Ron: Some people criticise me for focusing too heavily on US affairs and say that I ought to seek to fix Australia's corruption
problems by critiquing "bashing and trashing" the people of Australia
and New Zealand or some such. So I explained my attitude in an article (#5157) on the AHS forum on 12 September 2008. To me the relative irrelevance of Australia and its leaders in the global scheme of things is obvious. But for those who fail to understand the US hegemonic power structure and its global effects on Amerikka's "Allies" I reproduce that essay here.
THE MONKEY OR THE ORGAN GRINDER?
As I see it though, the geo-political problems
Australians and New Zealanders face are essentially created elsewhere
and always have been. In terms of governance and leadership we are
servile, colonialist countries. We were the colonial creatures of
Britain for over a century before being given pseudo independence
although, to this day our leaders pretend that they (we) are beholden
to the Queen of England for political authority and legal governance.
(1)
Of course, legal formalities are one thing, real power is
another. After WWII the UK lost its military and economic power to the
US and the Australia and New Zealand leadership elite turned to the US
and became symbiotically attached to the US entity (Corp US) a powerful
financial corporatocracy centred on Wall Street wtih its military and
security services nexus centred in Washington DC. Why? Because they
were seemingly afraid to stand alone but in reality were always subject
to the threat of duress. However, as is the case in the US political
and judicial systems, our leaders and through them both Australia and
New Zealand are essentially puppet entities controlled by huge money
interests (the secret shadow government) domiciled in the City of
London and in New York. Those interests are represented by Central
Banks operating in both countries and in their security services, and
especially in what can be generically described as foreign "secret
services".
The power and control exercised by the secret
government comes in two forms. First the VELVET GLOVE, as exemplified
by fiat US dollar hegemony, the World Bank and the IMF, and Central
Banks creating fiat currencies and licensing commercial banks to create
money out of thin air using the fractional reserve system. This subtle
control system manipulates economies using fluctuations in money supply
and interest rates. When these mechanisms are not enough because
governments or their electorates decide they want something else, the
system produces the IRON FIST. The Iron Fist as described by John
Perkins, the Economic Hit Man (2) has three aspects. First the US
economic hit men move in and make key political leaders offers which
they cannot, in safety, refuse. Second, if that fails to get results
the CIA and other Black Ops or US Special Operations Forces covertly
move in and kill leaders and other people and/or destabilise the
political equilibrium of the country. If that also fails the US
military invades and occupies the country as has been done in Korea,
Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.
A
mild form of covert CIA influence and coercion seems to have been the
method used to execute the bloodless coup that ousted the Whitlam
government in Australia on 11 November 1975. Whitlam was initially very
popular (shades of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973) and he carried
out many needed reforms. His government and party demanded a new way
for Australia which included eliminating US military bases and
especially Pine Gap. The bankers and the US must have decided that
Whitlam and his government had to go. So the bankers combined with
local and US secret services soon created the needed destabilising
economic conditions to enable a "constitutional" coup to be mounted by
the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, and Malcolm Fraser the
"conservative" ie Liberal Party Opposition Leader. (3) John Perkins
outlines how these things are done.(2)
In the ensuing federal election Whitlam rightly told Australians that: "The whole future of Australian democracy is in your hands."
But by then it was too late the newly installed puppet Liberal
government, amply assisted by the media, was elected and the rest, as
they say, is history. The Labor Party learnt its lesson and ever since
1975 it has vied with the Liberal Party to give the US economic Empire
what it wants. Thus, as with the US, UK and many other so-called
democratic countries Australia now has one set of professional
politicians divided into two differently branded and labelled teams who
pretend to differ but never do on major issues of interest to the
secret global shadow government.
The removal of the Australian
Whitlam government in 1975 explains why there is little chance of
effectively changing the current governance and societal control
systems in Australia or New Zealand until the current Anglo-US shadow
government control system is removed.(4) As in the US, both major
parties (and most minor parties) are controlled by shadow government
money and other mechanisms so that Tweedlum is simply replaced by
Tweedledee. The whole point of having a permanent set of professional
politicians (often electorates are handed from father to son) is to
ensure that they understand the hidden rules of the so-called
democratic political process.
Interestingly, there is the beginnings of Light at the end of the tunnel here in OZ in that only last week the New South Wales premier and some five of his Cabinet Ministers were rejected by the
rest of their party which then elected a 40 year old cleanskin, newby
with only 18 months parliamentary experience AS PREMIER! I suspect
this is the first substantial sign that the incoming energies are
indeed positively affecting attitudes in OZ. Similarly, a by election
in South Australia for the seat of ex-Foreign Minister Downer nearly
created an upset in that a Green candidate polled 48% of the vote! Also
a state election in Western Australia last Saturday nearly resulted in
a hung parliament, though really the two major parties still just seem
to be acting out their roles.
The problem for Australians, New
Zealanders and the peoples of most other nations is that their
countries are not big and strong enough to stand up to the power of the
Anglo-US-Zionist shadow entity that has ruled the world since the USSR
collapsed. And so, by and large they don't. Thus Australasian
governments are hostage to the globalisation economic hegemony policies
espoused by the US sooo, we go along to get along. We
contribute military forces to invade and occupy countries like Korea,
Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan (5) because our leaders know
they have to, in order to stay in power, regardless of the fact that a
majority of Australians do not support such activities. In effect our
leaders are the sub-puppets of the foreign political puppets of the
secret global government.
In other words, there is no point trying to change the monkey,you have to change the organ grinder if you want the global dance to change.
That is why the US is so important as regards seeking to change our
world. Because the US spends as much money on its military as the rest
of the world combined AND it uses that military to subjugate any
country that tries to break free of US economic hegemony, no
substantial change can happen globally until the people of the US
become aware of just what their leaders are doing and cease to support
them. That is what is at issue and that is why CM and the Celestials
are so heavily focussed on seeking change in the US. Currently it looks
as if the US will have to experience a substantial economic, military
or Earth change disaster before USans or Australasians and their
governments will seek to radically change their habits.
Namaste Ron ********************************************************** END NOTES
(1)
Australia's current constitutional and legal situation is absurd. See
*The ENTIRE Australian Government is NOW OFFICIALLY ILLEGAL!* (1/7/04)
(camside article) by John Lamont & Wayne Levick See http://www.alphalink.com.au/~noelmcd/liberty/govern.htm
Lamont and Levick say: `In the words of the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge):
"The
continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the
Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of
monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent
of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After
joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign
nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise
tamper with another nation's legislation. Authority over the Australian
Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the
Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the
authority to repeal this legislation ...".
The 'Australian' Constitution is United Kingdom law.
In
"An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia", the 9th clause of
which is usually referred to as the 'Australian Constitution' was, is,
and remains conditional upon the first 8 covering clauses of that Act,
a current Act of domestic law of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Under
Section 128 of Clause 9, minor alterations to the Constitution may be
made by the Australian people. However, the Australian people may not
alter, in any way, Clauses 1 to 8 of the Imperial Act. Since the
Australian people have only ever had the right to change sections 1 to
128 of clause 9 of that Act, it follows that covering clauses 1 to 8
remain law in Australia.
The Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act passed through the UK Parliament in June 1900, to
commence as law in Australia on the 1st of January 1901. Since the
people of Australia have only ever had the right to change Sections 1
to 128 of Clause 9 of this Act, it follows that covering clauses 2, 6
and 8 remain law in Australia. (See Joosse v ASIC HCA 1998 159 ALR 260
or go to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/1998/M35/1.html ) This
means that British colonial law still operates in Australia and that
Australia is a self governing colony of the United Kingdom as stated in
that Act (see clause 8). However, the High Court of Australia has
ruled that the United Kingdom is a foreign power, and that the UK
Parliament cannot have any effect on the Governments of Australia (Sue
v Hill HCA 30 of 1999 or see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/30.html
). Hence, if British colonial law continues to operate in Australia,
then this constitutes a clear breach of international law, along with
the duties and responsibilities of the Australian and the United
Kingdom governments, as both were Foundation Members to the League of
Nations, and the United Nations. The Covenant and the Charter of both
bodies, respectively, bind these nations.
The Australian people
do not have ultimate control over the 'Australian' Constitution. In
mid-July 1995 the Lord Chancellor of the UK in answer to a
Parliamentary question asked in the UK Parliament about the Australian
Constitution, stated:
"The British Constitution Act 1900 was for
self government. It was never intended to be and is not suitable to be
the basis for independence. The right to repeal this Act remains the
sole prerogative of the United Kingdom. There is no means by which
under United Kingdom or international law this power can be transferred
to a foreign country or Member State of the United Nations. Indeed, the United
Nations Charter precludes any such action". (This response was
confirmed by letter from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated
11th Dec 1997, under the hand of Mark Armstrong, Far Eastern and
Pacific Dept)
Australia is an Independent sovereign nation.
As recently as November 1995, the Australian Parliament through the release of a report by the 'Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee' restated the historical events leading up to the achievement of independence, referring to the 1917 Imperial War Conference Resolution IX at para. 4.12, and clearly stated at para. 4.13 that Australia was now a sovereign nation:
"Australia became an independent member of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation in 1919."
and further in 4.13:
"This
admission to the League and the International Labour Organisation
involved recognition by other countries that Australia was now a
sovereign nation with the necessary 'international personality' to enter into international relations ". ('Trick or Treaty? Power to Make and Implement Treaties, ISBN 0 642 24418 9 or see http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/treaty/index.htm
On
July 14, 1996, investigators working in the archives of the League of
Nations, held in Geneva by the Swiss Government, found the original
copy of the Leaguer of Nations Covenant. Interspersed among the text is
a commentary in italics by Sir Geoffrey Butler, KBE, Fellow in
International Law and Diplomacy at Corpus Christie College, Cambridge
University.
The discovery of the original copy of the Covenant
revealed Sir Geoffrey's commentaries had been part of this crucial
document from the beginning, not added later as historians had believed.
Full
significance of Article I of the Covenant has never been widely
understood by the people of Australia, whose future was irrevocably
altered by the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919.
Sir Geoffrey Butler's comments went to the heart of the events. His commentary on Article I states:
"It
is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant
measure. By it, the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia,
South Africa and Canada have their independent nationhood established
for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in giving effect
to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions will
always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of
Independence. That the change has come silently about and has been welcomed in all corners of the British Empire is the final vindication of the United Empire Loyalists." The law of one nation may not be used to govern over another nation.
From
the moment people gain independence they have a claim to, and possess
the right of, self-determination. They are sovereign over their affairs
(see the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 10, and the Charter of
the United Nations, Art. 2 paras 1 and 4; http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ , together with resolutions 2131 [xx] 1965 & 2625 [xxv] 1970).
From
that moment, the laws of their former colonial master become ultra
vires. For it to be otherwise is to offend both common sense and the
first principle of international law - the right to self-determination!
If this is not so, than the United States of America remains today as a
collection of colonies of Great Britain! From October 1st 1919 'An Act
to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' became ultra vires,
with regard to Australia. Its continued use by political parties to
claim the power to establish a parliament to govern over the
Commonwealth of Australia, that is, the Australian people, (see Quick
& Garran "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian
Commonwealth" 1901 at page 366) constitutes an offence against
international law. It represents political interference by the United
Kingdom and a denial of Australian citizens' inalienable right to self-determination.
From
October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia.
From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic. From October 1st,
1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system
capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed
from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia.
That necessity still exists.
If confirmation of this change in
Australia's status from a "colony" to being "accepted fully into the
community of nations of the whole world" is required, the Balfour
Declaration 1929 ( see
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth11.htm ), the Report of
the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee 1926 - Extracts at page 348, (
see 'II.3⁄4 STATUS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS'
describing the Dominions as "autonomous communities within the British Empire,
equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of
their domestic or external affairs"), and Article 2 of the Charter of
the United Nations make interesting reading.
By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.
By
relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension
of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory
Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others
involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are
definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to
the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario
manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!
The
much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) (see
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth12.htm ) was a thinly
veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions.
Since it was designed to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it
failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the
League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and
therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no
operational effect beyond the shores where it was created, the United
Kingdom.
Every Member and Senator has committed an Act of
treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government
of a power foreign to Australia.
To underline this, the
Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42,
dictates that they must all swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance
to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by letter from the Parliament of
Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by
Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office). But because the
Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is
therefore subordinate to the UK legislature (i.e. 'the Queen in
Parliament') in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and
others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason
against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as the
schedule to the Act and being outside 'The Constitution' is beyond
the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority
outside the UK Parliament.
Further, The 'Queen of Australia' is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority.
Since
the Bill of Rights of 1688, the Act of Settlement of 1701, and the Act
of Union 1706, the Monarch has been appointed, first by the English
Parliament and then, by the UK Parliament. The Queen is a `Statutory
Monarch'. As such she has no powers separate from the UK Parliament. In
fact the official, descriptive title is `The Queen in Parliament'. In
her Office, the `Queen' has no legal power to make decisions. She may
only endorse and/or carry out decisions made by the Ministers that
appointed her. (see http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/parlia.htm )
Further, the monarch has not executive function within the
Commonwealth, her role being purely titular. (see http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/keythemehome.asp?8 )
In
1973, in her private life as Mrs Elizabeth Guelph (for she had no
authority from the UK Parliament which possessed no power with regard
to matters relating to an independent Australia), she chose to amuse
Gough Whitlam, the then Prime Minister of Australia, by signing the
Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, which repealed the Royal Styles and
Titles Act 1953, and `created' the "Queen of Australia". Such an Office
does not exist in UK law or, in particular, under the 'Australian' Constitution.
`An
Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' is UK law and by
definition (clause 2 of the Act) the only Monarch that the Constitution
(clause 9 of the Act) recognises is the Queen of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus, even if it could be established
that the Constitution has valid application, any law made under the
Constitution cannot be given valid Royal assent by a Governor-General
or Governor appointed by and representing a purely titular "Queen of
Australia" (see the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 (Cth)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/
Further,
taking into account the full content of the Act, even if it were
possible to alter the Constitution so that it recognised the "Queen of
Australia", a referendum under S128 relating to the adoption of such an
Office would be necessary. Such a referendum has never been conducted!
Attempts to "patch up the Constitutional mess" continued the concealment of the truth from the Australian people.
Adopting
the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence
retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out
any illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared
war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the
newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the
Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it's power to do so.
The
concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first being "The
Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor-General of the
Commonwealth of Australia" which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984
after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom.
Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But
when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters
Patent were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs
later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any 'invalid'
Commission or appointment or any action taken by someone so
commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.
… Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia.
While
all of this is relevant and pertinent, it is as well to be aware that
on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General
Secretariat of the United Nations volunteered and thus confirmed that
Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the
latest. This was confirmed by letter dated 19th December 1997, from the
Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of
the Legal Counsel, under the hand of Paul C. Szasz.
On the 5th
November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in
Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK British
Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate
of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed that
for at least 53 years [as at 2001] Australia has been an independent
sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November
1999, from the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission,
Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.
As a consequence,
under both international and UK law the UK Parliament's `An Act to
Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' has been ultra vires in
relation to Australia for at least 53 years. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any further back into history.
It
is also most pertinent to note that on the 6th November 1999 the entire
people of Australia, by referendum had for the first time, the
opportunity to have their say regarding the acceptance or otherwise of
the Constitution under which they are governed. They overwhelmingly
rejected the 'Preamble to the Constitution' question which included,
"We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution"
This proposition was rejected in every State and Territory of Australia on a national basis of 60.66% to 39.34%.
Thus
the question must now be asked: "How can present Australian parliaments
possibly continue to exist under the terms of a Constitution to which
the people have refused to be committed?"
So it is that the
Australian Parliament; relying for its existence, as it does, on a law
which can no longer have application in Australia, remains a puppet, in
legal terms, of the United Kingdom Parliament. Currently, the only way
Australian Commonwealth Bills can be allegedly passed into Acts of law
is by having them assented to in the name of a Monarch, who has no
legal standing in any forum anywhere in the world. Clause 2 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act rules that, for the purposes
of that Act, all references to the Queen lie in the sovereignty of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, the Anglo-Irish
Treaty of December 1921, which was ratified on 15th January 1922,
brought into existence the Irish Free State. In 1937 the Irish Free
State became the Republic of Erie. Hence, "Ireland" ceased to exist as
a legal entity on 15th January 1922…
Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid.
As
a consequence, no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid
application in Australia, or anywhere else. The only law that can be
validly applied in Australia is international law, and possibly the
common law of Australia.'
************** (2) See John Perkins – Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – Parts I, II & III http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15830.htm www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1583 In
this great series of short videos (and especially in the first two)
Perkins tells us about what US economic hitmen do and how they threaten
newly democratically elected presidents and government leaders in South
and Central American and other countries. He also confirms that Hugo
Chavez is the real deal and that South America is finally getting its
act together and standing up to US threats and pressure.
Perkins puts the existential reality starkly: "what
would you do if you were a newly elected democratic leader and US
economic hitman walked into your office and told you (nicely) tha in
one pocket s/he has 200 millions US dollars for you and your family if
you renege on your election promises and give the US "corporatocracy"
what it wants; AND in the other is "a gun" ie the threat that you and
your family will be killed …" That's a very difficult question to answer …
Perkins
just talks matter of factly about how Saddam Hussein was a CIA
operative and the US's man who eventually stood up to his "mentors" and
all the rest. Not much that's new for those who have been paying
attention over the years but probably paradigm shattering and hence
unbelievable for the average sleeping beauty. One of the irritating
things about trying to tell people (even family) about the reality of
the power exercised by US economic imperialism is that they always say "How do you know that?" or "you just read it on the internet" etc.
At
least when someone who represents himself as having done "stuff" and
seen other "stuff" appears on video speaking to a crowd it's just that
little bit more difficult for people to dismiss it out of hand.
Perkins'
summary of how US imperialism escalates its responses is excellent.
Starting with the urbane "hitman" – "iron fist in the velvet glove" -
followed by the "jackals" who do the murdering and black ops (when
persuasion and sweet reason have failed); and the finale (only when the
jackals cannot kill their targets etc as with Noreiga in Panama and
Saddam in Iraq) – sending in the military to kill and maim everyone in
sight.
Having said all that, the charitable view is that
Perkins doesn't understand fractional reserve banking and the fact
that ultimately it isn't greedy corporations generally that create our
fundamental social and environmental problems, it's the banksters!
It's no good talking about getting corporations to put people before
profit if the banks are squeezing the life out of both the people and
the corporations! This has been happening since, at least 1979 when the
so-called Washington Consensus formally ushered in the globalisation
era which is intended to lay the ground work for the New World Order.
Perkins
talks about democratising imperial capitalism and softening the face of
what he calls "vulnerable" corporations which he reckons he's pretty
good at through organizations like `Rainforest Action Network'. He also
talks about ozone change and seems to give Al Gore credit for his
stance on CO2 and climate change. I don't think he's right about
"transforming" corporations without even being aware of the wider
picture; and certainly I can't see how Al Gore's efforts are going to
turn back the Earth changes we are experiencing.
Perkins also
reckons his associates have had a positive impact on companies like
City Corp and Goldman Sachs!? REALLY!? This is where I begin to wonder
whether Perkins is genuine – after all he reckons he's been an
"economic hitman" so surely he must understand that Central Banks, fiat
money creation out of thin air and fractional reserve banking has got
the entire world by the throat and so getting banks and others to
change some relatively superficial environmental policies like not
investing in or using rainforest timber isn't going to save the planet
or us at this stage.
Sometimes I wonder whether the powers
that be give people like Perkins a "licence" to write books and
express seemingly outrageous Criticisms of some of the tentacles of the
Beast (ie some that are already Well known and hence he's not doing any
real damage to the matrix) especially as he's mostly preaching to the
converted. Perkins implies that he sees himself as an "Elder" leading
us towards the promised lands of democratic corporate capitalism. That's bullshit. And we know it.
I
think that those interested in US imperialism and how it operates in
practice will find these videos very interesting. Just don't believe
the spin Perkins imparts towards the end. Also the videos just might
convince some who have no idea of the ruthless reality of economic
rationalism that US globalism isn't all its cracked up to be. ***************** Also the transcript of Amy Goodman's interview with John Perkins is worth a read: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
This
coup was executed in plain sight and given the (now) typical media spin
by Murdoch's News Limited and Kerry Packers media empire so that all
the electorate could focus on was problems with "the economy". Nothing
new there. In the 1980 the CIA involvement even got some airing in the
film `The Falcon and the Snowman' S&E ATM 1985. This clip is mostly about other stuff. Just watch the conversation from 2 minuted to 3 minutes 45 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb85Kd0ujpc&feature=related
****************************** (4) Dr Beter reported in his Audio Letter 74*
that the Rockefeller Cartel arranged for a huge secret Black Ops US
naval base to be built in the extreme southwest tip of the New Zealand
South Island where the mountain range known as the Southern Alps comes
down virtually to the water's edge. The other part of the installation
is built into the northwest tip of Stewart Island, which is off the tip
of South Island. The Stewart Island facility is hollowed out within a
rise known as Mt. Anglem. This base was capable of building huge war
ships and it did. Seven ships built by the Bolsheviks who replaced the
Rockefellers as controllers of the shadow US government in the late
1970s were involved in the conflict associated with the Falklands War.
According to Dr Beter all seven ships were sunk. What this means
though, is that the New Zealand Government was closely associated with
covert US naval matters in the period following the Whitlam Dismissal.
The public stance of the NZ government during that period was that it
would not allow US naval ships carrying nuclear weapons to enter its
ports. * See http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_74.htm *******************
(5)
I note though, that since the Whitlam Dismissal our governments are
generally willing accomplices for the US Empire. For instance on 9
March 2008 I posted an excellent article by John Pilger about Australia's Hidden Empire. See # 3432, The net reference is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8265
****************************