VIETNAM AND BIAFRA - SELECTIVE MORALITY

Received in the mailbag this past week is an invitation from the Vietnam Moratorium Committee under the signature of Dr. Jim Cairns. The invitation is issued to all and sundry to participate in revolutionary activities on behalf of the Communist cause in Vietnam. The relevant section reads. "It is envisaged that the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign will include Trade Union activity, street theatre, job meetings, church vigils and special services, student teachins (strikes have been proposed) shopping centre demonstrations, door knocks, house meetings, political party branch resolutions, peace happenings, a city march, art exhibitions and concerts. It is expected the main activities will take place on April 17, 18, and 19. This will be the biggest national campaign ever undertaken.

It is relatively easy to see where we are heading in the propaganda warfare. Biafra has come and gone. Momentarily it embarrassed Communists and their parlour pink intellectual supporters. Some may have wondered about the duplicity of Fabian Socialist Wilson working in double harness with his Communist counterparts of the Kremlin to physically destroy an emerging nation. There may have even been some defections as there had been over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but on the whole the dupes remained duped, only waiting the signal from their masters to renew the war against what remains of the free world.

In Australia, under the auspices of the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign the signal has gone out. We did not see Dr. Cairns and his cohorts organising moratorium days for Biafra. With the military arm of his mentors destroying Biafra it could be hardly expected of Dr. Cairns to use his crusading zeal on behalf of those who stood in the path of the planes and long-range artillery supplied by the Soviet, and the military hardware supplied by Wilson. Biafra like Katanga before it, committed the unpardonable crime of opting for independence from a nation, which acknowledged the Soviet as its "greatest friend." - The Age January 29.
All must be gathered into the great world brotherhood, with the Soviet as the fatherland.

CONFUSED THINKING BY FARM LEADER

"It was unfair to blame the Government for imposition of quotas and many of the ills facing the wheat industry." Mr. Les Price, general president of the Queensland Grain Growers Association reported in The Chronicle, Toowoomba, February 13.

Mr. Price no doubt feels he must apologise for the Government, for as a member of the Australian Wheat Board, government policy has been largely directed by this body. Mr. Price admitted this when he said in fairness it must be said that the Government had largely gone along with the industry's recommendations..."

We are sure that Mr. Price has the best interests of the wheat growers at heart. He would hardly involve himself in the thankless task of representing their interests if this was not so. Therefore he should ask some fundamental questions if he is to arrive at an answer, which will bring about a solution of present difficulties.

The following are essential starting points.
Are farmers responsible for increased financial costs?
Have farmers improved their productive capacity and efficiency?
Has he not been repeatedly advised to do so by government, Wheat Board, and farm advisory services?
If the indisputable facts are that he has reduced physical costs by producing progressively more wheat per man-hour, why have financial policies progressively forced up the financial costs involved?

If Mr. Price digs deep enough he will find that the same economic advisers responsible for the inflationary policies of the Government, have their counterparts advising farming organisations. It is time there was a revolt against this insidious advice. Mr. Price almost put his finger on the core of the problem when in the same paper he commented "At times, it would seem that the Government had two policies, one of decentralisation for electioneering, and another of centralisation, which they and their advisers pursued after the elections."
Exactly, politicians still realise most men would rather be their own masters, and at election time they pander to this sentiment. They then return to Canberra where they are in the hands of bureaucrats whose philosophy is exactly the opposite.

Mr. Price's problem is the same as the ordinary farmer. He must find those men in politics that are prepared to deal with their economic masters at Canberra. It is time the worm turned. If present politicians are unable to, or are afraid, they should be replaced as soon as possible. The politicians must insist upon a reversal of present policies. Where there is high interest rates they should be lowered and debts consequently lowered. Where there are increasing financial costs due to deliberate policies of financial sabotage which result in increased production, but decreased consumption with higher prices (the present problem of the wheat industry) these policies should be reversed to instigate consumer credits, or what the Ballarat Courier in Victoria on February 11 referred to as "A direct, specific and market-orientated subsidy", which brings down costs and prices and thus benefits both consumer and producer.

It is all a question of policy, not the mechanics of financial policy, which can be used to either serve or destroy the individual. Whose policy will prevail, that of the socialist bureaucrat seeking complete centralised control of the individual, or that of men like Mr. Price concerned with the independence and freedom of the individual? There is very little time left to decide.

Mr. W. F. Stephen MLA representing Ballarat South a wheat and wool growing area predicted in the Ballarat Courier February 9, that unless immediate action is taken to pay a 10 per cent subsidy on wool, "many country areas will be denuded of at least 30 per cent of their present farming population."

FUND MOVES ALONG - KEEP IT GOING

AUSTRALIANS FAVOUR A MONARCHY

"Two out of three Australians would rather have Prince Charles as our next monarch, than become a republic, the Gallup Poll finds." - The Herald, Melb. February 7.

The poll figures recorded 65 percent choosing Prince Charles in preference to a Republic, alternatively 25 per cent were against and 10 per cent undecided. Considering the continual anti-Monarchy propaganda those figures demonstrate a remarkable degree of health on a vital matter. They also put the lie to the claim of Mr. G.Kitchenn President of the Victorian Council of School Organisations whom we commented on last week after he had criticised the patriotic ceremony at schools. Mr. Kitchenn claimed the ceremony was an "imposition" upon the children. The figures quoted by Mr. Kitchenn were obviously highly selective and probably taken from a school where children are actively encouraged to question the value of the patriotic ceremony without any endeavour to put to them the great contribution to their civilisation which is made by the Monarchial institution. The fact is that those who are privileged to live under the constitutional Monarchy of Great Britain still enjoys liberties, privileges and a standard of living comparable with any other State, and vastly superior when it comes to freedom and safety from authoritarianism and dictatorship.

"LABOR" AND THE A.B.C."

Mr. G. F, Freudenstein, Assistant Treasurer and relieving Minister for Housing, accused the Australian Broadcasting Commission of bias towards the A. L. P." - The Age. February 12.

Mr. Freudenstein touched on a perennially recurring subject when he complained of the socialist bias of the A.B.C. The Liberal-Country Parties of Australia are being beaten with a stick of their own making. Admittedly Mr. Freudenstein is a member of the State Branch of the Country Party which is showing increasing signs of revolt against the Federal membership, but without as yet finding a means of altering policies which come down from the hallowed membership of the big brothers in McEwen House at Canberra, and their Liberal counterparts.

For the life of the present Federal Government policies have been pursued in financing the education of the emerging generations, which ensured the development of socialist thought and practice in education, health services, and practically every social aspect of life. We are now reaping the ripened fruit of such policies. And unless Mr. Freudenstein and other men like him can mobilise enough political sanctions to stop the continued rape of the States and the individual by the power hungry Canberra bureaucracy, then he will continue to complain without any effect about the growth of Socialism, inside the A.B.C, and outside of it, until finally his protests are quite futile.

Something of the unreality with which it is proposed to tackle the problem was Mr. Freudenstein 's intention of asking "the PMG to hold a full enquiry into the political activities of the ABC." It is rather like asking a convinced gambler to investigate the evils of gambling, The establishment of a government "enterprise' is specifically an enactment of socialism. Once government engages in any type of business undertaking competing with similar organisation operating within the community, it steps outside its true function as a protector and arbiter of the interests of all individuals. It then enables select and privileged individuals to exploit others with the full backing of the law.

The ABC as a government protected enterprise naturally attracts to itself those in its policy making structure who see the opportunity of imposing their views on the community. As such it is a natural harbour for socialists. The only real answer is that the government should be forced by the sanctions of a determined electorate to withdraw from such enterprises, and ensure through a vigilant parliament and an impartial judiciary that those engaged in broadcasting, or any other enterprise, that they do not abuse their powers.

THE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

"Mr. Gorton said the Corporation would borrow funds from abroad to help establish new business enterprises in Australia - The Age. February 12.

The above sentence appears to sum up the proposed activity of the Industrial Development Corporation. It will borrow funds from "large overseas interests - banks, financiers and industrial concerns - which at present are investing directly in Australian industries." On the face of it, this appears to concentrate the control of available financial resources further into the hands of the anonymous government bureaucracy. In the past under existing arrangements individuals such as the shareholders of GMH have invested American dollars in establishing an industry in Australia. When successful the profits have gone out of Australia back to these individuals. Now the Corporation will borrow such funds from such "large overseas interests" and lend it at fixed interest to those concerns engaged in the "development" of Australian enterprises and resources.

The argument promoted by Mr. Gorton and Mr. McEwen seems to be that this procedure will stop the process of people other than Australians "buying up the farm" bit by bit. In effect all it does is to substitute one evil for another, and does not alter the basic deficiency of refusing to supply our own credit to develop our own resources.

We continue to accept the myth that our development is dependent upon overseas funds from large overseas interests - banks, financiers and industrial concerns even if we relegate them to the role of becoming purely and simply moneylenders, rather than direct investors in specific industries.

For an explanation of the logical alternative readers should obtain the bulletin, "Selling Off The Farm" from The Institute for Economic Democracy P.O. Box 33, Paddington Queensland 4064.
Mr. Herbert makes it clear that Australia only needs overseas funds to finance equipment or skills we cannot supply ourselves. We do not need overseas funds to exploit our own resources.