TO CUT, OR NOT TO CUT; THIS IS THE QUESTION

by Eric D. Butler
As one contemplates the mass of confusing comments concerning whether interest rates should be cut further, one is reminded by the painful indecision of Hamlet in Shakespeare's famous play. "To be or not to be, that was the question" Hamlet contemplated. But unlike Hamlet, there is no evidence that those considering whether or not to cut interest rates, are contemplating shuffling of "this mortal coil": rather the opposite.

It appears that Federal Treasurer Peter Costello and those who think as he does are not in favour of a further cut in interest rates, arguing that the past cuts have yet "to work their way through the system". And there is always the fear that some unforeseen development might require an increase in interest rates. Such an increase could be disastrous if too close to the next Federal elections.

The politicians, particularly those in marginal seats, have no intention, if at all possible, of "shuffling" off the political coil - at least not until they have their future pensions secured. Their approach to the question of interest rates is governed primarily by their own self-interests. But it is clear that the politicians have no more understanding of the realities of the finance economic system than have the certified economic "experts", who appear to be baffled by the fact that past interest rate cuts have failed to stimulate the economy and have any effect on unemployment.

Those living in the real world know that far more than reductions in interest rates are required to have any serious effect on the economy. A reduction of interest rates to zero would not of itself overcome the deep fear of unemployment, which permeates the whole community. What is the value of a low interest rate loan for a house or a new business if one finds oneself suddenly out of a job? The high bankruptcy rate and the continuing high unemployment is stark evidence of the grim reality of the situation.

This is not to say that reduced interest rates do not have a marginal value for some. But there are those who have been attempting to live on the investments of their past savings. Generally speaking, the reduction in the cost of living does not offset the loss of income from interest bearing investments. Under the present debt system of finance economics, there can only be relatively few winners with the great majority losing. Thus the spectacle of the few becoming even richer with the great majority becoming more stressed.

Anyone who has taken the trouble to attend the League of Rights' Social Dynamics Schools knows that it is mathematically impossible to maintain the present economic system without an expansion of total financial debt, both private and public, with crushing taxation essential in an attempt to service the debts, and that a rising cost of living is inevitable. Attempts to slow the rising cost of living by the type of measures, which Paul Keating used (remember the Keating quip about "the depression we had to have"?) and which Treasurer Costello is applying with even greater vigor, merely increases growing social tensions.

One reaction to the situation is that there must be a massive expansion of new credits for some type of capital works programme. Mr. B.A. Santamaria, who appears to be a late convert to some type of monetary reform, quoting material which has been well known to Social Crediters for over half a century, has now been joined by a group of businessmen headed by prominent business executive David Mortimer, who urge that an extra $1 billion be spent on industrial projects over the next five years. Even this relatively modest palliative is at present rejected by Treasurer Costello and his "experts".

Clearly there is division in the Federal Cabinet about what should done. Appealing to the past is of little value unless the appropriate lessons are learned. A massive expansion of new financial credits for the Second World War certainly "solved", for a period, the problem of "poverty amidst plenty". Massive destruction for war got rid of the plenty while the great majority had a paid job which either enabled them to buy the rationed consumer production, or to save for the future. But as demonstrated by Douglas, a massive expansion of capital production inevitably produces a big increase in price rises.

It was not inflation, which caused the Great Depression of the thirties, but the boom in capital production in the U.S.A. Inflation was the inevitable result of a massive expansion programme. The Second World War demonstrated that the only effective answer to inflation was the introduction of a Consumer Discount System. Although crudely operated, the system was effective. The "experts", headed by Fabian D.H.C. Coombs, fought tooth and nail to ensure that the Consumer Price Discount system was never re-introduced. Clearly this was a conscious policy.

It is difficult for the average generally uninformed individual to grasp that the present desperate situation has been compounded by a long term policy to force an economically defenceless Australia into what is known now as "The Global Economy". Last week the Victorian North Eastern city of Wangaratta saw some thousands march in a protest against the threatened loss of local industry jobs resulting from further tariff cuts.

If those afraid of the destruction of yet another Australian industry, Yakka, were asked what connection there was between what was happening and a speech made over 20 years ago by the then American Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, they would almost certainly look extremely puzzled. But it was in the early 70s that Dr. Kissinger, closely associated with International Banking, told representatives of the United Nations that the time had come when sovereign nations could no longer solve their own problems; they had to come together in a New International Economic Order. "Free trade" had to be developed worldwide.

Starting with Gough Whitlam and his Fabians, Australian politicians started to fall into line. Here and there even a few orthodox economists issued warnings. But through the Universities and other centres of "Higher Learning", the gospel of economic rationalism, as it is now termed, was promulgated.

The politicians have become victims of a gospel, which in practice threatens the future of Australia. All this has not happened by chance. It is the result of conscious long term policy planning. There are several aspects of the situation, which it is essential to bear in mind: No type of World State can possibly work. As the destructive results of the policy of global centralism become clearer, it becomes easier to explain to people the reality of Global Planning. This must then be followed by effective action.

Pauline Hanson and her followers have stumbled into a minefield, which they must either understand, or be ultimately destroyed. The League of Rights is correctly perceived as the one movement with sufficient knowledge and ability to offer constructive action. This is why the League of Rights is the target of the most venomous attacks. Whether or not interest rates are reduced or increased is only a sideshow concerned with the major battle to be fought.

RUBBERY 1996 CENSUS RFSULTS

by David Thompson
The national census conducted every five years may be more remarkable for what it does not tell us, rather than what it reveals. Anyone who has been pressured to fill in statistical forms for agriculture building, or other industries, knows full well that the figures, if not outright lies, are at best "rubbery". Many of the things we need to know about Australia will never be revealed by the census. For example, how many illegal immigrants are now in Australia, and what is their country of origin or racial group? The census doesn't tell us, because those in this category are careful not to fill out a census form.

One result from the 1996 census is the information that between 1991 and 1996 the number of "indigenous people" increased by a massive 33%, from 265,458 to 352,970. Behind such an incredible increase lies a story, which should be pursued, but has not been, perhaps because it is still not politically correct to do so. "Indigenous people" in N.S.W. increased in number since the last census by nearly 50%, while the overall N.S.W. population increase was around 10%. What could be the explanation for this? Do "indigenous people" breed far more vigorously than others?

The Bureau of Statistics report on the 1996 census offers the vague suggestion that the huge increase "is partly explained by people's increased willingness to declare their indigenous origin". This is an interesting statement, pregnant with meaning. First it confirms that in the past there has been a reluctance to tell the Bureau the truth in some matters. Perhaps in many matters. It means that the figures for "indigenous people" in the past have been wrong. Or does it imply that since it is becoming fashionable/ profitable to be "indigenous" now, others are claiming indigenous status to which they are not entitled?

More to the point, it indicates that both the past census figures were incorrect, and so are the present figures. Just who are indigenous people, anyway? Were we asked to categorise ourselves as "indigenous" or otherwise at census time, or were we asked for our cultural/racial origins, leaving the Department to decide whom was indigenous, and whom was not? What criteria have they adopted for "indigenous"? Is this bureaucratic code for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? And just what is the definition of an Aborigine? Someone who can claim more Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal in their genetic background? Or simply someone who "feels like" an Aborigine? Are those with more European in their background than Aboriginal permitted to claim "Aboriginal" status? Of course.

As with most statistics, almost anything can be proven by manipulating the numbers of the 1996 census. Those who plan major business decisions on the bald figures, without significantly more analysis of what motivates us to describe ourselves as we do, may suffer serious disappointment.

JEWISH GOLD - PALISTINIAN LAND?

The outrage and indignation expressed by Jewish leaders such as Mr. Isi Leibler over the tardiness of Swiss banks to release information concerning unclaimed bank accounts from the World War II era is a little overdone. An advertisement published in the Australian press last week (The Australian, 23/7/97) listed two pages of dormant accounts, and invites those who wish to make a claim for them, to do so. The advertisement advises that claims will be evaluated by an independent panel of arbitrators under "relaxed standards of proof'.

The Swiss Bankers Association together with a committee of "Eminent Persons" has (somehow) identified the published accounts as those identified as belonging to Holocaust victims. There is no reason why the descendants of those who owned the bank accounts should not benefit from their contents, and the Swiss should be congratulated for their co-operation, even if it is belated. However, those of Palestinian descent might ask whether the Israeli State is prepared to adopt the same approach to land, homes and other property that was stolen from their ancestors after World War II.

While many Jews claim to have been hounded out of Europe by the Nazis, so, too, do many Palestinians claim to have been hounded out of their homes by the same European Jews. Many Palestinians in the Middle East can easily trace their ancestry back to property - sometimes homes still standing - confiscated from them by the Jewish immigrants from Europe.

The Palestinians are often portrayed as something akin to "dirty Moslem terrorists", although it is generally overlooked that over 10% of the Palestinians are Christians, some of whom can trace their heritage through the centuries back to the New Testament Church. The story of what really happened to bring the modern State of Israel into being has largely been suppressed as an inconvenient embarrassment to the Zionists. Palestinian Christians like Elias Chacour ("Blood Brothers"), Sami Hadawi ("Bitter Harvest") and Audeh Rantisi ("Blessed Are The Peacemakers") tell a harrowing story of how their families were dispossessed of their homes, villages, land and belongings by terrorist intimidation from the Zionists. Others, like Ethel Mannin ("Road to Beersheba") and Colin Chapman ("Whose Promised Land?") tell the same story.

One of the most notorious acts of terrorism was that of the Deir Yassin massacre of April 1948, deliberately designed to terrorise the Palestinian population, and frighten them from their homes. Menachem Begin, himself a terrorist leader, praised those who butchered over 250 people, writing "as in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy …"

Is there any suggestion that the Israeli State would consider offering to return the Palestinians' homes, land and belongings to their descendants? Is there any trace of indignation from leaders like Isi Leibler about the 49 years that have passed without Israel admitting that the real owners of some Israeli land have been either murdered or forced to take refuge in nearby countries?

"Blood Brothers" by Elias Chacour, $12.00 ($14.00 posted); "Whose Promised Land?" by Colin Chapman, $13.00 ($15.00 posted); "Bitter Harvest" by Sami Hadawi, $15.00 ($18.00 posted); from all League Book Services.

WILL PAULINE HANSON RUN FOR THE SENATE?

Wayne Goss has announced that he intends to contest the seat of Oxley, presently held by Pauline Hanson, following a redistribution of electoral boundaries, which might jeopardise Hanson's chances of holding the seat. It is notable that some new parts of the seat after redistribution, like Inala, contain high concentrations of Aboriginal people. Oxley has traditionally been a safe Labor seat.

The circumstances under which Miss Hanson won Oxley should be remembered. She was disendorsed by the Liberal Party after nominations were closed, and no Liberal candidate contested Oxley. It is clear that Hanson attracted the Liberal Party vote, and also a large proportion of those ALP. voters who saw an opportunity of voting against Paul Keating without having to vote Liberal to do so. Pauline Hanson was regarded as "the enemy of our enemy" by the tribal A.L.P. voters, and, therefore, as their friend. It is almost certain that the above circumstances will not be repeated next time Oxley goes to the polls.

If Mr. Goss contests Oxley, together with a Liberal Party candidate, Hanson must struggle to hold Oxley. Wayne Goss was once ranked as the nation's most popular political leader whilst Premier of Queensland. He sees leadership opportunities (perhaps even Prime Ministerial opportunities) opening up before him in a badly decimated A.L.P.

Pauline Hanson has been provided with an honourable reason for standing for the Senate: the political establishment has robbed her of her constituents by re-drawing the electoral boundaries. She can now appeal to a Statewide constituency as a Senate candidate.

THE UGLY ANTI-HANSON CAMPAIGN

Those who watched T.V. Channel 9 last Sunday evening, and saw the 60 Minute programme witnessed just how ugly the anti-Hanson campaign has become. The most outrageous comment was made by the Asian businessman, said to have been educated at Geelong Grammar, who said that all steps "short of murder" must be used to stop Pauline Hanson.

It is becoming clear that there is a coherent strategy developing behind the anti-Hanson campaign, which has deeper implications than most people, could imagine. Some appropriate criticism should be directed against some of the Asians who are so violently criticising Pauline Hanson, in the face of a campaign, which in essence says that Pauline Hanson is undermining an Australian economy increasingly dependent upon Asia. Those who worship the Almighty Dollar stress the millions of dollars, which Australia gains as a result of Asian tourists and Asian students attending Australian schools.

If Australians wish to have the respect of the Asian people, they should make it clear to their politicians that they expect them to display a little more backbone in representing Australia. As the Asian author of The Asian Mind Game ($23.00 posted from all League of Rights book shops) makes it clear, Asian culture is very different from European culture. A very different value system operates.

MAD SYRINGE ATTACKER

McALPINE FOR REFERENDUM PARTY

Reports from the United Kingdom indicate that following the death of Sir James Goldsmith his Referendum Party will be led by Lord McAlpine. A strong supporter of Goldsmith, and a Euro-sceptic himself, McAlpine credits the Referendum Party of attracting over a million votes in the British election. Conservative M.P. Alan Clark, who was at school with Goldsmith, credits him with costing the Tories 40 seats by organising 550 candidates to stand for the Referendum Party.
Goldsmith himself stood for the seat of Putney, and although he was so thoroughly defeated that he lost his deposit, he was delighted to have been able to influence the defeat of sitting Tory Minister David Mellor. Although both Major and Blair committed themselves to a referendum on monetary union with Europe, it now remains to be seen how quickly the "pie-crust promises" will be broken by Blair.

Goldsmith highlighted the treachery and betrayal of an entire generation of politicians on the question of Europe. One of his candidates for the Referendum Party was Rodney Atkinson, brother of Mr. Bean, who was in Australia last month, and addressed the League's Perth Conservative Speakers' Club. Atkinson is the author of "Europe's Full Circle", in which he documents the treachery. "Europe's Full Circle" is available from League book services: $26.00 ($30.00 posted).

M.F.P. FINALLY DUMPED

FROM THE PRESS

Blainey the right man to head celebrations from The Australian, 21/7/97
"The very vocal David Day is again rushing into print in a most offensive way (Blainey Unfit to Head Celebration, Letters, 15/7). I can't think of a more suitable Australian to head up a committee to celebrate the centenary of our country's Federation. The arguments used by Dr. Day show the man's true colours and his lack of understanding of mainstream Australia's way of thinking and, indeed, its fears. Blainey's book All For Australia was way ahead of its time in 1984 and the fears expressed in it are as real today as they were then.
The Asians are another race and they often fail to assimilate in this country and, indeed, most others where they choose to live. They create ghettos that bear no resemblance to their new country; they simply do not understand the ways and habits of their new European neighbours and what is more they give the distinct impression they are not interested in doing so.
Dr. Day is dredging up the republic to make a point that Australia is not an independent nation, which he says 'supports our continued dependence on the British monarch'. He fails to see that the monarchy, in the case of Australia, is an Australian monarchy headed by the Queen of Australia. Because Paul Keating's ancestors were of Irish descent, did that make him the Irish prime minister, or Sir Robert Menzies, the Scottish prime minister?
Dr. Day misses the point that in spite of the influx of people from other countries, we are an Anglo-Saxon country that relies heavily on British traditions in the law, in the government, in education, in most things we do. Howard's decision to appoint Blainey to head the committee was the right one.
Geoffrey Blainey is Australia's foremost historian; he will make sure that the celebrations take on an air of the real Australia. I am sure he will put the Aboriginal situation into the right perspective and give them as much space in the celebrations as they warrant. As for the Asians, they too can contribute.
What Geoffrey Blainey will do is prove once and for all that Australia does not want to be multicultured, just Australian cultured. It's been that way for a long time and it has worked.
David Day will have to work a lot harder to change things to his way of liking." B.C. RUXTON, Victorian President, R.S.L.

Paying the price from Sun-Herald, 27/7/97
"Since the year dot politicians have justified their never-ending pay increases by arguing 'if you want to attract the very best people you must pay more'. Looking at the incumbent motley crew of all political persuasions, it is patently obvious this theory hasn't worked. Nevertheless, over the last quarter of a century or so, every prime minister, Labor and Liberal alike, finished up a millionaire.
How about an enterprise agreement for pollies? The basic wage plus extremely generous bonuses geared entirely to success in increasing productivity, reducing unemployment, improving the health system, lowering the national debt and so on.
The present mob would promptly take to their heels, clutching their superannuation millions. A new breed would arrive (thank God there wouldn't be many lawyers or trade unionists) who believed and were prepared to put their own time and money on it, that they could actually do something to improve Australia. At least we couldn't do worse than the current system." PAUL HARLEY-GREEN, Newport, Vic.