WHAT COMES NEXT IN AUSTRALIA?

by Eric D. Butler
Those who have read The Asian Mind Game know how absurd and dangerous it is for Westerners to attempt to analyse Asian situations in terms of Western value systems. Discussing the Indian situation against a background of working as consulting engineers in the sub-continent of what is now known as India and Pakistan, C.H. Douglas pointed out that terms like "decency" and "fairness" had little impact on the Asian mind.

The first major mistake being made concerning the Indonesian situation is the claim that the basic cause of the crisis has been the corruption of the Suharto regime, and the lack of human rights. The new President is being lectured on the necessity to introduce "full scale democracy".

Many Asians are contemptuous of what they perceive to be the humbug and hypocrisy of the West. Consider the background of the deposed President Suharto, who first came to power when he and fellow Indonesian military leaders thwarted the threatened Communist-inspired takeover in 1965. The fact that the Communist threat was clearly inspired by Communist China resulted in the relatively small, but commercially strong, Chinese minority being brutally treated in a military action, which resulted in at least 500,000 being killed.

Generally speaking the West, headed by Washington, expressed its relief that the threatened Communist expansion in South East Asia had been defeated. Strongman President Suharto was warmly welcomed by the West as he set about "modernising" a nation, which consisted of a sprawling archipelago of islands and a variety of people and cultures.

It was at the end of the long morally exhausting Vietnam War, which the Americans and its allies were not allowed to win, that the man who had been groomed by Rockefeller and other International Bankers, Dr. Henry Kissinger, negotiated a peace settlement which ended with South Vietnam being overrun by the Communists. It was not long afterwards that the world was astonished when Kissinger arranged for President Richard Nixon to welcome Communist China into the United Nations, anti-Communist Taiwan being expelled to make way for Communist China.

David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, along with his fellow International Bankers, moved in to finance Communist China. This was the signal for a programme of massive international financial investments into Asia. The vast economic potential of Indonesia was with its population of 200 million. Suharto readily took advantage of what in essence was a massive transfer of Western technology into his country. He became one of the much-publicised "Asian Tigers".

It cannot be disputed that living standards increased. And, not surprisingly, Suharto acted to ensure that he and members of his family also benefitted from Indonesia's upsurge of economic growth. Observing the ways of the West, where the new God was economic growth and massive industrialisation, like most other Asian leaders Suharto followed suit. What he failed to see was that a programme of economic expansion under debt finance made him increasingly vulnerable to the dictates of the international debt merchants.

The demands by the International Monetary Fund, particularly those concerning the abolition of subsidies on basic items like food and cooking oil, were a signal for revolutionary action triggered by the very students who, while learning about the wonders of Western technology, were also absorbing Western political theories concerning "democracy".

But obviously no one has pointed out to the Indonesian student protestors that what is generally described, as democracy in Western nations has not led to the individual having more effective control over his own affairs. Protesting Indonesian students merely provided one more example of how mob violence operates.
All mobs are a manifestation of madness. There were well-authenticated reports of Chinese businesses being destroyed by mobs who will require such businesses in the future if they are to survive.

Irrespective of how much "democracy" the new Indonesian regime introduces, under international pressure, it can be predicted with complete certainty that the Indonesian situation cannot improve if the dictates of the International Monetary Fund are obeyed. Like a man "hooked" on drugs, more convulsions are inevitable in Indonesia unless it can start to free itself from being dependent on the debt drug.

The Indonesians are not going to be offered any realistic advice by an Australian Government, which is also in the grip of the same debt drug. John Howard and his colleagues continue to insist that without foreign investments, Australia has no future. Every Asian economy is now paying the price of accepting the massive financial investments from the International Bankers.

As this commentator has warned over many years, the first of the Asian economic miracles, that of Japan, was ultimately doomed to end in disaster. Every day brings new reports of leading Japanese businessmen committing suicide as bankruptcies soar. The desperate Japanese are being pressured by the internationalists to expand their economy while at the same time opening their domestic markets to the exports of other nations. Such a programme can only result in internal social disintegration and revolution.

It is significant that there is one major factor in the ferment now threatening all the "Asian Tigers", and that is every effort is being made to ensure that Communist China is preserved. While the Zionist dominated Clinton regime does a little harmless wrist tapping concerning China, there is no suggestion of any type of realistic sanctions against a regime which is far more corrupt and brutal than that operated in Indonesia There is a flood of low priced Chinese production into the West, the result of what is slave labour. President Clinton is assisting in every way with the provision of the latest American technology. There is a blind-eye attitude concerning China's massive military build up.

What is happening in Indonesia and other Asian countries does however provide valuable lessons for Australians willing to learn. The story is told by one of the Australian families fleeing from a disintegrating Indonesia, the wife clutching her children and complaining that "We are lucky to have got out with our lives. We were numbered amongst the many who heeded the advice of our Government and attempted to establish ourselves and our business in an Asia which we were told was the hope of the future".

It is to be hoped that returning Australians who suffered in the Indonesian upheaval inject a note of realism into the Australian scene.
As ferment increases throughout Asia, with a growing demand that Australia takes more Asian refugees, this is a moment in the nation's history when hard realism must replace flabby rhetoric concerning globalism and New World Orders.

In responding to the Indian action in testing its nuclear weapons system, Pakistan says that it proposes to do likewise, putting self-interests ahead of "world opinion".
All over the world the chickens of the starry eyed idealists are coming home to roost.

The media can no longer disguise the truth about "democracy" in Nelson Mandela's South Africa. One journalist prominent in the Anti-Apartheid campaign has returned to South Africa and provides a grim picture of how crime and corruption threaten the future.

With being sorry now in fashion, all those Australian Federal politicians who have misled the Australian people about their future being in Asia, should be asked to apologise.

Only a person with a proper pride in himself and his own culture can really respect the value of a person of a different background. Any candidate for public office, who keeps bleating about Australia's future being in Asia, should be put last on the voting papers. They are a much greater threat to the nation than Pauline Hanson, who at least does appear to put Australia first. The motto of Australian patriots well might be Shakespeare's words, "To thine own self be true; thou can'st not then be false to any man."

WHY ARE WE NOT SO SORRY?

by David Thompson
Last Tuesday was designated as a national "sorry" day by private groups who appear to be milking the aboriginal guilt industry for all it is worth. While it is not quite clear just who is sponsoring the "sorry" day, it appears to be mainly groups of two types.
The first type is based exclusively in the cities, and is composed of small 'l' liberals, who have convinced themselves of the nobility of the original native lifestyle over the corruption of modern materialism. They have designated guilt to be superior to pride in national achievements, and as Glen Milne writes in his column (The Australian, 25/5/98) they can afford to wallow in symbolic but ultimately pointless gestures because they never have to deal with the practical consequences of their actions - or inactions.

The second group are much more practical and focused on their exploitation of the guilt factor. This group is based mainly in country areas, but is pitching their plea for sympathy to the same city audiences who have never met an aborigine, and as a result have no idea of the reality of relations with aboriginal people, warts and all. This group, consisting of aboriginal land councils, ATSIC functionaries, and Marxist-oriented intellectuals, have a long-term programme in which the aborigine is to be exploited in a campaign to fragment the Australian nation.

Few have bothered - or dared - to ask publicly just for what we are asked to be sorry. The polls show that a majority of Australians are "sorry". How reliable are these? If it were a poll asking, "Do you smack your children?" would the pollsters receive an accurate response, upon which government would dare to establish political policies? Of course not. In the same way, it is now politically correct to be "sorry", so those who feel only slightly sorry, or not sorry at all will consider carefully where and how loudly they will express these sentiments.

On national sorry day, we were asked to be sorry for removing aboriginal and part-aboriginal children from their families. Apart from the fact that very few living Australians were involved with this programme, we are being asked to be repentant on a racially biased basis. We are not being asked to be sorry for the non-aboriginal children so removed by various welfare agencies. Apparently suffering is one of those emotions becoming monopolised by only certain racial or ethnic groups. But are we really sorry that people like Lois O'Donohue and Robert Riley were 'stolen' from their families, thus ensuring not only their survival, but providing them with educational opportunities which have subsequently been used to denigrate such altruism?

Are we sorry we managed to save thousands of children from malnutrition, glaucoma, diabetes, low survival rates and easy death expectations? The Reverend Cedric Jacobs, himself "stolen" at the age of nine, once said he has never regretted being "stolen" - "It saved my life," he said. "I would have died of malnutrition for sure." Jacobs went on to excel in academic, sporting and political pursuits, as well as offering hope to a generation of his people in W.A.

Having formed a friendship with Cedric, I have never dared to risk his contempt by suggesting that I was sorry for his circumstances. He has always been quick to praise God for his circumstances, whatever they might be.

SORRY DAY FOR COMMONSENSE

In a press statement about national sorry day, Independent Graeme Campbell claims that the author of the "stolen generations" report, Sir Ronald Wilson, mainly interviewed cases of aboriginal people brought to him by the Aboriginal Legal Service - a highly partial group. "Sir Ronald Wilson's report was an absolute disgrace, as by his own admission he never sought to verify any of the stories he got," said Campbell. He claims that Wilson "never sought evidence from the many aboriginal people who would testify that what happened was in their best interest.

"It is insulting to the intelligence to apologise for taking children out of often desperate circumstances, and in many cases saving their lives. There were many more children taken off white mothers at the same time, basically for the same reason," Mr. Campbell said. He described the 'sorry day' as "a sorry day for common sense', and that it was "guilt-ridden emotional nonsense that did less than nothing for aboriginal advancement".

In his excellent critical analysis of the 'stolen generations' report, "Betraying the Victims", Ron Brunton notes that the inquiry admitted that it made no attempt to "distinguish possibly false or exaggerated claims". Sir Ronald Wilson betrayed his own judicial training by failing to ask for corroboration for heartrending stories by the 'victims'. This is not to say that there was no corroboration, but that it was never sought.

In one particular case of a 'stolen' child, Robert Riley became a high-profile aboriginal activist in Western Australia, campaigning for land rights and other issues. Riley committed suicide at the age of 42, and in his eulogy Pad Dodson stated that Riley had been 'forcibly taken', although "his mother asked Sister Kate to take him because she was in a relationship with a man who couldn't stand Robert and whose bashings would probably have killed Robert."
Sir Ronald Wilson was a board member of Sister Kate's home for aboriginal children, and claimed not to have known that it was wrong to take the children!

In the lather of recriminations now demanded, few have stopped to think what might have happened to aboriginal Australians if, for example, the Japanese had prevailed during the Second World War. The record of their treatment of other peoples before, during and even after the war indicates that the lot of the aborigine under Japanese occupation would not have been bright. The Japanese treatment of the Chinese, Korean, Burmese, and Indonesian people, for example, has been harsh. Their treatment of prisoners of war is legendary, and the use of "comfort women" for Japanese troops indicates an unconcern for other than Japanese racial groupings. The only "land rights" the aborigines could expect under Japanese occupation would be communal graves.

WHEN RECONCILIATION TOOK PLACE

The "sorry day" precedes an official Reconciliation Week, beginning last Wednesday. But the misrepresentation of issues such as the 'stolen generation' jeopardises any true reconciliation. The question of forced reconciliation is in itself doomed to failure. It is not "reconciliation" that is demanded by the strategists of national fragmentation. What is being demanded is concessions to the activists, irrespective of the true situation.

The truth is that "reconciliation" already took place thirty years ago. This took place at the time of the Constitutional referendum in 1967, in which certain constitutional changes were proposed, allegedly for the benefit of aborigines. Many Aborigines campaigned for a Yes vote at this referendum, and were ecstatic when a staggering 97% of Australians voted "Yes". This was a recognition that Australians wanted one people, treated fairly and equally, and were fully prepared to extend the hand of brotherhood, citizenship and reconciliation to aboriginal Australians.

That the reconciliation of the 1967 referendum was not a lasting, successful relationship was not the fault of "whites" or "aborigines" at all. It was undermined by the activists - some black, some not - who have their own agenda to this day. It was undermined by outrageous demands for land, recognition as original owners, entitled to all sorts of privileges, and special treatment. Some activists even go so far as setting up an Aboriginal Provisional Government, and others demand compensation for "invasion".

Glen Milne reports that there are "800 litigants queuing in the courts, wanting compensation as the victims of the stolen generation". He also reports that our government is alarmed by the US situation, where activists like Jesse Jackson are asking for more than President Clinton's apology. They want an estimated US$400 billion in compensation. No wonder Australians are reluctant to be sorry!

Recommended reading: "Betraying the Victims" by Ron Brunton: $12.00 posted. "The Australian History of Henry Reynolds" by Geoffrey Partington: $6.00, or $8.00 posted, from all League bookservices.

VITAL QUEENSLAND STATE ELECTIONS

The coming Queensland State elections, to be held on Saturday, June 13th, will play a decisive role in deciding the nation's future. It will provide a litmus test for the next Federal Elections and help to decide the strategy of John Howard and his advisers. It will also demonstrate how much support Pauline Hanson has. Objective observers believe that on present indications it is high enough to justify the concerns of the Queensland National Party, which refuses to join in the call for Hanson candidates to be placed last on their how-to-vote cards.

It must be stressed that Queensland electors are free to decide whether or not they will allocate preference votes. National Party strategists correctly, in our opinion, believe that the bulk of the Hanson support comes from previous National Party supporters who are completely disillusioned with the National Party, both in Queensland and Federally. The National Party are attempting to exploit the fear that a vote for Hanson will benefit Labor. But amidst all the speculation two basic factors are beyond dispute:
(1) a big percentage, possibly as high as 50 percent, are still undecided about how they are going to vote.
(2) Graeme Campbell's Australia First has been completely blacked out in the mass media.

We have before us at least a dozen national media commentaries on the Queensland elections, the last two being in last weekend's Melbourne Age and the Weekend Australian, and neither Graeme Campbell nor the Australia First candidates rate even a passing mention.

The mass of media support for Pauline Hanson, even in the form of criticism, is part of a strategy designed to ensure that no national movement can emerge with Graeme Campbell as leader.

We have said on a number of occasions that Pauline Hanson is a political phenomenon, which has emerged as a result of a number of factors. The enemies of this nation have carefully assessed the Pauline Hanson factor, as they have the Graeme Campbell factor, and have evolved a strategy for dealing with both factors, to their own advantage. With her lack of political experience, it is not surprising that Pauline Hanson has made a number of tactical mistakes. One of these was to start heeding the bad advice of David Oldfield and David Ethridge, who persuaded her that she should form a new party.

Forming a new political party is a most difficult operation and fraught with dangers, not the least of these being to find candidates who are equipped to fight the type of battles required to pull Australia back from threatened disasters. Pauline Hanson was trapped into making a foolish attack on Eric Butler and the League of Rights in the Federal Parliament.

In response to a Dorothy Dix question from a Coalition Minister, she ignored the advice of the experienced Graeme Campbell and repeated the type of smearing to which Eric Butler has been subjected for years. The League of Rights declined to respond by criticising Pauline Hanson. Subsequently Pauline Hanson told a League of Rights supporter that she had been "misled" about Eric Butler. It is these types of mistakes, which are worrying.

Eric Butler contented himself by responding to the Hanson Parliamentary criticism by faxing a letter drawing attention to the fact that the League had over the years enjoyed the support of outstanding Australians like Sir Reginald Sholl of the Victorian Supreme Court. The legendary Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett, of Pathfinder fame during World War 2, has been the Patron of the Crown Commonwealth League of Rights. Presumably Pauline Hanson's minders never showed Pauline Hanson Eric Butler's letter.

Not surprisingly the history of the One Nation Party has been punctured with internal factional controversies as well as organisational disasters. The League of Rights has no brief for any political party as such, but long term experience of the Australian political scene has convinced us that the Western Australian Member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell, is the only Federal politician of the experience and stature around whom a genuinely nationalist movement can be built over time. We are impressed with the manner in which the Australia First officers have gone about the difficult task of taking the long view, making no extravagant claims, and being most selective in choosing credible candidates of ability and integrity.

To the extent that they have fashioned policy, much of this has followed the lead given by Australia First. Judged by his published media statements, Queensland Australia First State Director, Mr. Don Pinwill of Kingaroy, has made it clear that every effort has been made to co-operate where possible with the Pauline Hanson movement. He has made it clear that where an acceptable One Nation candidate is standing in the same electorate as Australia First candidate, it will be recommended that Australia First preferences should be allocated to the One Nation candidate. Regretfully, there is at present no evidence that the directors of One Nation are willing to reciprocate.

Starved of national media publicity, Australia First has found it difficult to generate the type of financial support necessary to obtain the financial and physical support necessary to make it certain that Australia first candidates are successful.

Our assessment of the Queensland situation is that it is feasible for Australia First candidates to win at least three or four seats. We note with strong approval that Australia First is heavily promoting the Citizens' Initiative Referendum concept with a view to exhorting pressure on the National Party. Australia First is also promoting a much more balanced gun control policy that One Nation.