HOW TO VOTE ON MARCH 13th

As we have consistently pointed out, the major political parties all subscribe to the philosophy of internationalism. A vote for any of these parties is a vote in favour of the same programme, which has been progressively followed over the past 20 years. Any vote cast for what may be described as a vote for the lesser of two evils, is an endorsement of the philosophy of internationalism.

A recent national survey shows that 80 percent of Australians support the selective use of tariffs to protect local industries. 90 percent of electors believe that the reduction in the protection of Australian industries will lead to the loss of jobs. We are not surprised to read these findings, which confirm our own assessment. But, apart from some concessions to the sugar industry by both Prime Minister Paul Keating and Dr. John Hewson, they have resisted growing pressures to ease the pressure on Australian industries before the elections.

Paul Keating has engaged in a type of doubletalk, attempting to create the impression that, for example, the car industry will be better off under a Labor Government. But the reality is that desperate as both sides are to win votes in what could be a close election, they are not prepared to make any major changes in their internationalist programmes. This is a striking confirmation of the fact that both are locked into support for the further destruction of Australian industry. They both must therefore be rejected by the electors.

The present critical plight of the nation is the result of over 20 years of betrayal by all the major political parties. Electors should therefore put them all last, supporting only those Independent candidates who are committed to the concept of the electors having a say about their own destiny. Aspects of the Swiss system of the Citizens' Initiative Referendum and Recall must be adapted to the Australian constitutional system. No candidate, irrespective of label, should be supported who is not pledged to support the traditional constitutional system of government, of which the Monarchy is a central feature. The best short-term result would be an evenly balanced House of Representatives and a Senate in which the Government does not have a majority. It's what happens after the elections that is important.

THE G.S.T. ELEMENT

It is hugely tempting to compare this Australian election with last week's Cuban election. Dr. Fidel Castro was reelected which was not surprising, considering that every candidate was selected by the Communist Party. Newspaper correspondents noted that there was little public enthusiasm in Cuba for the election, because there were plenty of candidates, but no choice in policies. The main difference between A.L.P. and Coalition is the proposal for the G.S.T. and it is now certain that the A.L.P. will focus every resource on the G.S.T. scare as a central campaign tool. This is in keeping with Keating's central campaign strategy that "better the devil you know" than the horrors of the G.S.T.

The National Farmers Federation is campaigning heavily for the G.S.T., and has even earmarked $500,000 to do so. This money was collected in 1984 and 1985 as part of a "Fighting Fund" to defend primary producers, many of whom went further into debt to contribute. In order to highlight the merits of the G.S.T., the N.F.F. is bringing a number of New Zealand farmers to Australia to sing its praises. But in any analyses of the New Zealand G.S.T. or the Canadian G.S.T., the state of those respective economies makes it almost impossible to claim that moving an economy towards a consumption tax does not solve the underlying problem.

It is not possible to argue that European countries who use the V.A.T. are better governed, and certainly it is impossible to argue that they are taxed less heavily. As columnist and political commentator B.A. Santamaria noted, "New Zealand has an unemployment rate of approximately 12 percent, one in three families live on welfare payments, only one in three families earns more than $25,000 a year. If there is a light at the end of the tunnel, it's a long tunnel."

THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

Academic economists and financial journalists in Australia have sung the praises of the G.S.T. in both N.Z. and Canada. But when they go to these countries, they talk to the treasury officials (who love the G.S.T.), academic economists and financial journalists, rarely the "man on the street". But in Canada, it is reported (by Richard Krever, Canadian born tax expert from Monash University) that in recent opinion polls, around 85 percent of ordinary Canadians remain firmly opposed to the G.S.T.

Last week's dramatic resignation of Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, after nine years as Prime Minister, was largely attributed to Canadian hatred of the G.S.T. Last spring, Mulroney's popularity sank to a low of just 12 percent. Mr. Mulroney had said that the tax (quickly dubbed the "gouge and screw tax") was a necessary evil, which faintly echoes Keating's description of the recession 'we had to have'.

It is notable, however, that although the Canadian Opposition has made much of its opposition to the G.S.T., initial promises to get rid of it have entirely disappeared. The most the Liberal Party is now promising is to "review" the G.S.T. Perhaps they have seen the Treasury figures, indicating that the G.S.T. is the most savagely efficient way of collecting taxes ever devised by man? Every single business in the country becomes an unpaid tax collector!

Newspaper reports, such as that from Clyde Graham in Ottawa, indicate that the G.S.T. is not the definitive answer to the 'black economy'. In Canada, the black economy is booming, as the G.S.T. 'net' is forcing small business underground with under-the-table cash transactions.

BURIED ISSUES

With the high-profile "leadership" campaigning, some critical issues, which should be debated, fade from sight. We note that Mr. Keating again raised the issue of an Australian republic in his policy launch last week. What is the Coalition answer to the republic? There is none. It is brushed aside as a "diversion" from jobs and the economy. But this is a central issue for the future. Why will the Coalition not campaign firmly on the constitutional monarchy?

THE IRVING DRAMA BUBBLES ON

In a major feature article for The Australian last week, Jennifer McAsey continues to rake over the coals of the visa ban on British historian David Irving. She notes that when Irving's plans to visit "were reported last October in the Australian League of Rights journal, On Target, prominent (Jewish) community members acted like lightning. They monitor the right-wing propaganda of the League of Rights, just as they read daily the coverage of Jewish issues in the daily mainstream media..."

This, of course, is not news to the League. And, of course, the League closely monitors the Jewish/Zionist press, because although the Zionist leaders are now desperately attempting to play down the perception that the Zionist/Jewish lobby can exercise enormous political clout, we know that by monitoring their press, we can often learn much about future government policy. For example, the push for the war crimes legislation was foreshadowed by the Zionist press long before it became law. This is because much of the pressure for the War Crimes Act came from, the Zionists.

It should be noted that the war crimes legislation serves the Zionist interests well - there is no proposal to charge the Japanese (or anyone in the Pacific theatre of the war) with war crimes in the light of new information, like the use of Korean, Dutch and Australian women as "comfort" corps for Japanese officers. This was simply organised rape. It should also be noted that the demands for much tighter anti-racist legislation, like the race vilification legislation, was long foreshadowed in the Zionist press.

It has been proposed for a number of years now that any questioning of the holocaust in Australia be an offence punishable by law. This is now the case in Germany and France, and David Irving has already been prosecuted, and is appealing a conviction under this legislation in Germany.

IRVING BAN COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

After Irving's deportation from Canada, in a blaze of press debate, a number of Canadian Jewish figures came to the conclusion that this was a great mistake, as it simply drew maximum attention to Irving's views. The same mistake has been repeated here, as is now acknowledged by some of the Jewish academics. David Bernstein, writing in The Australian (24/2/93) wrote:

"Surely the publicity and even the public sympathy Mr. Irving has gained as a result of the ban - to say nothing of the imputation that the Jews were implicated in the move - would have far outweighed anything he might have hoped to achieve had his visit gone ahead unimpeded ... if the object of the exercise was to acknowledge legitimate Jewish sensitivities and to avoid stirring anti-Jewish sentiment in Australia, it seems to have had the opposite effect..."

Leaders of the Zionist/Jewish community are now going to great lengths to play down their disproportionate influence on public policy. Sam Lipski, editor of the Australian Jewish News, attributes Zionist influence merely to the Jewish community being well organised with articulate leaders who put their views forcefully. But clearly there is more to it than this. It is a fact of political life that the 'holocaust' can be invoked as a ritual incantation to sear the conscience of anyone who dares to disagree with the Zionists. It has been relentlessly used as a fearful psychological weapon, and the Zionist paranoia about Irving is generated by Irving's refusal to be intimidated.

If Irving, with a reputation as a peerless expert on the documentation of World War II, undermines the key Zionist psychological weapon by exposing it to the discipline of Truth, then Western guilt could begin to moderate, and Zionist influence with it. This is the real significance of David Irving.

FROM THE CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

January, 1993
Letters-to-the-Editor published in Canadian newspapers and periodicals in recent years seem to express an increasing vehemence and passion on a whole range of public policies and issues, and reflect a steadily rising dissatisfaction and resentment with the conduct and behaviour of those handling our public affairs.

"Yet, letters to editors tell perhaps only a small part of the story. After all, for every letter published, how many are written but not published? And how many are written to M.L.A's., M.P's., and other elected and public officials? For instance, Mrs. Lloyd O. Nelson of Alberta, recently sent the following letter to Bernard Valcourt, Federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, with copies to her Macleaod constituency M.P., the Alberta Attorney General, and the Federal Minister of Justice:

"'In light of David Irving's recent arrest and expulsion, several questions come to mind. "'Why do we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, when my right to be informed on matters of my choosing is consistently violated? In a November 17 Calgary Sun article, Peter Worthington quotes multiple murderer Clifford Olson as saying, 'The Charter of Rights is a great document for me'. Am I to assume from this that the Charter of Rights works better for criminals than for taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. "'How are we to justify our much ballyhooed international reputation for tolerance, given the concerted media and establishment barrage against anyone daring to publicly express 'unorthodox' views on certain World War II events? Does not this smack of the inquisitorial tactics of the Roman Catholic Church in dealing with heretics who rightly criticised human contrived errors, slipped into church doctrine by power hungry ecclesiastical authorities?

"'What can we say to political refugees who have come here fleeing oppressive regimes where they were denied the right to speak out on sensitive issues? How are we going to explain to them in a rational manner the fine line dividing acceptable from unacceptable topics for enquiry in this great free land of ours? "'Who cracks the whip over your department?

Who is it that turns a blind eye when terrorists like Nelson Mandela visit Ottawa, then engineers the eviction of someone who's only crime lies in challenging certain aspects of history? "'Where can the few who really believe in free speech meet to discuss issues of importance without threats and harassment?

"'And finally, when will the general public realize that truth does not require draconian measures for its survival? Only lies and distortions must be perpetuated by force, permitting no voice from the other side'."

Mr. Ron Gostick, National Director of the Canadian League of Rights, undertook a massive mailing, last November ('92), to M.P's., Senators, M.L.A's., and key media personnel. In the letter, accompanying the November issue of The Canadian Intelligence Service, was this paragraph:

"Respecting our report on the 'David Irving Affair', the issue in this incredible attempt to ban a distinguished historian is freedom of speech. Not only is Irving's freedom to speak being denied, but the freedom of Canadians to listen and discuss his views with him is also being denied. This seems a frightfully heavy price for a brave and free people to pay, fearful that a guest may utter some politically incorrect viewpoint. Especially so at this time of year when we are honouring those who sacrificed their lives in defence of freedom! Did we win the war for freedom abroad, only to lose freedom at home?"