshire Street, Sydney in 1981 was the location for Australia’s first National Liberation Conference. It brought together local supporters of the IRA, the PLO and the anti-African Pan African Congress with representatives of the Aboriginal Land Rights Organisation…the Conference…passed resolutions calling on all Commonwealth Governments to assist Aboriginal Land Rights claims…( p. 12).
* All this should be clear enough for even the most complacent Australian. Australia is facing the most insidious threat in its history (p. 12).
* Aboriginals are being manipulated by white and part-Aboriginal anti-capitalist revolutionary activists. I know when the revolutionary manipulators are using supposedly Aboriginal causes to strike against the mixed economy free enterprise system (p. 13).
* The idea that violence between white Australians and Aborigines is being carefully fostered, is one which the great majority find hard to accept. But the evidence for this is overwhelming (p. 82).
* (A black activist) of the North Queensland Land Council, said he supported the concept of violence (p. 83).
* The then Premier of Qld., Joh Bjelke-Petersen said Aboriginal control, of a resource as vital as uranium, could lead to an independent black State in the NT which Russia or China would be eager to help (p. 85).
* The Aboriginal issue is being used as the present to diminish the morale of the essentially European nation of Australia, even to work towards a division of Australia into Aboriginal State and European State which can only play into the hands of foreign powers inimical to our traditional way of life (p. 93). (Note: inimical means hostile – Macquarie Dictionary).
No matter how much land or money we give, black activists will never be satisfied.
A separate State for Aborigines would sound the death-knell for Australia. We would lose control of our country and our defence against military invasion. Black activists, should they choose, could negotiate directly with our enemies for the complete take over of Australia.
It is submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is something sinister behind black activism, and not just Aborigines wanting more rights.
Why do the mainstream parties: Labor, Liberal, National, Democrats, Greens remain silent? Why does the mainstream media remain silent, and certain sections of the media actively promote land rights?
On the issue of land claims themselves, about 70% of Aborigines live in urban areas (HS 29/11/97). About 40% of the indigenous population is now made up of uninitiated, non-traditional people of mixed race living in cities, and their number is exploding (The Barbarians p. 15).
Because of intermarriage with whites, there are many people who have only a very small proportion of Aboriginal ‘blood’, living in towns and cities exactly as whites live, and completely divorced from their traditional way of living.
Where is their ’spirituality’, their communion, with the land?
But the potential for land claims is cause for concern. This brings us to another very interesting point.
The ANR, May/June 1998 carries a report by Father Brenden Walters MSC, a priest and lawyer:
“The Catholic Church continues to defend the position it has taken in relation to native title and the decision of the High Court in Wik. The naive adoption of a political agenda does little to enhance the dignity and standing of the Church as a source of wisdom and a custodian of the truth.
“At present certain elements within the Church are preaching the gospel according to the Aborigines, having departed from the usual source of the truth (scripture and tradition) in favour of a political campaign which arguable is self-serving. Thus, the question of who ought to be eligible to make a native title claim is apparently not up for discussion. The question is an important one, particularly as it relates to persons of mixed Aboriginal descent”.
“Native Title is part of the general law of the tribe and certain members of the tribe are designated tribal lawmen. Native title gives the members of the tribe certain rights with respect to tribal land. It does not give those rights to people outside the tribe and thus, it does not give those rights to people of mixed Aboriginal descent.
“Tribal people may consent to give a mixed-race Aboriginal person some rights or communal recognition but never the right to ownership of land.
“The tribal people may not give the person of mixed Aboriginal descent native title rights because it is against customary tribal law.
“There is no provision in customary (Aboriginal) law for making someone into an Aborigine by defining them to be one.
“By allowing mixed-race Aborigines as native title claimants, the Native Title Act adopts its own version of tribal customary law and, in so doing, strays from the test of the High Court in Mabo that native title must be ascertained in accordance with their laws and customs. Mixed race Aborigines are not legitimate native title claimants and the Native Title Act should be amended to reflect that. On the above analysis, any successful native title claim by mixed-race Aborigines is inherently unjust.
“The provision of social justice for mixed-race Aborigines will not be satisfied by continuing to transfer to them interests in property to which they have no common law entitlement”.
On the 29/6/98 I wrote to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet asking if the Government had any plans to enter a contract, compact, convention, treaty, declaration, arrangement or agreement of any kind with indigenous Australians. At the time of writing I have not received a reply.
The Stolen Children. Channel 9’s “Sunday” report on 10/8/97 stated that because they (part Aborigine) children had white fathers, the children and the others were denied Aboriginal rights and laws. The children were beaten by male adult Aborigines.
The mothers often killed the children by hitting them on the head with a rock or simply letting them perish (presumably by abandoning them to the wilderness).
One part Aboriginal, part white woman said, on the “Sunday” report that if she had been left in her Aboriginal family she would be sitting by the creek getting drunk and paid for by the Australian taxpayers. Quite a few on the report said they were much better off today because they were “taken”.
Hansard reports Graeme Campbell’s speech to Parliament on 2/6/97, regarding Sir Ronald Wilson’s report, Bringing Them Home. Excerpts from his speech are:
“There were many cases…where people did not respond (i.e. come forward to give evidence to Sir Ronald Wilson – my comment) because they knew it was the fact of being made wards of the states that saved their lives.
“Besides being very selective, Sir Ronald Wilson’s report is fatally flawed in other ways. He says it is not an intellectual report; it is from the heart. This means, of course, it is not bound by fact.
“I remember the words of Isabella Lynott, who is now 95 years old. She, along with her sister, were the first children taken to Beagle Bay, a Catholic Mission, in 1909. Isabella’s father was white and when she died her mother implored the local police officer to take her children as they would otherwise surely die. Isabella remembers Beagle Bay very warmly. She said,
The nuns were very good to us. They gave us clean clothes, taught us to read and write and to play musical instruments. They taught us how to sew and to dance.
“She had only gratitude for her deliverance.
“Another hero of mine is Pearl Hamaguchi, a woman who, being an Aboriginal-Asian, endured a far harder life than white half-caste children. Being half Asian, she was not considered worth saving, although she was institutionalised for a short time later.
“…Both she, her husband and her family are highly respected members of the community. Her comment to me recently was that she had always thought that, we, the Gudea, were a bit silly but, with Mabo, native title, she now thinks we are far more stupid than even she had imagined. Pearl Hamaguchi is an inspiration to me and a great role model for the whole of society.
“I have spoken to police officers who have told me that, where children were being looked after, they did not enforce their removal. Many of the children were taken for their own protection.
“There were cases where Aboriginal custodial fathers would encourage their young, lighter coloured girls into prostitution. I wonder what the ranks of the politically correct would have had the government of the day do under those circumstances. In many other cases, half-caste children were simply not wanted by the tribe, regardless of how the mother felt.
“The real tragedy and shame is that, because of all this emotional nonsense, there are many Aboriginal children today who should be made wards of the state, and the authorities know that their failure to do so will inevitably lead to their death…They are entitled to the protection of the state but are denied it because of political correctness.
“What we need, 30 years on (from the 1967 referendum – my addition), is another referendum, so that the people of Australia can offer a direction that is not forthcoming from the Government…and even less so from the ALP”.
In the interests of truth, justice and the national interest, why has not the Government, the opposition parties Labor, Democrats, Greens and the mainstream media done their utmost to publish the truth about the “stolen children” not just Australia-wide, but world-wide?
In the 1967 referendum on Aborigines, white Australians voted 97% on this issue. They extended the hand of friendship to all Aborigines.
To answer the question, do we ill-treat our Aborigines, it is submitted that we have already done far more than was morally required of us to improve their physical and mental well-being. Any debt, (if there was any debt at all) was paid in full during World War Two when our sacrifices prevented the Japanese take-over of Australia and the annihilation of the Aboriginal race.
It is absurd to claim that present day Australians should be held responsible for actual or alleged ill treatment of Aborigines early in Australia’s history. There is another factor that is rarely, if ever, mentioned. Many early white settlers had the disconcerting experience of being speared to death by Aborigines.
The past is past. There are many white and black Australians who have nothing but good will to each other.
White Australians are sometimes blamed for introducing Aborigines to alcoholism. But consider this quote from The Barbarians (p. 253):
“I can only apologise”, says Jade to Cyril (an Aborigine), “for what we have done to your people. I think it’s absolutely scandalous that they have been introduced to alcohol”.
“Ah”, Cyril replies, “reckon dey gotta make up dere own minds dere. Same as de rest of us”. (Sic).
In conclusion, Aborigines do not have a monopoly on poverty and disadvantage. One in three Australians lives in poverty and the appalling social conditions endemic throughout Australia have been referred to above.
To give special benefits to any group based on their race, discriminates against other Australians.
What is needed is a more equitable social system and wealth distribution for all disadvantaged Australians, regardless of race, colour or creed. All it needs is the will to implement it.
We must remind the world of what we have done for Aborigines. White Australia has given them 15% of the total land area of Australia and 50% of the NT. Since 1975 we have given them at least $30 Billion. Today there only 386,000 Aborigines, many of them are only part Aboriginal ‘blood’.
A referendum must be held on the issues of land rights, compensation and benefits to Aborigines.
IS PAULINE HANSON A RACIST? WHAT IS RACISM?
The Macquarie Dictionary defines “racism” as the idea that one’s own race is better then any other, or offensive or even violent behaviour to members of another race arising from such a belief.
In her maiden speech in Parliament, Pauline Hanson stated, “I must stress at this stage that I do not consider those people from ethnic backgrounds currently living in Australia anything but first-class citizens, provided of course that they give this country their full, undivided loyalty”.
There doesn’t seem to be anything “racist” about that statement.
She also said, “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40% of all migrants coming to this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate”.
Asians do have their own culture and religion. In many cases they do not assimilate. There are numerous obvious examples of Asian ghettos in Australia.
She also said, “Immigration must be halted in the short-term so that our dole queues are not added to by, in many cases, unskilled migrants not fluent in the English language”. What’s “racist” about that?
Also, “A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united”. No truer words have ever been spoken.
It is submitted that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that powerful forces intend to turn Australia into an Asian country. This will mean the death of everything Australian.
As Graeme Campbell said, “If we object to being Asian, does that mean we are racist”? This shows how absurd the proposition is.
Transforming Australia into an Asian country is an act of gross racism against Australians.
Ms Hanson was also highly critical of the preferential treatment of Aborigines. Again, this preferential treatment discriminates against white Australians, many of whom live in appalling social conditions.
Nobody gives free land to white Australians. Most of them work all their lives just to own a block of land and brick veneer house in the suburbs – if they’re lucky.
Criticising the benefits to Aborigines is not the same thing as saying whites are superior to blacks, nor is it advocating the use of violence against blacks.
And unless there is a complete change of direction in Aboriginal affairs, black activism alone will seal the death of Australia. It goes without saying that this is racism against white Australians.
Who are the “real” racists?
Having read Ms Hanson’s speech in full, I am at a total loss to find anything that could be labelled “racist”.
On Channel 9’s “Sunday” program on 12/7/98, Paul Sheehan, author of The Barbarians said:
“Pauline Hanson has said that Asians are hard working and should be treated like any other Australians. You could argue that her speech was a speech against racial policies.
“This was never reported in the media. All the comments she made that would have evened out her remarks have been ignored, systematically and cynically”.
There are many examples of certain ethnic groups who live, congregate, in certain suburbs in Australia. Nobody calls them racists because they prefer to live with their own kind. But if Australians want to live amongst their own kind, they are called racists.
It is common knowledge and well reported that for many years Labor, Liberals, Nationals and the mainstream media collaborated to keep ‘immigration’ off the political agenda despite public hostility to immigration (as demonstrated by numerous polls). This meant it was never allowed to become an election issue on which the people could vote.
The importance of this collaboration cannot be over-estimated. This is a clear example of our politicians and media oppressing the people.
For years now we have seen our Governments, the media and certain elites aggressively promote multiculturalism, whether the people want it or not.
The logical end result of high immigration and multiculturalism will be the suffocation and death of Australian culture. This will happen through the sheer weight of numbers of migrants. There can be no other conclusion.
The deliberate destruction of a racial group is not just racism, but almost tantamount to genocide.
AUSTRALIAN CULTURE AND IDENTITY
Some people will say there is no such thing as an Australian culture. When they do, they clearly identify themselves as “racists” because a racist is someone who thinks he or she is superior to another race. Not only are they saying they are superior to Australians, they are denying even the existence of the Australian culture.
We’re all migrants, they will say. Well, we’re not all migrants. Many Australians have never even been outside Australian shores. The early settlers were not migrants, they were colonists.
There is a vast difference between a migrant and a colonist. A migrant comes to a new country which has all the infrastructure already in place to support him or her: roads, rails, schools, sewers, social services, electricity, gas, hospitals, communications, police, and so forth.
A colonist comes to a new country and carves civilisation out of the wilderness (sometimes facing great danger). When he first arrives, there is nothing. He has to plant crops for food, build shelter, clear forests, build roads, adjust to a new environment, conquer vast distances, establish systems of transport. He endures incredible hardship, bitter disappointment, often tragedy, to build the country. He must be tough, resourceful, intelligent, determined if he is to succeed.
Succeed he did, he succeeded in building the best country in the world: Australia.
The colonist builds the country so that the migrant can come to it and reap the fruits of the colonist’s labor.
“You’re only 200 years old”, they will say, “that’s nothing compared to some cultures which are centuries old”.
We’re not only 200 years old. We did not just appear out of the earth, we inherited some of the best traditions of Britain: The English system of law; Christianity; the separation of power by virtue of the Monarchy; rights to freehold ownership of private property; freedom of speech, movement, association, assembly; trial by our peers; the right to legal representation and to face our accuser in open court.
These rights come to us over many centuries through the common law of England. In centuries past, while many other “cultures” were cannibalising each other, we had rights.
In recent years, millions of people from the four corners of the earth have flocked to this safe harbour to escape wars, dictators, tyrants, oppression, poverty, misery and pollution. They come here to bask in our way of life. They are able to come to this sanctuary because of the sacrifices of our men and women in Two World Wars and Other Wars, our pioneers and explorers.
In wartime, our soldiers did not place much stock in saluting officers or always following orders. In their rough and ready way, using initiative, courage and determination, they set about to win the battle and the war.
Nowhere were our traditions of ‘mate-ship’ and egalitarianism more obvious than in time of war. They stuck together like glue, backed each other up, died and suffered for their ‘mates’.
On Anzac Day we see old Diggers reminiscing about old battles. Their love for each other is obvious. They regard their mates as ‘family’.
Australia has always been a politically stable country, in the sense that we have never had a revolution or widespread political violence. This has been possible because of the strength of our institutions: the Constitutional Monarchy, Christianity, Parliaments, English system of law, the rights referred to above, respect for human life and dignity, sense of a ‘fair-go’.
Australia is a highly sophisticated country, amongst the best in the world in communications, medicine, science, insurance, business management, computers and banking. Our English system of law (although not perfect) is one of the best systems in the world.
We pioneered the invention and development of agricultural machinery. We built ships, aeroplanes, motor vehicles.
We were involved in pioneering flight.
Our poets, writers, musicians, artists, scientists have world recognition.
We were amongst the first in the world in many social reforms: the vote for women, the eight hour day, pensions, the basic wage, free public education, the secret ballot.
Our open spaces, sunshine, clean environment have been inducive to sport, in which we have also excelled.
We are open and direct, we speak our mind and are impatient with unnecessary pomp, ceremony and formality. We are relaxed and easy going. We admire the “Aussie battler”, the person who never gives up under adversity.
There have been the colourful periods of our history: our explorers, pioneers, shearers, bushrangers, the gold rushes. Our drovers moved large mobs of cattle across vast distances. Cynics will say that this is “an Aussie myth” because we now mostly live in cities. This is not myth, it is part of our history, and history is integral to culture.
We sometimes hear the expression, “that’s un-Australian”. That simply means that it is behaviour unacceptable to Australians, or someone is taking unfair advantage of someone else, or it offends our sense of right and wrong, of a “fair-go”. It is only an expression, but it speaks volumes about our character and culture.
To deny our Australian culture and identity is to deny all this. To deny our Australian culture is racism.
Today, there is limited teaching of Australian History in our schools and young people have a very poor knowledge of our history. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian dissident and intellectual, said in his BBC Address on 26/3/76:
“A people which no longer remembers has lost its history and its soul”.
A knowledge of our history is an essential part of defining our identity and culture. Without this knowledge we have lost our soul. A country without a soul is not a nation at all. It is in a highly vulnerable position to foreign takeover, whether by economic or military means.
The teaching of Australian History must be a compulsory subject in our schools.
THE HAWTHORN TOWN HALL
This disgraceful incident will be recorded in Australian history books as a day of shame. It was the day we took a big step towards tyranny and oppression.
On the 19/7/98, Pauline Hanson was scheduled to attend the Hawthorn Town Hall, Melbourne, Australia, to speak to One Nation members and their guests.
People protesting against Pauline Hanson vastly outnumbered those wishing to hear her speak. Protesters outnumbered the Police many times over. Protesters surrounded the entrance to the Hall and for a long period of time prevented people from entering.
People trying to enter the hall were assaulted, pushed, jostled, roughed up, verbally and venomously abused. Some were knocked to the ground. The situation was potentially explosive and several persons could easily have been kicked to death. Whilst not the fault of individual Police Officers, the Police, because of their inadequate numbers, would have been forced to stand there, watch, and do nothing.
Some person in higher authority gave the order for insufficient numbers of Police to be in attendance.
Little old ladies were terrified out of their wits.
Eventually the Police brought in their Mounted Branch and using their horses forced a path through the protesters, allowing some people to enter the hall. However, many people were still unsuccessful in being able to enter the hall.
Because of the violence, Pauline Hanson was forced to abort her attendance at the Hall. However the meeting proceeded in her absence.
Later, inside the hall, fragile, elderly people peered from behind the hall curtains at the ugly mob of thugs outside, knowing they had still to face them when they tried to leave.
“The Hawthorn Town Hall” could easily have resulted in a major tragedy.
The point is that Police numbers were grossly inadequate. The Police later made the specious argument that their numbers were the same as their numbers at a MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) football match. However, the vast majority of people at the MCG are peaceful and go there to watch football, not indulge in violence. There was ample evidence of anticipated violence at the Hawthorn Town Hall and a history of violence at many other Pauline Hanson meetings.
During the meeting, the Police Inspector, second in charge of the Police contingent, addressed the meeting. He said that the organisers of the protesters outside had informed him that if the meeting was aborted, they would allow the people to depart under Police escort.
Here was a senior member of the Victoria Police Force delivering a message from violent thugs to peaceful Australians that if they agreed to their demands, they would not be attacked. Here was the Police being party to the denial of the basic rights of Australians to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association.
Can this really be Australia in 1998?
People are entitled to protest in Australia, but they are not entitled to assault, intimidate or abuse other people democratically exercising their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association.
Protesters who commit offences must be arrested and dealt with according to law. There are important principles here.
Why did we fight in Two World Wars and Other Wars?
CONCLUSION
In a word, World Government.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/98 and the Australian Community Organisation’s Newsletter, National Watchman, PO Box 136, Surry Hills NSW, 2010, October 1998, reported this article by columnist, Padriac P.McGuinnes. The article was headed:
A world government may be the only answer.
McGuinnes stated that in light of the global financial crisis, policies like economic nationalism, protectionism, regulation, exchange controls are “simplistic remedies likely to make things worse…In the longer term, currency guru George Soros is probably right – a global economy needs a global central bank and a global framework of fiscal discipline. In a word, world government…
The national governments still have too much power to deviate from central monetary and fiscal policy guidelines”.
They are out in the open now. Here is a major daily Australian newspaper openly advocating a World Government.
Columnist, Kenneth Davidson stated (above) that its come to this, only Hanson defends the nation state, and that one Nation is the creature of suffocating bi-partisanship of the two major political parties, who agree on the need to globalise the Australian economy on the terms laid down by the international capital markets.
On the Ch. 10, 5pm News, on 26/8/98, leaders from international banking, church and unions condemned Pauline Hanson’s policies. The banking leader specifically called for higher immigration. The reporter commented on the fact that the unions were in agreement with business in condemning Pauline Hanson.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation policies include economic programs in the interests of Australia, control of foreign ownership, a re-assessment of UN treaties, reduction of immigration, abandonment of multiculturalism, extinguishment of Native Title and introduction of CIR.
In essence, they offer a complete change of direction from globalisation to nationalism; to policies in the best interests of Australia and Australians, not in the best interest of internationalists. They offer the restoration of Australia’s sovereignty.
What is the real reason for the determined, desperate, attempts to discredit Pauline Hanson? Is it just because she is a “dreadful racist” who must be stopped? Or is it because she is a threat to those having an internationalist agenda.
It is submitted that the real reasons for the attacks on Pauline Hanson are because she represents a very real obstacle to those wishing to destroy Australia’s sovereignty in the interests of globalisation and all it entails.
Australia was the richest country on earth. There is no reason why we could not have been the most exciting country on earth.
Instead, we now face our greatest crisis since World War Two.
There is evidence that we are not in this desperate situation just because of incompetent politicians, but because of deliberate actions by powerful forces, both national and international.
To some people, the idea of being governed by a centralised world government, under the administration of the United Nations, has a lot of appeal. They believe that if the nations of the world unite and co-operate peacefully, war and poverty will be eliminated.
However the evidence refutes this. The United Nations has been in existence for over 50 years and has been an abject failure. Wars have proliferated during this period, during which millions of people have been slaughtered. Torture is still frequently practised in many countries. Poverty, starvation and national debt are widespread. The rich and the poor are polarised.
And behind the United Nations are the faceless big business, big finance and their agencies, the real powerbrokers.
Who would keep the world government honest? Are we to blindly hope that they would always act honourably? What controls, checks and balances would there be? None!
Even acting from the best of motives, a centralised world government would not act in the best interests of Australia and Australian people, they would “do what is best for the world”, in their minds.
As the populations of China, India and other countries spiral out of control, there will be pressure for Australia to accept many millions of people to relieve the pressure.
There could be mass shifting of populations around the world. Individual countries may have to make sacrifices, “for the good of the world”. Australians of certain racial background may be forced to go and live in another country.
Our masters would control what food we produce, how much food we produce, what we are allowed to eat ourselves, and what we export.
Information available to us would be controlled even more than it is now.
The rights we take for granted would be removed at the stroke of a pen. These rights include the right to private ownership of property, freedom of speech, association, assembly, movement. Freedom from unjust arrest and search. Trial by our peers. The right to face our accuser in open court and have legal representation.
We would not be allowed to criticise our masters. Every aspect of our lives would be controlled. The Orwellian nightmare does not seem so far-fetched.
Lord Acton said: “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Lord Bryce said: “All governments, irrespective of label, tend to increase their own powers”.
Thomas Hobbs (English philosopher) said: “Freedom is government divided into small fragments”.
Woodrow Wilson said: “The history of liberty is the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it”.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian dissident and intellectual, said: “The more centralised a nation becomes, the greater the corruption at the top”.
Solzhenitsyn speaks with the voice of authority, having lived and suffered under the former USSR with a centralised government. In his BBC address on 26/3/76 he informed the West that from 1917 to 1959, Socialism cost the Soviet Union 110 million lives.
World government is the ultimate in centralised power and the surest path to the ultimate in tyranny and oppression.
It will soon be too late. Australia, as we know it, will be gone forever.
Consider this quotation from the book, Goodbye Oz Culture, 1990, written and published by Nick Maine, PO Box 109, Chirnpark, Qld. 4215. Nick Maine fought the Japanese in New Guinea during World War Two.
“Dedicated to my mates who have been betrayed. One was blown to pieces by a land mine just a few yards in front of me. I remember the agony of another as he held his entrails in his hands. I remember digging holes and burying them.
“They died for nothing”.
We saw in the chapter, The Real Reasons for Attempting to Asianise Australia: that most multiculturalists are internationalists; that Australia’s interests may have to be over-ridden by so-called international interests…the social good of humanity as a whole…the good of the wider system may over-ride the well-being of Australia considered in isolation.
We also saw in the chapter on The Lima Declaration that “Australians may be called upon to make some sacrifices”.
It is submitted that there are grounds to fear that the sacrifices Australians have made to the present time will fade into insignificance if we continue down the internationalist path.
In the interests of the good of humanity as a whole, will Australia become a third world, polluted, over-crowded, Asian country, living in poverty, Governed by the United Nations Administration?
Time will tell. It is up to the Australian people.
WHAT CAN ONE PERSON DO?
“Know the truth and the truth will make you free” (John 8:31).
Discuss the issues raised in this publication with your family, friends, acquaintances. Form a group of friends and neighbours and have informal discussions. Find out the identity and address of similar groups and liaise with them.
Start up a Newsletter for your group. Exchange it with Newsletters of other similar groups.
Read the books referred to in this publication.
Write, ring or visit your local Member of Parliament. Raise the issues that concern you. Continually remind him or her that he or she is there to represent (i.e. re-present) your wishes in Parliament, not the wishes of international financiers or the United Nations. He or she is not there just to do what the Party tells him or her.
Go on talk-back radio. Write letters to the media (at least it lets them know you do not swallow their propaganda), and local newspapers.
We must abandon economic rationalism, reintroduce tariffs and have Government intervention in re-establishing our industries. The Government, whichever Party is in power, will refuse to do this, but pressure from the Australian people will force them to represent their wishes.
Each person in Australia can play a role in disseminating information and maintaining continuous pressure on the politicians and the media.
Identify the media outlets (mainstream and non-mainstream) and the Newsletters of the various groups of ‘concerned citizens’ who will publish material.
Press for Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR). This is the only way we will ever have true democracy. Politicians will use every argument possible against CIR, but all arguments against it are nonsense. It can work and it does work. It has worked in Switzerland for years.
On important issues like immigration, defence, economic rationalism, taxing foreign companies, privatisation, native land claims, and so forth, CIR must be used. As important issues can and do devastate the lives of people, they must be given a say.
We must point out to people we speak to that we are having a referendum on a republic that we did not ask for. We are having it because the politicians, the media and multi-millionaires are forcing it on us. We must also have a vote on issues which are devastating our lives.
A politician can have the issue taken out of his or her hands and be relieved of pressure by having a referendum. Emphasise this.
Politicians are motivated not just by power, but also by fear: fear of not being re-elected.
If we do nothing we will deserve all that is coming to us.
Investigate the possibilities of the Internet.
Prior to elections, identify the politicians who are patriotic, have integrity and will serve you and Australia, not special interest lobbies. We need politicians who vote on issues according to their merits, not politicians who just do what their Party tells them to do.
Make sure you understand how the preferential system of voting works. Decide yourself, how to place your preferences, don’t just follow the recommendations of the party to whom you give your primary vote.
THE SILENT DESTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIA
Will Australia become an Asian Country?
WILL AUSTRALIA BECOME AN ASIAN COUNTRY?
In her maiden speech in Parliament on 10/9/96, Pauline Hanson, MHR said that we were in danger of being swamped by Asians. And after two years of ’so called’ debate, this statement is still the subject of bitter dispute.
The question which must specifically be asked is, “Are there plans to turn Australia into an Asian country?” Let us consider some of the evidence.
Unless otherwise stated, emphasis added to words and phrases in this publication is the author’s.
The next few pages contain quotations from a number of sources.
The first few quotes are from the book (compiled by several authors), Living With Dragons – Australia confronts its Asian destiny, 1995, published by Allen and Unwin:
“A revolution is sweeping across Australia. The old order is gone, a new order is taking shape with astonishing speed and force…Unlike most revolutions, this one is bloodless but it is no less profound and consequential, shattering to some, liberating to most; the one thing that can be said for certain is that nothing is unaffected, old order can never be restored.
“…it is a transformation of the spirit and the body. I speak of the Asianisation of Australian life” (Greg Sheridan, p. 3).
“It is to cast our minds forward – say 50 years – to a time when we are totally cheek by jowl with our Asian neighbours, when every facet of Australian life, from entertainment to industrial relations to political party platforms will be affected by Asian societies and cultures, because we will be part of an Asian political confederation…” (Professor Stephen Fitzgerald, p. 164).
CONTINUES..
3 responses so far ↓
centurean2 // September 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
Labour’s agenda is to get rid of the Constitution
THINK ABOUT THAT STATEMENT!!
4th February 2009
Dear Madam
Re: Unconstitutional reign
Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.
I write on Edmund Burke’s remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.
In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.
I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch’s assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent – as in the Northern Ireland Bill.
Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under “automatic assent” nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.
Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.
I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.
The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.
Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.
Yours Faithfully,
Elisabeth Beckett
Copy to:
The Archbishop of Canterbury
By The Namaste Team
This is an update concerning Mrs Elizabeth Beckett’s legitimate Constitutional stance against an illegal tax system and treasonous government. A story that should be on the front page of every newspaper, but has remained unreported! This amazingly selfless lady has studied the British Constitution in great depth. Her initial interest in the law began when she was a District Officer’s wife in India where her father, a High Court Judge for many years, was party to drawing up the 1935 India Act of Independence.
Since our last issue, Elizabeth was summoned to appear in court at Carlisle on the 24th July, a distance from her home of approximately 55 miles. Without hesitation or complaint, this remarkable 83 year old lady, who in her own words is lame, (she cannot walk very well without aid, due to a painful hip), took a taxi on her own, to the court where a judge listened to her appeal against a threatened bankruptcy order by her local council, for refusing to pay her Council Tax. Her refusal was based on the following objections:
“It is illegal to pay a tax to destroy my country.”
Later she discovered just how illegally councils are acting.
Elizabeth has received very little mainstream media reporting, the little she has had has only been at local level. Nationally, the BBC televised 30 seconds on the Politics Show. Even though she was interviewed by a reporter, the BBC editor refused point blank to broadcast her interview. It was withdrawn. We ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?
We at Namaste have tried to present Elizabeth’s story to various national newspapers: They were not interested. In fact the News Desk of the Daily Mail in Manchester thought our information about Elizabeth’s Constitutional Rights and the Act of Treason committed against the people of the British nation, was far fetched! We put it to the News Desk that we do indeed have a Constitution. This was also dismissed.
We ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?
It is quite clear that we are dealing with mindset which is at best totally ignorant and, at worst, working deliberately to subvert our ancient Constitutional history – The Birth Right of the People of England, (1700). This is still the law of the land today! How could this happen? The plan has been carefully contrived. The journalist Stewart Alsop wrote: “Knowledge is power and power is the most valuable commodity in government. So whoever knows the secrets controls the knowledge and therefore holds the power…”
This would help to explain why Harold Wilson removed the teaching of the Constitution from the British education curriculum, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Today, Britain’s universities DO NOT teach treason laws, the greatest crime against a nation; hence today, we find our nation and our freedom in the most critical situation. How could this happen you may ask? The answer to this can be found in the descriptively accurate words of Cicero Marcus Tullius, born on 3 January, 106 BC and murdered on 7 December, 43 BC:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
Unquestioning, Unwilling to Research
This is so precisely true of what is taking place today, not only in Britain, but other countries of the Commonwealth, and the USA – this is the Common Purpose. Unmasking Common Purpose (page 36)
We and our colleagues both in the UK and USA, are deeply concerned with the direction that both our nations are heading, yet so many seem woefully ignorant. This is not because people are stupid but they lack time and interest to inform themselves, largely because of the education system and mass media control with mind manipulations. We see and hear people acting like sheep, unheeded by the ever emerging totalitarian state, unquestioning, unwilling to research and blindly accepting lies and half-truths from those who can only be best described at misinformed and in the main, deliberate liars.
Part of this disinformation relates to our Council Tax in the UK. For the benefit of our overseas readers, Council Tax is a tax on domestic property collected by local councils in the UK. The council is supposed to use this revenue to pay for local services such as schools, rubbish (garbage) collection, roads and street lighting, etc.
Fiscal Prerogative
Elizabeth felt driven to research the issue of Council Tax accounts, having observed various related, suspicious news articles in the press one of which involved the North West Regional Council of the UK purchasing a house in Brussels, a totally inappropriate action in view of the sufferings of the Cumbrian fishermen and farmers. This alarmed her to the fact that she might well, as a law abiding honest Council Tax payer, be assisting in the potential breakup of her country. We must emphasise that Constitutional Law is not a matter of politics, whether one votes to drive on the left or the right, but a matter of law like the dividing of Britain into ‘Lander’ such as the county of Kent becoming part of France, and Wales becoming part of Ireland etc. That is against our law and Elizabeth said she could not pay for the destruction of the sovereignty of this country.
She then asked for full disclosure of how her Council Tax is being spent. This has not been forthcoming because of the liability order against her; the order is an executive order and in Britain alone is governed by the Royal Prerogative. The Enforcement Officer and people in charge of the courts refused to admit that the Liability Order could be challenged in any way. According to the Petition of Right of 1627 all taxation should be honoured by Parliament, under the Royal Assent and Parliament cannot pass acts that are against our Constitution.
Elizabeth further discovered a covert plan to do with the regional assemblies. These are voluntary bodies that are designed to break up England, e.g. Northumberland up to Carlisle will became part of Germany. This was not mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto.
Amongst the papers she handed to the judge at her trial, were the details of Common Purpose and their assemblies, which have increased by 500% since the year 2000. Taxation emanates from the Chancellor’s Office and these are illegal under what is known as the ‘fiscal prerogative’ and the ‘Petition of Right’. Because these assemblies are voluntary bodies, they are not available for funding by the taxpayer. Our Constitution states that ‘all laws’ that go through Parliament ‘must have Royal Assent, in order to become law.’ Instead, they are now validated on a false claim that the Royal Assent is automatic. However, the power to grant this is part of the prerogative, which it impassable.
The automatic assent was invented by the Fabian Prime Minister Asquith who gave the qualification based on the premise that Queen Ann had been the last monarch to send back a bill. The implication being that the monarch could not send back bills, whereas in fact, their power lies in the support of our Constitutional Laws by refusing to give Assent to bills that are unconstitutional.
The Parliament Act
In fact Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 and as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.
The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution – No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.
At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren’t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elizabeth put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit. Brussels overruled it and fined the British £300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, “I am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.”
This is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elizabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, “You can do what you like.”
Elizabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, “Technically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911”.
Common law
Elizabeth’s Plaint lays the ground for important legal and Constitutional constraints which are being side-stepped and their legal validity is being denied by our present legal system and government. The fact they are still part of our British Common law is undeniable, Sir Edward Coke said, “The Royal Prerogative is part of the Personality of the Monarch and could not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament” which the Law Lords Halbury and Jowitt agree. (Halbury’s Laws, The Birth Right of the People of England (These are legal reference books of great prestige).
Since the Assent is given under the regal ‘Prerogative Power,’ it is invalid if it is given to an unconstitutional act. So in a different way, both Counsel’s opinion and Elizabeth’s lead to the same conclusion. Therefore, she says that one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.
It is clear that our entry into the European Union is INVALID, ILLEGAL and against our Constitution. (see article page 31)
Since our last issue, Elizabeth has spent many weeks preparing for her appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice. As we write today 16th November, her leave for Judicial Review has been granted. Furthermore it has arrived just in time to save her house from being taken over. Elizabeth heard her news whilst in hospital with an embolism she is unbelievably grateful to all those readers who have been kind enough to send donations.
She says: “It has been so heart warming and encouraging to know people are supporting me”.
It came as such a surprise to her and beyond her expectations to receive donations from our readers.
Elizabeth is determined and optimistic as ever. The money we sent to her she says has enabled her to pay for the court application, photocopying, postage, telephoning and travel in order to put together her appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice.
Elizabeth’s Plaint is clear, Treason has been committed and should be remedied.
Abbe Talleyrand de Perigord said to Mme Recamier in the early nineteen hundreds: “Understand this, if the English Constitution is destroyed so will be the civilisation of the world”
If the Supremacy of Parliament is to rest on treason, it will help no one.
As of the time of writing this article, Elizabeth has still not received a date for her appeal in the High Court. We ask readers to please continue to check the Namaste website http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk for an update with details. As MANY people as possible should attend. We ask if people would try their best to attend the hearing, and to invite others. If anybody knows of any contacts who might help in funding for a good legal counsel, we implore you to let us know. Your freedom and that of future generations hangs in the balance. Elizabeth cannot do this without the support of the people – your support. Her stance is for everyone.
Will we support her, or has it become our custom to turn our heads and look the other way? If we think that we British have no need to be concerned and our lives are just fine, we have our holidays, we have work, if not we get benefits and above all we are entertained, so why should we bother with all of this? Well, the zombification of Britain is well in place and the future is not as pretty as people think.
Do not be deterred, our freedom hangs by a thread!
BEWARE, by 2009 it will BE TOO LATE.
Why are you making this potentially dangerous and difficult stance at your time of life?
Elizabeth:
“I do it for my children, grandchildren and for all our ancestors – all those who have died for our freedom. Do you want to see your children in chains? I was in India during the war and knew about the fight against the Japanese and I knew about the earlier war and I quote John Edmonds…
‘When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today’”
~ John Maxwell Edmonds (1875 -1958)
Namaste: What can readers do to help you?
Elizabeth: “Talk about the Constitution. Research it. Know it. Know that it exists and help to keep it alive against the evil forces dedicated to its destruction. Please send donations however small, to Namaste Magazine for the Elizabeth Beckett Constitutional Legal Fund”
Support Elizabeth – APPEAL
Please support Elizabeth in taking her case to the High Court in doing so you will be supporting the Constitution. Cheques should be made payable to:
Elizabeth Beckett,
Constitutional Legal Fund,
C/O Namaste Publishing,
PO Box 127,
Shrewsbury SY3 7UP.
Solution Graphics
Thank you very much!
THANK YOU
A big thank you for all your generous donations! Donations so far have enabled Elizabeth to retain her home and prevent Cumbria’s Council (who unwittingly) continue to act on the liability order which is constitutionally illegal and against the homeowner, this resulted in a bankruptcy order being filed against her. Your donations were paid into court to cover this order in February 2008. Elizabeth was just days away from loosing the ownership of her home. She is deeply grateful, she can hardly express her thanks.
She says, “It is so heart warming that people care”! Donations have also paid for travel costs for Elizabeth to meet with legal advisors who will represent her in court, for which donations will be needed. Elizabeth is constantly focused and always working to achieve her aims which is to save “our constitution for which our ancestors died ” this is the only protection against the ever-creeping tyranny which also should have protected us from being taken into Europe.
Important.
Readers that have previously sent cheques to Namaste Magazine before December, Elizabeth has asked if you would please stop those cheques because although she sent them to her bank, they have now informed her that they have not been received. Would you be kind enough to check with your bank to see if the cheque has been drawn if not, would you please reissue your cheque and resend it to Namaste Publishing for Elizabeth as per the appeal details. Thank you so much!
Elizabeth has further suggested the following: Readers should consider raising the following points as set out below, with their local council. Bear in mind that it is probable that Common Purpose is operating in you area. Councils cannot take taxes for an organisation that cannot achieve an audit. It is illegal under the Local Government Act 1972, which is still used for auditing local government accounts. All those who pay Council Tax should write to their local council and quote section 239 of the 1972 ACT.
1). You as the Council have the right to oppose or depose acts in Parliament.
Under your oaths of allegiance, the laws in the Bill of Rights of 1689 make clear this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.”
They also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”.
2). This law and its oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament.
This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any bill like the 1972 EEC Act, the Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of England. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights.
Chief Justice Beresford said; “You must look on the spirit of the law not just how it is written.”
The Scots have their own version of this law. Indeed the people and Parliament were told the 1972 EEC Act was a purely trading agreement with no Constitutional impact at all!
3). Since you use the Local Government Act for your audit, I wish to draw your attention to another services’ misdemeanour and that is you have been paying my council tax in to an unaudited administration (this is the 13th year).
4). If I were to pay my Council Tax I would be complicit in this illegality. Even more seriously, I would be allowing without complaint, the present Government’s intention to herd this country over to this illegal administration.
5). Under the powers given to you under section 239 you have the power to refuse to agree this and would be acting illegally if you did not.
6). This applies to any council, PRESS them to ACT under these laws.
Do you want to be like the judge acting illegally under European law? Or do you want to do something about it? We must never forget, our Constitution was made by our ancestors (often with their lives) not by Parliament.
Elizabeth gave the following information for our American readers: As far as the American Constitution is concerned, Jefferson and co made a Masonic Constitution, but they did not wipe out the existing British Constitution on which the colonies had lived for two hundred years. This is the basis of your law and customs
The English Constitution includes:
1). Magna Carta, (which the Supreme court used for the release of the people in Guantanamo Bay
2). The Petition of Right 1627
3). The Bill of Rights of 1689
4). The 1700 Act of Settlement
These legal statutes were made by the people from whom the colonies are descended, only rubber stamped by British Parliament, (governing the colonies at the time) until independence. It is the basis of your Law and your Constitution. The United States Constitution is subject to the British Constitution.
The only elements of the US Constitution that differ fron the British Constitution is the royal prerogative and Christianity. The prerogative can exceptionally be used by the President, but is not part of the law as it is with us in the UK. However, the people of the USA cannot rely on the ‘prerogative’, all they can do is find the relevant phrases that can fight orders. These can be found in the Bill of Rights 1689 and chapter 29 of Magna Carta. Good luck
“Please remember that to possess INFORMATION,
you must sift through mountains of disinformation (lies),
misinformation (mistakes),
and nonninformation (distractions).
But first, you have to want to.”
~ Harold Thomas (late)
A Search for the Truth is a Dangerous Thing
For readers to understand. KNOW THIS.
The ‘prerogative power’ is given to the monarch by the PEOPLE, under the Bill of Rights of 1689 and Magana Carta. The monarch agrees to protect our laws and customs under the Coronation Oath and the Constitution. Failure do so is TREASON against the people! We are protected from GESTAPO type (executive) law by the ‘prerogative’. This is what the New World order is trying to take away from us. This is our ancient law. Therefore, why has the monarch signed FIVE illegal treaties taking us into a crimalised organisation -the EU which is completely against our Constitution??
STOP PRESS
Elizabeth has now applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation. (Anyone can and should do this). It is illegal for a government to be financially involved with an organisation that cannot even audit its own accounts. The EU has not audited its accounts for the past 13 years.
Elizabeth, has informed us that recently, a local council representative had spoken to her by phone, they said they will block her High Court Appeal on the grounds it applies to the whole of England.
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER BROWN
Dear Mr Brown
It appears that you are acting under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, imagining that you, as a Prime Minister, hold the ‘prerogative power.’
Are you sir, aware of the meaning of the ‘PREROGATIVE POWER’?
Have you taken constitutional legal advice on this very serious action of entry into the EU?
If so from whom have you sought such advice?
Are you aware that this is a serious crime against the People of Britain? It is TREASON.
Yours Sincerely
Mrs Elizabeth Beckett
THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ASK MR BROWN BECAUSE – UPON TAKING OFFICE HE MADE A OATH OF ALLIGENCE WHICH INCORPORATES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE SAID OATH OF ALLIGENCE IS ALSO TREASON.
We ask readers to please to copy the above letter and replace Elizabeth’s name with their own name and send to number 10 Downing Street and see what response they get. All letters received from number 10 Downing Street to the above letter, if any, will be placed on this website. Please send to: Namaste Publishing, PO Box 127, Shrewsbuy SY3 7WS.
Update:
24th December 2007
* There is a delay in the appeal for judicial review because the court in now informed Elizabeth that since a certificate of service has not been received by the court the case can’t move forward. The fact is the certificate of service was faxed to the court on 1st December by a government employee on Elizabeth’s behalf. She also has a letter from the local council dated 8th December, confirming receipt of the certificate of service and she has sent copies of the said letters to the court. Thus Elizabeth has asked the court for an upgrading of her case which has been delayed because they claimed they had not received the certificate of service.
* A notice is about to be served on Elizabeth for a court hearing in February 2008 to implement the bankruptcy order made against her in March 2007. The hearing will take place in Carlisle.
* Interestingly, the interlocutory injunction filed by Elizabeth to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation, seems to be delayed lost in the system. How unusual!
The hearing for the implementation for the liability order against Elizabeth will take place on the 6th February 2008 at Carlisle Court, Rickergate at 2.40pm. This was to validate the extent of her liability because her income is so low which has now been dealt with.
27th February 2008
* Thanks to the generous donations received by members of the public, we were able to pay into court the £1,293.97 required to prevent the bankruptcy order against Elizabeth’s being executed. Her home has been saved for now. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still intends pursue her case against the illegal Liability Order
27 May, 2008
* The legal advice that as been given to Elizabeth is that she should have professional to help in putting her case together so that it can go forward. This needs some reformulation for resubmission of her application before the administrative High Court.
21 June, 2008
* Today, Elizabeth has been advised by the Penrith Magistrates that they have passed a Liability Order against her, for refusal to pay her Council tax. She has taken this stance in order that she can take her case forward and therefore continues to pursue her application for judicial review against the illegality Liability Order in the Council Tax Act of 1992. Penrith Council have informed her she can appeal her case which she fully intends to do.
* Further updates on Elizabeth’s situation will be posted as and when we have more information. Please note, that what Elizabeth is doing, for all of us, not just for herself, and therefore she needs all our support!
Link to this webpage: http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Elizabeth%20Beckett%20-%20News%20Blac...
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
ELIZABETH BECKETT’S SUBMISSION AUGUST 2008
A campaigner at the mass lobby of Parliament against the Lisbon Treaty.
On 22nd July 2008 Elizabeth Beckett laid a complaint under ‘misprision of treason’ laws with the legal authority. Mrs. Beckett’s case is based on our Constitutional Law. She presented many supporting documents. The court legal officer who took Mrs. Beckett’s bundle of evidence expressed interest in the matter, saying that it will take 10 days for him to go through the papers and that the matter will then go either to the Crown Prosecution Service or to Magistrates .
In the Daily Express of July 18th 2008 it was reported that Prime Minister Gordon Brown forced the Queen to sign away Britain’s sovereignty in secret. (Lisbon Treaty) However, under the treason law no one may coerce the Monarch. Beckett observed that in the Chagos Archipelago case three Appeal Court Judges stated that Her Majesty may not have known what she was approving (in having the Chagossians removed from their land in the British Indian Ocean Territory to make way for the construction of the giant United States’ air base at Diego Garcia).
In her submission Mrs. Beckett pointed out that when the Queen made her Coronation Oath she promised to safeguard not only the laws and customs of Britain, but of all those nations of which she is the Head of State. The Queen is the Head of State of sixteen countries. The signing of the Lisbon Treaty does not prejudice solely the Constitution of Great Britain, but also the Constitutional arrangements of all the Queen’s other realms. Philip Benwell MBE of the Australian Monarchist League has been making this point for several years.
The ‘automatic assent’ of the monarch to all Parliamentary bills that are presented to her is claimed by the Fabians to have been in operation since 1911. They misleadingly claim that no monarch has ever returned a Parliamentary Bill unsigned since Queen Anne. That is not the case however as several monarchs including Queen Victoria and King Edward referred Bills back to Parliament unsigned. Asquith’s Parliament Act of 1911 embodied the first major Fabian Society inspired attack on our Constitution.
Mrs. Beckett included in her submission Chapter 1 of Magna Carta material regarding the Monarch’s position as Head of the Church of England. At their coronations down through the centuries English monarchs have sworn on the Bible to uphold our laws and customs and have likewise been anointed with oil. In doing so they acknowledge a greater power than themselves, that of God. This is attested by the latin abbreviations D.G., by the Grace of God, and F.D., Defender of the Faith stamped on the coinage. These principles however are at odds with the man centred constitution/treaty of the European Union whose Constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters, acknowledges no spiritual brake on its power.
Mrs. Beckett is of the opinion that no longer having the British armed forces make the Oath of Allegiance would in effect transform them into mercenaries. The power given to Her Majesty was entrusted to her by her subjects for their protection. Our special laws are based on this. The Queen promised to safeguard our laws and customs and in return has received the power to govern us. The signing of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty represents a high-jacking of the power of the people. The British Constitution was hard won and it was made by the people. In 1274 Edward 1st was crowned. The Archbishops, Barons and freemen told him that he had to swear to protect our laws and customs. He refused — and was informed by the aforesaid Archbishops, Barons and freemen that in that case they would get another king–upon which ultimatum he made oath.
Tony Blair had the death penalty for treason repealed shortly before leaving office. In the case of Rex-v-Thistlewood (1820) treason was defined as ‘any action which attempts to overthrow or destroy the Constitution’ being the words of the Treason Act 1795 which Tony Blair repealed. Blair has been Chairman, or in politically correct terms ‘Chair’ of the Fabian Society. He unveiled George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Fabian Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ stained glass window at the London School of Economics in 2007. But what is the true nature of the Fabian Society? It’s image is that of a socialist ‘think tank’, but its influence worldwide since 1884 has been enormous. In his paper “Communist” Councils in New Zealand John Christian describes the Fabian Society thus — “a mixture” of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism all bundled together. However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the “secret police” to knock your front door down ? Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly ? by “gradually” taking your individual rights away, by “gradually” increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can’t pay them, they send in their regional “council tax inspectors” to take your house away ? but the end result is the same’. It has long been a Fabian aim to incrementally downgrade the Monarchy of Great Britain but they are too subtle to overtly push for abolition. Their approach is to promote ‘debate’ about the necessity for ‘modernisation’ of the Monarchy and that it should be operated more economically etc. They always attempt to change the climate of opinion as a prerequisite to the slow, incremental achievement their aims. This is achieved by operation of the Hegelian Dialectic, the use of which was perfected by Fabian co-founders George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb. It is usual to find Fabians on both sides of a discussion, however their debates are carefully managed. What Fabians never mention is the Constitutional role of the Monarch. The constitutional settlement in this country, and in the others in which the Queen is Sovereign has evolved after centuries of struggle. The agreement reached is that we the people entrust the power to govern us to our Sovereign, who in turn promises to govern us according to our laws and customs. If the Sovereign’s role could be incrementally diminished and finally eliminated, the way would be open for powerful interests to corrupt our government virtually at will.
The nature of Fabianism might best be illustrated by prominent Fabians themselves. On the 19th November 1937 the Fabian Nicholas Murray Butler addressed a banquet in London with the words, “Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and world money”. Margaret, wife of Fabian economist G.D.H.Cole wrote in 1943 ‘Fabians appeared in so many desirable liberal (and cultural) connections that they could scarcely be believed to be subversive of private property or of liberty.’ In 1948 in his Appreciation of the Communist Manifesto for the Labour Party famous Fabian Socialist theoretician Professor Harold Laski of the London School of Economics wrote “. . . who, remembering that these (policies of high taxation & centralisation of credit) were the demands of the Manifesto (issued by Marx & Engels in 1848) can doubt our common inspiration.” Laski joined the Fabian Society at Oxford and remained an avid member for life. In the April 1958 Fabian Journal tribute to Hugh Gaitskell’s teacher, G.D.H. Cole, a favourite pupil of Cole relates, how, after freely describing the various revolutionary changes he hoped to see the next Labour Party Government make, Cole suddenly realized he had failed to mention a particular reform dear to his heart. As the students to whom Cole had imparted his plans were leaving, he exclaimed: “Why, I forgot to include the abolition of God!” Cole urged complete abolition of the Monarchy and the watchdog House of Lords. In the 1920’s the Oxford University Fabian and British civil servant Sir Arthur Salter and his associate, international financier Jean Monnet advocated regionalism, a policy which constitutes one of the three ‘pillars’of the European Union. The other two are the common currency and the European Constitution. ‘Pillar’ is a Fabian term used in the political dialogue of the EU. In this vein the noted political writer Machiavelli observed ‘Divide a nation into parties, or set your enemies at loggerheads, and you can have your own way’. The apostle Mathew wrote “Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” — Mathew xii.25. There are currently around 200 Fabian Members in Parliament, mainly in the Labour Party.
The checks, balances and acountability of national representative government, however imperfect, impede world government and globalisation. There has long been a covert assault on sovereignty in Britain. In 1925 the Fabian Professor Arnold Toynbee was Director of Studies at the Royal Institute of Interntional Affairs (the RIIA is now known as Chatham House) becoming Director of Foreign Research & Press Service from 1939 to 1943 becoming Director of the Research Department at the Foreign Office from 1943 to 1946. In June 1931 Toynbee spoke at the Fourth Annual Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations at Copenhagen saying — “If we are frank with ourselves we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate. Elizabeth Beckett’s Submission continued: and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local independent states which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. The surest sign, to my mind, that this fetish of national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis which all our statesmen and publicists protest with one accord, and over and over again, at every step forward which we take, that, whatever changes we may make in the international situation, the sacred principle of local sovereignty will remain inviolable….The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise – lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defence”. The Copenhagen Conference was initiated by the League of Nations Institute for Intellectual Co-operation. The National Coordinating Committee was domiciled at Chatham House and it included representatives from the RIIA, the London School of Economics, the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics at Aberystwyth and the Montague Burton Chair of International Relations at Oxford. Today the assault on national sovereignty is not covert.
In his The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau prepared the ground for the French Revolution. Of England he wrote ‘The people of England regards itself as free, but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them’. But the statesman Talleyrand, a political survivor of the regicidal French Revolution once said to one of his lady friends, Madame de Rémusat, “Get this into your head. If the English constitution is destroyed, the civilisation of the world will be shaken in its foundations”. Talleyrand was, despite his shiftiness and his willingness to trim as circumstances dictated, an intelligent man. He was, in the words of Metternich, “a man of systems.” Writer and critic Henrik Bering asked “What does it all add up to? The problem with the cruel, clever people portrayed in the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses, by the revolutionary conspirator Choderlos de Laclos, is that while exhilarating to watch for a while, pure intelligence without some kind of value system becomes tedious, pointless — indeed, stupid — leading to despair and death. So does an amoral, lawless political universe. The world becomes a chaotic place”.
We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse yet our British Constitution is no longer taught in British schools. Universities confirm that knowledge of the British Constitution plays little or no part in their law syllabuses. In George Orwell’s novel 1984 the character Winston repeats obediently “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past?
Elizabeth Beckett said: “The Queen’s prerogative power was taken illegally by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer, but they did not take her common law pre-eminence by which I have taken this action. Nor did they take her prerogative of mercy as indicated in the Tragos Archipelago appeal reported in the Daily Telegraph Mat 24th 2007.”
Posted by Euro Realist at Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Link to this blog: http://eurorealistnewsletter.blogspot.com/2008/10/elizabeth-becketts-sub...
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/6326
The Silent Destruction Of AustraliaCompare With Britain The M.O. // September 5, 2009 at 5:03 am |
[...] More info…The Chairman of Austand which stands for stand up for Australia is John Cumming, who served as an Officer in the Australian military forces in World War Two). For this (and other reasons) the Government has been selling off our public utilities. Privatisation, they call it. Billions of dollars have been flowing out of Australia into multinational corporations for years. Australia, the richest country on earth, has been looted, pillaged and plundered for many years, with the full suppo [...]
The Silent Destruction Of AustraliaCompare With Britain The M.O. | Opiate Addictions // September 7, 2009 at 7:06 pm |
[...] More info…The Chairman of Austand which stands for stand up for Australia is John Cumming, who served as an Officer in the Australian military forces in World War Two). For this (and other reasons) the Government has been selling off our public utilities. Privatisation, they call it. Billions of dollars have been flowing out of Australia into multinational corporations for years. Australia, the richest country on earth, has been looted, pillaged and plundered for many years, with the full suppo [...]