SOUTH AFRICA'S CONTINUING RETREAT

The South African Government continues its futile attempts to placate its international enemies. It's main Achille's Heel is its strict adherence to financial orthodoxy and its acceptance of the liberal poison of egalitarianism. The Botha Government continues to persuade the International Bankers that it is striving to introduce political "reforms" in order that existing foreign debts may be "re-scheduled" and new loans obtained. The South African Government is dominated by the same myth to which the Hawke government subscribes; that "foreign capital" is necessary to domestic developments. South Africa's real credit base, its productive capacity, is sufficient to enable it to issue its own financial credit on a cost of administration basis.

A realistic financial policy would make it possible to overcome the internal problems being so successfully exploited by the revolutionaries directing the blacks. South Africa is a food-exporting nation with a highly sophisticated industrial system. But a stand against the internationalists is unlikely from South Africa's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. R.F.Botha, whose liberalism was openly displayed in his maiden speech in the South African Parliament back in 1970. Botha announced that the time had come for South Africa to align itself openly with the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.

This announcement received the support of the South African Government in which the present State President, Mr. P.W.Botha, was then the Minister for Defence. Members of the South African Government ignored the warnings of those who pointed out the type of "human rights" envisaged by the framers of the UN Declaration, are Marxist orientated. As the South African politicians saw that other "conservative" governments around the world were also embracing the UN Declaration, it might assist South Africa to do likewise.

When Mr. R.F. Botha, generally known as "Pik", eventually became South Africa's Minister for Foreign Affairs, his appointment was warmly welcomed at the UN and other centres of international power. When he departed from the U.S.A. as South Africa's Ambassador at the U.N. his "final triumph" was a personal meeting with President Jimmy Carter, while his farewell party in Washington was attended by Dr. Henry Kissinger, and by senior American State Department officials, including William Rogers, who had along with "Pik" Botha played a major role in the negotiations which eventually led to the final surrender of Rhodesia.

"Pik" Botha has maintained his close links with the internationalists, and in 1983 defended Henry Kissinger in the South African Parliament, claiming that Kissinger was a fine conservative who had stood firmly against the Soviet Union. According to "Pik" Botha, Kissinger was even more anti-Soviet than President Ronald Reagan! The Great Russian exile, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, is one of the many real authorities on Communism who does not endorse "Pik" Botha's assessment of Kissinger.

The influential liberal "Washington Post", in an article of March 24th, 1984, praised "Pik" Botha as South Africa's chief spokesman and representative in "The new peace initiative with South Africa's Marxist neighbours.... including Mozambique." "Pik" Botha has close links with the International Zionist movement.

When Western governments, including Australia's, were re-calling their diplomatic representatives for talks with their governments on the "state of emergency" declared in South Africa, International President Kraft of B'nai B'rith, one of the world's most powerful Zionist organisations, suddenly appeared in South Africa. Although Kraft's stated purpose was to meet "leading opinion and policy makers", and was warmly welcomed by the State President, P.W.Botha, and by "Pik" Botha, no reports appeared concerning what was said.

While the South African Government has been developing close economic and military ties with Israel, Zionists in the U.S.A. and elsewhere have been prominent in the campaign demanding "political reforms in South Africa. As C.H. Douglas observed, the establishment of the State of Israel was not to provide a national home for the Jews, the overwhelming majority of whom have no intention of living in Israel, but to be used to create developments which could then be exploited in the interest of what one Zionist spokesman described as "a far reaching plan."

Soviet strategists, who played a major role in the establishment of Israel, would agree with this. By helping to establish the Zionist State and creating a running sore with the dispossessed Palestinians, the Soviet has destabilised the Middle East and done what most once thought impossible: deeply penetrated the Moslem world.

It is clear that the Zionist-Communist dialectical moves have brought South Africa to the beginning of the end unless the growing electoral backlash against the Botha Government can force a change. Much depends upon the Conservative Party, which, on present indications, will at the next Federal Elections deprive the Botha Government of power. South Africa is now the major front line in the struggle for the world.

SUBVERSIVE 'AUSTRALIA ACT'

As yet few Australians know anything about what is known as the Australia Act. All states have passed legislation which, although allegedly designed merely to "tidy up" residual constitutional links between the Australian States and the United Kingdom, in conjunction with the threatened Bill of Rights, would have the effect of advancing the Fabian programme for subverting the constitutional rights of the Australian people. We have seen no media reporting on the passing of legislation by the States, except in Queensland where the Liberal leader, Sir William Knox, raised some serious questions about the implications of the legislation.

But having raised the alarm, Sir William then voted for the legislation, introduced by the Premier himself, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, on September 26th of last year. Similar legislation was passed in the Federal Parliament just before Christmas. If the Opposition had been awake, it should have been alerted to the dangers in the legislation when Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on the Australia Bill in the Senate on June 15th, 1984, said, ".... It is necessarily a very slow business not only getting the sheep into their pens but also keeping them there for long enough actually to legislate. We are trying to do that. We are very close to and I hope we will be able to accomplish it..."

As a number of investigators started to examine what the Australia Act really meant, with several constitutional experts warning of its far reaching implications, the disturbing question arose of how the Queensland Premier had been lulled into a sense of false security. Have his advisers let him down? Or is the Premier carrying such a heavy work load that he did not comprehend the dangers in the legislation, which he had introduced?

In a remarkable letter which in The Telegraph, Brisbane, of January 14th, Mr. Arthur Tuck, author of well known book, The Australian Revolution, asked whether the Premier was unwittingly helping to create a Republic! Mr. Tuck pointed out that under the legislation, the Queen is to be stripped of all her powers. The State Governors may no longer withhold assent to legislation. "There will be no appeal to the Queen in Council (Privy Council) at all. Other aspects of the legislation increase the powers of the Federal Government.

The burning question at the moment is whether there can be any challenge to legislation already passed by all the States, the Federal Parliament, with complementary legislation now being introduced into the British House of Commons (our understanding is that it has been passed by the House of Lords). It may be necessary for an injunction to be taken out in the Courts. Action along those lines is being contemplated by a number of citizens, some of them prominent in public life. We hope to report further on this disturbing question next week. Perhaps the best hope of something being done rests with the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a man with the proven courage to reverse himself if he feels he has been misled.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL 'REFORM' LEGERDEMAIN

"The Prime Minister Mr. Hawke, yesterday praised the 'vision' of the Federal Attorney General Mr. Bowen, in giving Australia the chance for constitutional reform." "Legerdemain", according to our dictionary, means "sleight-of-hand" "tricky deception": That sort of thing. The Australia Bill (above) is classic political legerdemain - no one saw it in time. Knowing our political adversaries, and their Fabian Socialist/Humanist/ Communist ideology, we can confidently predict that constitutional "reform" will mean political legerdemain; sheer trickery: under the guise of something else. Like the Bill of "Rights", which will strip the individual of his traditional rights in Australia.

Reading the remarks of Messrs. Hawke and Bowen, and Gareth Evans, we clearly detect intellectual arrogance, and deception. The people must be "consulted", and have political programmes "explained" to them. Oh, Yes: Just like the Australia Bill and the Bill of Rights? Tricky humbug!