-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.newaus.com.au/upfront.html
{{<Begin>}}
Rupert Murdoch's Australian savages Republicans over test ban
By Gerard Jackson
No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999
Cameron Forbes
The refusal of the US Senate to ratify the International Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty outraged Australian left-wing US-based journalists, causing
them to vent their anger on the Republicans, never a difficult task. The worst
of the lot, as expected, was The Australian's Washington-based Cameron Forbes.
A particularly nasty piece of left-wing work who never seeems to miss a chance
to blame the Republicans for whatever is supposed to plague the US.
Letting himself go, the self-righteous and dishonest Forbes accused the
Republicans of sending the world into "a mad nuclear arms race," of creating an
"apocalyptic vision," of causing India, China, Russia, North Korea and Pakistan
to conduct "further weapons test." But what could one expect, argued Forbes,
when the likes of Jesse Helmes, a man who "makes teenagers look like
troglodytes", are nestling in the Senate. (Rupert Murdoch's Australian, Ban the
bomb? Over Jesse's [Helmes] dead body, 15/10)
That those who opposed Clinton's test ban treaty could possibly have any sound
or honourable objections was summarily dismissed by Forbes who described them
". . . as people who do not want disarmament. They love the bomb — in the name
of US security and superiority." Why it is morally indefensible to defend US
security and maintain its military superiority is something that the socialist
Forbes chose not to share with his readers. After all, it was this military
superiority that kept Soviet barbarism at bay for more than 50 years. Is that
why Forbes hates it so?
In another sickening example of selective quoting Forbes parroted the left-wing
Chris Paine, a representative of the NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council),
which Forbes tried to pass off as just "an influential lobby group." This is
absolutely false. The NRDC is a hardcore socialist green organisation that has
condemned economic growth, synthetic fuels, genetic engineering and nuclear
power, etc. It has done everything within its power to sabotage economic
development. During the Cold War it supported Soviet initiatives, condemned
American defence spending and demanded a nuclear freeze by the US — but not by
the Soviets.
It is fanatical and completely unprincipled. It provoked the alar scare,
claiming that its own experiments with mice proved that the chemical would
cause cancer in humans. Competent scientists extrapolated the NRDC's tests to
humans and found that a person would have to eat 27,000 apples a day for 70
years to produce the kinds of tumours that massive doses produced in the NRDC's
mice! It was later found that using the NRDC's own research, a mouse fed with
half the maximum dose — equivalent to a man eating 14,000 apples a day for 70
years — produced no tumours. A fact that the NRDC did not report. As this kind
of behaviour is the equivalent of what passes for journalistic ethics on
Murdoch's Australian, it's no wonder Forbes didn't notice. So it comes as no
surprise that he grossly misled his readers about the nature of this vicious
scaremongering outfit whose own founder resigned from it out of disgust because
of the direction it had taken. Another fact, like so many others, that the
fearlessly honest Forbes neglected to mention.
Having quoted the extreme leftwing Paine, Forbes then quoted Joe Biden, a
leading left-wing Democratic Senator who described the Republicans principled
rejection of Clinton's handiwork "as the US's worst mistake in his 27 years in
politics". And what do we know of Biden? Nothing good, as one would expect of
someone respected by Forbes.
It was Biden who took to the Senate floor in September 1998 and ferociously
argued that allowing America to defend itself against a nuclear missile attack
by building an anti-missile system "will destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty", completely ignoring the fact that Russia is working on such a system.
Moreover, according to this great American patriot, such a defence system would
force China and Russia to adopt a nuclear "launch-on-warning" strategy which
would bring "nuclear war closer". What Biden and his left-wing Congressional
ilk did was resurrect the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. And yet this
is exactly what Forbes had the nauseating nerve to accuse Republicans of doing.
What a sickening hypocrite.
The truth is that Biden has a shocking record on American Defence. (Why else
would Forbes quote him approvingly). Biden was a strong supporter of the
Coalition for a New Foreign Military Policy. This umbrella organisation was
formed in 1976 by the notoriously pro-Soviet Institute for Policy Studies and
consisted of 55 left-wing groups. Readers will not be surprised to learn how
closely it toed the Soviet line which included "unilateral disarmament" and aid
to "liberated" countries like totalitarian Communist Vietnam. This mob never
met a communist dictatorship is didn't admire and yet Biden supported it. Given
that he supported, even in the teeth of Soviet aggression, unilateral
disarmament by the US and that he worked to deny Americans a missile defence
system, is it any wonder that he maligns Republicans for vetoing an unworkable
test ban treaty.
But what about the so-called treaty itself and what was it that that bigoted
journalists like Forbes withheld from their readers? Forbes viciously trashed
Helmes (he also trashed Thomas Jefferson), accusing him of acting
ideologically, but not the noble Senator Biden and his left-wing mates. What he
didn't report is that in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Sen. Jesse Helms conducted a hearing with the express
purpose of discussing the treaty. Though eleven people testified the majority
of Democrats refused to attend, preferring personal attacks on Helmes to an
open and honest debate on the treaties alleged benefits. The truth is that the
Democrats not only refused to discuss the treaty they tried to manipulate it
for partisan reasons. Not that the likes of Forbes or his editor would ever
report this.
This is how leading intellectuals William Kristol and Robert Kagan writing in
the Weekly Standard described the treaty's rejection: "Last week's rejection by
the Senate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was the most responsible and
courageous action by that body since the 1991 vote authorising the Gulf War."
Why didn't Forbes refer to these men? Because they are conservatives and the
likes of Forbes hate conservative intellectuals. He also ignored Kissinger and
Richard Lugar, both of whom opposed the treaty. But maybe he reckons they are
just right-wing "hardliners" like six former defence secretaries who agreed
with them. Then there were Senators like Ted Stevens of Alaska, Olympia Snowe
of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Thad
Cochran of Mississippi, all of whom have impeccable records of bipartisanship
in their support of arms control agreements. Yet they too opposed Clinton's
treaty.
Tell us, Mr Forbes, are these Senators also right-wing "hardliners"? While
you're at it, Forbes, perhaps you'll care to explain why you didn't report
their objections to signing the treaty? And while I'm at it, I'll quote Dr.
Richard Garwin's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "I
oppose modifying our nuclear weapons under the moratorium or under the CTBT."
Unlike the left-wing Messrs Paine and Biden, Dr. Richard Garwin is a prominent
scientist who actually knows what he's talking about as do a number of acting
and retired military personnel who also oppose the treaty. No mention of them
either.
That the CTBT treaty is unverifiable and unenforceable was another embarrassing
fact that Forbes suppressed along with the fact that neither Pakistan nor India
would sign it. Even certain signatories like Russia and China have refused to
cooperate with its compliance-enforcement measures. For example, Moscow is
deploying a brand-new generation of road-mobile nuclear-tipped ICBMs called the
Topol-M and Beijing is doing likewise. These actions confirm a CIA report —
ignored by Forbes and his fellow left-wing journalists — that Russia and China
have already violated the treaty, thus demonstrating that they never had any
intention of honouring it. (This raises the question of why Clinton also
ignored the report). What this means is that the countries that would abide by
the treaty are the ones we do not have to fear, while rogue states North Korea
and Iran continue with their nuclear weapons programs.
That, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms pointed out,
"not a single president before the current one has ever sought a zero-yield,
indefinite duration CTB" was an observation that Forbes decided was better left
unreported. After all, in Forbes view, what could redneck "troglodytes" like
Helmes have to say that could possibly be worth reporting.
The response of Austalia's left-wing print media, meaning nearly all of it, was
just as dishonest, ideologically corrupt and grotesquely self-righteous as
Forbes' reporting. The Age (a Melbourne 'quality' paper) viciously asserted, as
did its Washington correspondent, Gay Alcorn, that America "is now looking . .
. like one of the world's rogue states." (The US now stands along side North
Korea and Iran as a rogue state!) Of course, this very left-wing paper blamed
the Republicans, accusing them of being motivated by "vindictiveness and
ideology." (Pretty rich coming from a genuinely vindictive and dishonest rag).
Needless to say, the paper refused to publish the Senate's reasons for
rejecting the treaty.
Joanne Gray, The Australian Financial Review's Washington correspondent, was
more restrained in her rhetoric but equally damning. Adhering to the left-wing
line, she levelled most of the blame at the Republicans, claiming that Helmes
did not even hold a hearing on the treaty when, as we have already seen, he did
just that only to have it boycotted by the Democrats.
Australia's Reagan-hating media is overwhelmingly left-wing. The same papers
that now condemn the Republicans for rejecting this dangerous hard left treaty
are the same papers that vilified, lampooned, derided, satirised and grossly
misrepresented the Reagan presidency. The same papers that savaged Reagan for
having the courage to walk away from the disarmament deal at Reykjavik and
refuse to surrender the Strategic Defense Initiative. It was this courage that
finally sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire. But not to the Australian media
which also, incidentally, staunchly supports the Clinton administration.
The fact that these journalists are contemptible and bigoted still does not
explain the depth of their enmity toward the Republicans. In his The Vision of
the Anointed Thomas Sowell provided brilliant insights into the 'thinking' of
the likes of Forbes and Alcorn. What matters to these ideologues is the vision,
not reality. Thus those who do not share their vision are the real enemy.
Because the vision is self-evidently good those who do not share it can only be
motivated by bad faith or even actual evil. This, in a nutshell, is what they
think. Thus they have no difficulty defending Clinton, even against charges of
rape, because he at least shares the vision. On the other hand, a left-wing
journalist like Christopher Hitchens hates Clinton because he thinks he
betrayed the vision.
Left-wing fundamentalists like Forbes find it impossible to ascribe anything
but bad faith to their critics, such is their moral certainty and faith in
their own righteousness. Such people have always been a menace to liberty and
always will be.
{{<End>}}
>From http://www.newaus.com.au/peter.html
{{<Begin>}}
Peter Zhang's Column
Will Lord Keynes cripple China's military?
No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999
In some ways economic thinking is so bad in China that I'm trying to think of
something funny to say about it. While the British seem to have a happy knack
of making fun out of even the grimmest of situations, no such tradition exists
in China. That's sad because I think we're going to need one. However, American
conservatives can look on the bright side — for the moment. While they are
worrying about how to contain China's potential for creating military mischief
Beijing is planning to implement economic policies that could cripple military
expansion. Yep, life's full of ironies.
While having clever young Chinese train in the West as engineers and scientists
was a smart move, having some trained as economists was definitely dumb. So
dumb in fact that I suspect a CIA plot. (Sorry folks, that's the best I can do
for humour this week). Smart as our students are, they still tend to do
everything by rote. This means that having learnt Keynesian economics at
British and American universities they will inevitably apply it in a mechanical
way. The likely consequences for the Chinese economy is not something most
Chinese would care to dwell on, that is if they understood them.
It was the State Development Planning Commission that forced me to consider the
extent to which Lord Keynes' poisonous economic brew had become Beijing's
economic panacea. The commission calculated that if each of the 85 million
peasants who are to be moved off the land were to each spend 30,000 yuan this
would expand the demand for residential housing by 2550 billion yuan. In
addition, further spending of 400 billion yuan on consumer items like fridges,
televisions, etc, would stimulate the economy and help absorb a glut of
consumer goods.
The fallacy here is the very old one of thinking that savings are a drain on an
economy while consumption drives it. There is no general glut in China but
there has been a massive misdirection of production. Huge surpluses of goods
have been produced at the expense of goods in greater demand. (Nothing is for
nothing). Furthermore, a goodly proportion of these goods are of such inferior
quality they shouldn't even be classified as stock.
The problem here is that over the years massive amounts of savings have been
malinvested. But under the present system these malinvestments have been kept
in operation with cheap loans and outright subsidies, meaning they have
continued to produce goods in excess of demand. The piling up of huge surpluses
and the emergence of 'excess' capacity as many malinvestments find it
increasingly difficult to maintain output combined with an apparent fall in
consumer prices have persuaded some that China is deflating. If the money
supply figures are accurate then deflation is a myth. My guess is that bank
reserves are accumulating while excessive stocks are forcing prices a down. In
other words, a simple supply and demand situation.
So why should the commission's spending calculations be bad for China's
military? Because they will damage investment and that in turn will hamper the
military. As this magazine continually points out, savings fuel growth and
entrepreneurship drives it — but only within a free-market framework, even a
badly hampered one such is the power of market processes. Massive consumption
spending, and that includes housing, at the expense of savings will reduce the
size of China's already small capital structure. Should this occur the effect
will be to raise the opportunity costs of military spending because living
standards will be declining. Because, for example, America is vastly richer
than China, dollar for dollar America's opportunity costs of military spending
are lower than China's. One only has to think of how easily Reagan spent the
Soviet Union into extinction to see what I'm getting at.
Before American conservatives jump with glee at the prospect Keynes' Chinese
disciples eating their country's seed corn they should reflect on two very
important points: (1) America is doing the very same thing and (2) a poorer
China is not really in any nation's long run interests. Poverty always breeds
resentment.
{{<End>}}
>From http://www.newaus.com.au/USReport.html
<<This one's only excerpted because of the vast amount of coverage seen over
the years in various places. Although TNA has only recently (to my limited
knowledge of the magazine's content) put anything out on this, it is remarkable
that this is getting world-wide exposure now. A<>E<>R >>
{{<Begin>}}
Mena, Clinton and the CIA
By James Henry
No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999
Isn't America's mainstream media a marvel to behold. It enthusiastically leaps
on a rumor that presidential candidate George W. Bush is a cocaine user while
at the same time suppressing information regarding Bill Clinton's drug-taking
habit and cocaine connections. Unfortunately the right has also muddied the
waters with its obsession about alleged CIA drug smuggling through Mena, even
though the evidence points elsewhere. That elsewhere being Clinton and his
crooked drug-taking friends. So what really happened at Mena? I've consulted
several well-informed people on this matter, people who have always proved
reliable and honest.
>>Break<<
Editor's note: Rupert Murdoch's left-wing Australian not only ran the phony CIA
drug story it also continues to push the Bush drug rumours. Like the rest of
our media The Australian refuses to publish any references to Clinton and
cocaine. Though the paper's intellectual and moral standards have been in
decline for some time, the process seems to have accelerated under the
'control' of Lachlan Murdoch, one of Rupert Murdoch's sons. It seems young
Lachlan has inflated ideas about his intellectual powers. Strutting little
egotists like him are always easy meat for sophisticated leftists.
{{<End>}}
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
