HAWKE MADNESS ON COMMUNES

Prime Minister Hawke has obviously astonished even some of his own colleagues concerning his suggestion made at the International Labour Organisation, that communes should be established in Australia for the unemployed. While the Zionists may be delighted with their idol's programme to finance in Australia a system of communes, Australians of commonsense will completely reject the concept.
The fact that Mr. Hawke has come forward with such a programme is an admission that, contrary to his pre-election promises, he has no realistic answers on the unemployment question. Mr. Hawke said in Geneva that he was considering a programme in which "the demand for jobs might be reduced in Australia". This is an indirect admission that adequate production is now possible without "full employment".

As we have constantly pointed out, every technological advance makes it possible for fewer people to produce more. Telecom's technology now makes it possible to dispense with nearly all remaining manual switchboards displacing thousands. In a sane society, those who are no longer required would be paid an adequate retiring pension. But what should be regarded as a benefit is, of course, a disaster for those who lose their incomes because of technology. Most of those to be replaced in Telecom have given many years of service.

The first essential step concerning employment is for the government to offer adequate retiring pensions, indexed against inflation, for those who wish voluntarily to leave the production system at 55, this making it possible for larger numbers of unemployed young people to be engaged. There is an enormous amount of constructive work to be done in Australia, and we have little doubt that most young Australians would prefer to participate in this work rather than join Mr. Hawke 's communes.

Those who claim that such communes have been successful in Israel are the victims of Zionist propaganda. Israel is a parasitic state, which depends for its very existence on massive aid from abroad. And in spite of this, Israel's major problem at present is to halt the exodus of disillusioned Israelis. If Mr. Hawke can consider financing a number of "self-sustaining" communes, why cannot he consider adequate finance for self-sustaining Australia?

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY FACING COLLAPSE

It seems the reality of the New International Economic Order is finally catching up with Australia's industries. On May 13, the Australian Mining Industry Council held a seminar on the subject "International Organisations and the N.I.E.O." Chairman of Western Mining Corporation, Mr. Hugh Morgan, in a statement before the seminar said (Australian 12/5/83): "... The mining industry will be the battle ground for arguments of State or Federal supremacy in matters such as finance, the environment and Aboriginal Affairs, to name but three. The impact of international organisations on our trading prospects, as they seek to establish political objectives through a new tier of international bureaucracies orchestrating the North South Dialogue debate, has already established significant momentum with commodities and trading conditions at the forefront..."

Speaking in favour of NIEO at the A.M.I.C. seminar was the Director of the Commodities Division of UNCTAD, Mr. Alex Ashiabor. Speaking against was Reader in Political Science at the London School of Economics Mr. K.R. Minogue. The L.S.E. is the tramping ground of P.T.Bauer, who has been devastating in his exposure of the NIEO and the wide misuse of foreign aid.

Meanwhile, the latest Australian company to speak out, joining REPCO and ICI, is John Lysaght (Aust.) Ltd., a member of the BHP group. In an advertisement in The Australian (1/6/83) the company (whose address is 50 Young St., Sydney) said: ... "The people of Australia are, in effect, supporting the sheet steel industries of other countries while our own industry is being damaged. Irrespective of what un-Australian importers would have Australians believe, assistance will give lower Australian sheet steel prices than no assistance ... It is tempting but destructive to believe that Australia can continue to rely on cheap supplies of imported steel..."

The advertisement was headed "WE CANNOT SPEAK IN PLAINER WORDS". (The story of how Australia's industries have been deliberately sabotaged is contained in the most recent ENTERPRISE, "The destruction of Australian Industry", 60 cents posted).

THE WILLIAMSBURG CONFERENCE

FAITH, COURAGE AND NUCLEAR TERRORISM

The following article from the May issue of the British monthly, "Home", is most appropriate at a time when much publicity is being given to the world-wide antinuclear campaign:
"The sanest statement made recently about the much publicized nuclear terror came from Dr. Blanch, the Archbishop of York, who said the Church's role "lies not only in containing the threat of nuclear war but also in countering the fear of it. Fear of disaster is, itself, a potent source of disaster, and the one sovereign antidote to fear is faith."

"Wars are not made by the common people but by those who have been corrupted by power into a desire to extend their power further. The killing, crippling and blasting are not their primary purpose, which is the creation of terror leading to submission. In this sense the war is now on, and those who are helping to spread the terror with such terms as 'nuclear holocaust' are casualties in it.
"Until recently in human history, those who made the wars could sit at home while others fought and died in them, after which they could collect the pickings of increased power; but with the nuclear bomb and missile things have gone too far even for them, and they are caught in their own trap.

"The nuclear explosion (if what we are told is to be believed) is no respecter of persons, even those in deep shelters, who have to emerge some time into a radioactive desert. The 'nuclear holocaust' is no more than a verbal terror propaganda device, of quite recent invention, but evidently a highly effective one.
"There is no sane reason at all why we should all grovel in terror of the much advertised 'nuclear exchange', which is pounded daily into our eyes and ears. It would serve no one's purpose, not even that of the most corrupt of seekers after world power. But there is real danger in the fear itself, as the Archbishop said, if it should so destroy faith and morale to a point, which invites aggression.

"The tragedy is that an aggressive, publicity seeking pacifist assault on national morale and defence can never conquer a nation to the point of submission without fighting, but can only weaken it, while giving an exaggerated impression abroad, as for instance to Hitler and Galtieri - with disastrous results.

"Nations are not persons but millions of people under governments, and the morality of turning other people's cheeks is the opposite of turning one's own cheek. "Disarmament has been contrasted with, at the worst, submission to the USSR, as morally preferable to parity of armaments with, at the worst, a totally destructive nuclear exchange. In other words, 'better Red than dead!' "But the two disasters are both attached to the one side: unilateral disarmament. If total, then total submission to nuclear threat is inevitable. If only partial, then the danger of nuclear war is increased. Only if we keep our faith and our nerve can progressive mutual disarmament and an easing of fear and tension be achieved.

"We are indeed caught in a monstrous trap of abominable evil, whereby most of mankind is subjected to this nuclear terrorism. To yield to it would be to promote evil to the governance of the world. The properties required to resist it are faith and courage and, we might add, an unflinching determination to investigate its origins, which we have yet to see impartially undertaken.

BRIEF COMMENTS

"The Prime Minister Mr. Hawke is expected to tell security authorities in Washington this week that he knows the source of the recent massive leak of classified documents on intelligence operation. Officials say the Prime Minister will be able to assure he Americans that the person identified as the source no longer has access to classified material." - From Laurie Oaks, travelling with the Prime Minister, in Sunday Telegraph", June 12th.

But who is the person responsible for the leak? And what action, if any, is to be taken against him? The failure of the government to take a firm stand against the editor of "The National Times", who calmly said that he had burned stolen classified security documents' provides little hope for constructive action on the security front.