BLACK MAGIC UNLIMITED

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party of "Alice in Wonderland" was an event of great sanity compared with what we have been subjected to over the past week. Because someone started a silly rumour that Treasurer Paul Keating had resigned, the dollar "dived", and one headline proclaimed that FOREIGN MONEY FLEES THE COUNTRY. We were not told just how this money "fled", and why Australians should be affected.

The financial witchdoctors are waxing eloquent in their many explanations of the Black Magic of financial orthodoxy. Several witchdoctors argue that the situation demands a wage freeze and a contraction in economic growth. This would mean a deepening recession, and a further lowering of living standards at a time when Australia is physically capable of providing its people with an abundance of all the requirements of civilised living.

Echoing the general babble of nonsense about economics, Liberal leader John Howard tells Australians that Wall Street, where he has been paying homage to Australia's financial masters, is most concerned about the Australian economy. Mr. Howard is very impressed with the American situation, where the Reagan Administration has "got on top of inflation and they have remarkable price control." The lower inflation rate - which at one time would have been regarded as disastrous - is the result of a financial policy, which has been disastrous for large sectors of the American economy, particularly the farming sector.

Reports from the U.S.A. state that there is a great cleavage of opinion among financial witchdoctors as to what the Reagan Administration should do. Chairman Volcker of the Federal Reserve Board wants to continue with a "tight" credit policy because of his fear of inflation. The debt problem is becoming increasingly acute. Unemployment remains high. The new President of the World Bank, Mr. Barber Canable, a former Republican congressman from New York, says, "economic growth was the key to the debt crunch."

Under the system of debt finance, with all new money coming into existence as an interest bearing debt, all those who have escaped the brainwashing of the promoters of Black Magic, can readily grasp that greater economic growth can only result in still greater debt. The reality of the world situation is that debt has escalated in the post Second World War period along with the massive economic expansion.

Unsettled by the tide of events, Prime Minister Hawke reverted to his old self last week with an outburst of vulgar language. Some of the spokesmen for Australian industry may have been "talking bloody nonsense", but when Mr. Hawke claimed that some companies should be taken over because they were inefficient, someone should have reminded Mr. Hawke of what happened to Burke's Store, which according to ACTU President Hawke, was going to compete successfully against other Melbourne retailers. Burke's had to close its doors. Mr. Hawke is taking Australia in the same direction. Ever since he came to office he has enthusiastically accepted the embraces of the international debt merchants.

A United States economist, Mr. David Hale, is quoted by The Australian (July 7th) as stating that the "irresponsible New York investment banks" were leading Australia down the same path they had led the Latin American countries. He warned, "They are giving Australia enough rope to hang itself."

If Australia is to avoid the fate planned for it, sufficient Australians must break free from the influence of the Black Magic being promoted by the financial witchdoctors. Like the drug habit, the debt habit can only be defeated by rejecting increasing doses of debt.

BASIC ECONOMIC TRUTHS

BRIEF COMMENTS

Along with other critics of the Bill of Rights, Professor Cooray of New South Wales, has drawn attention to Article 14(a) of the Bill of Rights, which provides for rights for children while the views of parents are only to be "respected". Responding to Professor Cooray's claim that the Bill of Rights could be used to set children against parents, Attorney General Bowen writes as follows in The Bulletin of July 8th:
"Professor Cooray focuses on the words 'liberty' and 'is to be respected'. He says they are 'very significant' and illustrative of 'a scheming design.' He omits to mention that the words come straight from the relevant provision in the (United Nations) international covenant on which the Bill of Rights is based and to which almost every Western nation is a party."
Mr. Bowen merely confirms what we have consistently pointed out: that the Bill of Rights comes straight from the secular humanists of a United Nations dominated by Marxists and an assortment of murderous thugs.

We can well understand that Newsweek's correspondent Richard Manning was asked by the South African government to leave South Africa when the state of national emergency was proclaimed. It was Newsweek, which provided some of the most dishonest reporting to come out of Rhodesia when that country was struggling to survive against the same forces of international revolution now threatening South Africa. Manning adds to the growing chorus which demands that Mandela, the convicted Communist revolutionary, be released as the only man who can allegedly bring the divided blacks together to negotiate with the white government.

Generally unreported in the media was the role of Dr. Armand Hammer in organising an international medical team to assist the Soviet authorities at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Immediately following the disaster, Dr. Hammer flew to Moscow in his private plane and was personally welcomed by Gorbachev. Hammer's association with the Soviet Union goes back to the days of Lenin, and this powerful Jewish internationalist has played a major role in the industrialisation of the Soviet. Hammer has never shown any concern about alleged "anti-semitism" in the Soviet.

Prime Minister Hawke's effrontery is breathtaking. He is attacking the U.S.A. for the expansion of Soviet diplomatic and commercial activity in the South Pacific. The same Mr. Hawke is permitting the Marxist dominated African National Congress to establish itself in Australia, and assisting with funding. The South Pacific countries entering into fishing deals with the Soviet are merely following the Australian pattern, where every endeavour is made to export to the Soviet Union, with cheap Soviet tractors being brought into Australia. Mr. Hawke also criticises the Americans for not imposing sanctions against South Africa. But not without significance is the fact that Australia does not want to rush into a sanctions programme just yet - Australia is in the process of supplying a substantial order for Australian wheat.

The Victorian State Electricity reports that it lost $80 million on its overseas loans for the year 1985-86 because of the fall in the international value of the Australian dollar. The SEC's consumers will have to pay for this loss. Why couldn't the Reserve Bank have made available the necessary financial capital for the SEC? What about the borrowings overseas by the Australian Wheat Board and other organisations? It is high time Australia's primary producers started to ask some questions about this subject.

THE SILENCE WAS DEAFENING

Praise the Lord for Professor Geoffrey Blainey! In The Australian (July 5-6) his letter (below) was published under the above heading:

"I criticised the Bill of Rights in The Weekend Australian (14/6) and Mr. Lionel Bowen's reply a week later has simply confirmed the public's fears. Those fears will persist, so long as the Deputy Prime Minister sidesteps questions of crucial importance.
"Why does the Human Rights Commission need special powers, including the right to recommend jail for those who refuse to answer questions and the right to protect the anonymity of poison pen informers? Mr. Bowen replied that these powers would be used only 'in the rare case where it is necessary'. But the Bill of Rights makes no such promise.
"Why does the Bill of Rights completely ignore one of the greatest of all our liberties, trial by jury? Mr. Bowen's only comment was silence.
"Why does the Human Rights Commission need the power to sit in secrecy even though it deals with controversial political and social questions? Mr. Bowen's reply is that secrecy 'is designed to help people assert their rights'. He forgets that the same secrecy can be used to squash people's rights and also those opinions, which the Government of the day might happen to dislike.
"To my major criticism that the Bill of Rights was a bedlam of clamouring rights, many of which would contradict each other in practice, the Deputy Prime Minister was silent.
"When I observed that the father of the concept of an Australian Bill of Rights, Mr. Justice Lionel Murphy, recently stressed the importance of certain legal rights and procedures, and when I pointed out that the present Bill of Rights actually defies or denies each of these vital rights and procedures, Mr. Bowen offered no comment.
"It would be unfair to draw attention to such silent or limp replies if Mr. Bowen had lacked the space in The Weekend Australian to comment. But he had more space than he could use, for much of his 'reply' was devoted to misleading comments on questions which I hadn't even raised in the article he professed to be attacking.
"In no way do I question his motives. I simply question his ability to defend a Bill which, perhaps more than any other to be debated in our Parliament since the war, seems to be indefensible."

PETULANT FRASER

This letter, over the name of "Peter Kelly" (Ashfield, N.S.W.) was published in The Age (Melbourne), July 3rd:

"Mr. Malcolm Fraser's recent and petulant outburst because he, as a former Prime Minister, and an 'eminent person', believes he has been ignored by Opposition leader, John Howard, is deliciously ironic. "When I was a private secretary (1975-77) to another former Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon, and he was still a member of the Federal Parliament, Sir William would frequently write to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, with politely phrased economic advice. (With the advantage of hindsight, it was usually sound). "Advice was also frequently proffered and scarcely disguised by Sir William to Mr. Fraser through the media. After one of Mr. (as he then was) McMahon's many missives warning Mr. Fraser of the economic consequences if he continued to mishandle the economy, I was approached by the then Treasurer, the late Sir Phillip Lynch, who, in effect, asked me what could be done to stop Sir William's irritating criticism. He said it was getting on the Prime Minister's nerves. "I told him the best way was to take his advice.
"He asked me when did I think the former Prime Minister would retire and I said there was no sign of it and in any event certainly not until he had been awarded a knighthood. He said he would see what he could do. I relayed the substance of the conversation to Mr. McMahon. "Several weeks passed and as I had heard nothing I asked Sir Phillip what had happened. With great embarrassment, he said that he had had no luck and that 'Malcolm was adamant no knighthood'. "Sir William was eventually knighted at the insistence of an influential Liberal Party officer, his criticism in no way diminished and he retired when he was good and ready.
"The fact that Mr. Howard does not consult Malcolm Fraser is therefore poetic justice. In any event, it is hard to think in what area Mr. Fraser's advice would be worth taking. It certainly could not be anything to do with the economy, look what he did to that, and it could not be in foreign affairs, look what he did to Zimbabwe - it ended up a cruel, one party, Marxist, authoritarian, state.
"Given the above, John Howard will certainly be advised to keep his distance from Mr. Fraser."

TOO MUCH 'VISIBLE GOVERNMENT' IN AUSTRALIA

We have recently been re-reading The Invisible Government, by Dan Smoot, first published back in 1962. It deals primarily with the Council On Foreign Relations; the Trilateral Commission; the Atlantic Union; the Business Advisory Council, and other powerful organisations, which have the purpose of "selling" the World Government idea. In the Chapter, "United Nations and World Government Propaganda" we re-read material, which is highly relevant, NOW, in Australia: material concerning the individual's rights:

"Men get their rights from God, not from government. Government, a man made creature, has nothing except what it takes from God created man. Government can give the people nothing that it has not first taken away from them. Hence, if a man is to remain free, he must have a government, which will play a very limited and negative role in his private affairs. "The United States is the only nation whose institutions and organic law were founded on this principle (we believe that this is arguable ...O.T.).

The United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights; the Constitution of the Soviet Union; and the written and unwritten constitutions of every other nation in the world are all built on a political principle exactly opposite in meaning to the basic principle of Americanism. That is, the Constitution of the Soviet Union, and of every U.N. agency, and of all other nations, specify a large number of rights and privileges, which citizens should have, if possible, and which government will grant them if government can, and if government thinks proper. (We think the author disregards British Common Law; but it is what follows that is of major importance O.T.) Contrast this with the American Constitution (on which the Australian Constitution is largely based...O.T.) and Bill of Rights (our emphasis), which do not contain one statement of implication that the Federal Government has any responsibility or power to grant the people rights, privileges, or benefits of any kind.

The total emphasis in these American documents is on telling the Federal Government what it cannot do and for the people - on ordering the Federal Government to stay out of the private affairs of citizens and to leave their God given rights alone. This negative, restricted role of the Federal Government, and this assumption that God and not government is the source of man's rights and privileges, are clearly stated in the Preamble to our (American) Constitution. The Preamble says that this Constitution is being ordained and established, not to grant liberties to the people, but to secure the liberties, which the people already had (before the government was ever formed) as blessings.

The essence of the American constitutional system, which made freedom in a federal union possible, is clearly stated in the first sentence of the first Article of our Constitution and in the last Article (the Tenth Amendment) of our (American) Bill of Rights.
The first Article of our Constitution begins with the phrase, "All legislative powers herein granted...."That obviously meant the Federal Government had no powers, which were not granted to it by the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment (of the American Bill of Rights) restates the same thing with emphasis: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'.
"Clearly and emphatically, our Constitution says that the Federal Government cannot legally do anything which is not authorised by a specific grant of power in the Constitution.

There is much more. Please notice that the American Bill of Rights curtails the power of Government. There are some Australian politicians who argue that we should have the Bill of Rights in Australia, as the Americans have had a Bill of Rights for very many years. Supporters will realise that the Australian Bill of Rights is being advanced by the Canberra Socialist/Communist Government to destroy the rights and powers of both the Australian States, and Australians, as individuals. Satan ever advances his Evil under a cloak of mock humanitarianism.