PERMANENT WAR

by Eric D. Butler
Last week I was phoned by a man who wanted to know could I recommend something to read on the current state of the "Douglas Credit Movement", which he recalled having read about when a young man. I had to explain that the state of the world, including environmental problems and trade conflicts, was simply a manifestation of a persistent attempt to make an unrealistic policy work.

As far as I know, Orwell of 1984 fame had no direct contact with Social Credit, but in his futuristic novel he provided a vivid picture of a world of three great super-states constantly in a state of tension, with their economies sustained by manufacturing military equipment for limited conflicts, which never erupted into a major World War. In many ways, this Orwellian scenario resembles the state of the world today.

In his first major work, Economic Democracy, C.H. Douglas, the author of Social Credit, drew attention to the implications of his discovery that orthodox finance economic policies made it impossible for sufficient purchasing power to be distributed for people to meet the total prices of their production over any given period. Because of this deficiency of purchasing power, there was conflict between stores in every village. The chain store was the end result of this conflict. Then eventually chain stores were amalgamated into national organisations, these then becoming absorbed into international organisations. There has been an on-going attempt to resolve the problem of deficient purchasing power by a progressive centralisation of power. The ultimate objective is to abolish, if possible, the sovereign national state.

For weeks the headlines have proclaimed a growing state of "war" between Japan and the U.S.A. The basic feature of the "war" between Japan and the U.S.A. is very simple. The Japanese have been able to export much more, mostly motor cars and motor car parts, to the U.S.A. than the Americans have been able to export to Japan. One headline read, "JAPAN BLAMED FOR RECORD U.S. DEFICIT".

In the real world, the rest of the world could sink beneath the sea tomorrow and the American people would be left with adequate resources to meet their basic economic requirements, to feed, house and clothe themselves, but American trade negotiators have said that "Japan is the second largest economy in the world. They have a responsibility to open their markets". Japan has been blamed for a probably "modest recession" in the U.S.A. because it will not import more American production. But Japan itself is in a recession and any relaxing of controls against imports can only intensify growing political instability.

After weeks of dramatic headlines, all suggesting that there was the threat of a full-scale trade war between the U.S.A. and Japan, it was announced that a "deal" had been made and that a dangerous trade war had been averted. But there have been casualties, although these will only emerge over time.

One thing is certain
The Clinton Administration's aggressive campaign against the Japanese has made a mockery of the much-vaunted free-trade dogma. Needless to say, both the U.S.A. and Japan claimed victory in the trade deal reached. But as one commentator observed, the Japanese strategy was to "buy" time without giving too many hard promises. President Clinton's primary concern is to get himself re-elected and for this reason he must concern himself not only about the Japanese economy but also about the expanding Chinese economy.

The wise Chinese sage Confucius observed that it is no use running harder if you are already on the wrong road. All the Asian "Tiger" economies are already running progressively harder on the wrong road, all striving to make their internal economies work by still greater activity. This means greater exports. This means mounting conflict between nations. Other problems then emerge. But there is no solution if the basic flaw in the present finance-economic system remains. The first nation to correct that flaw will lead the world to genuine peace. There is no reason why Australia should not be that nation.

BREAKING THE CHAINS OF INTIMIDATION

by David Thompson
Perhaps Miss Ita Buttrose has served Australia just as well as the returned servicemen she addressed at the R.S.L. Conference in Victoria, when she charged that 'political correctness' has turned Australia into a nation of wimps and bores. If her stirring address acts as a catalyst that helps to break the political and social taboo on the discussion of such things as immigration policy and multiculturalism, then her contribution ranks very highly.

Invited to address the Conference by Mr. Bruce Ruxton, Miss Buttrose (who holds the Order of Australia) condemned those who have effectively stifled all discussion on issues such as immigration, multiculturalism, Aborigines and women's issues, and urged fellow Australians to strike back. Miss Buttrose warned that Australia had become the "silent country", and that we had become afraid to speak our minds for fear of appearing foolish, offending minority groups.

Although there is no report indicating that she mentioned the Racial Hatred Bill, now languishing before the Senate, it is an obvious target of her comments. It is notable that the civil provisions of the Bill make it an offence to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" others on the basis of national or ethnic origin.

In a healthy sign, Professor Geoffrey Blainey was happy to support Miss Buttrose, and drew attention to a tendency for the 'politically correct' to score 'victories' by shouting down opponents, rather than through rational debate. "It's not a sign of a healthy democracy," he is reported as saying. The President of the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties, Mr. Robert Richter, Q.C., also supported her, noting that it is dangerous to become swept up by matters of political orthodoxy, because fashions quickly change.

THE DEMIDENKO BOOK

Even the purveyors of political correctness, the press, have offered editorial support for Miss Buttrose, with the Herald Sun in Melbourne demanding that politicians stop yielding to the use of ballot box blackmail by minority groups to force their views on the rest of us. But while this editorial writer demands "rational discussion (that) a healthy democracy needs", his newspaper published a column opposite the editorial page by Mr. David Greason, touted as an "expert" on the League, in which he adds to the roar of condemnation of Miss Helen Demidenko. She is the author of the novel The Hand that Signed the Paper, which was awarded the 1994 Vogel Literary Award, and now the prestigious Miles Franklin Award.

But it now appears that the powerful Zionist/Jewish lobby has discovered that Miss Demidenko did not sufficiently condemn the "anti-Semitism" of some of her Ukranian characters in the novel. And she depicted the Ukranian Communist Government during World War II as containing a preponderance of Jews, which has enraged the Zionists.

Miss Demidenko's book is a work of fiction, highly regarded in literary circles. It was written from a Ukranian perspective, commenting on the use of war crimes trials to perpetuate the revenge against the alleged perpetrators of the holocaust. In defending herself from her critics, she wrote: "Individual Ukranians, albeit in quite large numbers, collaborated with the Germans. Individual Jews, albeit in quite large numbers, collaborated with Bolshevism. Clearly the numbers on both sides were great enough for each group to think the other was primarily responsible for genocide…"

But her critics, like Mr. Gerard Henderson, claim that to link the Jews to Bolshevik responsibility for the Ukranian famine is "extreme right-wing propaganda". The fact is that history seems to favour Miss Demidenko's version of events, not her critics. It is clear from the howls of outrage about this novel, that the intimidation of those who wish to speak freely will be difficult to break. But Australians have a duty to follow Miss Buttrose's lead, and speak their minds. The only alternative is the descent into totalitarianism.

REPUBLICAN MODELS DO NOT INSPIRE

Australian republicans and their sympathisers should note the effect of the recent London wedding of Crown Prince Pavlos, the son of exiled Greek King Constantine. The wedding was broadcast live in Greece, and generated enormous interest, and renewed deep and bitter divisions over the loss of the Crown in 1967 by military coup. The wedding was attended by the biggest gathering of European royalty since the Queen married Prince Philip in 1947, in an obvious demonstration of 'solidarity' with King Constantine.

Constantine is not permitted to return to Greece by the republican regime until he acknowledges its authority, and has had all his property and possessions confiscated by the Greek Government. The republican government is extremely sensitive to overt monarchist support, and there is much anticipation that the Greek monarchy could still be restored in the future. It is clear that, from the public response to the royal wedding, Greeks also respond in a special way to the institution of the Crown.

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS DISASTER

The last balance of payments statistics, indicating a deficit of $2.9 billion, have been met with universal horror, with most of the political gurus now predicting that the Prime Minister will not dare go to the polls with such a result in recent memory. No sensible predictions can be made about the actions of Mr. Keating. If he believes that the financial figures - either balance of payments or interest rates - are more likely to be even worse by Christmas, then he is likely to call an early election.

He is a political gambler with a giant ego, and sufficient political skill to make it a serious hazard to under estimate him. As a master of political sleight of hand, even a rapidly increasing national debt, rising interest rates and a backlash against his republican blueprint may not be enough to dispose of Mr. Keating. What is required is an Opposition with a set of moral values from which constructive political alternatives can be generated. This is lacking.

MORAL DECLINE INCLUDES THE CHURCH

OUR HEAD OF STATE'S RIGHTS

from The Australian, June 29th
'Thank you for presenting your readers (The Australian, Opinion, 23/6) with an edited version of the speech given by Governor General, Bill Hayden, to the Royal Australian College of Physicians, and with the comments of former Governor of South Australia, Sir Mark Oliphant, on Mr. Hayden's speech. The words of these two distinguished Australians are significant contributions to the debates about the humanitarian views expressed by Mr. Hayden and about his right to express them.

'These contributions are but the latest examples of the many contributions to the debate of important issues which have been made down the years by so many Vice-Regal office holders, both Commonwealth and State. That so little is known, and even is less understood, about the important aspect of Vice-Regal public duty is due to the persistent failure of the media to take any interest in it unless it has presented an opportunity to whip up controversy and startling headlines.

'Thank you, too, for your sub-heading to the report of Mr. Hayden's speech
'The Governor General has made one of the most controversial speeches ever delivered by an Australian Head of State'. Perhaps now you will stop giving any further credence to the Prime Minister's inaccurate assertion that this country lacks an Australian Head of State. "We are fortunate to have two Heads of State: a symbolic Head of State in the Sovereign, and a constitutional Head of State in the Governor General. Under our Constitution it is only the Governor General who may actually perform the constitutional role, and we have had an unbroken line of Australians in that office since 1965.
That two Heads of State are better than one, especially if the one is to be elected by whatever method, is evidenced by the strong criticism that so many distinguished republican constitutional lawyers and others have voiced about the Prime Minister's republican proposal. And, by the way, the description of the Governor General as a constitutional head of state is not a recent invention: it dates back at least to 1878 (see Quick & Carran, The Annotated Constitution Of The Australian Commonwealth [Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1901] at p.700).
(Sir David Smith, Mawson, A.C.T.)

LEARNING ABOUT THE BILL