THOSE 'HITLER DIARIES'

Prior to leaving for a Victorian country programme late last week, Mr. Eric Butler provided the following short statement:
"Developments since I struck a cautionary note in my examination of the alleged discovery of 'Hitler Diaries' have merely confirmed my warnings. The so-called professional experts are in bad disarray. Lord Dacre, the former Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, long publicised as one of the experts on Nazi Germany, who originally said the documents were genuine, has now backed away, from his original position.
British historian, David Irving, whom I have always regarded, with a few reservations, as one of the most reliable and objective of British professional historians, has flatly charged that the documents being debated are forgeries. I note with interest that one journalist describes Irving as the "right wing British historian", a term of abuse for one who does not accept the generally presented view of history.

Professor Hans Booms, chief of Western Germany's federal archives has added to the debate about the "Hitler Diaries" by stating that his experts had examined eight documents from the so-called diaries and declare them to be genuine. It may prove that parts of the documents are genuine and the rest fabrications. But whatever is eventually determined will do little to add to an understanding of real history of this century, which can be observed by events, the major ones being the break up of the British Empire, the worldwide expansion of International Communism, with the Soviet being used as the main base for this expansion, the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel in the Middle East, and as crisis after crisis convulses the industrial nations, all dominated by debt financial policies, the open promotion of a long-term strategy to establish the World State via the New International Economic Order.

Like all demagogues, Hitler may not have been aware of whose purposes he was really serving. He served the purposes of those who financed him to power as part of a long-term strategy. Hitler is long since dead, of no value except to fill the screens with anti-German films, to be exploited as a diversionary and psychological move by those international power groups who, unfortunately, are still very much alive. By concentrating people's attention on a manifestation of the centralisation of power which died nearly forty years ago there is created a skilful way of diverting attention from the much greater threat of centralised power which is very much alive."

MALCOLM FRASER'S COLOSSAL IGNORANCE

The views of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser on Zimbabwe, as given in an interview with Mr. Sam Lipski, published in "The Bulletin" of May 3rd, further confirms our consistent view of Fraser as a shallow man afflicted with an incurable stupidity. After expressing the incredible view that multiculturalism "is one of the strongest unifying factors in this country", Mr. Fraser later said that if the Rhodesian question was not resolved, the Commonwealth would fall apart. The truth is that some of the members of the Commonwealth, several only in power because of criminal thuggery, only want to belong for what they can get out of it.

Asked by Lipski if he was disappointed with Mugabe's moves towards one party government in Zimbabwe, Fraser replied, "Yes, in part. But I've been reluctant to comment because I don't know enough about what's happened. Nkomo had always received support from the Soviets. Mugabe would not have the Soviet or East Germans." The man who says he is reluctant to comment because of lack of knowledge was the same man who before the Federal Elections was claiming Zimbabwe under Mugabe as a success story.

In spite of his appalling ignorance concerning the Rhodesia he had never even visited, Malcolm Fraser was not backward in expressing his critical opinions about what he claimed was happening. Mugabe is a declared Marxist and has brought in the North Koreans to train and equip the murderous Fifth Brigade which has been murdering and terrorising the Matabele people.

When it was put to Malcolm Fraser that Mugabe was no more a democrat and worthy of support for not taking aid from the Soviet Union, he again demonstrated either his appalling ignorance or his capacity to engage in double talk. He said that Mugabe was "a nationalist above all." Anyone with the most elementary knowledge of African realities knows that there is no such thing as "African nationalism"; that the dominant factor in Africa is tribalism.

Brushing aside the question of Mugabe's attempt to create a one-party state, which, of course, he had to say he opposed, he went on to say, "But let's be clear what we are talking about. Kenya is a one party state but a minister lost his seat because he was opposed by three people in a general election who stood against him in his own party. What we mean by a one party state is not necessarily what Africans mean. Therefore before the condemnation comes we should know what's happening there. What has happened right throughout Africa is a horrible and bloody story, with a progressive collapse back towards the charnel house conditions described by David Livingstone and other Christian missionaries. But a former Prime Minister would have us believe he is quite ignorant of all this. The fact that Mr. Bob Hawke is just as ignorant about African realities as Malcolm Fraser is no reason for the former Prime Minister to escape the most severe criticism.

SIR ARTHUR BRYANT SPEAKS OUT

The recent National Summit has resulted in a Hawke Government policy for a further squeeze, higher taxes, and reduced purchasing power. A demand for increased productivity, in a world sinking in gluts, can only lead Australia into increased economic convulsions.

Writing in the February issue of the Illustrated London News, famous historian Sir Arthur Bryant has brilliantly highlighted the essential features of Britain's financial problems, and succinctly described the necessary remedy:
"To live on borrowed money and perpetually to borrow more is not a state in which either man or nation can thrive. Yet this is the position in Britain today and one in which, though to a lesser degree she has been ever since the two world wars of the first half of the century, which were paid for by borrowing on the future. And for the past 20 years, though in peacetime, to pay for the Welfare State successive governments have been creating money to increasing borrowing on the "never never", the interest on which has to be met by ever rising taxes, price increases and charges for public services. In a quarter of a century the annual interest on central government debt has risen more than tenfold from 705 million pounds to the staggering total of 8,661 million pounds in 1980 - more, that is, than the annual cost of either defence, public health or education. In 1962 the National Debt of the United Kingdom stood at 28,674 million pounds. By 1981 it had risen to 112,780 million …"

Sir Arthur then carefully spelt out the inevitable effects on production, consumption and stability, concluding with the following recommendations:
"... The exercise of the right inherent in every sovereign state of creating and issuing a sufficiency of money to make financially possible what is physically possible and morally desirable, would enable as much real wealth to be brought into existence as, with its immense inventive and scientific potentialities, the nation is capable of making. It would give Government a freedom of action which its present dependence on borrowed money denies it.
By simultaneously allowing and anticipating a corresponding and carefully calculated reduction to be made in the taxation, which would otherwise be needed to pay the interest on further Government borrowing, it would allow industry to stabilise, instead of having to raise its prices. And wherever Government wished to help an industry or public utility, by doing so in the form of an interest free loan, that industry or public utility would no longer have to raise the price of its products or services in order to pay interest. It would make it possible for Government both to lower taxation and the rate of inflation simultaneously, and, by reducing both taxes and prices, to control the money supply ...."

PREPARING FOR THE COMING REFERENDUM

Senator Gareth Evans and his fellow Labor Socialists are determined to remove the constitutional protection of the Senate. But they know from past experience that the direct attack is the most difficult. Both Whitlam and Fraser tried that approach and were defeated at both referendums, although the Fraser attempt went close to success. The League of Rights played a vital role in that campaign.

Now there is to be a referendum, which seeks to obtain a constitutional amendment to provide fixed terms for the Federal Parliament. Aided by some members of the disintegrating Liberal Party, the Labor Socialists would like also to have four-year parliaments, but may, for tactical reasons be prepared to accept the present three-year term if that enables the fixed term to be accepted. A fixed term is the major objective.

The League has, of course, been providing educational material on the constitutional issue, the only non-Socialist organisation doing so, but it is already preparing special campaign material on the new threat to the Senate. Assuming that the poll findings are accurate, it appears that through lack of understanding and a dislike of elections, which appear to make no difference to financial and associated policies, it is a distinct possibility that the centralisers will have their way unless an effective nationwide campaign of exposure and opposition is mounted.

If Mr. Hawke can stampede the electors into carrying the proposal of a fixed term of parliament, preferably for four years if he has his way, it is almost certain that Mr. Hawke will call another general election next year, knowing that if re-elected he can do practically as he likes for the following four years. By which time Australia will move through a period of major changes to the Australian constitutional, political and social system.
Sections of the Media have already come out in support of Mr. Hawke's coming referendum. In its editorial of April 28th, "The Herald" echoes the dangerous arguments of the centralisers, arguing that fixed terms will provide government ''stability''.

In discussions and letters actionists should make the following points
1. The philosophy underlying the argument for fixed terms of parliament is one, which stresses what is called the "supremacy of parliament". This is totalitarian and implies that electors belong to the government. In a genuine democracy, the major purpose of government is to serve the electors. The government does not exist to plan the economy, which means planning people. Its proper role is to maintain a system of law and order in every field, enabling the individual in free association with his fellows, to plan his own affairs.

2. As the Senate is part of the total system of government of Australia, elected by the same people who elect the House of Representatives, then it should also have a say in all legislation, including the Budget. If the Senate is to be deprived of the power to check financial legislation, then what is the point in having a Senate?

3. The so-called "constitutional crisis" of 1975, which allegedly deprived the Whitlam Government of office, is a major myth, carefully fostered. The Governor General, representing the Crown, resolved a difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate by asking the electors to vote. It was the Australian people who voted the Whitlam government out of office.

4. There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that a fixed, four-year term for government in the United States has produced any better results than the Westminster system used in Australia.

5. Democracy means that the electors have effective control over their elected representatives. Control means the right to dismiss servants when their masters do not think they are satisfactory. The Watergate affair started in 1972. It took two years, while the United States was paralysed in many vital areas, before Richard Nixon was induced to resign. Rightly or wrongly, the overwhelming majority of the American people turned against Nixon, but because of the fixed term of government the people had no opportunity to vote against Nixon or his unelected successor, Ford, until November, 1976. By the time President Carter actually took office, this was 4½ years after Watergate. That could not happen under the British system operating in Australia. The Watergate disaster convinced many Americans that they required a more flexible system to remove an Administration, which had clearly lost the confidence of the people.

6. A fixed term means that a government can do as it likes for the term set. It would have no fear of being removed from office, irrespective of how incompetent or corrupt it became.

7. A fixed term would deprive a government of its right, under the Westminster system, to seek the views of the electorate for a number of reasons, one that might be to seek endorsement for a change of policy.

8. Most of the alleged high cost of having elections less than every three years is incurred by the parties. The staging of an election actually costs the electors only a few cents per head, surely not a high price to pay for the opportunity to have a say concerning their political servants. If the politicians are so concerned about the cost of electing governments, they might consider reducing their own salaries for a start.

It is as certain as the night follows day that if Mr. Bob Hawke, Senator Gareth Evans and associates achieve their objective of a unitary system of government in Australia, it will result in a bureaucratic monster and the end of freedom.