PERMISSIVE PHILOSOPHY FLOWERS INTO TERROR

"I felt shock and consternation that all Canadians must feel as they learned of the death of Pierre Laporte, who was so cowardly assassinated by a band of murderers." - Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister.

Tragic developments in Canada are but part of a pattern of the growth of terror as a political weapon. The permissive philosophy has been flowering into violence and terror for many years now, but Canadians generally felt that "It cannot happen here. "Australians will also eventually experience the same violence and terror if they persist in closing their eyes to the cancer of permissiveness eating through their society. Increasing numbers of young Australians, many of them High School students are being encouraged to believe that through the use of "Student Power" they can "smash" the institutions of society. The use of violence is the first step towards the use of terror. Those who condone the permissive philosophy cannot be allowed to wash their hands of the blood of terror.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau and several of his colleagues provide classic examples of those who now feel threatened by the terror they knew was being nurtured, but which they did nothing to destroy. Immediately following the kidnapping of James Cross, the distinguished Ottawa Columnist for the Toronto Telegram, Mr. Lubor Zink, referred to those Canadian political leaders who were saying how astonished they were that political kidnapping should take place in Canada: "Such statements can only come from people living in a fool's paradise."

Mr. Zink went on to point out that he had warned two months previously, that the pattern of events in Latin America and Quebec, and known plans for guerrilla warfare on the North American continent, made the kidnapping of diplomats for blackmail, inevitable. Mr. Zink continued: "What I did not know when I wrote my warning was that our police forces had already foiled two diplomat kidnapping attempts in Quebec. This means that the police, and therefore our governments, must have realised that the pattern set by the left-wing terrorists in Latin-America was being followed by the left-wing terrorists in Quebec and that, unless something drastic was done about it, one of the future kidnapping attempts would succeed.

"Any drastic measures aimed at stamping out terrorist organisations (which now exist not only in Quebec) would have required emergency powers for the law-enforcing agencies. Since no government in a free society can seek such emergency powers without first convincing the electorate of the necessity, a clear picture of the terrorist network and its international connections would have to be laid before the public. This the Trudeau Government, or any of the provincial governments, was not willing to do. Not because the enemy is not fairly well known to the authorities, but because his connections with the Communist-ruled countries would shatter the officially cultivated delusions of detente and raise cries of witch-hunting from those misled by this comforting fiction.
So the governments kept silent about the two foiled kidnapping attempts which could and should have been used for revealing the nature of the much larger problem of political terrorism..."

It was just prior to the Canadian kidnappings that the Trudeau Government finalised negotiations to recognise Red China. Any real exposure of the international links of the terrorist network would have involved both Red China and the Soviet Union. The tragic developments have now forced the Trudeau Government to do what should have been done earlier at the time of the first two kidnapping attempts. But even now there is no suggestion of exposing the international connections of the terrorists. That would be too embarrassing!

However, Mr. Pat Walsh, former under-cover agent for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, had some revealing comment to make in the Canadian On Target of October 12:
"Canadian Intelligence publications for years have exposed the forces behind Quebec terrorism in general, and the Quebec Liberation Front (FLQ) in particular, pinpointing the Castro inspiration behind this terrorism and exposing the Montreal daily press for conditioning the Quebec people to accept terrorism by giving glowing accounts of Cuban and Algerian 'liberation' organisations. Foremost in this field was none other than Gerard Pelletier, Mr. Trudeau's buddy and now Secretary of State, formerly editor of the Montreal daily, La Presse.
"The Canadian Intelligence Service exposed the Parti-Pris (FLQ mouthpiece) 'intellectuals' who, significantly, had previously been associated with Pierre-Elliott Trudeau's Cite Libre magazine... The Vancouver Sun of September 23, 1970, reports that Charles Gagnon, an FLQ leader, told a crowd of nearly 400 UBC students that the only way for the FLQ to get its way was 'to use revolutionary violence.'... And, by the way, this Gagnon character is presently facing manslaughter charges arising from the death of two in a Montreal FLQ bombing. Why is Gagnon free to go about the country while on bail, stirring up trouble and agitating on campuses?

Another notorious international revolutionary agent who came to Quebec by way of Cuba to help launch the terrorist movement on Canadian soil was a Georges Schoeters. He was to find great co-operation in the publicity aspects of his subversive operations from the Montreal daily La Presse. No, Mr. Pelletier was not its editor at that particular time. It was his close friend, Mr. Jean Louis Gagnon, now head of Information Canada!
"What happened to Schoeters? He ended up with a 12-year jail term for his part in a fatal FIQ bombing. That was in 1963, seven years ago. So he should still be in prison at this time, but is he? No; he's disappeared. Perhaps your MP would care to explain why."

As the Red Chinese move into Ottawa, thus obtaining their first firm base on the North American continent, they may be slightly concerned to note how the Government which welcomed them in, is being forced to take a firm step against the exponents of the terror tactics so strongly recommended by Mao-Tse-Tung. But they probably realise that the permissive rot, which Pierre-Elliott Trudeau and his colleagues fostered over many years, cannot now be easily suppressed.

Australian politicians generally are not in the position to criticise the past permissiveness of Prime Minister Trudeau and his colleagues. While engaging in double talk, particularly before elections, about their alleged strong opposition to Communism, the liberal-Country Party Government actively fosters economic aid to Red China and the Soviet Union, the major promoters and supporters of international terrorist activities. Deputy Prime Minister John McEwen recently made a fumbling attempt to defend the exporting of Australian metals to Red China. But ALP leader Whitlam did not ask the question about Australian metal exports because he is strongly opposed to this treacherous policy. This was merely another sickening example of playing politics.

The ALP favours trading with Red China. Whether they realise it or not, western politicians generally have endorsed policies which have helped prepare the ground for the growth of violence and its final product, terror. If the grim Canadian lesson can be learned in time, it may yet help to save the West.

U.K. BUSINESS MEN COOL ON COMMON MARKET

"Most British businessmen don't share the British politicians' optimism about the benefits to be won by joining the European Common Market, a visiting British businessman said today." - The Herald, Finance Section, Melbourne, October 15.

The British Businessman quoted is Mr. Arthur E. Lea, Chairman of the British Vapormatic Group, who went on to mention that, in the event of Britain's entry in the European Economic Community, her tariff-free exports to that market would not sufficiently offset losses to the rest of the world because the British cost of living would be very much higher. European dairy products are about 100 percent dearer than in Britain.

One remark by Mr. Lea is highly significant:
"I.... have yet to meet one person, other than a politician, who sees any value in joining the Common Market." This is in conformity with the attitude adopted by The League of Rights over the past decade. The League has insisted from the outset that the so-called Common Market does not have a principal economic motive at all. The economic talk is camouflage. The major long-term motive is political. This means the submergence of the United Kingdom in a United States of Europe.

The shadowy influences, which are at play behind the scenes, and exerting tremendous pressure on the British Government, do not choose to reveal themselves. Nevertheless, enough is known to satisfy objective observers that these influences have a close connection with International Finance. The former German Jewish financier, Sigmund Warburg, has played a major role in the pro-Common Market campaign. At one time the Communist leader Trotsky extolled the virtues of a United States of Europe. Many centuries of British history and tradition would be jettisoned if the United Kingdom made the oldest Parliament in the world subservient to a Brussel Based Burocracy. The British politicians advocating Common Market entry are either knaves or fools. We prefer to think that they are just fools!

BREACHING AUSTRALIA'S IMMIGRATION DEFENCES

"While we continue to insult an Asian a day our efforts to develop a foreign policy in an Asian setting will labor under the heaviest of handicaps: the charges of white supremacist. Unless we are sincere about our practices we must face another charge: hypocrisy on a national scale." - From editorial in The Age Melbourne, October 20.

If Prime Minister Gorton cannot present the case for the Australia's immigration policy more adequately than he did last weekend, he would be better advised to leave the subject alone. It is true that Mr. Gorton did draw attention to the problems which arise when non-Europeans flood into a predominantly homogeneous European community. But this was after making the dangerously misleading statement that it was not "moral" to exclude non-Europeans. This statement has provided the critics of Australia's immigration policy with the opportunity to repeat their charge that Australia's policy is "immoral".

There is an old saying that that which is moral is that which works satisfactorily. The problem of human beings learning to live together in maximum harmony is difficult enough without injecting the tensions which develop between groups of completely different ethnic peoples. It is a cheap debating trick, designed to work upon the emotions, to claim that Australia's immigration policy "arrogantly "excludes people because of the pigment of their skin. Some African nations are excluding Asians from their societies, not because of the colour of the skin, but because they are different people with whom they do not feel they can live in harmony.

A homogeneous ethnic group can absorb a very small number of members of another ethnic group over a period. The comparatively few Australians, who marry non-Europeans, are readily catered for under the traditional Australian immigration policy. But this commonsense and human policy is not enough for those who, for different motives, want to increase the number of non-Europeans being now permitted to enter Australia.

There is a growing uneasiness amongst observant Australians that Immigration Minister Lynch's official figures do not reveal the true picture of the number of non-Europeans who have entered Australia over the past few years. It is disturbing to note that Mr. Lynch told Labor Member Grassby at Canberra this week that the Australian Immigration Department is considering opening an office in the Philippines. The Government should be bluntly asked why any proposal to increase non-European immigration at a time when many thinking Australians are asking whether the time is not opportune to consider far less national investment in the whole immigration programme.
The argument about the alleged necessity to bring in non-Europeans to provide services, which Australians cannot provide, is the same type of sloppy approach which provided the British with a problem they now resent.

Premier Dunstan of South Australia is opening up another "front" in his relentless campaign against Australia's restrictive immigration policy: he is fostering the argument that as Australia must have more Japanese capital for development, then restrictions on Japanese wishing to live in Australia must be eased. Already there is resentment growing in some rural communities in Australia as Japanese interests move in to take over properties from Australians who in some cases are victims of the Federal Government's destructive financial policies. Those who accept the false claim that Australians cannot develop their own resources at their own rate, to suit their own genuine requirements, without importing Japanese capital, are prepared to sell the Australian heritage for the purpose of becoming a type of off-shore island quarry for the Japanese economy.

Australians are not insulting Asians or anyone else by insisting that they wish to remain true to their own traditions and their own culture. They have successfully developed a comparatively harsh country. It is a dangerous myth that Australia is a vast empty land of unlimited resources just waiting to be filled by millions. Australia compares unfavourably with the tremendous potential wealth of Asian countries like Indonesia. Australia's best contribution to preserving and expanding civilization will be by concentrating on quality not on quantity. They have no need to follow the disastrous American experiences.

ON TARGET BULLETIN

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Credit Creation and Control

The University textbook, The Australian Trading Banks, comments that "it is a mischievously misleading description" to claim that the banking system can only lend money first deposited with it.
We return for a further examination of the subject of credit creation and control, as it is elementary, as Karl Marx saw, that centralised credit control could be used to exercise centralised control over the whole production and distribution system.

It is beyond argument that present financial policy creates debt, public and private, at an ever-accelerating rate. The current total indebtedness of the Australian people is over $50,000 million. The total amount of money of all forms in existence is approximately £14,000 million. If asked to meet all their debts, private and public, immediately, Australians could not do this. Theoretically, control of debt could be used to take over all Australian real assets. But this would, of course, produce a political revolt. However, the progressive centralisation of the control of an ever-expanded debt structure means that economic and political centralisation can be imposed upon a reluctant community. This should be obvious in the case of "reconstructing" the rural industries.

Inflation is the inevitable result of the present financial policy - it is an insidious, hidden form of taxation - and is the major weapon being used to force "reconstruction". But even if it were possible to abolish all existing Australian primary producers and "reconstruct" their properties under one owner, or organisation, this would mean the one owner would also then be responsible for the total indebtedness of all existing primary producers.

It has been observed that the present financial policy is the bridge over which the free-enterprise system is moving towards a Socialist system. Ministers of the Crown like Mr. Doug Anthony are at the complete mercy of the "advisers" and "experts" so long as they are ignorant of the most elementary aspects of banking mechanics.
One elector, who has attempted to get Mr. Anthony to face these elementary aspects, observes that Mr. Anthony's claim that banks cannot lend money until someone else deposits it with them is "the remark of an ignoramus or a charlatan."

Deposits, the bulk of the financial credit created by the banking system by a book-entry in a ledger, are liabilities of the banking system. The idea of banks lending their liabilities is ridiculous. Has anyone ever had the experience of having his account at his bank reduced because his bank manager took part of it to loan to someone else?

The central fact, which the electors' representatives must be forced to face, is that all financial credit over 90 per cent of the community's money supply comes into existence by loans from the banking system. The real cost of providing this very necessary service is at the most 2 per cent, which means that to charge up to 8 percent is in itself exploitation of the worst possible type.
Any form of money is of no value at all unless backed by real wealth productive capacity.

The correct role of Government is to insist upon a financial policy, which enables the community to make use of its own productive capacity, in accordance with the wishes of the members of that community, without increasing debt, inflation, and the heavy taxation now used to pay interest charges.