First a small but telling example of just how degenerate our Australian political system has become.
In 1991 it became very public knowledge that our political leaders not only lied to the public but also to each other in their plainly self-interested grafting for power. If they break solemn promises to each other and lie to the public as a common campaign policy then for what price will they sell out the nation?
Even with the above known, most people feel that if they ask a politician a straight question of Constitution or law, they will get a straight answer.
Let us consider a revealing answer to a public enquiry given by a sitting Federal MP dated 20th November 1991. Quote:
Thank you for your letter, directed to me by my State colleague
Your argument seems to rest on the constitutional question of whether the 1688 Bill of Rights confers any legal 'right' to bear arms on the Australian Citizen.
I have sought advice in this matter from the office of the Attorney General who advises that the 1688 Bill of Rights has never been applicable to Australia and is not part of our Constitution. Nor can it be made binding under any Westminster System of Government.
Gary Johns MP, Federal Member for Petrie." EQ. EA.
It is difficult to imagine how any nation can become so divorced from all understanding of its roots, that an MP, backed by the Attorney General's office can give, and get away with, such blatantly misleading advice. Although the general public seems prepared to live with blatant lies it is still hard to believe that we will accept such contempt.
If you need confirmation that the above advice was a blatant misrepresentation then you might consider some facts from Issues Paper No. 1 as put out by the recent, government-organized Constitutional Commission. In this report of its findings, p6, it has this to say; quote:
Democratic rights are the rights a person has when he or she is faced with the political process of his society. These include the right to vote, the guarantee of suffrage to all adult men and women, and the principle of one vote one value.
Laws dealing with individual and democratic rights, which are also called "fundamental freedoms" and "guarantees", have a very long and cherished history, beginning with Magna Carta, continuing with the British Bill of Rights of 1688, which is still law in Australia. EQ.
Years of neglect of the truth and misrepresentations of fact, has made our community ignorant and uncaring of where our rights and freedoms originate and of how vital these documents are to the retention of these rights and freedoms in the future. A future which, in our present state of ignorance, seems beyond our ability to understand or influence.
On the other hand, if we are prepared to accept such a low level of political honesty, then what right have we to complain if our children starve?
For another equally important example of just how submissive we are to political rape we find, in 1990, the then Prime Minister Hawke addressing the National Press Club; quote:
I now come to an area of reform which we must acknowledge has proved most difficult to achieve - the Constitution itself.
It is true that there have been very significant changes in the way we govern ourselves, within the existing constitution.
High Court decisions have done more to alter the Constitution than all the referendums. And there has been, without change to the text of the Constitution, quiet and constructive adjustment in the roles of the Federal and State Governments in such areas as family law ..
Thus, without actual change to the written Constitution, there has been considerable change in the role and responsibilities of the three levels of government. EQ. EA.
So we see here the Prime Minister speaking directly to the National Press about how the political parties have conspired to make significant changes to the meaning of the Constitution without public warning or referendum. Do you wonder why that did not make news?
As an example of the significance of what the PM said, let us consider a comment by High Court Judge Wilson in regard to one such change; quote:
The effect of investing the Parliament with power through Section 51 in all these areas would be transfer to the Commonwealth of virtually unlimited power in almost every conceivable aspect of life in Australia. EQ
That is how it now stands - as we let it stand!
Now consider that our Crimes Act, under TREASON, says this, "24 AA. (1) A person shall not - (a) do any act or thing with intent - (i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage." EA.
Was not the then PM boasting of sabotage? Are news and media people criminally insane? Can they all have been silenced for life with bribe money or threats? No! No! No! Nothing so excusable - criminally arrogant perhaps. No, what seems to happen is that they keep quiet as co-conspirators. They like to imagine themselves as part of the elite. From the lofty heights of ideology they look down on the common people; 'what right have these simpletons to be Common Law equal with the clever, educated people - what right have those lowly humans to the truth?' News reporters and petty officials, like the ancients, think that truth will be contaminated by contact with the 'profane' common people.
It can be shown, from comment recorded in Hansard (the official government record) that the political parties and their politicians, knowingly and without shame, exceed their authority - that they unite across party lines to cover their deceptions while petty officials and media look away. (Information already published in Saving the Future and other writings).
The long-term effect of mass deceit is that when someone with knowledge, tries to show people that they are being betrayed, the first action of those who may become concerned is to ask their local MP. Having asked, they will believe his answer rather than their own intelligence because they fear to face the fact that he would wilfully deceive them.
The confused, like the blind, have to trust their leaders even though they know well that these leaders will lie to suit themselves.
The fact of the matter is that what is usually called the Australian Constitution is little more than an authority, given by the Australian States and people, to allow a Federal Parliament to operate. This Constitution is NOT the authority for the Australian Common Law system! The Australian Common Law system is authorized by the attachment to the Crown and British Common Law system of which the 1688 Bill of Rights is an integral part.
If the letter by that MP had been correct then Australia could never have been a British colony; there could be no legal backing for our legal system, and the Constitution giving power for a Federal parliament could not exist.
This situation of deceit and treachery could not possibly arise as a result of local conspiracy - were that its extent it would be exposed by other democracies. This level of manipulation can only come about because the Australian political parties are operating under the cover of a world system of secret government. I think you will find this more understandable when you have read the following:-
THE AMERICAN SCENE: In 1976, following Jimmy Carter's election to be President of the USA, the ABC (Australian) Radio 2, Investigations program, featured the power elite behind the USA presidential system. The panel, consisting of host John Merson, Dr Ernie Chaples (University of Sydney), Dennis Altman (University of Sydney) and Ralph Summy University of Queensland) listened to and supported a talk given by an American, Professor William Dunhoff, who exposed the system very well.
Here is a transcript of a section of the Dunhoff talk. Dunhoff is talking with Ben Smith, a political scientist from California State University; Dunhoff:
One of the things that we find that's very important is that the big-business people who are the ruling class have a series of policy planning organizations which try to stay bi-partisan and non-partisan in their representation, and these organizations consist of big-businessmen, corporation lawyers and academic experts, who meet together in small discussion groups and try to plan out policy in areas such as foreign policy, economic policy, welfare policy, population policy - name it; and what we find is when we look at those organizations, they have leaders who are both democrats and republicans; and what we find further is that whomever is elected as president, a democrat or republican, we find that his appointments to government tend to be from these non-partisan, bi-partisan (whatever euphemism we're giving for them) policy organizations.
Now the next question is, 'Why is that possible?'
Americans are very deferential towards expertise. Somehow these people have been certified as experts on complex questions. And always the idea is, "questions today are very complex - it takes an expert". Well, these organizations have a monopoly on expertise.
In this country, in the two party system, for historical reasons, what we see is that politicians will say and do anything to get elected, but they often don't mean it; and they often don't for sure know what they're talking about; and so, when they are elected, they turn to these experts for their policies.
[Ben Smith] .. The government itself sends representatives, the executive branch sends representatives to these Councils, and they work out policies there quite outside of the public agencies. EQ.
Private policy making agencies mentioned include The Committee for Economic Development, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Trilateral Commission (organized by David Rockefeller and including leaders from Japan and Europe). These are among the leading agencies funded by, and private to, the international bankers, international business and leading academics.
NOTE. Leading academics means leading in positions of academic authority or influence, not necessarily in an academic discipline.
As an indication of how subtle this web of deceit is, we note that it is mentioned in course of this discussion that Jimmy Carter had been invited onto the Trilateral Commission because he was "internationalist orientated".
Carter was not necessarily set-up to be president; he wanted to be president and because he had the right attitudes and beliefs he was supported. People do not have to be part of a conspiracy to be used. It is easier to make people believe that you are sincere in what you do if you are sincere. That is often what makes a preferred candidate.
At time of the election Carter had as his most prominent foreign policy adviser Zbgniew Bryznsky, Russian Studies Centre of Columbia University and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Whoever is elected will find himself needing a large team of expert advisers and it just happens that all the recognized (approved) experts are products of these private foundations.
Dean Rusk was President of the Rockefeller Foundation; Henry Kissinger had been associated with the Council on Foreign Relations.
Similar associations can be made for literally thousands of government members, officials and advisers. I dare say that over the length of the present century it is likely that all governments in the USA have increasingly drawn their policies and policy-making experts, from people loyal to elitist banking, academia and business organizations.
You must realize that comment here is not relying only on that ABC broadcast. That broadcast just happens to be one of the few sources of local accreditation. There are numerous books written to comment on, praise, or try to expose, the hidden government.
Perhaps the most prominent of these writers is Professor Carroll Quigley. Professor Quigley cannot be called a right or left wing extremist, he was one of the establishment; taught at Princeton and Harvard and wrote his l,300 page book Tragedy and Hope in praise of the aims and ambitions of the secret government.
That ABC team seemed agreed that it matters little to the ruling class who wins a US presidential election.
So you see, in some quarters it is KNOWN that there IS an elite who manage the system, and they do this through KNOWN private institutions.
Who is elected does not concern this elite because whoever is elected will draw on these same PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS for the nation's managerial and policy expertise.
It is important to know this. No private individual has the capacity for mass manipulation. Long-term social planning has to be organized by an hierarchically motivated group acting over many years and if that driving force is not communal then it must be elitist.
The people of the USA are robbed of their right to democratic government and this also applies world-wide.
Now you may wonder why the socialist-leaning ABC would put such a program to air. The reason it can occur is that no truly believing socialist understands (even after the USSR reorganization) that socialism and capitalism are the primary 'thesis' and 'antithesis' in an Hegelian Dialectic Process. However some are beginning to awaken.
More telling insight into the confusion generated by Socialist/Capitalist PR gimmickry is obtained by taking a close look at current events.
"Poll setback will push Bush to the Right" says the headline in The Australian (20/2/1992); quote:
The astonishingly strong vote for Patrick Buchanan in New Hampshire is a disaster for Australia.
The former speech writer for Ronald Reagan is doing his formidable best to energize every destructive force in United States politics, every force that could transform the US from the leading progenitor of free trade and liberal internationalism into a small-minded, mean-spirited nation turning increasingly inward upon itself.
[Notice no argument or evidence is presented, just image assassination.]
Buchanan is trying to tap into deep forces in the US political psyche. His targets in the New Hampshire campaign were more than just President Bush. They were also Japan, immigrants, internationalism, indeed the very concept of US foreign policy. EQ. EA.
This highly emotional comment is a result of propaganda against all opposition to the elitist New World Order policies. That writer's complaint is that Buchanan is appealing to basic American feelings that oppose establishment propaganda. Everyone who puts up a sound argument, or speaks out against elitist plotting or policy, is accused of being anything from Gengis Kahn to Ku Klux Klan. On the other hand no President or any World Government supporter is ever abused as being a small-minded supporter of Marx or National Socialism.
It is revealing that capitalist governments everywhere teach and encourage socialism in their universities and support a common socialist world policy.
Does it seem strange to you that a socialist leaning-group in the ABC will be exposing "Capitalist Conspiracy" in the nature of hidden government on the one hand and other socialist leaning media people are blackening the character of people who appeal to popular feelings opposed to the SAME elitist establishment?
This apparent confusion may be more easily understood when we consider that in order to keep the secret government secret there is real benefit in creating confusion. It is not unlikely that Buchanan was put up as a whipping boy to allow excuse for anti-democratic propaganda.
The conventional academic position is to scorn any suggestion of a conspiracy. Perhaps this is excusable in so far as 'conspiracy' may be the wrong word. However they make no serious attempt to answer the evidence of secretive elitist manipulation of both community and government. It is difficult to disprove what is true, especially when so many among the educated know the facts.
Strangely, despite all character assassination before the election, if by some chance Buchanan should still win he will still draw on the same pool for advisers and follow the elitist policies; after all, he WAS President Reagan's speech writer.
We may also note that organizations such as the United Nations have no policy-making motivation nor expertise in their natural membership. The UN is composed of quite ordinary people who have been selected to represent their country by the political party system. Where does the UN get its policy directive and expert advice?
Normally a committee selected and thrown together under a broad ideal will splinter and argue, create more problems than it can ever solve and disintegrate. The previous League of Nations did just that. The only way the United Nations could work was if there was a strong guiding hand of discipline and goal-setting.
Who planned and set out the agenda for the United Nations? Who authorizes changes to this agenda?
Who arranged the consensus of United Nation's members to secretly betray the independent nationality of each and every country taking part?
Who authorized the colonial attachment of Australia to the UN and servitude to an unknown authority?
When was this matter argued out in the United Nations and when were the world headlines reporting it and explaining it to the people of the nations surrendering their national independence?
There is only one source of expert directive for world planning! This source is the privately funded policy-planning institutions that are set up by those with long term world ownership ambitions; ambitions that can be achieved only through control of world government - UN government.
It would seem inevitable, even without evidence of events, that the UN is, in practice, no more than an executive tool for the secret world government or, as President Bush and other world leaders have proclaimed it, The New World Order. For a realistic view of the United Nations read The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin. brain5.htm
.../Back to Contents Page