ON THE EVE OF AUSTRALIA'S BIGGEST CONVULSION

If Mr. Bill Snedden and his colleagues are as informed on finance-economic questions as they have asked electors to believe they are, then why did they permit themselves to be trapped into a double-election which Mr. Whitlam was able to hold on the very eve of a major finance-economic convulsion? Are they so dull that they do not understand even the elementary mechanism of centralised credit control, and were unable to see that the "credit squeeze" now being screamed about in the press headlines was already well under way, and that given only a few more months, the policies of the Whitlam Government must result in conditions making a return of a Liberal-Country Party Coalition inevitable?

Or were they simply so avaricious for power that they felt they could not wait? Whatever the answer, it is not very constructive for Liberal Party apologists to be now fostering the view that it was just as well that Whitlam was elected and left with a "major economic mess, the inference being that a Snedden-Anthony Government could only have dealt with the situation by unpopular measures.

A Snedden Government, even if it had been elected with a reasonable majority, would certainly not have survived very long in the absence of a constructive policy for reversing inflation without creating unemployment and major economic dislocation. Mr. Whitlam is going to discover very shortly that all his charisma is not going to help him as the finance-economic crunch develops… Already some of his faithful journalist lapdogs are beginning to express doubts about the capacity of their champion to provide answers to the crisis ahead. But so long as he and his colleagues can survive politically, Mr. Whitlam will attempt to exploit the situation to advance the Fabian-Socialist strategy.

Unlike the certified economic "experts", who are generally overpaid to propose theories which are progressively contradicted by events, we have consistently and correctly predicted that not only was inflation inevitable while Keynesian-Socialist financial policies were imposed, but that the rate of inflation must accelerate, with all attempts to halt it by credit squeezes, price-freezes and wage controls producing disastrous economic and social convulsions. The great Chinese sage, Confucius, said a long time ago that it is no use running if you are on the wrong road!
A change of finance-economic road is needed desperately.

The current credit squeeze is no mere seasonal phenomenon that is going to ease in a few months; it was set in motion last year on the advice of the Government's officials in the Treasury and the Central Bank. Interest rates were increased to a new record level, and the capacity of the Trading Banks to create and lend financial credit curtailed by "freezing" a bigger proportion of the Trading Banks' holding of Central Bank credit.
(This technique is explained in The Creation and Control of Money. Price 37 cents posted.)

If the current credit squeeze is rigidly adhered to, and Mr. Whitlam does not bring down another Deficit Budget to help increase the money supply, as firmly promised before the recent Federal Elections, it is as certain as the sunrise that the growing number of business bankruptcies, particularly amongst the smaller and medium-sized organisations, is going to escalate dramatically. This will have little real bearing on the inflation rate, as the Americans are discovering with a record inflation rate in spite of President Nixon's controls. Even famous Keynesian economist John Kenneth Galbraith is warning that the Nixon Administration cannot survive the present U.S. inflation rate; that it is worse than Watergate.

Dr. Arthur Burns, chairman of the American Central Bank, the Federal Reserve Board, stated earlier this week "I do not believe I exaggerate in saying that the ultimate consequences of inflation could well be a significant decline of economic and political freedom for the American people." The Fabian-Socialists have always stressed the vital importance of progressive inflation as a major instrument for forcing a free society down the Socialist road. The Whitlam Government is going to attempt to use the developing crisis conditions to impose increasing centralisation in all spheres, with special attention being given to the programme for eliminating State Governments.

The Whitlam Government is also going to use the credit squeeze to carry out its fundamental aim of redistributing resources from the private sector of the economy to the public sector, without using taxes. Dr. Jim Cairns, a man with a long-term vision of where he wants to take Australia, is waiting confidently for events to unfold. He stresses the importance of the Australian Industrial Development Corporation.

The totalitarian drive by the Whitlam Government can only be met by anti-Socialists uniting to support a genuinely constructive anti-inflation programme. The Rockhampton Anti-Inflation Study Group has submitted the following to the Australian press:

"We have submitted figures, which Professor Michael Parkin (he is inflation economist employed by the Reserve Bank) has admitted are correct, that show that $540 million a year, spent as a price subsidy, will reduce the price of a 2 1b loaf of bread by l0c, the price of each pound of meat by 20c, and each bottle of milk by 6.5c; and that this will reduce the cost of living for 3 million families, each of four families, by $3.50 a week. An increase in wages of $11 a week for 3 million workers, will need $1,716 million a year to pay for it. That same amount of money, used as a subsidy to reduce the prices of selected food, clothing, house rent, etc., could reduce the cost of living by $11 for each family of four."

It would take less financial credit to finance a programme of consumer subsidies, than is necessary to keep financing progressive inflation. Why aren't consumer subsidies, lower interest rates, and less taxation, - Sales Tax should be abolished - applied in a rapidly worsening situation? Because such a programme would immediately start to dampen down the growing revolutionary ferment in all communities. That is why the Marxists of all types are united in their fear and hatred of the suggestions we have made. And, regrettably, until such time as the Liberal and Country Parties come to grips with this reality, instead of thinking of how they can compete with the Whitlam Government, they must continue to retreat from their proclaimed anti-Socialism.

POLITICAL POLARISATION

The voting by Australian electors on May 18th revealed a political polarisation, which could be of the greatest significance concerning the future of the Commonwealth of Australia. The DLP and Australia Party both suffered badly as a result of this polarisation. It is clear that large numbers of disillusioned DLP voters - the Gair affair was probably the last straw for many - voted the ALP. Many DLP voters are, while anti-Communist, really Socialists at heart. And with no real difference between the Government and the Opposition Parties on defence and external affairs, DLP voters had no difficulty in switching to the ALP.

The Australia Party has never had any real substance to it, only Gordon Barton's funds keeping it alive. It finished with only 1.5 per cent of the total vote. Independent candidates polled extremely badly everywhere. Although there was a strong backlash against the Government in rural areas, the Country Party made relatively small gains. Thus renewed talk about mergers. The ALP rural vote actually increased by .l per cent to 43.8 per cent, with the Liberal Party making the biggest gain, 4.6 percent, bringing it to 25 per cent. The Country Party only gained 1.9 per cent, bringing it to 28.8 per cent. The Liberals defeated the only two Country Party Members from Western Australia.

Both the ALP and the Liberals increased their support in the urban areas, with marked increased support for most sitting Members. The polarisation was shown most clearly in the voting on the four referendum questions. The urban electors gave all four questions a small YES majority. But fortunately for the future of the Federation, the urban vote was more than offset by a solid NO vote on all questions in the rural areas, the average being 58 per cent, for NO against an average 42 per cent for YES.

The special League of Rights campaigning on the referendum questions, both in the urban and rural areas, is probably the most important it has yet undertaken. The massive letter-boxing by League actionists in capital cities undoubtedly helped to keep the YES vote to a minimum. The overall voting by rural communities on the referendum issues once again provides striking confirmation of the lessons of history; that there is a deeper understanding of the meaning of independence and personal responsibility in the rural communities than there is in the over-swollen urban ant-heaps.

The Socialist has always seen the rural community as one of his biggest obstacles to obtaining complete centralised power. He seeks to create an urban antipathy to the rural community, assisted by his friends in the Big City media. Expressing the typical Socialist viewpoint. Mr. R. Hawke in a statement on "This Day Tonight" ABC/TV (20/5) said that in spite of the rural backlash, the ALP would continue to treat the rural communities as it had to date and that "reasonable" country people will grow to accept this.

Another striking manifestation of the polarisation process was the strong rejection of Mr. Whitlam and his centralist programme by Queensland. The combined Liberal and Country Party (National) vote was 54 percent, a substantial overall increase on the 1972 anti-ALP vote. The Queensland Premier, Mr. Joe Bjelke-Petersen, has emerged as a State leader capable of more than holding his own against the bullyboys at Canberra. Fortunately he represents a State where increasing numbers of the electors are being influenced by the educational work of The Australian League of Rights and similar movements.

Every support must now be given to all State leaders and Governments prepared to stand firm against the Canberra centralisers. The Commonwealth Federation clearly is not going to be saved in Sydney or Melbourne. The League of Rights works to bring together in a common endeavour the sound urban minority with a sound rural majority to insist upon policies of genuine decentralisation. The Socialist strategy of mobilising the Big City electors against rural Australia must not be permitted to succeed.

MR. ANDREW PEACOCK'S SHALLOW ADVICE

"The Liberal Party failed to attract younger voters and this may have been why Labor won the Federal election, the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs Mr. Peacock said yesterday. Mr. Peacock said the Liberal Party should campaign to win support of not only 18 to 30 year olds but also 15 year olds who would be voting in three years. If they did not do this, Labor could be entrenched in government. - The Australian, May 28th

If the future of the free society in Australia is going to be decided by the most immature and in-experienced section of the community, then that future looks bleak. The cult of youth is a manifestation of society which has lost its historical bearing and believes that the more people being compelled to put marks on pieces of paper, the more "democracy" there is. As we have said before, there is no special virtue in being young although this idea has been carefully fostered by those long past their youth, for the purpose of exploiting youth's lack of experience for their own purposes. Much of this exploitation is taking place in what is called an educational, but in fact a brainwashing system, where Communist and Socialist teachers are filling immature minds with the most dangerous nonsense about how they can revolutionize society, large numbers never over-come the crippling effects of Socialist brainwashing in our Schools and Universities. Some become economic "experts" advising Governments!

If Mr. Peacock is really interested in influencing those 15 year olds - we would hope away from Socialism and in favour of freedom - he could start on his Liberal Party colleagues in the State Government, urging them to take the necessary steps to ensure that young Australians are not brainwashed with Socialist theories while going to school.

THE AL GRASSBY AFFAIR

Last week Mr. Al Grassby continued to display one attribute, which the great majority of Australians do not admire; he is a very bad loser. We have no sympathy whatever with alleged personal attacks on Mr. Grassby and we sympathise if Mrs. Grassby has received death threats. But Mr. Grassby has not been backward in making a number of threats himself.

Before the elections he attacked the management of The Pastoral Times, Deniliquin, because it published paid advertisements from the Immigration Control Association. We have no special brief for Mr. Robert Clark of this Association, but in his television interview following the elections Mr. Clark acquitted himself extremely well. He was firm but courteous. Mr. Grassby makes free use of the political swearword "racist" in attacking those opposed to his immigration policies, but he has no hesitation about asking Mr. Fred Daly, as the appropriate Minister, to investigate the campaign conducted against him in the Riverina. It was not so long ago that Mr. Daly was Labor Party spokesman on immigration and a strong supporter of the "White Australia" policy. And surely Mr. Grassby was being most hypocritical in inviting Mr. J. T. Land, the former Labor Premier of N.S.W. to speak at his opening campaign meeting in Griffith. Mr. Grassby knows that Mr. Lang has been a consistently strong supporter of Australia's restricted immigration policy. Whatever the reason Mr. Lang did not appear at Griffith. But speaking on the Willessee TV Show on May 26th, Mr. Lang bluntly said that no Asians or Negroes should be allowed into Australia, and that Grassby deserved to be defeated. Could we now hear from Mr. Grassby or Labor veteran Jack Lang!
ALL ELECTORAL COMMENT AUTHORISED BY ERIC D. BUTLER, 273 LITTLE COLLINS STREET MELB.