THE TABOO SUBJECT OF IMMIGRATION

by Eric D. Butler
The author of Social Credit, C.H. Douglas, expressed the view that any nation, which could maintain its basic character, could, given time, resolve its problems. He often quoted the famous statement by Karl Marx, that the English would never make their own revolution that foreigners would have to make it for them. The Marxists were consistently in the forefront of every movement to break down the cohesive nature of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic communities everywhere.

While the Constitutional Monarchy issue is of vital importance concerning the future of Australia, as is the erosion of the Australian economy to fit it into the Global Economy, and while no concerned Australian can ignore the conservation question, these and other questions will eventually be resolved by the composition of the Australian people.

Public opinion polls have consistently shown that immigration and unemployment are the issues, which most concern the Australian people. Both these issues are directly linked. Those who still support the retention of the system of Constitutional Monarchy are doomed to waging a progressively defensive campaign if the existing character of the Australian population is further diluted by bringing in immigrants who do not share the culture out of which the present constitutional system grew. But, as Ita Buttrose said in her recent address labeling Australians as having become a nation of wimps, immigration is one of the subjects, which Australians have been conditioned to believe is too dangerous to discuss.

Speaking recently on the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, Prime Minister Keating warned that "Prejudice was still ingrained in Australian society". Prime Minister Keating went on to say, "By making an Australian our head of State at the turn of the century, we can say to the world and to our children, this is a country which believes in its contemporaries". This statement is typical of those who insist that the past has no relevance to the present or the future citizens who are in fact rootless.

When Paul Keating speaks of "the evil of prejudice", he ignores the words of a much wiser man, the great Edmund Burke, who said that prejudice is often the wisdom of the unlettered man. Prejudgments are often essential for survival. Much has been written recently about the relationship between Australia's wartime Prime Minister John Curtin and General Douglas MacArthur. John Curtin led a Labor Party, which frankly stated that it believed in a restricted immigration policy, one designed to maintain a homogeneous nation. Douglas MacArthur said he would not have any man on his staff who was not at least a third generation American.

Immigration Minister Bolkus has recently said that unless Opposition leader John Howard "doesn't tackle this issue of race properly, I think he can write away the next federal election". If John Howard could find the courage to speak out boldly on the immigration issue, and state that he is not going to be bullied by Ethnic Community organisations, he would be amazed at the electoral support he would generate.

With the major political parties now all kow-towing to minority ethnic groups, the only way available to Australians to have a vote on immigration and associated matters, is to elect a group of Senators who can check the destructive madness now being promoted across Australia by the mass media.

The wisdom of their forbears left Australians with a constitutional system through which they can rate the arrogance of governments. None of the major parties like the Senate and the checks it provides. Even those who vote for the major parties in the House of Representatives instinctively vote differently in the Senate. The constructive use of the Senate may be the only way in which traditional Australia can be saved, as a preliminary to regeneration.

RECOGNISING THE REVOLUTIONARY FLAG

by David Thompson
Mr. Keating's proposal to confer official recognition on the flags of the Aborigines and the Torres Straits Islanders under Section 5 of the Flags Act, 1953, does nothing to further the process of 'reconciliation'. In the same way that the High Court's Mabo decision on Native Title divided Australians, so does the decision concerning the 'flag'. In reality, this decision simply gives political comfort to a long running revolutionary programme to shatter Australian sovereignty, and undermine national cohesion, playing into the hands of hard line revolutionaries who manipulate the Aboriginal people.

The concept of "an Aboriginal flag" is misleading in itself, and implies that historically the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia made up an Aboriginal 'nation'. This was never the case. The native inhabitants observed by Captain Cook, and later explorers and settlers, consisted of a series of warring tribes, strongly territorial, and with a strong sense of their own totems, or tribal identities. By contrast, the Maori inhabitants of New Zealand encountered by Cook and others, while bedeviled by internal conflicts, were able to negotiate with the Europeans as a people, if not a "nation" as such. The result was the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840, which is still recognised today.

But even as a people, the Maoris had no flag, as this was foreign to their heritage. What has become well known as the Maori flag was drawn up for them by the Scottish administrator, James Busby, in 1834, and was flown at the coronation of the first Maori king in 1858.

Note: the concept of Maori royalty was borrowed from the British, as was the concept of the flag. In New Zealand today the militant Maori movement has taken up the use of the Maori flag as a symbol of protest, and it is proposed in radical circles that the Maori flag should replace the New Zealand flag.

A DELIBERATELY DIVISIVE FLAG

Mr. Keating's formal recognition of the Aboriginal "flag" has been bitterly condemned by the man who designed the emblem, Mr. Harold Thomas, who produced the design in 1971. Thomas rejects the Keating proclamation, in which he was never consulted, claiming that formal recognition would dilute the potency of the "flag" as a symbol of protest. He promises legal action, claiming intellectual copyright over the design.

Mr. Thomas' objections demonstrate further that this is an inappropriate proposal. The suggestion that any national or official flag should be subject to a design copyright is ludicrous. And it is quite clear that Mr. Thomas' design was deliberately intended to be divisive. It should be noted that the present proposal bears out Mr. Arthur Tunstall's objection to Miss Cathy Freeman using the Aboriginal banner at the Commonwealth Games as a breach of protocol.

Tunstall was roundly condemned for pointing out what is now readily admitted. As a leading administrator of the Australian Commonwealth Games team, this was Tunstall's responsibility. If the boot was on the other foot, and a white Australian athlete was to do a victory lap at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney with a Union Jack to demonstrate his cultural heritage, there would be predictable uproar over the breach of protocol. The uproar would be all the louder if Australia was to become a republic as well.

Mr. Howard is quite correct to claim that recognition of the Aboriginal land rights banner is divisive. Even by the standards of "multiculturalism" there is no suggestion that Greek, Turkish, Irish, Croation or Latvian Australians should have their own flags. Such an absurd proposal would simply underline Professor Geoffrey Blainey's warning that multiculturalism is breaking the country into a nation of tribes.

Mr. Keating's proclamation is not only inappropriate, but dangerous. It gives recognition to a revolutionary movement that has manipulated the Aborigines, and still aims at the destruction of the Australian nation, and the creation of a separate black state in Australia's north. The revolutionaries claim this flag as their standard.

DESECRATION OF GRAVES AND RACIAL VILIFICATION

The desecration of Jewish graves in a South Australian cemetery last weekend has been seized upon as yet another example of the necessity for the Racial Hatred legislation to be pushed through the Senate. Attorney General Lavarch, in particular, is insisting that Senators should 'do the right thing' and demonstrate to the Australian community that such racially inspired desecration is totally unacceptable.

But it has always been unacceptable. And where the perpetrators have been apprehended previously, they have always been dealt with under existing laws. It should be noted that, as yet, no motive can be ascribed to the desecration of Jewish graves, since no one has been charged with the offence.

Perhaps Australians should be reminded that a similar desecration a few months ago led to loud allegations of "white racism". When the grave of the late Eddie Mabo was daubed with paint in Townsville, the outrage against European Australians was almost vengeful. It even led to a special ceremony, in which European Australians apologised for their "guilt" - even though a police investigation was inconclusive. It might be noted that the investigation into the Mabo grave desecration has been completely dropped by the press, since one small report, never repeated, alleged that two Aboriginal children had admitted daubing the monument. But the Mabo desecration was, and is now, attributed to white racism".

It is quite beyond any argument that desecration of graves of any sort is grossly offensive, and offenders should be dealt with by the law. The law is adequate for this now, and matters of racially motivated violence can be readily dealt with, as the case of the imprisonment of Mr. Jack van Tongeran has demonstrated in W.A. But let the culprits of the desecration of Jewish graves be apprehended, and their motives studied before such acts are attributed to "anti-Semitism".

RENEW IMPORT TARIFFS, OR BACK TO RECESSION?

The suggestion by the Liberal Party that some tariff reforms should be halted, or even reversed, has been supported by a trenchant opponent of "economic rationalism" - John Carroll. Together with Robert Manne, Carroll edited the book Shutdown - the Failure of Economic Rationalism, published in 1992, in which they forecast massive balance of payments blowouts, like that now occurring.

In a recent article for The Weekend Australian (8/7/95), Carroll speculates that if the Liberals were to propose a tariff on all imports, "this would be a virtual guarantee of election victory - given that polls show that 90% of Australians favour protecting local industry…"

In his article, Carroll reflects upon the recent $2.9 billion trade deficit, and writes: "The grand rationalist strategy that ruled 1980s policy has failed on every front. Its driving assumption was that reducing protection here would wipe out inefficient, feather bedded industry and in the rejuvenated soil of our economy the green shoots of new internationally competitive factories would sprout, fertilised by the ashes of the old, leading to the exports that would balance the books….Given that we are not going to export our way out of this mess, two options remain. Either we rebuild industry here - geared to import replacement - or we go back into recession."

Under conventional financial rules, John Carroll is quite correct. But if a new, more creative financial policy could be explored, encompassing the creation of new credits without corresponding debt by a sovereign Australian Government, for the benefit of the individual, other options appear. This would require a substantial change in the policy of integrating the Australian economy with the global market, to a policy of national economic self-sufficiency. This could extricate Australia from the "export or die" mentality, and place us in a situation where foreign trade was on the basis of the exchange of genuine surpluses. Australia could provide an example for the world.

CR. BEVAN O'REGAN FIGHTS ON

The latest (June) issue of Cr. Bevan O'Regan's little newsletter, From the Parish Pump, contains some vital information for all those concerned about "amalgamation" and "privatisation" programmes. Cr. O'Regan is the fighting Councillor from Narribri, N.S.W., who produced, first a video exposing the strategy to use Council amalgamations to eventually destroy the States, and then a second video Local Government At The Cross Roads, in which he assembled a constructive programme for a more realistic financing of Local Government, one which would enable it to avoid the financial strangulation plotted by the Canberra planners.

Bevan O'Regan's June issue of The Parish Pump tells of how, in January 1994, the Tumut River Council of Electricity went against the programme of amalgamation accepted by all other N.S.W. Councils as being "inevitable" and issued a certificate of ownership to all customers. Within 12 hours, the then Minister for Energy in the National/Liberal Party Government, Mr. Garry West, faxed a legal document to the Chairman of the T.R.E., saying "his share certificates were a worthless con, and that if he did not withdraw the share certificates immediately, legal action would follow".

The National/Liberal Party Government was rejecting the view that the T.R.E. ratepayers owned the assets, even though they had paid for them over the years. Chairman of the T.R.E. appealed for support from fellow Council Chairmen around the State, but regrettably no support was forthcoming. In June the Carr Labor Government announced that the local boards will be abolished, and for the sake of greater efficiency, amalgamated into larger regions.

Fighting back, George Martin decided to lodge all Tumut Regional Electricity with the three Local Government Councils that encompass the electricity area. Cr. Martin's Shire, of which he is Mayor, shared in a third of the assets. Cr. Martin is ignoring a directive by the State Minister to release the deeds of the electricity assets. The Minister's further direction that Cr. Martin not issue any press statements was too late, as these had already been issued and were being carried by the local papers. The Minister says that the assets belong to the State, but Cr. Martin insists that they belong to the ratepayers.

Cr. O'Regan sees a major legal battle looming. He asks, "How long can we tolerate the theft of our country in the name of debt recuperation?" Cr. O'Regan points out that the top bureaucrat, who advised Premier Jeff Kennett of Victoria while he amalgamated 220 Local Government Councils and sacked the ratepayers' representatives, is now advising Labor Premier Carr of N.S.W.

With the axing of 23 Electricity Councils in N.S.W, covering a larger area than Victoria, the stage is being set for N.S.W. to follow the pattern of developments in Victoria. No sooner had it been elected than the N.S.W. Labor Premier Carr was on a plane to visit Wall Street, endeavouring, like Victorian Premier Kennett, to persuade the Priests of High Finance that N.S.W. would be an excellent place for the international investors to move in and take over the people's assets, all nicely amalgamated for a takeover.

Events in both Victoria and N.S.W. confirm that there is no basic difference between modern political parties. However, as events unfold there are going to be those unrehearsed events, which so often throughout history have brought the centralists unstuck. Queensland National Party Senator Ron Boswell, reflecting a growing concern inside the Queensland National Party, has recently strongly criticised the Hilmer plan, which is a major feature of the overall programme to "restructure" both Local Government and industry throughout Australia.

Someone should quietly take Senator Boswell aside and inform him that he is merely re-echoing what the League of Rights was the first to warn about. While we do not expect the Senator to apologise for the silly criticism he has issued about the League (prepared for him by the Zionist propaganda machine) now that he agrees that the League was right about the Hilmer plan, he might yet concede that the League has been right on a number of other important issues.

And now there are sections of the Labor Party, generally described as the "Left faction", who have announced that they are mounting a national programme against the Hilmer plan. Labor critics of the Hilmer plan have discovered that in practice it could have a serious effect on living standards, and much else. It has been observed that adversities sometimes produce what appear to be strange bedfellows.

Cr. Bevan O'Regan must be congratulated on the magnificent work he has done. League actionists who wish to support this real "Aussie Battler" and his work may obtain his newsletter, From The Parish Pump, "Moema", Narribri, N.S.W. The League of Rights has obtained a supply of his two videos, Your Council the Target and Council At The Cross Roads ($25.00 each posted from all League addresses).