BEHIND THE CLINTON CIRCUS

by Eric D. Butler
Those Australians who have a proper respect for their British racial and cultural heritage are often charged with "cringing" by the same type of people who urge Australians to treat a debauched "pop star" Michael Jackson as some type of success symbol for the young, while others, including many politicians, treat visiting USA President Clinton as some type of a demi-god whose words and advice on "racism", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" should be treated as something approaching Holy Writ.
As an Australian I must confess to a feeling of nausea when I witness the genuflections of politicians, both past and current, to Bill and Hilary Clinton.

Those genuinely concerned about the sick plight of a Western Civilisation that is dying, can only be saddened by the plight of the U.S.A. being blatantly used to serve an international programme which unless halted will result in a global convulsion on a scale never previously experienced. Because of their background, the American people generally are over-idealistic. This idealism has been cynically exploited for most of this century, using the U.S.A. vast economic strength and technology to back great disasters.

European colonialism was evil and should be abolished. The Roosevelt Administration made no secret of its determination to end British colonialism forever. American policy was primarily responsible for the destruction of Palestinian sovereignty and the imposition of a poisoned thorn, in the shape of Zionist Israel, at the very heart of the Middle East. What has happened since, with the development of an anti-West hatred among the Islamic peoples everywhere, has stemmed from this disastrous act.

During his Australian visit, President Clinton waxed eloquent about the success of multiculturalism in the U.S.A. He referred to the "vibrancy" of the two multicultural cities of Sydney and Los Angeles. There was no reference to the race riots, which have rocked Los Angeles, or the crime rate. And being a modern "liberated" man, Clinton did not mention that Sydney and Los Angeles have one thing in common, with their big homosexual communities and high rates of AIDS.

It is breathtaking to have President Clinton telling Australians that the U.S.A. has been a successful example of multiculturalism. The truth is that responsible conservative Americans have become increasingly critical of what is happening in their nation. The feelings of the American people may be judged by the fact that less than 50 percent of the Americans felt it worth voting at the recent elections, Bill Clinton being re-elected by a minority of the electors. Clinton was re-elected as President primarily because of the moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party, and because a slick advertising campaign persuaded American women to support glamour boy "Slick Willy".

The Clintons have tarnished records and informed Americans believe that Bill Clinton could eventually go the way of Richard Nixon. Openly backed by the Zionist Jewish community, Clinton's global strategies reflect Zionist Jewish strategy. Clinton is the arch internationalist. He invites Australians to share a "common vision". That vision includes the dream of Free Trade with Asia.

The globalists backing Clinton regard him as but one more puppet who can be manipulated to serve their programme. The short visit to Australia was a classic, well-produced political circus, not primarily for the benefit of the Australian people but for the American television screens. Australia was merely the location for screening purposes, with Australians little more than bit players and providing some necessary crowd scenes.

Those forces attempting to break down still further Australia's immigration policies were, of course, delighted with Clinton's remarks on Australia becoming a successful multicultural nation. Long time advocate of Australia submerging itself in the planned Asian Common Market, Greg Sheridan of The Australian drooled with delight, stating that Clinton's Canberra address was "The speech that all Asia hoped to hear", The Australian front page headline of November 23rd, reading, OUR SHARED DESTINY.

Lyndon Johnson became a Congressman as a result of criminal manipulation of voting rolls in Texas and became Vice President after striking a deal with John F. Kennedy, helping to carry the Southern States for Kennedy. During the Johnson circus in Australia, much was made of Johnson's war record while based as an airman in Australia. This was great theatre, masking the fact that Johnson's war record, as outlined by Johnson, was almost completely phony.

The Australian League of Rights supported the necessity of Australia making a contribution to countering Communist aggression in Vietnam, as it had supported General McArthur's valiant effort to halt Communist-backed aggression in Korea. But the League stressed the McArthur warning that there was no substitute for victory, and that unless the war was won in Korea, it would be fought all over again in another part of Asia.

While supporting military resistance in Vietnam, the League warned that the Americans and their allies were being forced to fight a no-win conflict, making widely available the documentation of Dr. Antony Sutton which proved that Communist aggression from North Vietnam was being sustained by the Soviet as part of a global strategy. The League had published an Australian edition of Sutton's classic, National Suicide, in which he showed that the Soviet industrial system had in the main been provided by Western based Big Finance. National Suicide contains the text of the chilling address by Sutton to a sub-committee of the Republican Party at Miami Beach on April 19th, 1972.

The essence of the address was that Communist North Vietnam was being sustained by Soviet equipment, this reaching North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong with ships that were a product of American industry and technology. Discussing the matter later with a senior Republican Congressman, I was told that the general reaction of Republican delegates who were present, was one of deep shock, with the general view being that if the address was publicised, Richard Nixon would lose the coming Presidential elections. The major news wires refused to carry the Sutton address. These services were controlled by influential Zionist Jews, whose major media in America had made the anti-Vietnam war movement possible.

When the Australian Consul-General to New York, the late Mr. Justice Sir Reginald Sholl, returned to Australia and gave an address to Australian doctors, he stressed the vital role of the Zionist Jewish lobby during the Vietnam War, which, of course, finished in complete disaster. Sholl was criticised as an "anti-Semite".

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of more "moderate" Communist Regimes in China and Vietnam saw open moves by International Finance to build up the former Communist nations under the guise of "free trade". Prime Minister John Howard says he welcomes President Clinton's "shared vision" in Asia. Open globalism is now the name of the game being played in Asia. But this "vision" can only lead Australia into one disaster after another. Under orthodox finance economics, there must be growing friction between the Asian "tigers". Because of its size and vast resources, China must be regarded as the major factor.

(National Suicide is now a collector's item for all serious students of modern history. $17.00 posted from all League addresses.)

REALITY DRIVES RACE ISSUE, NOT 'RACISM'

by David Thompson
It is becoming clearer that the issues raised by Independent Pauline Hanson since her election to the Parliament continue to generate friction within the Liberal Party in particular, and the Coalition in general. This highlights a long-running problem within the Liberal Party - the fact that it is really two parties rolled into one. The two wings of the Party consist of those that pass for "conservatives", and those who could correctly be called small "l" Liberals. The issues Hanson raised simply emphasise the tensions between the two elements.

One wing of the Liberal Party insists that Mr. Howard must publicly condemn the Hanson views in order to quell "racism", while the other wing (at least in private) applauds what Hanson says, and claims that Howard has handled the issue correctly by failing to condemn Hanson. This has the dual merit of offering tacit approval without having to articulate such views, and bear the political odour for doing so.

Hanson bears Howard's odour. Nevertheless, the Liberals have also been niggardly about Hanson, in that they have claimed the $50,000 in public funding due to her by virtue of the number of votes she polled. Hanson must take legal action to recover the funds, if recovery is possible. In addition to this, some Liberal M.P's., when asked by constituents for a copy of the Hanson maiden speech to Parliament, also receive a highly poisonous article about Hanson published in the most extreme Jewish publication in the nation. The office of the Liberals' Bob Baldwin (Paterson, N.S.W.) for example, distributes copies of an Australia/Israel Review article by Adam Indikt, condemning Hanson as a racist bigot, and retelling her personal background in order to place her in the worst possible light. Perhaps this is Mr. Baldwin's idea of even-handedness.

The power and the passion generated by Pauline Hanson's views is further underlined by the fact that, despite their revulsion, the press continues to agonise over "the race debate". John Howard's reported view that "It will all blow over in a few months "once the "genie" was crammed back into the bottle, could not be further from the case. Professor Austin Gough, quoted in the Hobart Mercury, notes that the press attempts to control the "debate" by calling it "the racism debate" as though it were "an immoral and divisive thing shunned by all right-thinking people".

'ASIANISED TOO QUICKLY'

The truth is that the "debate" will have tremendous durability, because it is driven not by bigotry and hatred, but by reality. Two examples from the last week illustrate the point. The first is the release of a report confirming Hanson's contention that people worry that Australia is being "swamped by Asians". A joint Australian Catholic University and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology study conducted last year among over 300 teachers, 427 Year 5 students and 803 Year 8 students last year, indicated that one in four teachers believed that Australia is being Asianised too quickly.
The report, Immigration and Schooling in the 1990s, concedes that there has been a "discernible rise in racist behaviour in schools" and that "racism has a persistent presence in most schools". It denies, however, that Australian schools are "hotbeds of racism, inter-ethnic or sectarian violence or vilification". This report was compiled well before the election in which Hanson was elected in Oxley.

The second example comes from a most unlikely source, in the views of Mr. Gary Foley. Foley is well known as one of the more "extreme" Aboriginal activists over almost two decades, upon whom we have reported critically in the past. But on Monday, November 11th, Foley issued a most significant press statement as widely as possible, which was scarcely reported anywhere. In this extraordinary statement, Foley said he agreed with some of the views of Pauline Hanson, concerning the "Aboriginal Industry" and that ATSIC should be abolished because of the billions of dollars of wasted funds.

DEAD SILENCE ON FOLEY

Foley claimed that since the Whitlam Government, about $25 billion to $30 billion had been spent, much of it wasted, and that a whole army of white anthropologists and university professors were making a good living out of Aboriginal suffering. "I was saying that a long time before any of these characters were, and it's obvious there must be an Aboriginal industry to be spending that level of money. "I'm saying - unlike Pauline Hanson - that it's obvious the money's not going to Aboriginal people. It's not Aboriginal people who form the Aboriginal Industry - it's the vast army of non-Aboriginal parasites who seem to infest our communities. "ATSIC's afraid it's not what it pretends to be. It's not Aboriginal democracy in action at all. Less than 30 percent of Aboriginal people participate in ATSIC elections. It has no mandate - simple…"

Of wasted funds, Foley said, "There is no evidence of that level of expenditure in Aboriginal communities. We can therefore only assume vast amounts of that money have been maladministered. The Vast majority of it has gone into the pockets of non-Aboriginal Australians."

Foley has suggested a variation of what others (like the League, and genuine Aborigines like Rev. Cedric Jacobs) have been suggesting for 12 years - that the funds would be much better administered by those at a local level. Foley suggests local Aboriginal communities, the League suggests local municipalities. "The only bureaucrat you need in Canberra is a bureaucrat with a cheque book, open, a pile of envelopes and a list of addresses, and he just sends the money directly out to communities," said Foley.

If such assistance was available to local government, under proper supervision, as has been available to ATSIC, the problem of Aboriginal disadvantage would be totally different today. But why were Foley's remarks unreported? Is this not a most significant statement, in the present climate? Would "the press" dare to justify the omission by noting that the views of a radical part-Aboriginal stirrer were swamped by the Clinton caravan, Michael Jackson mania, and the Australian Open Golf Tournament? It was left to Piers Ackerman (Sunday Telegraph, 24/11/96) to record Foley's statement.

Such examples serve to illustrate that Pauline Hanson is merely a catalyst who has expressed what many Australians know to be true, at just the critical psychological moment. This "genie" won't be crammed back into any bottle; the issues must be addressed, not swept under the carpet.

CONTINUING 'RACISM' HUMBUG FROM MALAYSIA

As Mr. Howard and a number of his Ministers gathered in Manila in the Philippines for the summit of Asia-Pacific leaders, Malaysia turned up the diplomatic heat on the Australians by referring to the "racism debate". Both Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir and his Foreign Affairs Minister Badawi expressed concerned about Australian attitudes to Asians and Aborigines. Mahathir noted that it appeared that there were still people in Australia who wanted to return to the White Australia policy, and the days when Aborigines did not have "full recognition as human beings". At least Mahathir is correct concerning the White Australia policy.

Rather than bleat about tolerance, Foreign Minister Downer might have pointed out to Mahathir that the Australian people were never consulted about our previous "bi-partisan policy" on immigration, now known as the White Australia policy". It was changed without our consent. If prepared to follow the Malaysian lead, and abandon diplomatic niceties, Downer might also have referred the Malaysians to their own double standards concerning "racism". In Malaysia even today the ethnic Chinese are ruthlessly "discriminated against" by the native Malays.

It obviously takes someone of more moral fortitude than either Downer or Howard to remind the hypocritical Asians that their own record on racial bias is very far from what they demand from us. The Japanese, for example, continue with a highly restrictive immigration policy, which might be known as "the Yellow Japan policy", and which is far more restrictive than our "White Australia policy" ever was.

The comments from Malaysian Ministers should be placed in their correct context: that of diplomatic one up-manship. Some of the Asians resent the Australian (and U.S.) role in the Asia-Pacific Economic Community summit. The charge of "racism" is used as a very much tongue-in-cheek gambit to force Howard and Downer onto the "back foot" for the summit. If Downer and Howard had read "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-ning Chu ($23.00 posted from any League bookservice), then such psychological warfare would be properly understood.

RACIAL TOLERANCE

The following was Graeme Campbell's contribution to the "Tolerance" debate on October 30th

MR. CAMPBELL (Kalgoorlie) (4.42 p.m.) - In speaking to this debate, I must say there is very little that I would take issue with the Prime Minister (Mr. Howard) on, but not so with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Beazley). I believe his cant and hypocrisy was exceeded only by that of the shadow minister, Mr. Gareth Evans. In listening to the debate, once the Prime Minister had spoken, we had a very quick decline from the facts. We had statements being made that are simply misleading. They will not stifle the debate.
When you look at this motherhood statement, people in this chamber in their arrogance think that it is going to stifle the debate in the community. It will not. The truth is there has been a bipartisan policy all these years, and that is the problem. There has been no discussion on this issue.

Bob Hawke said that one of his great achievements was to liaise with the Liberal party and the ACTU to keep immigration and multiculturalism off the agenda. The truth is that the Australian people have never had the chance to speak or had their opinions valued. Mr. Beazley said that he did not know what political correctness was if it was not what he described as the will of the people at the time. Of course it is not, and he knows it is not. That is hyperbole of the worst order. He knows that political correctness is the will of the elitists in society.

What you have here today is basically a battle between Australian nationalists and the internationalists. I would say that everyone who has spoken in this debate so far has been, without reservation, an internationalist. I stand as a proud Australian nationalist with outward looking nationalism. It does not threaten anyone, but it says that we in this country have the right to decide. I turn to this quote: "I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything else for a country to say we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be, and nobody else. "Just about every self-respecting country does, and I find the most extraordinary argument the one that says by talking about these issues we are offending our friends in Asia. That is bunkum. Those countries will make judgments based on their own hard-headed interests. Has anybody asked an Australian coal exporter about the rights of an Australian to immigrate to Japan before we sign a coal deal with the Japanese? What absurd nonsense." I do not think there is anything there that anyone in this House would find fault with - certainly not publicly. Those are not my words; they are the words of John Howard in 1988.

It is interesting to see that Cheryl Kernot recently has been attacking the Prime Minister, just as the Labor Party has. Let us look at what Cheryl Kernot had to say in 1995. I will quote from The Australian of 23 February 1995: "Democrat leader Cheryl Kernot yesterday defended John Howard's controversial 1988 remarks on Asian Immigration saying they 'at least appeared to reflect a genuine concern'. Kernot also appeared to favour lower immigration for the sake of social cohesion ... she said Mr. Howard's questioning of the levels of Asian immigration (seemed) to make space for a more legitimate debate about the social and economic impact of immigration." Oh hypocrisy, your name is Kernot! I might say that John Stuart Mill -----
Mr. Gareth Evans - On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I suggest that imputations of that degree of disgracefulness are out of order in this or any other chamber.

MR. SPEAKER - I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kalgoorlie will not impinge on the reputation of a member so directly.

MR. CAMPBELL - Thank you, Mr. Speaker. John Stuart Mill, I believe, is so beloved of that side of the House that the Liberal Party is setting up a John Stuart Mill Forum. John Stuart Mill said several things of interest. He said if a country doesn't have the right to decide with whom it shares its people it has no rights at all. I think that is very true. In his Considerations on Representative Government he said: "Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they speak different languages, the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government cannot exist."
Mr. Hockey - That was in the 19th century.

MR. CAMPBELL - While that is from the last century and is a little out of date I think they are words of wisdom. You could of course use Professor Zubrzycki who is considered to be the architect of multiculturalism in Australia. Only about two years ago in The Australian an article about Professor Zubrzycki said he had grave reservations about his policy of multiculturalism; it wasn't working as he intended and it wasn't working because ethnic leaders put ethnic interests above Australia's national interest. What a surprise that is.
Mr. Hardgrave - Where is your quote?

MR. CAMPBELL - The quote is there and Professor Zubrzycki will not deny it because he conceded it on a television program in which I participated quite recently. It is quite clear that those were his words and it is just nonsense to pretend otherwise. I do have a concern for people from different backgrounds who have come to this country. Anyone who makes a commitment to Australia in my view is welcome. However, it will not take the heat out of the debate if by doing this you are simply screwing down the lid and turning up the heat.

The government has no option but to reduce immigration numbers - and the Prime Minister, John Howard, recognises it even if the rest of you do not. I can tell you now that the Prime Minister will be pushing for lower immigration numbers.

Another example from this paper says that we affirm our commitment to maintaining an immigration policy on wholly non-discriminatory grounds of race, colour, creed or origin. Those are fine words but the fact is that they are not true. I will tell you how we discriminate. It is quite simple and quite obvious. It is all done by government and it is a matter of where you put your offices. Firstly, if 50 to 60 percent of immigrants currently come from Asia it is discriminatory against the bulk of the community. That is clear discrimination. If you open an office in one area and close one in another, of course you get a change; and that is discrimination. It is also quite obvious how it has been done for years in Britain. A woman from Germany told me of the experience her sister had recently. When you go to the front office and apply, and the staff are so rude to you, people get turned away and say they will not bother. Then the immigration department can say that there is no interest when in fact the people have been turned away by rudeness. It has long been the ploy in the United Kingdom and apparently has extended to Europe as well. For various reasons to do with employing local people that does not apply in Asia. If you have points on the family preferential scheme it clearly is a discrimination.

Ask yourselves this, you pious posers: if it is a non-discriminatory scheme, why don't we get large numbers of people from Africa? The reason we do not get them from Africa is that we discriminate; we do not open offices there. Nobody who knows anything about immigration will argue with any of those points. They know they are true and they are discriminatory. It is simply nonsense to say we do not discriminate. The policy is highly discriminatory.

I just want to make a little comment about Aboriginal affairs because I represent more Aboriginals than anyone in this parliament. I get good support from them because I try to address their real issues. I might add that I have never seen such assistance from those Labor speakers. All they have done is give lip service to the Aboriginal Industry. I might add that it is the Aboriginal Industry, not Aboriginal people that Pauline Hanson was attacking.
Mr. Hockey - Where is she?

MR. CAMPBELL - I am not Pauline Hanson's keeper so I do not know. I want to say that we have a lot of talk about cultural diversity. If you get out into rural Australia, you do not find it. You might think it is so in Melbourne and Sydney but for the great rest of Australia it is simply not so. The trouble is that we now have politicians in this place, some of whom have spoken today, who represent city suburbs with a very narrow focus. I would say it is quite clear that they are not representative of the whole of Australia. Let us just consider the policy of our neighbours.

I am not sure that you all know what the immigration policies of our neighbours is. Malaysia has the policy - and it has taken numbers of immigrants - that it will take culturally compatible people. This means, fundamentally, people from Indonesia. They speak the same language and have the same religion. That is their policy. The policy of the Japanese is to take people of Japanese origin. Until recently, they were sourcing them from Brazil. The policy of all our neighbours is race determined. I am not saying that we should do that but I do not deny them the right to do that; they have every right. When I was in Kuala Lumpur recently I was talking to a small businessman, an Indian running a hire car service, who said, "We do not know what we will do if this present government ever gets defeated because if this government gets defeated we have nowhere to go."

Beneath the surface racism is entrenched and it is very real. During my election campaign I got a cheque and a letter from a Malaysian woman, obviously from a fairly affluent background. She said in a letter to me that she had never really encountered racism until she married an Englishman. His family accepted her but her family did not accept him, so they came to Australia. She went on to say, "I would not like you to think I was racist, Mr. Campbell. Some of my best friends are Chinese. But I am telling you that if they get the numbers in Australia they will do to you what they did to Singapore."

It is nonsense to talk about any sort of united view in Asia - it does not exist. If you want to see racism alive and well and entrenched, Asia is the place to go. I get sick to the back teeth of people talking about and deriding Australia. This is, by and large, the most tolerant society in the world, but it is a society that has to be consulted and which has not been consulted so far. You will not achieve anything by trying to screw down the lid. All you will show is that you in this parliament do not represent the people and that they are not having their voices heard through you. It is quite clear to me that politicians have failed this country. It is now up to the people to do something for themselves. I want to make sure that we do address this problem and we do not have a situation created where anybody in this society runs in fear. It is not a one-way street.

In the election before last, I was campaigning in Sydney and a New Zealand TV team asked me if they could tag along. The journalist, a very large Maori whom I would not have liked to tackle, said to me, "We have been filming in Cabramatta and we could sense the hostility; we were frightened." That is not the Australia I want, and it is not the Australia that I am encouraging. It is the Australia you will get if you go down this road of mindless bipartisan policy, which fails to address the real issues. If you fail to address those real issues, there will be trouble in this country. It will be on the heads of all you bipartisan frauds.