LET THE LOYALISTS STEP FORWARD

"Essentially, Mr. Keating is making an arrogant claim to a monopoly on patriotism and nationalist sentiment. To oppose changing the flag is to be, in his words, a conservative "lickspittle", "sniveller" and "crawler"." - Editorial, The Age, 30/4/92.

Prime Minister Keating's abusive assault on one of Australia's most powerful symbols is almost certainly calculated to unleash a raw, emotionally charged debate in which the electorate is heavily polarised, and as far as he is concerned, you are either with him, or beneath contempt. The argument can later be developed that since debate on the flag is so divisive that only a new flag can heal the divisions. This was the spurious argument developed in Canada. Keating's refusal to agree to a referendum to decide any proposed changes to the flag also enrages every supporter of the flag, which the polls indicate make up the majority - sometimes by a large margin. The rage is entirely justified, since an Act of Parliament is not necessary for Keating to change the flag. A change can simply be gazetted, as the National Anthem was changed by Whitlam. Last week the Senate passed a Private Member's Bill to prevent any change to the flag without a referendum. If the Bill is ever debated in the House of Representatives, A.L.P. Members will have to decide whether they will support a referendum, or risk sharing the electoral odour with Mr. Keating. There is deep unease on the backbenches about the Prime Minister's intemperate language, and bull-in-a-china-shop tactics, with senior A.L.P. figures moving to persuade him - in private - that rhetoric is one thing (it does at least distract attention from alarming economic news) but any precipitate action could be electorally disastrous.

DIVERSIONARY ARGUMENTS
In an effort to fracture the strongly united opposition to any flag change, many diversionary arguments are being used. One argument is that the present flag was not the flag under which Australians fought and died in so many theatres of war - it was the Union Jack, or the Red Ensign, or the British Blue Ensign without the Federation Star. It is overlooked, however, that the Union Jack was a part of every flag under which Australian troops fought, except in the Korean War, or the Gulf War, in which troops served under the United Nations flag. The key unifying factor is the Union Jack, and it is the Union Jack that is under attack by Keating, his fellow republicans, and the humanists. It is the Union Jack, consisting of those three Christian crosses, which is bitterly resented, since it symbolises a thousand years of Christian heritage. This heritage must be swept aside to 'Asianise' Australia. It is also argued that the flag cannot endure indefinitely while Australia, as an immigrant nation, is in a constant state of flux. This is nonsense; the United States, the greatest immigrant nation in the world, is not troubled by arguments about their flag. This is not an argument to permit changes to the flag, this is an argument to restrict immigration to those who share, or can adopt, our heritage.

ROLE OF THE PRESS
It should not be overlooked that the press continuously underlines any "debate" on the flag, Constitution or Monarchy with the assumption that eventually change must occur because of global trends, changing attitudes, domestic forces, etc., etc. This is a long-term attempt to psychologically condition the thinking of us all, but particularly the youth. It is like the dripping water that eventually erodes the stone. It can only be countered by intelligent argument and sound reasons for retaining our institutions. Change for the sake of change must be rejected; will a different flag alter our capacity for independent policymaking as a nation? Mr. Keating has never used this argument. He should be asked when the A.L.P. will drop the flag from ALL A.L.P. literature and logos!

Irrespective of psychological condition, students are not all becoming victims of Keating's propaganda. When a vote was held at one Victorian primary school, only 170 of 541 students voted for change, surprising and delighting the teacher. It is perhaps significant that this was a country school. The flag is a potent national symbol, in which much emotional energy is invested. One letter published in a newspaper noted: "In August 1945, an Australian flag was raised over a group of skeletal, sick Australians in a Japanese P.O.W. camp in Thailand and all wept unashamedly. This flag had been concealed and carried by an Australian soldier whose bravery would have resulted in a severe bashing to the point of death or execution had he been caught with it.... In war cemeteries around the world. ... our present Australian flag flies over the graves of those who never came back. Are they to be dishonoured if a new flag of no meaning to them is to replace the flag they have lain under for 77 years?"

It is not a sign of political and national maturity to consider changing the flag. It is a sign of national insecurity and dearth of identity, a sign of immaturity and confusion. Let those who are confused stand aside, and those who know their history, their heritage and their identity step forward to defend the Crown and the flag. The League of Rights will be honoured to help spearhead the fight.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The only comment necessary on the wave of violence and looting which swept the U.S.A. following a jury unanimous opinion that four white policemen were not guilty of using excessive force against a black motorist is that multiculturalism in the U.S.A. is proving to be an increasing disaster. The case also graphically demonstrated that what one sees on television does not necessarily present an accurate picture of an event. As one of the jurors said, the much publicised amateur video showing the police beating the black motorist, did not show what had happened prior to this action, expressing the view that the motorist only had himself to blame for what had happened. The latest example of violence in multiracial U.S.A. should be a lesson for Australians.

Evidence to hand from all over Australia confirms our long held view that ultimately immigration would become a major political issue. The Federal Government is well aware that the present immigration policy is creating increasing resentment throughout Australia and has become a major political liability. Thus the talk of cutting back on the number of immigrants and an insistence that all immigrants coming to Australia should have a working knowledge of the English language. The professional multiracial lobby groups, financed by the Australian taxpayers, are expressing alarm. Immigration is going to be a major issue at the next Federal elections. The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commissioner has reported that complaints of "racial discrimination" have doubled over the past 10 months, evidence of growing social friction as a result of the attempt to force Australia down the multiracial road. There are those who have a vested interest in both fostering and exploiting racial friction. The more homogeneous a society, the less the friction.

Acting on what he obviously believes to be sound legal advice, Mr. Phil Cleary has taken his seat in the Federal Parliament as the new representative for the electorate of Wills, confident that he has not breached the Constitution. From a political point of view, we can see no merit in attempting to have Cleary disqualified on the charge that he was a paid employee of the Crown when he stood. The reality is that Cleary, a rather woolly minded radical in the past, provided a focal point for the widespread community unrest, which crosses all party political divisions. The most important aspect of the Cleary victory was that it helped to foster community perception that Independents can be elected over the major political parties. Like Ted Mack before him, Cleary has already discovered that the Federal Parliament takes on a life of its own "to such an extent that the participants often don't see the lack of connection between their activities and the thinking that is going on in the community".

One of the most disturbing features of Australia's first war crime trial, being held in Adelaide, has been the failure of the media to provide reporting which would enable the Australian people to realistically assess the case. Clearly there has been a form of press censorship. A League representative has been monitoring the case. It appears that the present committal trial will finish in about two weeks. The whole affair is a national disgrace and hopefully the whole obscene farce of war crime trials will be brought to an early end. Zionist propagandists in Canada continue to press for another trial of Hungarian born Imre Finta, found not guilty at a trial by jury. In Israel Ukrainian born John Demjanjuk continues to be held in prison, while the evidence mounts that he could not possibly have been guilty of the charges against him. But Zionist vengeance knows no bounds, and attempts are being made to bring new charges against Demjanjuk.

HERITAGE CAMPAIGN

Monarchist Offensive
We have made arrangements for the FLAG advertisement which you will see on the back page of this issue of On Target Bulletin to be inserted in The Australian of Tuesday, May 5th (as we go to press). This is another major "shot" in our overall Heritage Campaign, which opened with Barry Tattersall's address on the Monarchy to the Melbourne Conservative Speakers' Club on Monday, April 6th. The video and audiotapes of this Address are available: video, $33 posted, and audio, $6 posted.

This FLAG advertisement, which may be "fine tuned" according to conditions of political climate, geography, time, etc., etc., if necessary, will now be inserted in the print media throughout Australia, with particular attention being paid to rural areas. Now, for essential administrative reasons, this campaign is to be decentralised - this meaning that State Directors, and even more essentially, regional directors, should be in touch, early, with the National and Advisory National Directors to "tool up" for the task ahead. For example, regional directors should have adequate stocks of the Flag Tape and suitable Heritage (magazine) issues to service the enquiries which will be flowing to their regional addresses from the Heritage advertisements placed by them in their regional newspapers! Regional directors should get their teams together now, and discuss their campaigns for immediate action. We are waiting to hear from you.