THE REVOLUTION MOVES FORWARD

Recent Australian political convulsions starting with the resignation of Andrew Peacock from Prime Minister Fraser's Cabinet, followed by the open confrontation between the Commonwealth Government and the States, and now the resignation of Premier Richard Hamer of Victoria and N.S.W. Liberal Leader Mason, should be seen for what they are: the movement of political flotsam reflecting the deeper revolutionary currents beneath.

The broad movement of those currents can now be seen clearly for those willing to look beneath the surface of party political ferment. The disintegration of the Hamer Government of Victoria, generally regarded as the bulwark of the Liberal Party in Australia, typifies the failure of "anti-Socialist" governments everywhere to provide any answers to the mounting finance economic crisis, thus paving the way for the election of declared Socialist Governments. If, as now appears certain, a Labor Government is elected at the next Victorian elections, it will contain some of the most dangerous Marxists in Australia.

Only some unforeseen developments can now prevent the Wran Labor Government not only surviving the next N.S.W. State elections, but actually increasing its majority. Both in Victoria and N.S.W. the declared Socialists will be aided by the policies of the Fraser Government, including its "new Federalism." The essence of Mr. Fraser's strategy is to force the States to increase their taxes and charges while claiming that he is working towards reducing taxation.
Under present finance credit policies, the States can either drastically cut services or increase taxes and charges. Already transport and power charges are being substantially increased. Even Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen, longtime spokesman for those urging a reduction in total taxation, has found himself in the position where motor registration fees have been increased astronomically. Coupled with the overall financial policies imposed by the Federal Government, the increases in State taxes and charges can only increase the inflation rate.

Regular readers of this newsletter know that we have consistently warned that Mr. Howard's "fight" against inflation was lost before it even started. The inflation rate must creep upwards with all the far-reaching consequences. Unless the State Governments are prepared to challenge the financial policies of Canberra, they are doomed to keep on imposing increased charges and taxes which will eventually lead to the eventual loss of the powers they still possess.

The late Prime Minister Ben Chifley, the man who openly attempted to consolidate the credit monopoly by nationalising the banks has been proved right by events. Chifley predicted that the very institutions, which talked so strongly about the necessity for banking competition, were themselves working towards eliminating monopoly by amalgamations. Those who understand even the most elementary aspects of banking and credit creation, must find it astonishing that the further banking amalgamations are necessary on grounds of greater "efficiency".
The profits of the banks have been excellent. Efficiency has nothing whatever to do with what is happening. Power is the name of the game, and the rapid centralisation of credit creation power coincides with the drive towards greater economic centralisation, including the "restructuring" designed to prepare nations for their absorption in the New International Economic Order.

A Government elected to halt the contribution of the Whitlam Government to revolution, has in five short years made its predecessor look conservative. And Mr. Bill Hayden and his advisers, who sense what is taking place, are now carefully trimming their sails to exploit the turbulent winds created by Prime Minister Fraser, and his colleagues, to carry them forward. But replacing Mr. Fraser with Mr. Peacock, Mr. Peacock with Mr. Hayden, or Mr. Hawke, will make no basic difference to the mounting revolution. Only a new type of politics, with responsible action by electors, and a challenge to the policies, which have produced the revolution, can set the ship of State on a different course.

THE 'NO-PLEDGE' PLEDGE

"The (Federal) Government had no intention of limiting public access to vitamins and minerals as dietary supplements, Senator Peter Baume said in the Senate yesterday." The Australian, May 30th. Well, this sounds fine; but the Senator went on to "qualify" his statement with the words - "There would be no firm proposals on vitamins and minerals for one or two years (our emphasis)." Does this mean, really, "until the dopey electors go back to sleep again?" If so, the good Senator will probably find that the electors are more astute than he perhaps imagines. With this in mind, we republish the following letter, which appeared in The Age (Melbourne), June 1st:

The vitamin and mineral human rights battle (The Age, May 16th.) is not merely a battle between two opposing views on health care. "It is primarily a human rights issue. It is about the right of users of vitamins and minerals to continue to care for their health in the way they do at present. They believe our environment and other factors cause severe deficiencies in health. These require a different approach to health care than that available from conventional sources. It is a basic human right that they should be allowed to continue to follow this belief and to care for their health as they see fit.
"On the other side, the conventional health care people believe they have all the answers. They also believe there are severe deficiencies in health, due to many causes. But they believe that people should wait until they are ill, and then consult a doctor. If this worked, then a recent survey would not have found severe nutritional deficiencies in more than 50% of school children. However, it is also a basic human right that those people should be allowed to believe and practise as they see fit.
"But the conventional health care people do not have the right to impose their beliefs and practises on others. The proposed standard is their attempt to impose their views on others. It should not be allowed to become law.
"We in Australia criticise (rightly) other nations which deny basic human rights (e.g. the U.S.S.R., South Africa). But we are often just as guilty as they are. The whole community (not just the vitamin and mineral users) should respond strongly to this attempt to deny basic rights in health care. In particular, they should insist that the draft standard be withdrawn.
"I do not accept the statements by the Commonwealth Health Minister which were worded in a way which skirted and confused the issue. Both his Department and the Victorian Health Commission do intend to restrict usage of most currently available items. These will only be available, in the words of the report and draft, "under the supervision of a medical practitioner.... for the treatment of diagnosed vitamin and/or mineral deficiency states."
This letter appeared over the name of "Neville Freedman", of East Bentleigh, Victoria.

WHAT IS 'DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM'

The Federal Opposition Leader, Mr. Hayden, yesterday urged the Labor Party to stand by its democratic socialism. But Mr. Hayden talks about "a mixed economy of public and private ventures". He also talks about the A.L.P.'s "reaffirmed" objective of "a classless society". With respect to the "classless society"; it's a myth. After more than sixty years of glorious socialist revolution in Russia, anyone who has lived under it will testify that the class divisions there in the Communist hierarchy are most sharply defined socialist objective." - The Sun (Melbourne), June 1st.

We have never seen the phrase "democratic socialism" well defined. Mr. Hayden talks of the "socialisation of production, distribution, and exchange" to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features." These socialisation objectives are embedded in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" of 1848. Quite obviously, if production, and distribution, and exchange (credit, money) are to be "in the hands of the State", then those who control "the State" are "the State": meaning that the vast majority of the citizens of the State actually lose most of the control over their own affairs.

We are unable to view this state of affairs as "democratic". But Mr. Hayden talks about the A.L.P.'s "reaffirmed" objective of a classless society are an impossibility because people naturally fall into classes because of the type of people they are. It's in the nature of things. Experience shows that a Socialist government "naturally" squeezes "private ventures" during the brief period when public and private enterprise are allowed to coexist. This "coexistence "ceases after a government, committed to Socialism, gains full power over "production, distribution, and exchange." Again, quite obviously, private ventures can be squeezed out by the withdrawal of bank overdraft facilities by the State banking monopoly. Until someone comes up with a definition which will stand up to close scrutiny, we will continue to regard "democratic socialism" as a political myth to befuddle and deceive most well meaning people.

BRIEF COMMENTS

"The Australian Jewish News" (May 22nd) quotes Mr. Isi Liebler, Zionist spokesman, as stating in a recent address that "secular and political anti-semitism today is worse than the religious based anti-semitism of former times." Mr. Liebler went on to say that it was paradoxical that contrary to Theodor Herzl's predictions, Israel today represents the main basis for an orchestrated international resurgence of anti-semitism.
Dr. Theodor Herzl was the architect of the World Zionist Organisation, which was established in 1897, at Basel, Switzerland. The above is more confirmation of an observation once made by C.H. Douglas to the effect that history would reveal the establishment of a Zionist state (Israel) to be a major blunder, by International Zionists, as this would focus world attention on Zionist objectives and influences. These are in the areas of finance, politics and economics, and in the media.

A Fitzroy (Vic.) actionist has brought our attention to several Morgan Gallup Poll findings over the past year, and we were most interested to see these. Some are: "U.S. Planes Welcome Here" (published October 1980); "Majority Favour Union Jack In our Flag" (published December 1979): "First Past Post Voting Favoured" (published September 1980): "Have Military Training for Women Too?"(published February 1980).
With respect to a Poll conducted in 1979 "Limit Vietnamese Coming Here?": the results were that nine out of ten people favour limiting or stopping the refuge inflow. But what will interest supporters is that the Poll was not published. All other Poll results carry the month of publication. This one carries no publication date.
We have asserted in these pages previously that there is a type of conspiracy between the Government and the media to suppress details of public reactions on the Immigration question. We checked with the Roy Morgan Research Centre and were informed by an official that if the Finding does not carry a publication date, then that Finding was not published. This means, without any question, that the majority of Australians are opposed to Vietnamese immigration. The Government parliamentarians who state that they have a "mandate" on Immigration are either deceived, or untruthful. They have nothing of the sort. This poll proves it.