CONTINUING HYPOCRISY ABOUT OLYMPICS

As we predicted, boycott of the Olympic Games by some nations, the major one being the U.S.A. is having not the slightest effect upon the Soviet presence in Afghanistan - or anywhere else. Desperately attempting to ensure that Australia is not out of step with the Carter Administration, Prime Minister Fraser continues to attempt to pressure Australian athletes not to attend the Moscow Games. But the sickening hypocrisy of this campaign against the athletes has been highlighted by the report last week that during the first four months of this year, Australian exports to the Soviet Union have already equalled the total exports for last year!

From the U.S.A. come reports of a continuing flood of American industrial and technological aid to the Soviet Union. In London former British Sports Minister, Mr. Denis Howell charged that the Thatcher Government was engaged in "political thuggery" in an endeavour to stop British athletes from going to Moscow, while at the same time the same Government was increasing its trade with the Soviet Union.

The nationwide campaign conducted by The Australian League of Rights confirms public opinion polls, which show, at present, a majority of Australians support a boycott of the Olympic Games. BUT AN EVEN BIGGER MAJORITY SUPPORTS AN ECONOMIC BOYCOTT.

If President Carter and Prime Minister Fraser were genuine in their stated views that the Afghanistan affair is the biggest threat to world peace since the end of the Second World War, and that the Soviet leaders had to be sent a firm message that no further Soviet expansion would be tolerated, then they should have advocated the following; a complete economic and political boycott of the Soviet Union, with a complete severance of diplomatic relations. The United States, which provides the major part of the funding for the United Nations, should have told all non-Communist nations that unless they followed the American lead, American funding of the UN would cease and the organisation instructed to leave American soil. With this type of genuine anti-Soviet strategy, there would be no argument about the Olympic Games in Moscow.

A number of Australian athletes have made it clear that they would be happy to accept a definite policy decision by the Government, providing it included economic sanctions. It is not often we find ourselves agreeing with Federal ALP leader, Mr. Bill Hayden, but he makes a strong point when he says that the Soviet is benefiting by a controversy dividing the Australian people about the Olympics with the result that there is a tendency to obscure the basic issue, which is the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.

Much has been made of the opposition to the Moscow Olympics by Soviet exile, Sakharov. But like his friend Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov has also stressed not only the importance of an economic, but also a political boycott. In his smuggled letter just released in the West, Sakharov writes: "Economic and political sanctions are extremely important. They can help strengthen the hand of the more responsible non-dogmatic members of the Soviet leadership."

Following the Carter Administration's lead, Mr. Fraser tries to evade the economic issue. Mr. Carter dare not face the economic issue for the simple reason that the conglomerate of international bankers, multinationals and international planners who make up the Trilateral Commission, are continuing to cooperate with the Soviet Union as they have in the past. As strikingly demonstrated in the recently published booklet, "The Kiss of Betrayal in East-West Trade" the Soviet Union is the creature of the international groups which have sustained it.

The campaign about the Olympic Games masks the real issue confronting what is left of the free world. By seeking to place the whole responsibility for an anti-Soviet stand on athletes, many of them unsophisticated teenagers, Prime Minister Fraser is engaged in a dangerous and hypocritical game, which must be exposed.

CHAIRMAN MAL'S RAPPORT WITH PEKING

After becoming Australian Prime Minister late in 1975, Mr. Malcolm Fraser surprised many people by visiting Communist China as his first major foreign affairs project. Towards the end of that tour he said that he was satisfied that Communist China had ceased to back subversive activities abroad. He has progressively created the impression that Communism in China is rather different to Communism in the Soviet Union.

While encouraging exports to the Soviet Union, thus contributing towards maintaining the economic and military strength of those he now denounces as aggressors, he has placed greater emphasis upon exporting to Communist China. His Government's acceptance of Peking's claim that Taiwan is a Province of the Communist Government was to be expected, even though it shocked large numbers of Liberal and National Party supporters. But very few of those supporters ever thought it possible that the day would come when Mr. Fraser's "statesmanship" would be extolled by the organ of that section of the Marxist movement in Australia, which supports Communist China.

In the lead article in "Vanguard" of May 15 the following comment is made: "Fraser's sound analysis of world politics has been an object lesson. It has acted as a stabilising, unifying and rallying factor in uniting forces opposed to Soviet expansionism. Fraser has shown farsightedness in his analysis and actions. Close relations with People's China despite the differences in social systems and fundamental ideology, is part of his farsightedness."
Comment on the above would be superfluous.

Ever since the death of Chairman Mao, there has been continuous propaganda against the "gang of four", one of these being Mao's widow, charging them with numerous crimes. What about the "gang of four" at Canberra, Chairman Mal, Peacock, Killen and Anthony? Their crime has been to cynically betray the very people who brought them to office in 1975, confident no doubt that the most outraged members of the Liberal and National parties could be blackmailed with the threat of how they most vote for the Liberal-National Coalition "or you will let those dreadful Socialists back into office".

The only answer to this type of blackmail is for enough electors to insist before voting for any candidates at the coming Federal elections, that they require some firm written agreement with candidates who wish to have their electoral support. Generally speaking, modern politicians are a pathetic spectacle as they cringe before the party manipulators in order to keep themselves in office. But they are a reflection of the irresponsible attitude of electors. When enough electors start to vote in a responsible manner, then there will be more responsible politicians. The despicable and cynical approach of a Malcolm Fraser will become impossible.

BRIEF COMMENTS

In the recent article in "The National Times" on the "fadeout" of the Australian League of Rights, author Stuart Simson rehashed the old story about the League having "750" hardcore supporters. Zionist leader Isi Leibler was giving that figure 20 years ago! But we liked the comment of the Sydney phone caller after he had read "The National Times" article, "I see you have only 750 supporters. You can now say you have 751 supporters." The League, of course, is not engaged in the numbers game. It is a service movement seeking to show electors how to have implemented policies they are agreed about. A majority of Australian electors support policy issues raised by the League - non-European immigration, lower taxation, economic sanctions against the Communists, etc. - but the POLITICAL PROBLEM is how does the majority make its will prevail over social institutions. The League is concerned with encouraging electors to tackle this problem if they wish to protect themselves against monopolistic groups manipulating Governments. (See "Our Sham Democracy", by James Guthrie. Price $1.28 posted).

A United Press International Report states that Indian troops and police have arrested 1,400 people in the northeastern State of Tripura where hundreds have died in weeklong ethnic riots. Such riots are a commonplace occurrence in India, whose leaders often moralise about the "racist" policies of other countries. Perhaps Mr. Al Grassby would care to make a visit to India to advise the Indians on how to make the multiracial and multicultural society work harmoniously!
(The June issue of "Intelligence Survey" publishes a brilliant address on "Multicultural Education" by Dr. Rupert Goodman, given at a Brisbane Conservative Club meeting. Dr. Goodman is Reader in Education at the University of Queensland. Price $1 posted.

The news last week that unemployment has further increased, with young Australians the major victims of unemployment, highlights the explosive nature of present finance economic policies. Unable to obtain paid employment as an outlet for their energies, the young are increasingly turning to crime, violence, and other anti-social activities, or are "dropping out" of traditional society in frustration. Social welfare payments, progressively eroded by inflation, and paid on the understanding that the recipients do not supplement it with any other type of income, keep the recipients on a subsistence level. The financing of the social welfare payments out of taxation imposed on those in paid employment not only contributes towards inflation, but also produces friction in society. Perseverance with present policies is certain to produce accelerating social disorder. As first pointed out by C.H. Douglas, the major factor in modern production is inheritance, manifesting itself mainly in labour saving technology. It is PHYSICALLY possible for large numbers to retire earlier than the age of 65, so that the young can readily obtain paid employment and benefit from constructive endeavour. All that is required is a change of financial policy. Failing this, escalating social disorder is inevitable.