UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRINGENCY FORECAST

"Unprecedented is a word I hesitate to use. Someone is sure to dig up some precedent somewhere. But, yes, I'll say the present credit squeeze is unprecedented. "- The Bulletin, April 25.

The above report was credited by the writer to come from a Treasury official commenting last week on the measures the Government has taken to tighten finance in order to "cool" an "overheated" economy. The words "cool" and "overheated" can be interchanged for "deflation" and "inflation" respectively. And all the Government has demonstrated in imposing a clamp down on credit-or "money"- availability is that it is now following age-old policies, which have never been successful before.

However the process this time is even more vicious. Accompanying the restraint in bank lending and availability of credit are the savage increases in the bank overdraft rates and the interest liable on loans for housing and other socially necessary services such as street construction and loans to municipalities and shires. As Business Review, April 24 pointed out, Mr. Gorton is pursuing a sound socialist policy of penalising the productive and private sector of the economy and forcing this section of the Australian community to carry the burden of his deflationary policies. In the meantime the Government payroll increases with less than one in three now dependent on the productive sector for the revenue to finance the ever-increasing tax burden of government expenditure.

While the burdens of private industry are increased taxation roars on with an increase of 20 per cent over last year according to The Bulletin report. This increase results from wage and salary increases putting recipients into new and higher tax groups. The increased revenue of the Government gained at the expense of the productive section - upon whose efforts all public finance must be based - is then used to increase the burden of growing government expenditure. This is the worst type of inflationary weapon because it progressively destroys incentive and competition, and establishes monopolistic conditions in private industry, resulting from which there are increasing calls for government intervention, thus setting another cycle of the same process in motion.

ATTENTION WESTERN AUSTRALIAN AND QUEENSLAND READERS

The fourth Annual Dinner of the W.A. Council will be held on June 20 at The Postal Institute Rooms 1st Floor, Zimple's Arc. St., Georges Tec., Perth. Time 6.30. Cost $5 single, contact Ray White on 714176, or 746625 for bookings or information.

QUEENSLAND readers are reminded the Annual Dinner and Seminar takes place on May 15, 16 respectively. Dinner cost $4.50 each and will be held at The Pasadena, Alderley. The Seminar, subject, "The Challenge to Australia's National Heritage" with speakers Mr. Charles Porter MLA, Rev. John Zweck and Mr. Edward Rock. Entry charge $1.00 for one or all sessions. Venue Willard House Ann Street.

ANOTHER KIND OF POLLUTION

from Eric D. Butler, now concluding a lecturing and reporting tour of Canada and the U.S.A.

The pollution of man's physical environment is one of the most discussed topics on the North American continent at present. Not even Prime Minister Trudeau's strongest critics and these are rapidly increasing in numbers - will disagree that Mr. Trudeau has a point concerning his fear of oil pollution in the Arctic if it is to be used for shipping oil from the new oil field off Alaska. With the Marxists of different types coming in strongly on the anti-pollution act, perceptive observers are concerned that instead of dealing with basic causes of pollution, there will be increasing government control over effects. It is also ironic that most of those concerned about the pollution of the air, water and soil, show little or no interest in the growing moral and cultural pollution now seeping right across North America.

Dr. Max Rafferty, the famous conservative Superintendent of Public Instruction recently thought he would try to get away from the moral pollution in the United States and go up to Canada to "clear my mind and settle my stomach." But he has observed that he "was splattered with the disconcerting pie-in-the face tidings that Sir George Williams had instituted a new course on 'graffiti', which consists of field students and their kindly professors going to various public restrooms (toilets)…to inquire into the tired obscenities scribbled thereon by the comfort station confessionalists. The idea, apparently, is that you can learn a lot about human psychology, to say nothing of more exotic inter-aid intra-sexual relations, by examining the handwriting on the walls.

Max Rafferty has explained how depressing he found this after grappling for weeks with the problem of an undergraduate society of sodomites, the "Gay Liberation Front", which is trying to gain official approval as a campus organisation at San Jose State College. The perverts apparently believed that they would be "at home" at the San Jose State College because three years ago the college administration there had promoted to a full professorship an assistant professor shortly after he had been convicted on a morals charge. Rafferty and others who objected to the "Gay Liberation Front" were abused as "enemies of academic freedom", "uptight bigots" and "sexual segregationists".

As I was studying other aspects of "higher education" on the North American continent, I learned of some really advanced thinking in Seattle on the subject of improving man's environment. Amongst other proposals being considered by the Mayor and his staff, is one for taxing families for each child they have beyond two, and using the revenue to subsidise abortions. The thinking behind this proposal is that too many human beings pollute the environment. The solution is to remove the Human beings.

The needs of the present flourishing growth of moral pollution are, of course, as old as man. But we can see that the development of this type of pollution has coincided with the imposition of the philosophy of collectivism and centralism by the Marxist-Leninists and the Marxist-Fabians.
When I wrote The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, I made only passing reference to the destructive nature of the prominent Marxist-Fabians like George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes. But in view of the poisoning of the whole English-speaking world by the financial, economic and political ideas of these people, Keynes being perhaps the main culprit, it is instructive to note in more detail the depraved nature of those who have made such a decisive contribution to the world of today.

Since the publication of private correspondence between Keynes and one of his male sweethearts, the writer Lytton Strachey, those with strong stomachs have been able to study in more depth the depravities of the "Bloomsbury Group". Strachey described Keynes as "A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician." Those who admire Keynes as the harbinger of a new Civilisation might ponder on the fact that one of the specialties of this sick creature was his abuse of small boys. He advised his homosexual friends to go to Tunis" where bed and boy were also not expensive."
Keynes himself took advantage of the poverty and ignorance in the Mediterranean area to buy the bodies of children for a few shillings. Naturally enough, he was against any legal restraints on homosexual activities. He was also against drug controls. His friend Strachy was a "pot" smoker. Strachey wrote privately of how he and his colleagues would corrupt the whole population, "subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it naturally, if need be without at first realising what it was to which they were agreeing."

George Bernard Shaw was little better than Strachey. He agreed with the Strachey thesis that the object was "to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual morals ..."

Keynes demonstrated his Marxist thinking with his contribution:
"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many pseudo-moral principles which have hagridden us for two hundred years..."
Shaw boasted that, "I put the physical act of sexual intercourse on the stage.

Two other members of the Marxist - Fabian "Bloomsbury Group" were G. Lowes Dickinson and Leonard Wolf, who pioneered the concept of the League of Nations and the United Nations. As all policies are rooted in philosophies, the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes. Shaw, Strachey and others of the group who paved the way for the creation of the world of today is most revealing - and sickening. The stench has grown progressively stronger over the years since members of this group lay on carpeted floors working out schemes for their "Brave New World" between their depraved physical activities, shouting obscenities and eulogising their revolting practices as "that love which passes all Christian understanding."
I conclude here to spare my readers any more. Yes, there is a pollution problem. We can make a start towards removing one of the major sources of infection, by exposing the contribution of Keynes and his colleagues to the current sickness.

RED PROPOGANDIST IN AUSTRALIA

"Her critics say that she overstates her case about China. Australia will soon have a chance to judge. I doubt if she's even a Marxist, but she's passionately Chinese." - Miss Myra Roper speaking of Dr. Han Suyin, reported in The Australian Women's Weekly. April 15.

Dr. Suyin, better known as the author of A Many Splendored Thing, like her mentor Myra Roper travels the world as an apologist for Communist China, not Free China. Miss Roper failed to make this essential differentiation when referring to Dr. Suyin's "passionate love" for China. Nor did she give readers of The Women's Weekly the information that Dr. Suyin is the South Asian Correspondent for the magazine Revolution published in Paris and subsidized by the Red Chinese Embassy in Berne, Switzerland.

Dr. Suyin has a reputation for turning up at the right psychological moment when a major Communist propaganda offensive is under way, such as the present Moratorium campaign scheduled for May 8. Dr. Suyin will be speaking on dates stretching from April 30 to May 11 around Australia. It is doubtful that she will speak of the wonders of China revealed by a man like John Hill who saw the results of the cultural revolution at first hand when from August 1966 to September 1968 as an electrical engineer with the British firm of Simon Carves, Industrial Engineers he worked on a project in Lanchow deep in the heart of Central China. There he witnessed organised murder almost daily. He and his colleagues were subjected to continuous humiliation as the Red Guards sought to impose obedience and acknowledgement of the "thoughts" of Mao as superior to all other knowledge or wisdom. In the name of such "thoughts" he saw all kinds of inhuman barbarities practiced on "guilty" Chinese, while some of his more outspoken European colleagues were arrested and transported to labour camps and never heard of again.

Mr. Hill who now lives in Sydney with his wife and family had a series of articles published in The Age, Melbourne, early this year. No doubt Miss Roper and Dr. Suyin have exchanged experiences with him.

KEEPING THE FUND GOING

ON TARGET BULLETIN

CHALLENGING POLICIES OF DEFLATION AND RISING COSTS

In view of the rapidly deteriorating position as discussed in our first item in this week's On Targets an exercise on the following lines is suggested as a means of bringing the issue home to the increasingly disturbed backbench Members of Parliament.

Dear Sir, The following are four key statements on a simple alternative to rising costs and inflation, because of which the government is now imposing a vicious policy of deflation on the Australian community. Would you please inform me why in the light of the truth of these statements the government does not immediately implement policies to reduce the cost of living without destroying the political or economic security of the individual, and the free flow of goods and services to the benefit of all individuals as is compatible with our prodigious productive capacity.

1. "When increased costs could not be absorbed within the process by production or distribution they were met generally at the source by payment of subsidies and thus prevented from disturbing the whole price structure," - Commonwealth Year Book. 1946 47. p. 461.

2. "We must not look upon subsidies under the new plan as payments to which an industry is not entitled. They are not payments because the industry is inefficient in comparison with other industries, and they do not resemble doles. They are payments because the Government considers it more economical to meet increased costs through subsidies rather than through rising prices. - Senator Keane Sydney Morning Herald, April 14, 1943.

3, Restoration of subsidies would be advocated by the Federal Country Party as part of its platform for the Federal Elections, Mr. Fadden leader of the party, said yesterday. 'Our policy of stabilised prices is designed to increase the real purchasing power of wages, health and nutritional standards by increasing consumption', he said, The Country Party's proposal is to restore subsidies to commodities which are rising in price and are contributing to the already exorbitant living costs," - The Argus, Melbourne, January 28, 1949.

4, "When at the referendum of 1948, the people refused to give permanent price-fixing powers to the Commonwealth, the present government did two unpardonable things. First it threw price control to the States, hoping they would make a mess of it. Second it withdrew most subsidies, which had been created to keep down the cost of living. While encouraging production to the full, we shall hold ourselves ready to pay price subsidies in appropriate cases - as for example on those items affecting the basic wage earner's cost of living." - The Age, Melbourne, November 12, 1949, Mr. R.G.Menzies.

I would point out there is one common feature in these four statements, THE USE OF SUBSIDIES TO KEEP DOWN PRICES not to boost production as has been the result of the subsidy policy of this present government, which has been disastrous to producer and consumer alike, forcing up costs and bringing overproduction, which results in uneconomic prices to the producer. Therefore in regard to the four key statements quoted I request your own personal, responsible assessment and reply.
I am not interested in the reply of one of your treasury officials whose advice consistently results in disastrous policies. I reject the view that plain common sense cannot be applied to the broad guidelines of economic policy. What is physically possible is financially possible without destroying the freedom or economic independence of the individual through inflation and increasing taxation.

Nor do I wish to be told that these suggestions cannot be implemented without price control and hordes of snooping bureaucrats. Such an assertion is an insult to both Sir Robert Menzies and Sir Arthur Fadden. Nor do I wish to be told that subisides which reduce the prices of articles will result in inflation, as the suggestion is patently absurd when prices would fall as the result of a subsidy paid at the retail counter, thus stabilising producers costs and bringing a greater degree of competition without monopoly growth.

Nor do I wish to be told the money is not available or has to be met through further taxation as the government sanctions the increase of the total volume of credit each year by approximately $730million. (1959 - $6,675 million. 1969 $14,705 million) which is used to finance increased costs. The same money should be used to finance reduced costs and prices.

As an example of the above could I recall your attention to the fact that it cost $360 million to finance the last total wage rise of 3 per cent. This money was used to finance increased wages, which result in increased costs and increased prices, from which no one benefits. Had it been applied as a price discount payable at the retail counter wage earners and producers would benefit costs would be stabilised to the tune of 3 per cent at least.

I should like to know why this should not be done. It should be obvious that such proposals are realistic and practical. They have been testified to by spokesman of all parties, but have been opposed by bureaucratic theorists with no experience of reality. It is time our parliament challenged the bureaucracy and gave the people of Australia not only the results they desire but also results, which are within the bounds of practical reality.

I await your reply with interest, and repeat that I ask for a personal viewpoint and not The Treasury line. Yours sincerely.