THE DANGER OF A HOWARD WIN BY DEFAULT

Our older readers will recall how before the 1975 Federal Elections, insisted upon by Governor General, Sir John Kerr, we warned that it could prove disastrous if the Coalition parties, led by Mr. Malcolm Fraser, won office only as a result of the deep resentment against the policies of the Whitlam Government; without offering any constructive alternative policies. To those who said, "But a Fraser Government could not be as bad as the Whitlam government", we said it could prove to be an even worse government. Events unfortunately proved our warnings well based.

The Fraser disasters eventually paved the way for the Hawke victory. Prime Minister Hawke almost immediately demonstrated that there was no basic change of direction in foreign policy: ex-Prime Minister Fraser was appointed to direct the Commonwealth campaign against South Africa. Federal Treasurer Paul Keating proceeded to implement Mr. John Howard's policy of permitting foreign banks to enter Australia. Those who do not learn from past history are doomed to see a repeat of past mistakes, or a continuation of them. There is no evidence to suggest that if Mr. John Howard became Prime Minister tomorrow there would be any real change in the general direction in which Australia is heading.

The Federal Opposition has released a 23-page document condemning the Hawke Government for "presiding over the unprecedented financial enslavement of Australia to the rest of the world." The enslavement is, of course, to the international Banks. It is true that Australia's external debt has trebled in the five years of Hawke Government, from $24 billion to over $100 billion. But this policy is but an extension of the same policy of enslaving the nation pursued by the Fraser government, in which Mr. Howard was the Federal Treasurer. The Fraser Government's policy of financial enslavement, both external and internal, made the Whitlam policies appear moderate!

There is no doubt about the seriousness of Australia's external debt position, and it is probably true, as Senator Button has recently said that Australia was at one time threatened with an intervention by the International Monetary Fund, proposing a programme of 'restraint' which would have reduced pensions by 25% and incomes by 30%. Mr. Paul Keating has been the darling of Wall Street only because the debt merchants are satisfied that he can preside over a financial policy which is progressively reducing the real standard of living for the majority of Australians, even if the corporate sector is becoming more powerful.

Mr. John Howard and his colleagues have offered no evidence that they have any policy other than along the same lines being pursued by the Hawke Government. It was the Fraser Government which put part of Australia, in South West Tasmania, under the World Heritage Commission, closely linked with the Marxist dominated UNESCO, and made it possible for the Hawke Government to win the High Court case concerning the Franklin River dam. This decision was a frightening manifestation of the success of the long term Fabian strategy for eroding the Federal Constitution.

The Hawke Government threatens thousands of Australians in North Queensland, not only those involved in the timber industry, but large numbers of farmers, businessmen and others, with the surrender of yet another part of Australia to international control. The Howard Opposition does not fight the proposed surrender, merely stating that the surrender should not be quite as big as proposed by the Hawke Government. Those who may have been heartened with a headline in The Weekend Australian of March 5th-6th, NFF JOINS WAR AGAINST HERITAGE, would, if they read the article underneath, learn that the National Farmers Federation, in keeping with its support for centralisation, does not object to the principle of surrender, merely suggesting that better surrender terms should be negotiated.

John Howard, Andrew Peacock and other Liberal leaders, including multi-nationalist John Elliott, are, along with the Hawke Government, supporters of the New International Economic Order. And they also support the current disastrous immigration policy. Australia is not going to be saved by shuffling party politicians who generally support policies, which vary only in degree, but not in substance, steeped in a collectivist and centralist philosophy. Salvation will come through the generation of a grassroots movement directed towards ensuring, for a start, that Australians regain control of their own Constitution by the inclusion of the Swiss principle of the right of electors to force major issues to a referendum, the results of which are then binding on the government.

MULTIRACIAL MADNESS

Mr. Clyde Holding was the Minister who played a major role in the Australian surrender programme when large parts of Australia were listed under the Aboriginal "Land Rights" formula. He was responsible for appointing veteran Fabian Socialist, Ken Gott, at the taxpayers' expense, to report on the League of Rights, which had led the campaign against "Land Rights". The League sold tens of thousands of copies of Red Over Black, by former top Communist Geoff McDonald. Now Clyde Holding has been moved to the key position of Minister for Immigration, where he will be attempting to intensify the further surrender of traditional Australia. The policy of multiracialism, with the fragmenting of a basically European community, is a treacherous one, even if supported by some shortsighted business leaders we believe that bringing more non-Europeans to Australia will be good for business.

From Canada comes the news that the Mulroney Government is reacting to the growing backlash against its liberal multiracial immigration policy, which has, for example, permitted alleged Tamil refugees to enter the country, by bringing forward a Bill which officially proclaims Canada to be a multiracial nation. Even the Soviets are grappling with the problems created by multiracialism. Tass has been forced to admit that there have been violent racial riots in the Caspain industrial port of Sumgait: with large numbers killed. The defence of Australia requires united opposition to the present threatening immigration policy.

BRIEF COMMENTS

There has been an almost complete blackout on the second Zundel trial in Toronto, Canada. Judge Ronald Thomas has ruled that "the Holocaust is so notorious that it cannot be disputed" and must be taken as fact! Every attempt is being made to confine the case to the question of did Zundel publish statements he knew to be false, and to try to ensure that Zundel does not obtain wide publicity for evidence showing that the widely promoted story that the Germans gassed to death six million Jews, is false, and that there have been exaggerations concerning the number of Jewish casualties during the Second World War.
(Recommended reading: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Dr. Arthur Butz. The meticulously researched and documented classic, which has never been answered by the Establishment historians $18.50 posted).

Mr. Mark Aarons of the ABC is a member of a Marxist family, which played a prominent role in attempting to advance Marxist strategy and tactics in Australia. Mark Aarons was the producer of the ABC radio series on "Nazis in Australia", the contributing towards the campaign to have "Nazi war criminal" trials in Australia. The Communist press supports this outrageous policy. But so do the Zionists, with few exceptions. Replying to one of his Jewish critics, Mr. Michael Danby; Mr. Aarons writes in The Bulletin of March 8th: ".... the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies wrote to me to 'congratulate you on the very high standard of your Background Briefing series ... 'Nazis in Australia'. Your impressive research has done much to highlight the need for a full injury into the possibility of the presence of Nazi war criminals in this country." Aarons also says that the Executive Council of Australian Jewry was sufficiently impressed to seek my cooperation in their own enquiries." The Zionist-Communist dialectical nexus continues as it has over most of this century.

An interesting news item from Panama: The crisis in Panama has resulted in a "run" on the banks, with people attempting to withdraw their money. But as every student of the banking system knows, the banks never have more than a fraction of the total amount of money supply in the form of cash - they have created the bulk of it in the form of financial credit, at little cost to themselves. So when people start drawing deposits out, demanding cash, it is not long before the banks have to close their doors. This has happened in Panama. It would also happen in Australia if Australians did what Panamanians have been doing. (Essential reading: The Money Trick $6 posted}.

M.P,s MUST LIFT THEIR GAME

PROJECT COMPASSION

THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU

"Anyone is perfectly entitled to advocate changes to the constitution. "It is quite another thing, however, for taxpayers' funds to be used for a politically motivated campaign that is bombarding the Australian people with a flood of propaganda denigrating the workings of our very good Constitution.
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE ONLY LAW THE PEOPLE HAVE
Its purpose is to keep politicians in check and to limit their power. "However, it seems that politicians consider themselves beyond the law in this country at the moment, and they have been responsible, by very devious means for quite illegal changes to the Constitution. "I will give you an example. "Look at Section 100 of your Constitution; it is very clear, and to my mind, written in simple understandable English. "What could be clearer? Most Australians would be aware that the Tasmanian people were overruled on this Section; illegally.

"The Constitution is very clear (see Section 128. It can only be legally changed by a referendum; yet it was changed very deviously without one, and it was done this way:- "When the Australian people were asked to give their Federal Government power over foreign affairs they were never told what the politicians had in mind to change other parts of the Constitution. "The High Court was asked to rule on this matter, even though they had NO legal or moral jurisdiction to do so. "In effect, foreign affairs was interpreted to give the government power to sign treaties with any foreign set up (United Nations, for example) and these treaties override any of our own laws. This opens the door for the Federal Government to have total control of all aspects of our lives. "The deciding vote of one judge was taken as the majority vote of all Australians and the Constitution was interpreted as being changed. Have you ever heard of a more massive miscarriage of justice one man speaking for ALL the Australian people?)

So, our first problem is to make politicians responsible under law. "NO OTHER CHANGE WOULD BE NECESSARY. "If the politicians don't respect our old and valued rules, what can we expect them to do with the new ones? "If Section 100 cannot be respected, what section can be? "Letting politicians and the public servants write a new Constitution would be akin to putting a rabbit, in charge of a lettuce patch; the results would be both predictable and disastrous. "Under the present Constitution, the people are the authority and the only legitimate purpose of the government is to act according to the will of the people. It follows that any act of parliament that does not reflect the will of the people is illegal and should not be recognised at law. "This is the very basis of our Christian Democracy. "The only weakness of our Constitution is that it did not foresee the formation of the undemocratic and worthless system of party politics…"