PERCEPTIONS WITHOUT REALITIES

The Ian Macphee affair, along with the loss of pre-selection by Victorian Liberals Shipton and Aldred, has been a godsend to those members of the media who are dedicated to keeping the Hawke Government in office. The Media Mafia are doing their best to create the impression that the defeat of Macphee is further evidence of the Coalition's growing subservience to the "new right".

There is no doubt that Ian Macphee's stand on immigration and several other issues earned him a growing dislike among those members of the Liberal Party who are concerned about what they see as evidence of trendy liberalism among their Liberal politicians. But these Liberals, and others who think like them, are suffering from a major delusion if they believe that the removal of the Macphees is going to have any marked effect on the major policies of a Coalition government headed by John Howard.

Mr. John Howard and Liberal Party strategists have been endeavouring for some time to create a perception of the Liberal Party as one, which will return Australia to traditional values. Mr. Howard attempted to do this on the immigration issue, but instead of boldly grasping the nettle on the immigration issue, immediately backed away when the Media Mafia subjected him to the blowtorch treatment.

The most dangerously insidious argument is that which suggests that a party must "play down" certain basic issues until it is elected. "We must first gain power before we can do what we really want to do," runs the age-old argument. But the realities of power dictate that every new set of politicians soon becomes subservient to the power it has inherited from its predecessors, and soon starts to rationalise its support for the same policies imposed by its predecessors.
Politicians who do not openly assert before being elected that they propose to take immediate steps after being elected, to start decentralising power back to the people, are extremely unlikely to do this, and progressively become corrupted by centralised power.

We have repeatedly said that we believe that John Howard is an earnest and honest man, but has such a limited outlook on finance economics, the major instrument of centralised power, that it is unrealistic to believe that he could as Prime Minister bring himself to reverse what is taking place under the Hawke Government. John Howard was a strong supporter of one of the major surrenders of Australian sovereignty, by the internationalisating of the Australian banking industry. On several occasions he complained that Paul Keating had "stolen" his policy on the "de-regulation" of banking. Last week John Howard went further and said that he strongly supported greater, not less, foreign investment in Australia. This comes at a time when there is mounting concern in Australia about what has been described as "The Second Japanese Invasion".

In last week's address to the Canberra press gallery John Howard spelt out clearly his views: "... if we want less foreign investment in Australia, then what we have to do is either make our economy perform better quite dramatically or alternatively cop an even lower standard of living." John Howard was supported by Mr. Andrew Peacock, a man with a long record of support for surrendering Australian sovereignty to internationalism. John Howard suggests that with a change in economic policies Australia could be less dependent upon foreign investment. But this statement is one, which seeks to create perceptions without offering any real substance.

John Howard and his colleagues would sweep into office if they bluntly told the Australian people that they would upon being elected start to decentralise power through a re-generation of the Federal system, with the States being placed in the position where they were financially sovereign; that the Federal Government would be confining itself to those matters, such as defence, for which the Federal Government had been originally created. John Howard could tell the Australian people that his Government would ensure that Australia progressively withdrew from all international agreements, which had been used as excuses for by-passing the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

But the greatest "king hit" John Howard could deliver the Fabian centralisers under Prime Minister Hawke, would be to give a firm assurance that his programme of de-centralising power would extend to the principle of the Swiss system of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. If John Howard announced, "We trust the Australian people to make direct decisions about their own affairs, and our first action will be to hold a referendum to permit the Australian people to vote by referendum on the question of whether or not they want the Swiss principle incorporated into the Federal Constitution", he would demonstrate that behind the perceptions he is attempting to create, there is real substance. The Australian people are longing for such substance. But, unfortunately as John Milton put it in his famous words, "The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed". If John Howard will not feed the sheep, they will be looking elsewhere for substance.

THE GREENHOUSE HOAX

by David Thompson
"The intensifying media blitz on every aspect of the environmental argument now resembles an outright propaganda campaign of the first magnitude. "Do you recall the early days of the 'Oil Crisis' propaganda campaign, with learned warnings from scientific experts about the last few drops of fuel? The campaign on the 'greenhouse effect' appears to have reached these proportions, with continual references to the heating of the planet, and the destruction of the Ozone layer, as if this was a matter of established fact. However, not all scientists agree with the 'evidence' presented so far.

Journalists Carol White and Rogelio Maduro interviewed leading scientists, some arguing that there has been a very slight warming of the earth for the last 100 (one hundred) years, while others present convincing evidence that there has been a cooling. The majority say that the only honest answer is ' we don't have any conclusive evidence either way'. But uniformly they condemn the present hysteria being peddled by the news media as lacking any scientific basis.

"The hysteria exploded in June of last year (1988) when extreme drought was destroying much of that year's crops. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York told Senate hearings at that time that the drought was the result of the greenhouse effect, and that 'we can state with confidence that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation'. "Hansen and his collaborators have based their outrageous statements on a very scant temperature record, and computer models of climate that are extremely coarse and unreliable.

"The truth is exactly the opposite. The severe U.S. drought and a pattern of associated weather anomalies cannot be attributed to a gradual warming trend - which even according to its opponents, would only have serious effects on the global climate and economy 50 to 100 years hence…

"The news media appear to be playing their part in the campaign by systematically 'blacking out' any responsible scientist prepared to refute or even doubt the warnings of imminent cataclysm. Therefore, there must be other motives involved. As with the 'energy crisis' the end result of the campaign was centralisation of power, with large numbers of small oil producers eliminated. In Australia, the Fraser Government used the 'oil crisis as an excuse to jack up fuel prices to 'world parity prices', where they remain to this day, irrespective of the real cost of oil.

"As the British scientific 'expert', Edward Goldsmith, pointed out, the environmental problems, like destruction of Brazilian rainforests, acid rain in Europe, warming of the polar snow cover, and rising sea levels - are international problems. In order to force nations to modify wasteful and damaging industrial methods, international sanctions (power groups) are required.

"The 'greenhouse effect' is the ideal excuse for further centralisation of power on a global scale. It is almost impossible for the individual to assess the state of the Ozone layer, the amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, or the temperature trends over 100 years. We can expect an intensification of the propaganda campaign, in lieu of hard evidence of rising temperatures or genuine debate among scientists in public..."

BRIEF COMMENT

BIG BROTHER NOW HAUNTING THE WEST

The Australian Bureau of Statistics "heavies" are now striking in Western Australia. Some 650 families in W.A. are being harassed under threat of a $100 per day fine for refusal to co-operate. Last year, a pensioner in Queensland was fined over $2,000 for such refusal. Unless the hopeless Liberals and Nationals can muster enough "steel" to condemn and curb this outrageous Fascist Gang (A.B.S.) - the harassment of Australian families will go on. At least, the Opposition parties should clearly state that the powers of the A.B.S. will be severely curbed on their return to power (if ever!).

Never forget that the Minister in charge of the Australian Bureau of Statistics is PAUL KEATING.

Liberal parliamentarians who have performed well against the A.B.S. legalised blackmail are Don Cameron (Lib.), Allan Rocher (Lib.) and especially Senator Shirley Walters, of Tasmania.

MORE ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE HOAX

The Australian (May 4th): An article by journalist Kate Legge, details how fear of environmental catastrophe has turned the World Bank and the White House, green. Just a few extracts will confirm the major thrust of David Thompson's article in this issue of On Target:

"The scientists and greenies suddenly have company as the environment begins to dominate world debate (It just happened, of course, no organisation behind it ... O.T.). "Fears that excess carbon dioxide and other gasses are creating a greenhouse effect and destroying the Ozone layer now stir the hearts of such organisations as the World Bank, and conservative political leaders - even Britain's Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, who knows what a power election ploy it is...

"Banks are now cooperating with conservation groups in the negotiation of 'debt-for-nature-swaps'. And the World Bank says it is paying increasing attention to the environmental consequences of projects it sponsors." (The emphasis is ours ... O.T.) How about this? "The novel concept of 'debt-for-nature-swaps' is one way of shouldering the cost of environmental protection. It involves the acquisition of debt by environmental and other private groups (one guess who the 'other private groups' are ... O.T.) at a discount and the redemption of that debt in local currency bonds to be used for conservation purposes... The biggest deal was unveiled last month when U.S. conservation groups and commercial banks collaborated on an $11.1 million debt-for-nature swap with Ecuador.
"The debt was purchased by the World Wildlife Fund, American Express Bank, and the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, and converted into local currency bonds by Ecuador's chief conservation group…"

Now comes the sting: Not all debtor nations support the swaps. Brazil, which holds 30% of the world's tropical forest, and $115 Billion in foreign loans, opposes this kind of international 'help' because of the strings attached (emphasis ours ... O.T.). the President of Brazil, Mr. Sarney, blasted 'great powers or organisations that would dictate to us how to defend what is ours to defend' .. Strings, strings, strings. Yes, there are STRINGS: and the strings are held by the international banks.

END OF THE WORLD? OH REALLY?