PAUL KEATING RISES FROM THE POLITICAL TOMB

by Eric D. Butler
Plato, the famous Greek philosopher, visualised a New World Order in which a small group of elitist philosophers would plan society. Presumably the founder of Christianity was not impressed with this type of intellectual arrogance, stating that those who would be the greatest should seek to be the servants of their fellows. Like many of his kind, former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating ignores the fact that he was politically buried on March 2nd of this year. Lazarus-like, he has sought to create the impression that he has risen from the political tomb with an address on November 11th in which he entered the debate on "racism" with the announcement that "it is the responsibility of governments to protect the national interest against the tide of prejudice".

It was Edmund Burke, whose status as a statesman, historian and philosopher more than matches that of Paul Keating, who observed that prejudice is often the wisdom of the unlettered man. The self-opinionated intellectuals have been in the vanguard of those primarily responsible for the retreat of Civilisation. It was the intellectuals who fostered the most absurd nonsense concerning one of the darkest episodes in modern history, the Bolshevik Revolution masterminded by intellectuals like Lenin and Trotsky. It is the spiritual descendants of Plato who swarm all over the world insisting that international planning is the way forward for Mankind. Every new disaster is hailed as an opportunity for still more planning by the elitists. But the great majority, allegedly because of their "ignorance" and "prejudices", stubbornly resist and attempt to cling to their age-old traditions.

One observer, echoing Edmund Burke, has made the observation that the "literate man who reads nothing but nonsense is more ignorant than the illiterate who reads nothing". It is a natural law that human beings like all forms of life, tend to discriminate in favour of their own kind. With the use of semantic sabotage, the intellectuals have ruled that the term "discriminate" denotes some form of evil, repugnant to all decent people. But reality continues to be the great disciplinarian in the human drama, with the result that in the United States, for example, as cities like Washington D.C. increase their black populations, the whites move out.

The intellectuals were in the forefront of the campaign, which insisted that the "wicked" European colonists should retreat from an Africa swept by "nationalism". Realists sought in vain to point out that the dominant force in Africa was tribalism, not nationalism. The current human tragedy in Central Africa, with the masses of refugees and the mass killings, is the result of a tribalism, which the vapourings of liberal intellectuals cannot erase.

If true history is ever written the European will be condemned primarily, not for going into "darkest Africa", but for having set the African on the ladder of civilisation, for prematurely kicking the ladder away, plunging the African back into the charnel house conditions from which he was slowly evolving. The modern weapons, which make mass killing so much easier, are provided by industrialised nations dominated by the necessity for major "export drives".

These observations are no doubt lost on a man like Paul Keating who continues to insist that Australia's future - not only economic, but also political and cultural - depends upon closer integration with Asia. In his recent address, given at the University of N.S.W where he was speaking as the visiting professor, Paul Keating claimed that the tide of prejudice in the immigration debate must be turned back by political leaders rather than being driven by "the insidious caper of polling".
In a genuine democracy it is the responsibility of government to attempt to take notice of what concerns the people and to take those concerns into account when making policies. Sir James Goldsmith, founder of the British Referendum Party, makes the pertinent comment in a recent article that "Power is only on loan to Parliament, and politicians have no right to give it away without permission".
C.H. Douglas said that genuine democracy requires the ability of people to choose or reject one thing at a time.

All the evidence indicates that the "unlettered" Pauline Hanson has acted like a lightning conductor for the view of a large and growing number of Australians. Although shocking people like Phillip Adams, the massive swing towards Pauline Hanson on March 2nd was a clear indication of the feelings in what was previously regarded as a safe Labor seat Pauline Hanson was elected by an overwhelming majority of the electors of Oxley Queensland, to represent them in the Federal Parliament. But clearly Paul Keating thinks that Australian electors generally are a bad lot who, given the chance, might even indicate that they have had enough of "multiculturalism" and would prefer to see the rate of Asian migration slowed down.

Paul Keating said that the old "White Australia" policy was a fool's paradise and that any suggestion of a return to this type of policy could do great damage to Australia's future. But the latest A.G.B. McNair "Age" poll confirms what many observers have been saying that large numbers of those Asians living in Australia believe that the migrant intake should be reduced, with 24 percent of them saying that there are too many Asians! Does this mean that these Asians should be listed among the "racists"! And what about the 80 percent of Asians of Japanese background who are opposed to more Asian migrants? Are they also "racists"?

In the "fool's paradise" decreed by Keating, not only was it paradise in economic terms - Australians enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world - but the predominantly British people laid the foundations of what the multiculturists keep describing as the most tolerant and successful multicultural society in the world. But as the non-European members increase, that tolerance is starting to erode.

Paul Keating has demonstrated time and time again that he has a warped concept of Australian history. It was the pioneers of the Australian Labor movement who played a prominent role in the establishment of an immigration policy designed to ensure that Australia did not import into Australia the problems, which have bedeviled other countries. Australians should study the words of the fathers of Federation, men like the great Alfred Deakin, as they fashioned an immigration policy designed to develop a homogeneous and harmonious nation.

Only a relatively short time ago, at a Constitutional Convention held at Canberra, in 1978, this warning was issued: "We live in a very difficult world. There are teeming millions to the north. It's pretty well considered now that we are somewhat insignificant. If we show weakness in our own format from the point of view of a national fibre, you can see it being quickly identified by those people to our north. If they think we can't run an effective democratic system here, we are in danger. And those people are on the move. Let's make it very clear that what we are talking is Australia today not party politics." Was this an earlier Pauline Hanson making "sensational" and "misguided" warnings? No. It was the Deputy Leader of the Federal Labor Opposition, Mr. Lionel Bowen. It would be instructive to have Paul Keating's comments.

Economic developments in Asia, backed by International Finance, are hailed by the internationalists as a major step towards creating a global economy. The Paul Keatings are prepared to sacrifice traditional Australia, under the guise of creating the multicultural society, in order that Australia can be absorbed into that global economy. This can only be described as treachery of the worst possible type. Paul Keating should be buried back in the political grave from which he has attempted to rise.

ABORIGINAL INDUSTRY FEARS 'MAINSTREAMING' ATSIC

by David Thompson
The proposal floated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Herron, to send the Army into remote areas to provide water and sewerage facilities for Aboriginal groups, has been seized by a number of Aboriginal spokesmen as an admission that the States and Territories had failed in their responsibilities to provide such basic facilities. Further, the proposal indicated that conditions in many Aboriginal communities amounted to a "state of emergency" for which the Army was traditionally used to handle.

The proposal also highlights another, more practical, problem. This is that the fact that the Army needs to be sent into remote Aboriginal communities to supply water is almost a concession that such basic problems appear to be beyond the nation's capacity to solve. How can this be? Is it because we have routinely gone about using the wrong methods to solve them? Surely the provision of water and sewerage services have little to do with Commonwealth Ministers? Such services are more properly the preserve of State Governments, and are traditionally supplied by local government. Local government, however, has not had access to the billions of dollars wasted by specialist organisations like Aboriginal Land Councils, and ATSIC itself.

If Senator Herron was serious about addressing the problem of water shortages, he could do so very quickly. He could allocate funds to local municipalities specifically earmarked for providing water facilities. The logistics are not insurmountable for practical people in their own local area. Water drilling plants are hardly sophisticated technology requiring Army specialists.

One Aboriginal group in Western Australia, frustrated at receiving no useful results from various bureaucrats in their attempt to secure a water supply, eventually complained to their M.P. - Graeme Campbell. Campbell demonstrated that as a practical problem, drilling for water was easily solved. One weekend, he borrowed a drilling plant from a local contractor and personally assisted in the successful sinking of a water bore. A problem that the bureaucrats failed to solve for months was solved in less than a weekend by a practical person with local knowledge and experience in drilling for water.

Senator Herron could find hundreds of such people through local municipalities, rather than through Commonwealth bureaucracies, whether ATSIC or the Department of Defence. The issue of providing water for Aboriginal groups also begs other questions. Is it a State responsibility to provide water, sewerage, etc., for people in remote areas? Thousands of pastoralists, farmers, miners, etc., would be astonished by claims from the Aboriginal industry that the States had failed in their obligations. Most Australians in remote areas must provide their own water supply and storage arrangements and install their own sewerage systems. Indeed, this is what Australia's tribal Aborigines did for themselves long before the European arrived.

If it is argued that Australians living in remote areas are underprivileged because they lack urban water and sewerage systems, then why concentrate on the question as an Aboriginal issue? Will the Army be asked to repair water or sewerage facilities in poverty-stricken white settlements in remote areas? Why not? It is clear that the gradual starvation of funds for local government is not matched by the starvation of funds to bodies like ATSIC. Yet ATSIC still expects local government to provide services, which it has not the wit to provide, even though funds are available to ATSIC.

What ATSIC fears most, articulated by the retiring "Chairperson" Lois O'Donohue, is that the Coalition Government will begin to address such problems as problems of under privilege or poverty, rather than as Aboriginal problems. That is, if all problems of providing services (of any kind) were regarded as "mainstream" politicial or economic problems, there is hardly any reason for ATSIC to exist, and hardly any reason for huge sums to be annually set aside for indigenous expenditure.

There is a strong case to be made that the funds wasted by ATSIC could be more profitably spent for all Australians if allocated to, say local government, rather than politically correct but practically ludicrous schemes dreamed up by part Aboriginal bureaucrats in ATSIC.

HOUSEHOLD DEBTS ESCALATE IN RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

The general assumption that the Howard Coalition administration will certainly go on to win the next election, and serve at least two terms in government, could be severely tested by the most basic of concerns - the economy. Financial realities - particularly that of debt - plunged the A.L.P. administration into crisis towards the end of the 1980s, when Mr. Keating attempted to pass off responsibility for the crisis as "the recession we had to have". Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello could be facing a similar nightmare in only a few short years. The reason for this is rising debt.

Recent figures from the Reserve Bank indicate an alarming increase in household debt. With retailers now extremely nervous that the traditional Christmas shopping frenzy might not even occur, it appears that householders are hardly in a position to oblige them. Household debt has soared to 91.6 percent of disposable income, which is a record figure and almost double the debt levels of five years ago. In reality, the figures indicate that the average household is financially insolvent.
As interest rates have (temporarily) eased, many householders will be tempted to increase these debt levels even further, setting up the Australian economy for a national disaster when interest rates (inevitably) begin to rise again.

In addition to household debt problems, Australian business indebtedness is also high. Business credit growth is at its highest since the credit glut of the 1980s following the de-regulation of the financial markets. According to the Reserve Bank, the total stock of borrowings is now $460 billion, which is approaching the Australian economy's annual output of $480 billion, with the debt about equally shared by household and business sectors. The difference is that the household debt is growing much faster, doubling in seven years.

Unless a totally unorthodox answer to the debt crisis is contemplated, John Howard and his Ministers could face another crisis "recession" to rival that of the 1980s, the worst since the Great Depression. But unorthodox answers are ritually sneered at as "funny money" schemes. We predict that no one will see anything funny about the coming crash under orthodox finance.

GOVERNOR MACQUARIE'S SOLUTION TO CURRENCY SQUEEZE

Perhaps Mr. Howard would care to examine a lesson from 1813, when more practical men addressed puzzling financial problems. The 1996 Annual Report of Macquarie Bank Ltd. contains the following: "Following a successful proposal to the Australian Federal Government, Macquarie Bank Ltd was established in February 1985. The Bank looked to Australia's most successful early Governor Lachlan Macquarie, for inspiration in its name and the creation of its logo. Macquarie's solution to the extreme currency shortage of 1813 was a masterful piece of financial innovation. By punching out the centre of the Spanish silver dollar (then worth five shillings), Governor Macquarie created the Holey Dollar and the Dump. The Holey Dollar was valued at five shillings and the Dump at one shilling and three pence. This single move not only doubled the number of coins in circulation, but increased their total worth by 25 percent."

What would Mr. Costello's objection to the Macquarie solution be? Is it "too simplistic" to suggest that a sovereign government could create some of its own credits for the benefit of the individual, or would this be too complicated? Whatever the objection, the reality is that it helped the fledgling colony survive in 1813, and so far as we are aware, there is no record of any inflation at all in 1813. Perhaps Mr. Costello should consult the history books.

WHO IS FINANCING THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS?

Our attention has been drawn to yet another academic's study of the Australian League of Rights. The academic, well known for his pro-Zionist stance over many years, comes from one of the Melbourne universities. He has to concede that the League has a record for endurance. But when he comes to the financing of the League he has to drop the academic veneer and merely speculate, referring to several of the rumours, which have circulated over the years. Some of these are bizarre.

Older supporters will recall how a decade ago there was a call for an all-party investigation into the League and its finances. This campaign evaporated when National Director Eric Butler offered to appear before the Federal Parliament to answer any questions. Clearly it was felt that such an investigation would provide the League with free national publicity.

In 1994 there was the extraordinary announcement by the Hawke Government that former Communist turned Fabian Socialist K.D. Gott had been granted $55,000 to prepare an in-depth report on the League. Perhaps the Melbourne academic could find out why such a report never appeared? Was it because Gott was unable to discover any evidence to support the rumours about League financing?

The reality is that the League is a genuine grassroots movement relying upon individual Australians to contribute to its funds. It has always operated a low cost movement, relying heavily on volunteers. Anyone attending a League meeting will note that the League adopts the traditional Australian practice of "passing the hat". Charges made for the publication of brochures such as Pauline Hanson's famous speech are for the purpose of paying for printing and other costs. The small margin of profits goes towards the League's general funds.
There is no truth whatever in one rumour that the League is helping to finance Pauline Hanson.

The League's annual basic fund provides the hard core of the League's finances, enabling it to seize every opportunity to finance projects such as the Pauline Hanson address. Last week we drew attention to an important research project by Denis McCormack of Australians Against Further Immigration, tabled in the Federal Parliament by Independent Member Graeme Campbell. We have studied this submission and believe it is of such national importance that it must be published in booklet form for national distribution. The Basic Fund ensures that such projects are not held up because of lack of funds. Eventually they more than pay for themselves.

LEGAL ADVICE RESTORES SCHOOL PRAYERS

It is not necessary to ban school prayers in the multicultural society, according to a N.S.W. Department of School Education ruling. However, schools must take care that prayers are not identified with a specific faith or denomination. This would apparently discriminate against all other faiths and denominations, and in the multicultural society, this is certainly frowned upon, and can be banned if a parent complains.

Legal advice indicates that the N.S.W school, Como West, which was forced to drop its daily prayer, can reinstate the prayer because although it mentions God, and ends with "Amen", it is not biblical, and not identified with any one faith. Parents have the option of withdrawing their children from gatherings at which the prayer was recited. The multiculturalists and professional ethnic lobbyists apparently find nothing extraordinary about effectively forcing the once dominant Australian culture out of the public school system, while forcing their own into it. It never seems to occur to them that a double standard is involved. If this is ever raised the ethnic lobby justifies forcing their own agenda onto the dominant culture by claiming that they have been discriminated against for so long that a little "reverse discrimination" is not unjustified.

The fact that Australians of European background are extremely tolerant undermines any attempt to protect the mainstream culture. It never occurs to us to ask the ethnic lobby why they bothered to leave their countries of origin if they are determined to inflict their own cultural standards upon Australians.

FROM THE PRESS

Rudderless Middle Australia from Weekend Australian, 9/11/96
"Michelle Gunn's article, Downward Envy - Why Middle Australia Hates The Poor (Review, 2-3/11) was a welcome addition to what has been a rather sterile debate. Pauline Hanson is not "dangerous" because she articulates the racism that lurks within the collective Australian psyche. No, what is disturbing is that she gives form to the anxiety of large sections of the community whose social worlds have been disturbed by the restructuring projects of the current and previous governments.
"Fifteen years of structural adjustment to the exigencies of a highly abstract global economy has disrupted the social fabric and left many people without the certainties of the past.
"The economic rationalism of the governing elite has justified 'user pays' schemes which, while making perfect economic sense, put far too much pressure on those in the middle income bracket. Middle Australia discovers it is impossible to save enough of its dwindling real income, while business - desperate for investment capital - grovels at the feet of foreign investors. It is this climate of uncertainty that causes many people to look for scapegoats.
"While the electorate may have rejected Keating's 'big picture', Hanson is a reminder that we need something more than vague promises of a 'competitive place in the global economy' to justify the pain of unemployment and social upheaval."
TONY ASPDEN, Cottlesloe, W.A.

British roots shaped nation from Herald Sun, 22/10/96
"It is not at all surprising that many people are supporting some of Pauline Hanson's comments. The reason has been steadily growing over the past 10 or more years.
"Australians from pre-World War II families, some with roots going back to the earliest white settlement, the pioneers, truly feel we have been systematically disenfranchised in our own country due to the nonsense of multiculturalism instead of Australianism, where all cultures except ours must be respected.
"When we ask 'what about us?' we are told by overly assertive ethnic lobby leaders and a few radical academics, 'Australians have no culture'. Where do these people think the wonders they came here to enjoy came from? The democratic Westminister system of government, the very open democratic legal system, our writers and artists, the friendly, good-hearted and basically decent population. "These things are ours, our culture, all here before any post-war arrivals.
Our nation's very framework was created by the massive efforts of our tiny seven million pre-war population.
"Paul Keating, our most divisive prime minister, said it was his Irishness, his Catholicness that drove him to vent his hatred of the British into demanding we become a republic and change our flag, and many newcomers jumped on the bandwagon. "By what right?
"Our roots are British, we even had British passports until around 1950 and no amount of propaganda pumped into our schools ever changed that. "This is why Pauline Hanson has so much support."
DORIEN PIERCE, Manifold Heights.