JOHN HOWARD'S DILEMMA

by Eric D. Butler
Events are forcing the Howard Government into a type of political corner from which it is proving increasingly difficult to escape. Under normal circumstances, the next Federal elections would not take place until some time early in 1999. Under normal circumstances the next half Senate election would take place next year. But, as the League of Rights has predicted, normal circumstances can no longer be predicted.

Like every industrialised nation, Australia is in the iron grip of a deepening crisis. It is the same type of crisis, which is throwing the internationalists' programme for a "united Europe" out of kilter. Chancellor Kohl of Germany finds himself struggling to cling to political power. The massive French electoral upset was a backlash against the harsh results of finance-economic orthodoxy.

While centralisation has badly damaged the Australian Federal system, there is still sufficient decentralisation of power to give the Australian people some protection. The problems inside the Liberal Party reflect a natural diversity of interests. While John Howard was able to "persuade" the West Australian Liberals to exclude the controversial Creighton Brown from their Senate team at Canberra, he was unable to prevent the arrival of rugged individualist Lightfoot as a Senate replacement. Lightfoot has been so independent that he even defended the League of Rights as a member of the West Australian Parliament.
John Howard also has the problem of a number of Queensland National Party members who are in semi-open revolt against the programme of economic rationalism. And there is the nagging problem of a Senate, which the Government does not control.

The suggestion that the Government might eliminate the difficulty with the small parties and the Independents by changing its method of election has been so generally condemned that the proposal appears to have been dropped - for the time being, at least. The proposal itself has merely increased a growing cynicism concerning party politicians, which is feeding support for Pauline Hanson and Graeme Campbell.

As we have constantly pointed out, the problems for the Government must increase. Which raises the question of what can it do? The retreat on the immigration and tariff issues may give some short term political relief, but the Government is haunted by the fact that, as the latest economic figures show, there are no improvements in the area which politically is the most sensitive: unemployment. The best that tariff freezes can do is to prevent a devastating increase in unemployment.

As John Howard and Peter Costello have had to admit the long awaited overall increase in economic activity has not eventuated. Foreign debt has reached a new record level, increasing the burden of servicing that debt. In spite of his brave words, Peter Costello knows that the next set of quarterly economic figures could be even worse than those recently released. Which lends credibility to the view expressed publicly by Graeme Campbell that John Howard has been forced by events to consider an early election. A double dissolution would be required to achieve this.

John Howard and his strategists are well aware that Pauline Hanson has not yet had her party registered, still less organised to contest an election. Even if the Pauline Hanson party does not win one seat in the House of Representatives, its preferences could decide the fate of a number of Liberals who won at last elections with very slim majority. And there is the Senate threat. What, then, can John Howard offer the electors if the gamble is taken to settle for an early election?

His handling of the debate concerning Aboriginal affairs may do little if anything for the Coalition in rural Australia, but could be decisive where the majority of voters live: in urban Australia. Howard's conversion to the view that the G.S.T. should be considered, as part of a "tax reform" programme is an indication of how desperate the Government has become. One thing is certain: such a reform will not start with an area where an enormous increase in tax revenue is possible.

Through failing to give the real figures, governments and their advisors have managed to disguise how much foreign companies operating in Australia fail to pay in taxation by sending their profits out of Australia. But enough is known to be able to say that the total amount is astronomical and, if collected, would make some tax relief in Australia possible.

The use of statistics to mask reality has become commonplace for a long time. Older students of Social Credit will recall that at one time the Year Book provided statistical evidence concerning the overall deficiency of purchasing power in the community. The figures gave total prices for the year alongside total wages, clearly demonstrating that there was a deficiency, which could only be overcome by progressive injections of debt finance.

The Howard Government and its "advisors" will not touch any tax reform, which raises any questions about foreign investments. This subject is a type of sacred cow. Those who argue that if Australia were to make any serious move against the internationalist programme, immediate international financial pressure would be brought to bear, should be reminded that when the Government of Rhodesia declared independence in 1965, it was generally felt that the application of economic sanctions, including a complete cessation of foreign investments, would bring the country to its knees in a few weeks. Exactly the opposite happened.

It is time to recall how the massive Australian war effort during the Second World War was financed. Australia is at war again. Clearly the present set of Federal politicians have little to offer. If John Howard calls his early election, a start can be made to force a change to the agenda of progressive surrender.

RUDDOCK SMEARS THE LEAGUE

by David Thompson
It is perhaps a mark of the desperation of the Howard Government that it feels it necessary to attempt to counter the influence of Pauline Hanson among its own branches by smearing the League of Rights, and attempting to associate the League with Hanson. Mr. Stewart McArthur, the Liberal Member for Corangamite in Victoria, asked Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock in Parliament on June 3rd about the Government's reaction to a publication widely circulated by the League.

The publication in question was a copy of the League's Intelligence Survey of December, 1996, in which we reproduced Pauline Hanson's speech to the House of Representatives replying to the cowardly and malicious attacks upon her following her maiden speech. It is true that this speech has been widely circulated by League supporters, apparently to the discomfort of the Coalition, who now realise that much of the support for Hanson's views comes from their own constituency - even from within their own branches. They have more to lose from a Pauline Hanson party than the A.L.P.

How to shut Hanson up? Accuse the League of being "behind her", as the Treasurer, Mr. Costello, did after releasing the 1997 Budget. Accuse the League of "masterminding" her programme, as Malcolm Fraser has several times. It must be a conspiracy. This was not simply an idle question without notice from Stewart McArthur. This was a "Dorothy Dixer", cooked up in advance in the party room with an objective in mind. The objective was clearly to attempt to further "demonise" the League of Rights, and to attempt to embarrass Pauline Hanson.
The (rather limp) hands of the Liberal Party strategists are clearly to be discerned in this.

It is of further interest that Ruddock was asked this question as the Acting Attorney General, on the somewhat facile pretence that the Attorney General is responsible for the Racial Discrimination Act.

COWARDLY AND DISHONEST ANSWER

Ruddock's answer is instructive. It is clear that he had carefully studied the League's brochure, which included details of how to obtain Denis McCormack's tape, "The Grand Plan to Asianise Australia". He said, in part: "It is disturbing indeed to me that the League of Rights is providing a platform for the honourable member for Oxley. I am sure that members know that the views of this organisation are abhorrent, and are certainly not supported by any right thinking people. The organisation promotes views, which are racist, divisive and morally reprehensible. It is clear that all but the fringes of Australia's society would accept the views of that organisation. It is clear that the coalition rejects those views - and those views absolutely. I welcome the approving nods from members opposite..."

That Ruddock's comments are dishonest and cowardly almost needs no expression. He makes no attempt to state which views the League promotes that he finds so abhorrent. He gives no example of the League's "racism" which might be debated or challenged. As a knee-jerk reaction reminiscent of Pavlov's dog, he absolutely rejects all the League's views. Does he so vigorously reject support for the Crown, and the flag? Does he reject our objectives of observation of the rule of law, defence of free enterprise and private ownership? Perhaps he is offended by our support for the Senate, and State Upper Houses, and British common law? Does the Liberal Party feel threatened by our rejection of government-by-regulation, and bureaucratic interference with the individual, or support for the written Constitution? These are questions I intend to ask Mr. Ruddock.

It is evident, however, that Mr. Ruddock is unaware of the size and extent of the "fringes of Australia's society" that he blithely risks further alienating them. Our answer to Mr. Ruddock is to simply step up our service to the "fringes" of society - the fringes that he and his party political companions have alienated by their arrogant attitudes - by further and wider distribution of our material. Mr. Ruddock would be horrified to know how many Liberal Party branch members are willingly circulating the very same material of which he complains! Let the political parties squirm or panic as much as they like; the sooner they discover that their M.P's. are our servants rather than our masters, the better.

CREATIONISTS VERSUS SCIENTISTS IN COURT

Last week the case in the Federal Court between Melbourne University Geology Professor Ian Plimer and the Christian Allen Roberts came to a conclusion. At issue was Professor Plimer's claim that under the Trade Practices Act, Allen Roberts was deceiving people by selling material arguing that the remains of Noah's Ark could be identified on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Incensed by the Christian's claim that the world was created by God, Plimer had attempted to discredit Roberts, and force him to cease making his claims that science actually tends to confirm the biblical account.

While both sides are claiming a victory of sorts, it is clear that the biggest winners will be the lawyers. It appears that Plimer will lose his home unless he can find some group to come to his assistance, and Roberts may be bankrupted by the time the legal costs are paid. What should be noted, however, was Justice Ronald Sackville's judgment. Apart from cautioning that some issues, no matter how great the passion they arouse, are more appropriately dealt with outside the courtroom, he made the following point:
"Considerable care must be exercised before making orders (by a court) restraining statements made in the course of public discussion on issues regarded by many people as important to their religious or ideological beliefs."

Perhaps similar care should be exercised in the process of deciding which exponents of various differing views of history should be permitted to visit Australia. Clearly the courts have been used (and abused) in a so-far successful attempt to permit David Irving visiting.

PARTINGTON ON THE 'STOLEN GENERATION'

Last week's edition of The Bulletin (10/6/97) carried a thoughtful article by Professor Geoffrey Partington on the question of the "stolen generation" of Aboriginal children. Partington, author of the book "Hasluck versus Coombs", studies the claim that the process of removing these children from their families was "genocide". Partington notes that under the new definitions, "genocide" no longer requires "one corpse, let alone a massacre". He also notes that not all cultural units are eligible for protection.

"In contemporary Australia it is Aboriginal cultural units that have been issued with preservation orders."
Partington writes: "By virtue of a peculiar inverted racism, all children of Aboriginal descent are now defined as Aborigines, even if their ancestry is mostly non-Aboriginal. In our brave new world a single Aboriginal forebear confers Aboriginal identity and enables ATSIC to claim a growing constituency."

Partington points to a particular piece of hypocrisy that demands an answer in the case of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge, proposed for South Australia. He points out that in the "women's business" used to oppose the bridge's construction, it was claimed that the island was a special place for "infanticide perpetrated against children found to be of white paternity, and for abortion of foetuses suspected of being so." (our emphasis).

Was the Aboriginal industry arguing that the bridge would disturb something sacred about the deliberate slaughter of part-Aboriginal children? Is the "Bringing them Home" report on the "stolen generation" claiming that the European answer of "removing" part-Aboriginal children from their parents a form of "genocide", while infanticide of the same class of children by their Aboriginal elders was acceptable?

Partington concludes: "The real disgrace in 'Bringing them Home' is that it defames Hasluck and others whose prime concern was the well-being of Aboriginal people."

A JEW WRITES AN 'OPEN LETTER' TO PAULINE HANSON

We understand that Mr. Jack Seizer, of Waterloo, N.S.W., is an anti-Zionist Jew. We have received a copy of an open letter, dated May 5th, which Mr. Seizer has written to Pauline Hanson. It reads as follows:

"While listening to the ABC'S The World Today on the 1st of May, I felt particularly embarrassed when I heard a fellow Jew, Robert Mann(kevich), labeling your legitimately expressed political views as being 'fascist' - and this guru of political correctness happens to be the editor of a magazine that was financed by the CIA along with numerous coups and political assassinations… Anyhow, if charity begins at home, then, surely, a Jew in search of fascists whom to condemn need never look any further than his own Israel, where, apart from daily racist murders, they've got Nuremberg Laws in force, whereby, only certified Jews are entitled to enter as permanent residents and take up citizenship - native-born Palestinians aren't. Yet, with extreme and obvious personal dishonesty, Robert Mann(kevich) points his Jewish finger of scorn at the tiny speck in the eye of his Australian neighbours, while totally ignoring the yule-tide log in his own Talmudic eye.
With all the sincerity of Judas Iscariot, those organized Jews keep finding fault with everyone, except themselves. One wonders, why don't they all go to their own proclaimed 'Jewish homeland' and bestow their much-advertised brotherly love upon each other or, better still, upon the subjugated Palestinians? Surely, if those double-dealing Pharisees ever had a slightest intention of practising what they preach at their own expense, they all by now would have made their 'aliya' to Israel - and stayed there.
However, as certain cynics point out, parasites cannot very well suck blood from their fellow parasites. Besides, apart from extorting incredibly large sums of money from the long-suffering Western taxpayers (over US$6 billion per annum from the US alone), the primary function of all those unregistered Israeli lobbyists who, invariably, pose as Jew liberals, here, in the West, is to cover up for the Jew fascists in occupied Palestine.
The brutal public slaying of Itzik Rabin(ovich), their former prime minister, exposed in a flash the sacred kosher cow of their 'Jewish state' for what it really is: an apartheid hellhole filled with hate and pregnant with murder."

NEW BOOK

"Sons of the Yellow Emperor" - the story of the overseas Chinese - by Lynn Pan, a Chinese now living in England. Lynn Pan tells the story of the greatest diaspora of all time - the Chinese. Whether in Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, Port Moresby or Suva, the Chinese merchant thrives. His thrift and sense of business acumen serves him well in all lands, whether Africa, South America, the Middle East or India, or the citadels of capitalism: New York or London, Hong Kong or Sydney, Vancouver or Los Angeles.
The Chinese are admired for their industry and ambition, honesty and thrift, but just as thoroughly hated for their greed and craftiness, self-interest and cunning in business and crime.

For while much of the industry of Asia (and beyond) is a testament to the tirelessness of the Chinese, so too is much of the crime. Just as they are renowned as labourers, builders and businessmen, so the Chinese are to be found profiting from prostitution, the drug trade, and any illicit activity from the sale of body parts to standover gangsterism. Lynn Pan, describing the Chinese as "the Jews of the East" in one chapter, deals with their overt and predominant "racism", and explains that the overseas Chinese sees himself as Chinese first, and anything else a poor second. The love of family, and the familial connections have not only served them well in business, but maintained their connections with China.
She deals with four eras of their diaspora, and the book explains why the Chinese are widely detested by our northern neighbours in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and New Guinea.
Paperback, 375 pages, $19.00, or $22.00 posted.

FROM THE PRESS

Sunday Telegraph, 8/6/1997: Perkins a pretender
"I'm a pure-bred black man. My father was killed in a tree-felling accident when I was six or seven. My mother and younger sister were sent to a mission and I was given to a foster family on a dairy farm. I was suffering from ear, eye and nose infections. My only clothing was a sugar bag with three holes and lots of fleas and lice. I was taken to hospital where my ears and eyes were washed out and I was given medicine.
When I could talk well enough, my foster family sent me to school. My life on the farm was good. I got plenty to eat and a warm bed at night and I had to do my share of odd jobs around the farm. By the age of 14 or so I could read, write and add up well.
When I left school, I went felling timber and a couple of years later went to work cutting and planting sugar cane. I learned to drive a tractor and plough. I did this sort of work most of my life until machines took over and ill health made me stop work.
Being 100 percent black has never bothered me - I have been happy working for a living and rearing a family. What makes me sick is the likes of Charlie Perkins, and all the other people who are one part black and seven parts white, pretending to be black, dancing around in front of the Prime Minister and wanting to be paid for being brought up with a white family.
I am proud of the white family that devoted so much time to me when I was young; if it wasn't for them, I would have died at an early age. I think those people should be compensated instead of the pretend black people." BILL BOW, Innisfail, Qld.

Aboriginal authenticity
"When I was breeding cattle, the geneticists informed me that a beast which was 15/16ths Hereford was to all intents and purposes a Hereford. Here we have people 15/16ths Anglo-Celtic claiming to be Aborigines.
Can they tell me then, if they are 15/16ths Anglo-Celtic, for whom do they weep when they say 'I weep for my people'?
There is no finer person than a full-blood Aborigine. It is the half-, quarter-, eighth- and sixteenth castes who create all the problems.
The question remains: what is an Aborigine?" W. DOUGLAS, Nambucca Heads.