IMMIGRATION DEBATE MUST BE CIVILISED

by Eric D. Butler
Students of what is known as "anti-Semitism" are aware that assuming that "anti-Semitism" is defined as expressing hatred of the Jewish people, or anti-Jewish acts, much of this type of "anti-Semitism" has been deliberately promoted by Jews for political and publicity purposes. In his classic work, The Zionist Connection, American anti-Zionist Jew Dr. Alfred Lilienthal provides documented evidence of this type of provocative activity.

Many of the illiterates masquerading as serious journalists reveal not only their illiteracy, but also their philosophic bias as they churn out their comments on immigration and race issues. Many are blatant totalitarians who resent the emergence of political representatives like Graeme Campbell and Pauline Hanson. Like a cracked record they keep sneering about "the threat of racism", this rarely defined, probably because the illiterates are unable to manage this.

The forced programme of multiculturalism, particularly at a time when there is large-scale unemployment and economic tensions, is a guaranteed recipe for ethnic conflict. The minimising and progressive resolution of this type of conflict requires basically two steps: the first being a drastic reduction in the immigration rate and the end of the policy of multiculturalism; and the second being implementation of an economic programme which will make it possible for those seeking to join the production system to do so.

The fostering of any type of ethnic hatred at the present time should not only be deplored, but should be condemned by all those who genuinely want to halt any further social disintegration. An item in the Melbourne Herald Sun of Saturday, January 18th, highlights the threat from those groups who are being deliberately provocative. Entitled, RACISM HAS A PRICE TAG, a report starts, "T shirts with anti-Asian and other racist slogans are being sold by a new shop opened by the racist organisation National Action. National Action chairman Michael Brander said he hoped the shop would get the group's anti-Asian immigration message across middle Australia."

There is a photo of Michael Brander outside the shop, which displays the Eureka flag. One cannot help noting the number of self-styled nationalist movements that use a flag, which has no relevance to Australia's genuine heritage. Although I have only met Michael Brander briefly on several occasions, I would say that he is probably a genuinely well-meaning young man. But he is politically naive if he believes that the type of programme he supports is going to have any impact on "middle Australia".

The history of the National Action movement in Australia shows that some of the types it attracts are sometimes psychopaths, susceptible to manipulation by others. Growing social disintegration, with a growing younger underclass, must inevitably result in the recruitment of more social misfits into the ranks of those who are desperate about the future.
Increasing numbers do not believe that they have a future, as witnessed by the suicide rate. Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett is so alarmed that he is going to have an investigation as to the cause. One Church leader has bluntly said that the cause is well known: the rising unemployment rate among the young. But like all his Liberal Party colleagues Jeff Kennett has nothing constructive to offer.
The best that Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Employment, can suggest is that it will take time before the "benefits" of the Howard-Costello Budget are felt. Confidence will then be restored and, hey presto, more jobs will become available.

Clearly a combination of developments are bringing Australia towards a major explosion. This is no time for creating fear amongst the Asian and non-European community. It is not the fault of the non-Europeans that they are in Australia in such large numbers at this time. As documented by researcher Denis McCormack in his work, The Asianisation of Australia, all the major political parties have been responsible for what has happened. They must be forced by constructive electoral pressure to start to correct what has happened. The tactics of groups like National Action can only prove counter-productive.

Anti-League of Rights smearers have attempted to link the League with revolutionary groups. As the notorious National Action leader in West Australia, Jack Von Tongren, is still in prison as a result of criminal activities against Asians, has been quoted as having said that he had tried to increase his education by "hanging around" the League.
It is important to record that the last time I saw Van Tongren was when I had to have him and a colleague physically ejected from a public meeting. They had charged that I was "soft" on the immigration issue and threw an empty cartridge into the meeting shouting that all power flowed from the barrel of the gun. This was one of Chinese Communist leader Mao's best-known slogans. I stressed at the Perth meeting that National Action's tactics were simply making the task of constructive opponents of the nation's disastrous immigration policy that much harder.

In a disgraceful cover story, The Bulletin blatantly attempted to link the League with groups like National Action. A senior editor with The Bulletin, a pleasant woman, came to my Melbourne office to interview me for The Bulletin story. She frankly admitted that she had not found what she expected. But this did not prevent the subsequent smear article in The Bulletin. Such is the morality of those determined to ensure that there is no constructive opposition to Australia's immigration and multicultural policies.

But, fortunately, the tide is turning. The best contribution Michael Brander and other National Action supporters can make is to permanently close down their movement and take up some pleasant hobby.

ROUGH RIDE FOR PRIME MINISTER IN 1997

by David Thompson
On his return from holidays this week, the Prime Minister, Mr. Howard, must contemplate a series of Fundamental problems facing his administration over at least the next year. Far from the expected steady improvement in the economy, it continues to steadily decline on almost all indicators. If Howard and his Ministers insist on proceeding with the suicidal policy of tariff elimination, it is likely that more than just the Ford Motor Company would cease operating in Australia. The unemployment problem will not decline this year in any significant sense, even if Mr. Ferguson's proposal for "job-sharing" were taken seriously.

The immigration issue is certain to boil over again as the British lease on Hong Kong expires, and large numbers of Chinese prepare to escape from the Communist takeover. Many expect to be able to come to Australia. Indeed, many already have permanent residency visas, and similar guarantees. The Department of Immigration admits that at least 40,000 Chinese have Australian entry rights. No amount of warning by bodies such as Interpol that our high levels of Asian migration make us increasingly vulnerable to organised international crime is likely to prevail in the face of the millstone of political correctness. Mr. Howard may find that the Hanson phenomena of 1996 was simply a pale foretaste of what is to come.

LAND TITLE AND THE GLOBAL STATE

Perhaps the thorniest issue faced by the Coalition is finding a way to deal with the fall-out from the 1993 "Mabo decision" of the High Court. Having "found" that native title does exist in Australia, it still remains to determine just how far native title extends. The Keating administration insisted that titles such as Crown land, freehold, and leasehold extinguished native title, but in the result of the test case brought by the Wik people from Queensland, the High Court staggered the nation with yet another extraordinary ruling that titles such as pastoral leases can co-exist with native title.

This ruling has, as the Queensland Minister for Natural Resources Mr. Hobbs said in the New Year, effectively paralysed the administration of land titles in the State. This view follows legal advice that seventy-two percent of Queensland is directly affected, and that all pastoral leaseholders should immediately cease any property improvements that have not been approved by native titleholders.

In most cases, no native title claims have been made, or not yet awarded, so the problem effectively exists until pastoralists can be assured that either native title is extinguished by a pastoral lease, or until all native title claims have been heard. The latter is a matter of many years. This is clearly an impossible situation, as around forty-two percent of the continent is covered by leasehold title, and pastoralists and miners, the main commercial beneficiaries of leasehold land, cannot operate until it is cleared up.

What will the Howard administration do? On the face of it, the problem is easily solved: the High Court is not the legislative organ for the nation - Parliaments are. State Parliaments can change the rules of administering land title. The main problem, however, is that legislation ensuring that leasehold title extinguished native title would elicit loud and highly indignant protests that to do so would breach the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (R.D.A.). Any State prepared to pass such legislation would smartly find itself before the High Court, charged with breaching the Act. This, of course, is a Federal Act, lobbing the hot coal right back to Mr. Howard. Is he prepared to legislate to extinguish native title over leasehold, thus overriding the R.D.A.?

SANCTIONS AGAINST AUSTRALIA?

If the Commonwealth was prepared to grasp the nettle of tampering with the R.D.A., it is almost certain that Section 51 (31) of the Constitution would require the Commonwealth to pay "just-terms" compensation to anyone disadvantaged by new legislation. This could run into billions of dollars, particularly if Aboriginal claimants can argue that such a course robs them of mining royalties. Ridiculous as it now seems, the day may yet come to pass when 20th (or 21st) century Australians really are required to "pay the rent" for the last 200 years of settlement.
Vigorous charges of "racism" would be leveled at any government preparing to override the Racial Discrimination Act, and Aboriginal groups have already warned that massive protests can be expected, leading right up to the 2000 Olympic Games.

It is now becoming clear that international bodies like the United Nations could be enlisted by protest groups to condemn Australia internationally for our "treatment" of Aborigines. It is not impossible to envisage calls for international economic sanctions on Australia reminiscent of sanctions against Rhodesia and South Africa in the 1970's and 80's. In the intervening years, we have seen what was done to Iraq by "the international community".

When the League of Rights campaigned against the international condemnation of Rhodesia, and then South Africa, suggesting "Australia could be next" to receive this sort of treatment, even some of our own supporters dismissed this as nonsense. But in reality it has little to do with the alleged treatment of Aborigines. It has much more to do with the strategic politics of global government. Australia is still one of the few nations that could defy the international thrust toward global government, as we have enough resources in enough quantities to be economically self-sufficient, and thus internationally independent.

South Africa was once a relatively independent nation, and successfully resisted economic sanctions for some time. It was only when the globalists like Dr. Henry Kissinger insisted that the international banking groups also boycott South Africa that their independence was broken, and "majority rule" used to ensure that it could never be re-established. President Mandela is a most compliant globalist.

It is now becoming alarmingly obvious that the international revolutionary "front line" is shifting from Africa, where the formerly independent states of Rhodesia and South Africa have been broken down. It is entirely possible that Australia could be next for international condemnation. It is through issues like native title and the "plight" of Aborigines that international pressure will be applied. We must remember the lessons of Rhodesia and South Africa if Australia is to survive the onslaught. The main lesson to be learned is that no compromise is satisfactory to the globalists- only complete surrender.

THE IMMIGRATION-ORGANISED CRIME LINK

Early in the New Year the Secretary General of Interpol, Mr. Raymond Kendall warned that the Australian immigration programme left the nation vulnerable to international organised crime. He cited the Communist takeover of Hong Kong on July 1st as a potentially major turning point for the influx of criminals to Australia.

With an eye to the 2000 Olympics and deepening drug problems, Kendall also warned about a little-known law introduced by the Keating administration, which protects foreign criminals who could face capital punishment in their own countries from being deported. Kendall also focused on the long-term effects of organised crime. He singled out drug trafficking (which has been linked to up to 50 percent of crime in major cities) as the greatest threat to democracy in the post-Cold-War era. He noted that police, politicians, public servants and even business people could be corrupted by criminals with access to huge sums of illicit money.

The Commissioner of the N.S.W. Police Force, Englishman Peter Ryan, had already attracted criticism for expressing the view that the "horrific" Australian crime rates were based on Lebanese, Hong Kong, former Soviet, Vietnamese and Chinese ethnic groups. In order to attempt to combat the crime problem, the N.S.W. Police Force has tried to recruit police officers form Asian countries. Because they speak the language and understand the culture of some of the ethnic crime gangs, police hoped to be able to make some progress in curbing the incidence of Asian crime here. However, so far only two Hong Kong police officers have been recruited.

The crime problem is often regarded as an acceptable irritant when balanced against the advantages of the multicultural society. However, these "advantages" are increasingly vague, and when specifics are demanded, usually amount to attractive variations in the menu of various restaurants. Such advantages are insignificant when weighed against the long-term interests of the nation, and should be rejected with all the mirth they merit. If the immigration programme contributes to making the nation ungovernable, that programme should be modified in the best interests of the nation.

CENSORING THE "INTERNET"

The continuing case of Ernst Zundel in Canada and the United States serves as an early warning case for freedom of speech in Australia. Zundel, who has been persecuted in Canada for daring to question aspects of the Nazi holocaust, has fought and won almost every court case against him so far. But a number of groups in Canada seem determined to silence Zundel, and he now faces a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding the "hateful" material on his Internet site, the "Zundelsite".

Although he concentrates on revisionist research concerning the holocaust, Zundel has never been prosecuted under Canada's "anti-hate" laws. His Internet site is not based in Canada at all, but in California, around a thousand miles away. But every imaginable method of silencing Zundel is being pursued, and the latest effort has been to attempt to exploit Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act, which bans taped telephone messages that the Canadian thought-police regard as hateful, inciting or harmful. Computer communication is characteristically achieved by us of modems, which operate by connecting one computer to another over a telephone line.

The Californian revisionist newsletter, Smith's Report explains the strategy to silence Zundel: "The next step in the through-the-Canadian-looking-glass logic of suppressing freedom and deep freezing common sense is to safeguard 'human rights' by attempting to forbid Zundel his freedom of speech, i.e. deny him any revisionist input into the Internet, and thus, in effect, hold him hostage - a hostage of holocaustomania - under threat of arrest, prison time, and thereafter probable deportation to Germany and even lengthier imprisonment, should he continue posting revisionist materials on the Zundelsite.
"If Ernst Zundel loses before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (never bet against him), the C.H.R. Commission may well issue a cease and desist order, bound to his person, making him liable for anything he does personally to provide material to his California-based website - or has already provided..."

The author of Smith Report, Mr. Bradley Smith, has his own Internet site: https://www.codoh.com.

'MY FAREWELL TO ISRAEL - THORN IN THE MIDDLE EAST'

LETTERS

From THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN. 4/1/1997
"Whenever your correspondents turn to the issues of native title or racism generally they can be relied on to invoke the warning that 'the international community is watching' (vis-a-vis K. Griffiths, Letters, 28, 29/12/96). "Who cares if they are watching? "Our only concern is to have clear standards of our own and the courage and good sense to implement them. And in my view, this is where we fall down. "Take a few examples. Democracy, for instance. How many of us can give a reasonable definition of what Australian democracy is, let alone give an explanation of how he or she individually helps democracy to flourish? Equal opportunity is another case in point. So many people and organisations mouth clichés about it, or about 'ethics', but what is each of us doing to make it real? If we are vague on these how can we have an opinion about the republic or racism? "I could go on, but I won't because the basic problem facing Australians is: who in any effective sense cares? And if you're hooked on to the gravy train, caring may just cost too much."
Tom Mangan, Woy Woy, N.S.W.

From THE AUSTRALIAN, 20/1/1997
"State Opposition leader Peter Collins (Coalition defends PM over Report, 1 l-12/l) just lost the next election with his intemperate and inaccurate criticism of John Howard. "Far from 'the Liberal Party risking losing political support unless debate on the republic progressed', its management of the issue enhances it. "There is huge support for our Constitution and our flag, the former of which has endowed this country with dramatically stable government since its inception; and the latter, a source of immense pride, symbolically packed as it is with so many elements of our history, which cannot be wiped out. "In Mr. Collins's push for a republic he should understand that the two are inextricably entwined. "These two issues alone were sufficient for John Howard to demolish Paul Keating (who relentlessly pushed his obsession for changing our flag and bringing about his republic) and for him to be swept massively to power. "John Howard sensibly wants to retain both. Mr. Collins, like Mr. Keating, wants to rip them to shreds. He is not within a bull's roar of reading the electorate correctly. Some politicians never learn."
S.A. Millar, Kirribilli.