AFTER THE FALKLANDS

Assuming that the British are successful in the major military attempt to place the Falkland Islands and the 2000 British people under British control again, the sacrifice of lives and resources will have been in vain unless the traitors in the Foreign Office, those primarily responsible for the betrayal of the Rhodesians, are rooted out and British policies are directed towards protecting British interests everywhere.

As pointed out last weekend, by Mr. Bruce Ruxton, the outspoken President of the Victorian Branch of the R.S.L., if the view expressed by deputy opposition leader Mr. Bowen is accepted, that the Falklands conflict was not worth one British life, the end result would be that minorities everywhere should be sacrificed.
It is no secret that the Foreign Office would also like to sacrifice Ulster to a "united" Ireland. The Marxist revolutionaries have the same objective, hoping to turn a "united" Ireland into a Cuba at Britain's back door.

If the Falkland Islands, clearly of the greatest strategic importance, are not worth worrying about, then what of Gibraltar, the British fortress at the tip of the Iberian Peninsular? This was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" by Spain in 1713. Then there is the controversy between Guyana, which obtained its independence in 1966, and neighbouring Venezuela, which claims that part of Guyana belongs to Venezuela. Belize, the former Central American colony of British Honduras, which was granted independence last year, has been claimed by neighbouring Guatemala. The threat of aggression by Guatemala has resulted in the British maintaining a small garrison of troops and a number of Harrier jets in Belsize. A similar military presence in the Falklands would almost certainly have been sufficient deterrent to the Argentine attack.

No objective student of history can doubt today that the Second World War could have been averted if the British had helped to offset some of the worst effects of the Great Depression by a strong defence programme. Not only was defence spending slashed, but also the treacherous Socialists preached a type of pacifism, which encouraged Hitler to misjudge the British will to fight. The British were "set up", as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain eventually suspected, but as C. H. Douglas observed, once the military conflict had started, the British had no alternative but to strive to win, thus providing a chance against a certainty. Unfortunately, however, the method by which the war was waged, including the criminally absurd "unconditional surrender" policy, ensured that the peace was lost.

While there can be little doubt that the Falkland Islands conflict was yet another "set up", with far reaching international implications, the stand by the Thatcher Government could have been used to foster a regeneration of the old British world, still a major barrier to the establishment of the World Monopoly State. The attitude of Fabian Socialist Trudeau of Canada, still preaching "peaceful co-existence" with the Soviet, was predictable on the Falklands.
Not one word of support was offered to the British. Prime Minister Muldoon of New Zealand at least came forward with practical support. And Mr. Malcolm Fraser? While verbally condemning the Argentine seizure of the Falkland Islands and its people, Mr. Fraser did not even offer to despatch one Australian ship anywhere to assist the British. In criticising Mr. Fraser, Mr. Bruce Ruxton mentioned how his deputy, Mr. Doug Anthony, appeared to be more concerned about trade. Mr. Fraser had no difficulty in agreeing to despatch Australian military forces to participate in a Middle East "peacekeeping" force, which in reality ensures that Zionist Israel's rear is guarded while aggression takes place to the north.

We have no doubt that if South Africa, in self-defence, seized control of Zimbabwe, Mr. Fraser would act rather differently than he has on the Falklands Islands issue. The vicious anti-South African campaign of the Frasers of the English speaking world has, understandably, resulted in a strong anti-British backlash in South Africa and considerable open support for Argentina. Perhaps the saddest development of all is the bitter comment by some Rhodesians who, having been betrayed by the old British Commonwealth nations, now make it clear they have no sympathy whatever for the crisis in which the British government is involved. The overall tragedy of all this is the fragmenting of the British world and the isolation of South Africa, a major victory for the enemies of Western Civilisation.

If the old British Commonwealth, the same type of people sharing the same heritage, cannot come together in a constructive lead to the rest of the world, then the years ahead look extremely bleak. The manner in which the British military campaign in the Falkland Islands has been conducted, demonstrates once again that the British have no peers in the field of innovation and resourcefulness. If that same resourcefulness could be applied in the field of politics, economics and finance, the world situation could be transformed. But if the treacherous policies which led to the Falkland Islands tragedy are not challenged and defeated, then once again the British will have co-operated in another major retreat.

WITHOUT COMMENT

CANNOT SOMEONE TELL PRIME MINISTER FRASER

If any of Mr. Malcolm Fraser's colleagues have any influence with him, they should take him aside and tell him that his latest jet jaunt abroad has been regarded as a boring but expensive joke by large numbers of Australians. Back in the Whitlam era, Malcolm Fraser said, "Australia doesn't want a tourist as Prime Minister". The self appointed saviour of the world was listened to politely in Washington, Ottawa and Tokyo. Some of the Australian reporters travelling with Mr. Fraser, probably in an endeavour to show some gratitude for the trip, did their best to suggest that the trip had some value. But they could not disguise the truth that the Fraser mission was a flop.
It was not surprising to read one of an American reporter going to sleep as Mr. Fraser insisted on presenting one of his typical dreary monologues at the White House in Washington.

In an attempt to impress in Japan, Mr. Fraser said that Australia had given a lead on free trade to the world by "the restructuring of Australian rural industry." He did not, however, mention Australia's protective measures for secondary industry. Rather ironically, while Mr. Fraser was calling for free trade as a means of overcoming the world depression, back in Australia Sir Phillip Lynch was announcing that the Fraser Government had commissioned an urgent report into possible protection for the troubled steel industry against imports. The deficiency of purchasing power in relationship to prices is forcing every developed nation to seek to solve its internal problems by a "favourable balance of trade".
Free trade under present financial policies can only result in the extension of monopoly on a global scale. By his tiresome lecturing of other countries, Mr. Fraser merely confirms that he has no solution for Australia's growing problems. His latest world tour will prove to be yet another major electoral liability.

BRIEF COMMENTS

While in the U.S.A., Mr. Fraser called for a tougher economic and political line by the Western allies against the Soviet Union. He did not mention that Australian exports to the Soviet had quadrupled since the invasion of Afghanistan.

Following the High Court's recent revolutionary decision that the Federal Government can, under the External Powers section of the Constitution, enter into international agreements permitting it to override the States, Mr. Al Grassby expressed his delight and said he visualised a flood of complaints in Queensland against "racial discrimination". The Socialists are keenly anticipating a vast extension of Federal power over the States. Not surprisingly, it was announced late last week that a High Court writ was issued in the Brisbane Registrar seeking a declaration that Torres Strait Islanders in the Marray Island group are owners of the land and surrounding reefs. If this claim succeeds, many similar claims can be anticipated. If the States wish to survive, they should immediately initiate a campaign to force a referendum to change the Constitution to prevent a threatened revolution.

New Zealand comment by Ray Lilley, in The Australian (May 14th) reports on Mr. Hiwi Tauroa - N.Z. Race Relations Conciliator, who says that the so-called multiracial Utopia of the South Pacific is "foundering on reality". Similarly, Australia's own mythmakers and dream weavers are running out of magic.

Unisex Cult Under Attack
The following letter was published in "Queensland Country Life" (March 11th) over the name of Mrs. Jackie Butler, State Co-Coordinator of "Women Who Want To Be Women". We are unable to reproduce the letter in full:
"At a time when taxpayers are screaming for relief from heavy taxes and for less Government interference in their lives, A.L.P. Senator Susan Ryan has introduced a Bill on Sex Discrimination Legislation which would require the setting up of an expensive new bureaucracy to enforce the cult of unisex and unleash a new breed of quasi-cop to pry into the affairs of people across the nation.
"The Commonwealth Government is under pressure from the women's libbers within the Liberal Party, and from the Office of Women's Affairs to support this Bill. "But it means much more than enabling women to breast the bars in what have been exclusive men's clubs, or requiring firms to employ more female executives, for the Bill seeks to make sex and marital status of no more relevance than eye colour.
"Although the Bill acknowledges there are distinct characteristics pertaining to a particular sex, the employer is forbidden to take these into consideration when deciding the person he wants for a particular job. "In fact, an employer will be subject to a penalty of $2000 if his advertisement implies that sex or marital status could influence his choice. "He will be required under this act to develop affirmative action plans to move women into men's jobs. This is reverse discrimination, or allocating jobs in non-traditional areas on the basis of a person's sex. It is an insult to competent women, and through coercion employers could be forced into making illogical, uneconomic, and possibly dangerous choices.
"The Act will be administered under the Human Rights Commission, with quasi-cops employed to oversee the reverse discrimination plans of employers. "They will be empowered under the Act to enter premises, to seize confidential records, to bring employers before the Commission, or the Federal Court. Heavy fines, and threats of loss of government contracts will give 'teeth' to their directives, and if an employer gets fed up with all the interference in his business, he'll have to hold his tongue, or face a fine of $5000 for insulting a member of the Commission.
"Employers can be fined for all sorts of 'discriminations' - one section of the Bill specifies the area of 'hurt feelings'. "In a quaint reversal of British justice, the Bill places the onus of proof on the employer - in other words, he is to be taken to be guilty until he can prove his innocence. (Like the random breath test legislation. On Target).