Received: by dot.crosswinds.net (mbox republican) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sat Nov 6 18:52:58 1999) X-From_: bobdj@djurdjevic.com Sat Nov 6 10:11:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: from prserv.net (out4.prserv.net [165.87.194.239]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA92594 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:10:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bobdj@djurdjevic.com) Received: from preferred-user ([202.135.74.200]) by prserv.net (out4) with SMTP id <19991106145914239037r23te>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:06:13 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991106075808.009e7d10@djurdjevic.com> X-Sender: timed@djurdjevic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 07:58:28 -0700 To: TiM GW Bulletins From: Bob Djurdjevic Subject: Republic Referendum: Another Chapter of the Australian "Demo Farce" - TiM GW Bulletin 99/11-2 (Nov 6, 1999)" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dot.crosswinds.net id KAA92594 > >FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA > >The Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletin, such as the one enclosed below, >can be accessed at our Web site: www.truthinmedia.org, the "TiM GW >Bulletins" section. > >Also, check out our latest Photo Album - Russia '99 - from our recent trip >to Russia ( http://www.truthinmedia.org/Russia-99/photos.html ). It >contains a number of "mini Russian vignettes" as a part of the narrative >accompanying the images. > >Also, you can check out our Kosovo TiM GW Bulletins which are now divided >into two sections: NATO's War (106 issues - >http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/tim-war.html ) and NATO's "Peace" (51 >issues - http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/tim-peace.html ). > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 99/11-2 6-Nov-99 >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Topic: AUSTRALIAN VIGNETTES >--------------------------------------------- > >W. Australia 1. Republic Referendum: Another Chapter of the > Australian "Demo Farce" > >W. Australia 2. Kosovo vs. East Timor: Similarities and >Differences > >W. Australia 3. Toward New World Order's "Ménage à Trois" > >-------------- > >1. Republic Referendum: Another Chapter of the Australian "Demo Farce" > >WESTERN AUSTRALIA, Nov. 6 - Today, Australians voted in a national >referendum in which the country was supposed to decide whether to dump the >(British) Queen and become a constitutional Republic. That's what we were >told anyway, upon arrival in Australia. > >Now that we've had a chance to consider the kind of a question being posed >to the Australian voters, we are not so sure that that's the case. To us, >the referendum sounds like the establishment trying to con the public into >prolonging the "status quo" by offering ambiguous choices. Namely, the >voters were asked if they would approve a "proposed law to alter the >Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, >with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President, >appointed by two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth >Parliament?" > >In other words, by posing two questions in one, government asked >Australians to choose between the "demo farce" they already have, and a >new one. Either way, it's a vote AGAINST democracy and FOR the "status >quo." In other words, another chapter of the Australian "demo farce." > >Early returns after the polls closed this evening indicate that the "no" >votes are leading the "yes" ones by a 60-40 margin. The pro-republic >campaigners are hailing the result as a rejection of such a non-democratic >constitutional system. And are vowing to come back with another referendum >asking for direct elections of the President. > >But the Australian establishment architects of the current "demo farce" >must be chuckling quietly and contentedly. Not only have they successfully >dodged yet another pro-democracy bullet, but they've bought themselves a >lot of time till the next round. And they've gotten the whole country to >focus on relatively a benign issue, thus diverting the peoples' attention >from a much more inflammatory one - their neo-colonial intervention in >East Timor, in which they put 4,500 Australian lives at risk, and are sure >to suck out of the taxpayers' wallets several billion dollars. Per year! > >No referendums are contemplated on that, of course. In "demo farces," >governments don't ask. They take. > >It is all reminiscent of a sign painted on a Wall in Prague, >Czechoslovakia, during its so-called "Velvet Revolution" in 1989. It >read: "Those who deformed us cannot reform us!" Yet here we have >governments which have deformed democratic systems in America and >Australia, among some countries, trying to preach to others what they >don't practice at home. > >Take a look at the democracy in America. It has evolved into an "American >Demo Farce," as I said in my November 1996 Washington Times column. Take a >look at the two presidential candidates the 1996 elections: > >Both frontrunners, the "Ayatollah Klintonmeini" and the "Kosovar Dole," >were horses racing for the same stable owner - the "Princes." That's why >the Washington politicians, the high priests of the New World Order, wear >turbans, fezzes or yarmulkas. Whatever suits their Big Business bosses' >interests at any given moment [see the slide-cartoon - >www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Oz-99/Slides/aus-101.jpg ] > >Which is why both Republicans and Democrats sound exactly alike when it >comes to foreign policy. And they always unite against political >challengers who espouse patriotism, home spun values, America first-type >issues. Such as Pat Buchanan, for example, whom they cheated out of >electoral victory in 1996. > >At both of my Washington anti-war speeches - at the White House on May 1 >and at the Vietnam Memorial on June 5, I told the crowds: > >"This is no longer a government 'OF the people, BY the people, FOR the >people.' This is a government OF and FOR a group of bankers, 'death >merchants' and other industrialists, run BY corrupt politicians, like Bill >Clinton. And it is a government AGAINST the interests of the American people." > >Nor is the "Demo Farce" some sort of a quirky, isolated American phenomenon. > >Take a look at the two NWO "frontrunners" in the land Down Under - John >Howard and Kim Beazley. I happened to be also here last October, during >the Australian federal elections. About the only thing different from the >goring of Buchanan in the States was the sex of the piece of patriot meat >which the Aussie NWO high priests threw on the national electoral "barbie" >[see the slide-cartoon - >www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Oz-99/Slides/aus-102.jpg ]. > >Down Under, they made minced meat out of Hanson. And just as in the U.S., >supposed political adversaries - Liberals and Labor - UNITED in skewering >Hanson. > >And again just as in Washington, they don't differ much when it comes to >crucial foreign policy issues. > >When last month Boy Clinton called on Boy Howard to pay his dues to the >NWO Princes, and asked him to put 4,500 Australian lives at risk in East >Timor, did Boy Beazley object? > >No Sirree… Not that I've heard. Beazley backed Howard on East Timor. Just >as Boy Dole, Boy McCain and other Republican leaders supported Clinton on >Bosnia and Kosovo. > >And what Australian national interests does the East Timor neo-colonial >intervention serve? > >· Is it in the Australian national interest to challenge one of its >most powerful neighbors and put its own security at risk? > >· Is it in the Australian national interest to jeopardize its >exports to one of its biggest trading partners? > >· Is it in the Australian national interest to alienate the most >populous Muslim nation in the world? > >· Is it in the Australian national interest to put its citizens at >risk as potential hostage targets of militant Islamic groups worldwide? > >· Is it in the Australian national interest to burden its taxpayers >with costs of the East Timor deployment? Just last week, the Australian >prime minister said he was considering a "special levy" to pay for at >least A$2.5 billion which this foreign invasion will cost. At least. > >Of course, the answers are no, no, no, no and no! > >And it is certainly NOT in the Australian national interest to have its >soldiers killed while defending the pocketbooks of the NWO Princes, rather >than the security of their own country! > >Especially not after Washington had been training for years the worst of >the Indonesian death squads in the "art" of butchering people, according >to a Sept. 19 London Observer story. And after Britain had pitched in with >£1 million to help the Indonesian army. > >So what does that tell us about Boy Beazley and Boy Howard? That they >attended the same NWO boy scout camp, as did Boy Clinton, Boy Dole, Madam >Halfbright, Boy Blair, Garson Chretien, Schroederkind, Lady Thatchpatch, >Garson Chirac, etc.? Most likely at some posh Bilderbergers, CFR or >Trilateralist resort. > >It seems to us, therefore, that Australia has the same type of an >un-Australian plutocratic parasitic clique riding herd on the country's >taxpayers, as we do in the States. Only worse… For, Australia's "Demo >Farce" is not even a domestic product. > >2. Kosovo vs. East Timor: Similarities and Differences > >Which brings us to the question of similarities and differences between >Kosovo and East Timor: "Why did the Princes, go to war over Kosovo but not >East Timor?" > >One answer is, because they didn't have to. Washington sent Australians >and other vassals to do its bidding. > >But to me, an even more important question is: "Why did the Princes bomb >Serbia and not Indonesia?" After all, both regimes were accused of >committing atrocities. > >The simple answer is, because Serbia is expendable; Indonesia is not [see >the slide - www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Oz-99/Slides/aus-103.jpg ] > >Serbia is a small, predominantly Christian country, isolated in the heart >of Europe and surrounded by enemies and NWO vassals. > >Indonesia is a vast, oil-rich country, whose 17,000 islands are home to >the world's biggest Muslim population. > >Killing and alienating Serbs would not jeopardize strategic U.S. interests >elsewhere in the world, as the Kosovo War has proven. > >Bombing Indonesia could provoke backlash throughout the world, putting at >risk strategic interests of the Princes not only in Indonesia, but >elsewhere in the Muslim countries, such as in the Middle East. > >In Kosovo, atrocities were staged or invented and blamed on the Serbs in >real life "Wag the Dog" scenarios. That became clear lately by an absence >of alleged "mass graves" after the KFOR takeover. > >In East Timor, atrocities were real and were carried out over a period of >14 years by U.S. trained butchers. > >The Princes had no leverage in Serbia, the only non-vassal country in >Europe whose economy had already been devastated before NATO's bombing by >years of genocidal sanctions. Which means the NWO multinationals had zero >capital at risk. But they also had zero leverage in pulling the political >strings in Belgrade. Which is why they resorted to bombs, rather than loans. > >In Indonesia, a country in which they have invested tens of billions of >dollars in the 1990s alone, the Princes had plenty of >leverage. Especially after the $69 billion IMF bailout package - another >example of New World Order's "Socialism International." Why "Socialism >International?" Because global taxpayers' money - the IMF - is being used >to bail out Wall Street Princes out of bad investments they had made in >Indonesia. And elsewhere around the world… > >In short, occupying East Timor without having to bomb Indonesia only goes >to prove that "free trade" and "globalism" means that nations can be >colonized by dollars as effectively as with bombs. > >In the Washington Times column "An Ugly Double Standard in Kosovo >Conflict," published on Oct. 25, 1998, the TiM editor wrote: > >"The U.S./NATO never bombed Turkey over its atrocities against the Kurds; >or China over Tibet; or Indonesia over East Timor; or Israel over its >various even extra-territorial military assaults on neighboring countries; >or Russia over Chechnya; or Great Britain over Northern Ireland; or Spain >over its treatment of the Basques." > >But it did bomb Iraq when Washington lost its leverage in Baghdad, despite >having supported Saddam Hussein, both militarily and financially during >Iraq's war with Iran. > >And it did bomb Libya, when the U.S. lost its leverage with Mouamar >Qaddafi, one of the sponsors of Islamic terrorism. > >And it did bomb Afghanistan and Sudan, also expendable countries by the >Princes' standards. > >So the essence of the NWO globalists' neo-colonial strategy is: "Bomb >obstinate weak nations, buy off obstinate big ones. Then rule the world." >[see the slide - www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Oz-99/Slides/aus-104.jpg ] > >Maybe. For, as Niccolo Machiavelli warned in his book, "Prince", written >in 1513: "There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of >success, nor more dangerous to manage, than a creation of a new order of >things." > >3. Toward New World Order's "Ménage à Trois" > >But power-hungry, would-be rulers of the world - from Genghis Khan, to >Attila the Hun, to Napoleon, to the British Empire, to Hitler's Third >Reich… rarely pay attention to the words of the wise, or bother to learn >from history. Which is why they tend to repeat it. Usually at their own peril. > >The same will be eventually the case with the latest edition of the New >World Order. As we have seen in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan, East >Timor…, the West Side Gang delivers same kind of "gun diplomacy" which the >East Side Gang had used, only using bigger guns and more perfidy to mask >the western Prince's grab for power. > >And what are the Princes' ultimate objectives? Not unlike those of >communists. Both love faceless uniformity and blind loyalty. Both loathe >any living creature which is proud of its unique looks, language, religion >or culture. > >So if God were to (re)create the world by the designs of the NWO Princes, >there would be only three kinds of creatures around: > >· All two legged-creatures would be ostriches; > >· All four legged-ones would be sheep; > >· All sea-living creatures would be sardines, anxiously waiting in >long lines at the nearest Princes' canning factory docks to jump into >cans, and be exported to some distant low-cal, low-brow; low-IQ, but >immensely happy NWO society. [see the slide - >www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Oz-99/Slides/aus-105.jpg ] > >Now, I can see how this New World Order "ménage à trois" could seem >appealing to some Australian sheep farmers. But only if they behaved like >their livestock. > >Meanwhile, citizens of the world who do not wish to stoop to the sheep >level, may wonder, for example, why it is unlawful in some "civilized" >countries (e.g., Australia) to kill a poisonous snake, but it was okay for >the Australian government to support NATO's murder of 2,000 Serb humans? > >And even if some people don't care about a bunch of distant Serbs being >killed, where were the famed Australian animal lovers when NATO >decapitated a German shepherd, or disemboweled a white horse in the >enclosed slide? [see the slide - >www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Oz-99/Slides/aus-107.jpg ]. Or when it >terrorized the wild animals at the Belgrade zoo? > >Guess ostriches, sheep or sardines wouldn't get too exercised over >dichotomies like that, either. Nor about the fact the Australian >government generously hosted Kosovo Albanians, but turned its back on over >180,000 Serb refugees from Kosovo, "ethnically cleansed" after the KFOR >"peace farce" commenced. Not to mention over 600,000 Serb refugees who had >been driven from their homes during the NWO "humanitarian missions" in >Bosnia and Croatia. > >Of course, things could get worse, too… > >The next UN Security Council resolution might authorize a new >"peacekeeping" force - let's call it the United Nations Save the Ostrich >Sheep and Sardines force - or UNSOSS. Or UN-SAUCE, if you prefer. Its job >- to "ethnically cleanse" or physically eliminate all other creatures. > >Of course, the designated victims would be first sedated with ample >quantities of "panem et circenses" ("bread and games"). Just as the >crumbling Rome offered its doomed citizens. Except that the UNSOSS would >feed them McDonald's hamburgers and Coke instead of gladiator patties. > >Naturally, the Princes and the high priests of the globalist ideology, >would be exempt from such a low-cal, high-hype, low-IQ, high-brow diet. >Just as the rulers of the decaying Rome were. > >Finally, a separate UN Security Council resolution would compact all world >religions into one. Its creed: "I believe in nothing!" Its symbol: The >Almighty Dollar. Its object of worship: The Golden Calf. Its holy shrine: >Wall Street. > >Yes, there is. In fact, the arrogant, yet short-sighted, global >industrialists may have invented the tools of their own destruction; a >sword upon which they may fall. > >The self-proclaimed Cold War winners should beware of premature victory >parades. For, we are living in the midst of a revolution - an information >technology revolution, a revolution no less dramatic than the invention of >gun powder. > >In an article, "Move over Einstein, Signor Da Vinci Is Back," published in >July 1997 in the FORBES magazine's on-line edition, I said: > >"The Internet and the PC - two post-industrial era technological >revolutions - are returning Homo Sapiens back to nature. It's the >beginning of 'Renaissance II'. The ubiquitous PC and the Internet have >empowered individuals and small companies to compete with giant >enterprises on a level playing field. They've become equalizers. Kind of >like the invention of gun powder enabled a little old lady to overpower a >big hooligan." > >The result is a massive transfer of wealth from industrial incumbents to >information technology challengers. > >Bill Gates, by far the richest man in America, is today much wealthier >than the IBM CEO. Yet 20 years ago, he was a nobody. Similar opportunities >exist today for small nations with talented people engaged in the field of >information technology. > >The industrial era automated the simplest (physical) forms of life; called >them SCIENCES; held them in high esteem; and rewarded handsomely its >apostles, such as Albert Einstein. It also put down the more complex forms >of life - the ARTS. > >Now, with the advent of PC's and the Internet, a (re)fusion of arts and >sciences is taking place… > >Leonardo da Vinci would have been pleased… > >Picture a CNN reporter sticking a microphone in front of Signor da Vinci, >and asking him: "Sir, do you consider yourself an artist or a scientist?" > >What do you think the great Renaissance man's answer would have been? > >"Son, I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. What is the >difference between artists and scientists?," would be my guess. > >So, as you can see, there's hope for graduates of liberal arts colleges >and university after all. > >During just-concluded "Tour de Oz" (tour of Australia), the TiM editors >told the audience at the University of Western Australia in Perth that he >was "especially pleased to be able to make that proclamation in an Arts >Department of a renowned university." And that one of the greatest >tributes for him personally was when he, an engineer by academic degree, >was elected an honorary member of the Serbian Writers Guild on Sept. 16 in >Belgrade, and presented the membership card No. 3, after his lecture at >Francuska 7 (see >http://www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Serbia-99/tim99-9-3.html ). > >Fancy that… an engineer turned a scribe and public speaker! >Surprised? This writer was. Yet we have a feeling that Signor da Vinci >would have found that perfectly logical. >------------- >NOTE: To cancel the e-mail editions of our reports, just reply REMOVE or >UNSUBSCRIBE, followed by your e-mail address.