BEHIND THE GLOBAL CENTRALISATION MANIA

by Eric D. Butler
As one considers the plight of the world, one is driven to the conclusion that there is such a disease known as invincible stupidity. The programme of centralism, masquerading as greater efficiency, by the Victorian Kennett Government, has brought most of country Victoria to its knees. The massive 13 percent against the Kennett Government in the West Gippsland by-election was a massive protest vote which signals the death knell of the National Party in rural Victoria, and which has produced a truly amazing response from Victorian National Party leader, and Deputy Premier, Mr. Pat Macnamara, who says that the only thing wrong with the policies of the Coalition Government is that they are not properly understood by rural Victoria. "They need "better explaining".

Even the most cursory glance at the media reveals that the world is dotted with the explosive results of centralised power. Individuals are in open revolt everywhere against the policies of imposed multiculturalism, whether it is the former Soviet Union or in Western Europe, or Australia. A recent survey claims that the majority of young people in all European nations are becoming increasingly nationalistic. There is a fear of what might happen in Germany, where a dramatic increase in the rate of unemployment is resulting in more militant opposition to non-German immigration.

In The Weekend Australian of February 8th-9th, the distinguished Roman Catholic commentator, Mr. B.A. Santamaria, provides a masterly word picture of the drive towards globalism via international trade policies, which, unless resisted, must end with the destruction of a sovereign Australia. Using the U.S.A. as their major base, the multinationals are determined to push to the limit a programme designed to further international monopoly. They are exploiting the very trade agreements which shallow and shortsighted Australian politicians have endorsed, to further what basically is the age old will-to-power.

Those naive Australians who believe that they will receive any sympathetic treatment from the international power groups might reflect on the American threat to Taiwan. The government of Taiwan has been told that if it will not reduce its tariffs on agricultural imports, including beef, pork and chicken, the U.S.A. will block its bid to join the World Trade Organisation.

While the will-to-power has been a constant in the world drama, the arrival of the industrial revolution linked with the development of the modern credit system, has placed a completely new type of power in the hands of those driven by the will-to-power. As. C.H. Douglas has said, after his initial analysis of how the finance economic system was operating, that the major flaw in that system made it mathematically impossible to operate the system without expanding debt and increasingly massive export drives, he went to see a number of prominent people to outline his findings and his prediction that unless constrictive corrections were made, a growing world catastrophe was inevitable. He soon discovered that many of those operating the system, or benefiting from it, had no intention of making any corrections.

Probably one of the most revealing discussions took place with a prominent German Jewish Wall Street international banker, who expressed little interest in the analysis, but who was interested primarily in "what do you propose to do about it?" As Douglas said, at that stage he had no clear idea of what he might do. He eventually came to the conclusion that there were those who were determined to exploit the problems to advance a programme, which would progressively centralise power. This led to an in depth study of what might be described as "the Jewish Problem".

While it is obviously not true that the Jewish people as a group are motivated by the will-to-power any more than other groups, it is an indisputable fact that with the emergence of Political Zionism and its domination of the majority of Jews everywhere, a new factor was injected into the human drama. Anyone who doubts this might ponder on the fact that if, as B.A. Santamaria says, the multinationals are using the U.S.A. to advance a global programme, every honest thinker must ask why has President Clinton appointed so many Zionist Jews to key positions in his Administration?
At least 50 percent of his appointments to key positions are of Jewish background.

One of the appointments, which has been widely publicised, is that of Madaeleine Albricht, the first woman in American history to become Secretary of State. Her father is the Jew Josef Korbel, a senior diplomat in the Czechoslovakian Government before the collapse of Communism. William S. Cohen is Clinton's Secretary of Defence. Cohen is a Republican, appointed by Clinton in the name of "bi-partnership". The National Security Council is headed by Samuel Berger, described as a "radical Zionist" and strong supporter of Israel. Jews dominate the top financial posts. Treasury Secretary Robin is described as "the captain of the financial team". He made a fortune as co-chairman of the well-known international investment bankers, Goldman, Sacchs Co. Ayan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has an all-Jewish team.
In a book, Jewish Power, author J.J. Goldberg openly claims that Jewish power is to be applauded because Jewish leaders know what is best for the U.S.A.

It was the famous anti-Zionist Jew, Dr. Oscar Levy, who wrote, "The question of the Jews and their influence on the world, past and present, cuts to the root of all things and should be discussed by every honest thinker." The global programme for centralising power must create one convulsion after another. By openly identifying themselves with the centralist programme, Zionist Jews are creating a situation, which will end in a massive backlash in which the rank and file of the Jewish people will tragically be amongst the worst sufferers.

Silly talk about "anti-Semitism" cannot disguise the seriousness of what is developing under the Clinton Administration, deep in scandals and corruption. It is too much to expect that Australia's glamour boy Andrew Peacock will be briefing the Australian Government on the reality of what is happening and the growing threat to Australia's independence.

JOHN HOWARD PURSUES FABIAN POLICY ON THE CROWN

by David Thompson
Prime Minister Howard's announcement last week concerning his proposals for the constitutional convention later this year raised more questions than it answered. Those with longer political memories should regard the arrangements for the convention as more of an attempt to defuse divisions within the Coalition about a republic than the fulfillment of an election promise.

The truth is that the electoral trouncing handed to former Prime Minister Keating, and continuing favourable opinion polling for Mr. Howard, has masked the fact that on some issues the Coalition is far from a united body. Divisions on matters concerning "economic rationalism", immigration policy, privatisation and the monarchy have racked the Coalition parties, and were responsible for the downfall of Liberal Party leaders like Hewson and Downer. Neither were capable of uniting the Liberals on basic issues.

John Howard seeks to prevent an outbreak of Liberal bickering over the republic by confining it to a constitutional convention. The fact that the "conservative" forces of Australian politics are so weak on the issue of the Crown is a testament to generations of deficiencies in the education system, over which the Coalition itself largely presided. Mr. Howard announced that a "balanced public information campaign" would take place in advance of the convention, debating the merits of the existing constitutional structure, and listing republican alternatives.

But who is to judge on the "balance" (or otherwise) of the arguments advanced? Such State "information campaigns" easily and readily become misleading or even vicious propaganda campaigns. Who will chair the convention? How many delegates will be involved? Will they be funded by the Commonwealth, or not? By how much? Who will appoint those whom the Government plans to appoint? John Howard? Nick Minchin? Yet another committee? How wide will be the terms of the debate? If young Australians will be appointed by the Commonwealth and Aboriginal groups, will other special interest groups also be appointed? Such as rural people? What about the ethnic industry?

Mr. Howard proposes that the convention could consider other issues, such as four-year parliamentary terms. This perhaps opens the way for consideration of initiative and referendum along the lines of the Swiss system - if any of the delegates understand the importance of "C.I.R.". Perhaps the most interesting sign of Mr. Howard's personal lack of enthusiasm for the convention is the suggestion that delegates should be elected by voluntary postal ballot. Perhaps this will indicate the proportion of Australians who see the republican issue as an issue of substance. A poor response would be a devastating psychological blow to the republicans. But it would not prevent the process from taking place.

The greatest danger of the "consultative process" that Mr. Howard has launched is that it risks handing the constitutional initiative to the republicans. It is quite clear that the republicans hope to be able to manipulate the process; the convention, whatever "plebiscites" are held, and the terms in which the public "debate" is conducted. As usual, the press will play a vital role. By its very nature, the partisan, biased and sensationalist press must be regarded as a republican asset. The whole process is reminiscent of some type of tacky auction, with the crown to go under the hammer.

As in other matters, like the sale of Telstra, Mr. Howard's convention is intended to pursue a "mandate" that the Australian people did not give him last March. The March 1996 election was seized as an opportunity to fire Paul Keating. Mr. Howard should remember that it was Keating who placed the republican issue on the political agenda. When Keating was sacked, his "big-picture" issues, like the republic, were supposed to be dismissed with him. But Mr. Howard, beset with republicans inside the Liberal Party, finds that as in other matters like economic policy, he continues to pursue the A.L.P.-Fabian agenda. The abolition of the Crown is high on that agenda.

BECOMING 'A PART OF ASIA' WITH A TWIST

The Foreign Investment Review Board has released figures, which show a devastating proposition of foreign ownership of Australian real estate and industry. The figures show that foreign investment in real estate rose by 26% last year, with Asian companies buying significant interests in food-producing companies, and heavy investment in rural properties.

Industries like meat processing have long been dominated by foreigners. The United States company Con-Agra dominates meat processing, but Japanese and Chinese interests follow immediately. Groups from other countries like South Korea, Indonesia and Brunei have also become major Australian cattle producers and exporters.

According to figures published by The Sydney Morning Herald (8/2/97) the biggest investor in real estate was the United States. However, the next four biggest real estate investors were Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Malaysia, all of whom invested more heavily than European countries like the U.K. and France. The Board indicates that in 1995/96, the increase in proposed foreign investment in Australia was a massive $57 billion, the highest ever-annual figure. That figure was achieved by selling off many of Australia's most significant assets. For example, $6 billion worth of Victorian power companies, and industrial giants like the Pacific Dunlop food group were sold off. Investment from the U.S. was concentrated mainly in manufacturing and the services sector, while Japan invested in manufacturing, minerals and real estate. Investment from Hong Kong and South East Asia was "heavily in Australian residential property, often to provide a family bolt-hole in times of political and social unrest in their own countries".

Note:
Asian investors from countries like Hong Kong are buying homes here as a precaution for when their own countries blow up. Australia is regarded as a safe, secure and stable destination. Asians fleeing their own countries don't seem over-concerned by the fact that Australia has the Union Jack on its flag (indeed, those from Hong Kong may well be looking for another country that has the Union Jack on the flag, like theirs does until June 31st!). Neither do they seem concerned that our Head of State is the Queen, shared by about a dozen other countries around the world. Those who are urging that Australia "should become part of Asia" are probably not envisaging it taking place quite in the way outlined above!

BLACK GROUPS CORRUPTION BLATANT

For many years it was not acceptable to draw attention to the abuse of public money, incompetent management, and the sheer waste of public money by Aboriginal groups that should only be described as corruption. But this would have been construed as "racism". In N.S.W. the Independent Commission Against Corruption have been forced (reluctantly, and rather nervously) to investigate the affairs of such groups as the N.S.W. Aboriginal Land Councils. Commissioner Barry O'Keefe will now inquire into "blatant instances of serious corruption".

It is of interest that of the 90 corruption complaints, the majority have been made by Aborigines concerning local Land Councils. Most N.S.W. taxpayers would not be aware that the Land Councils are funded by a grant of 7.5% of the N.S.W. land tax. The inquiry into the N.S.W. Land Councils follows a 15-month investigation into allegations of bribery, factionalism and fraud.

The findings by the I.C.A.C. so far seem to indicate that there may be some foundation to the allegations by the Independent Member for Oxley after all. Will those who called her a "racist" in the Parliament and press be beating a path to Hanson's door with an apology in mind?

RURAL DEBT SPIRAL WORSENS

The Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (A.B.A.RE.) has injected a note of reality into the predictions that since the long-running droughts were broken last year, and commodity prices had begun to recover, that rural debts would ease. While some sectors of agriculture will recover (at least temporarily) the overall picture is still deteriorating. A.B.A.R.E. forecasts an average loss of $4,700 per farm this year, and its figures reveal that almost seventy percent of broadacre farms are unprofitable. This only needs to continue for a short period of time for the results to be devastating.

Yet another period of general exodus from rural areas must follow, accompanied by sage approval from the economic gurus, intoning that "get big or get out" is the "trend" of the future. Who is buying the family farm, then? The statistics from the Foreign Investment Review Board indicate that it is Asian interests who are looking for a reliable source of cheap, clean food. The truth is that the "advantages" of being committed to the global market seem to be lower commodity prices, as we seek to compete with Asian wage structures. As one journalist put it, with agriculture having been mugged by economic rationalism, we now propose to extend the crime to other Australian industries. When the results of the agricultural decline are mirrored by manufacturing and then the service industries, won't it be nice to know we're a part of "the global market"?

JONES ON IMMIGRATION - 'ASK THE MINISTER'

In his Australia Day address in Hong Kong (of all places!) radio guru Phillip Adams accused his former radio colleagues from Radio 2UE in Sydney of "training racists", and having "lunatics" for listeners. We are unaware of the response from Stan Zemanek, John Laws or Alan Jones. But Jones, however (morning programme Radio 2UE), continues to offer forthright and (usually) commonsense views on questions of immigration and multiculturalism.

Following Immigration Minister Ruddock's announcement that he wished to "debunk the myths" on Asian immigration, Jones made the following points on radio on February 4th:
"Well there was a phony debate last year about immigration, and of course, as you know, people were frightened about saying anything about immigration. "I am fascinated to read today that the Federal Government is going to continue to pursue a nondiscriminatory immigration policy. I have absolutely no idea what that means, because they will be discriminating in favour of some categories and against others, but they still call it 'non-discriminatory.' "However, this is the bit. According to the Minister Philip Ruddock, there will be a greater emphasis on 'skills and English language proficiency.' Does that mean we are bringing people into this country who are unskilled, who can't pay their way, and can you get into this country without speaking English?
"As I have said on many occasions, it would be easy to draft an immigration policy on one page of foolscap - you would only need about ten lines: 1) Anyone can come.
2) Pay $50,000 up front.
3) Make sure you can speak English.
4) You are not eligible for welfare for 5 years.
5) Break the law in that time, and you are sent home.
6) Make sure you pass every health check before you enter the country.
7) Become an Australian citizen within twelve months.

There is your immigration policy. "What is wrong with that? Now we are going to place greater emphasis on skills and English language, so presumably we are bringing people into the country who don't have either.
"I wonder if our northern neighbours are so lax about who gets into the place? I wonder where all those Koreans who are belting people up in Kings Cross come from? How did they get here? Are they Australians? Ask the Minister."