BRITISH FREEDOM FIGHTERS HOLDING THE LINE

Mr. Eric Butler sent the following report on the eve of leaving the United Kingdom for Rhodesia and South Africa on his way back to Australia.

Those political "experts" who predicted that following Enoch Powell's refusal to stand for Parliament at the last British Elections was a major tactical mistake, may have to eat their own words. A few days ago Mr. Powell flanked by Rev. Ian Paisley and Mr. William Craig, addressed a packed hall of cheering electors in Belfast. The electoral backlash against the Heath Government in Ulster was one of the major features of the British Elections, resulting in eleven out of the twelve electorates returning representatives strongly opposed to any policies leading to an integration of Ulster under one Irish Government.

Events have, I believe, confirmed my first impression of Mr. Paisley as a man of limited political skill. Mr. Craig is not a well man. There is at the moment no coherent positive programme being put forward by the eleven Ulster representatives at Westminster. The situation is one, which lends itself to the type of leadership, which Enoch Powell offers. If Mr. Powell can step back onto the British political stage as the leader of a unified Ulster group, as is now proposed, then he will have a strong base from which to operate at Westminster.

Such a move must have a further fragmenting effect upon the British political situation, and provide the British electors with a much better opportunity in which to defend their national sovereignty against the threat of the international power-groups via the Common Market. While it is true that Enoch Powell's dramatic call for electors to support Labor anti-Common Market candidates was the greatest single decisive influence ending the Heath Government it must not be forgotten that Mr. Powell would never have been able to have this influence without the twelve years of persistent, at times heart-breaking, campaigning by anit-Marketeers.

In the face of the Big Battalions lavishly financed by international financial groups, the anti-Marketeers fought on valiantly, sustained in many cases only by faith and loyalty. With the exception of The Daily Express, the national dailies were solidly pro-Market. And since Lord Rothschild, a striking example of an international financier openly proclaiming his Socialism, joined The Express even this paper no longer flies the old Beaverbrook flag of loyalty to British sovereignty.

Labor Prime Minister Harold Wilson finds himself leading a Government primarily because of the groundswell against the Common Market. He is well aware of this. He is committed - as far as politicians can be committed! - to "renegotiating" the Common Market and then putting the question to the British electors at a referendum. This has intensified the friction inside the European Economic Community. In a desperate attempt to cushion the accelerating British inflation, now announced as being a record 13.5 per cent, the Wilson Government has resorted to some food subsidies, the price of milk actually being reduced, and a subsidy designed to reduce the rate of increase of electricity charges. The Wilson Government is attempting to improve its electoral standing as quickly as possible so that it can win a majority in its own right at the next British Elections. But Mr. Wilson cannot delay too long because of the inevitable worsening of the finance-economic situation as inflation mounts.

The task of the British anti-Marketeers is to force the Wilson Government to bring the Common Market to a referendum as quickly as possible. Enoch Powell will be a major factor in forcing this decision if he can return to the House of Commons with a major base to operate from. The anti-Marketeers also have the German spokesman on the Common Market Dr. Abel to thank for valuable assistance'. In a broadcast Dr. Abel has said, "Britain will have no alternative but to accept the sacrifice of national sovereignty in the interests of European integration." This is a frank admission of the realities of the Common Market issue.

The Common Market's programme for progressive centralisation has also run into increasing problems. Even the Germans are now conceding that the objective of political union by 1980 must be postponed. Reading the statements of the pro-Marketeers reveals that they are genuinely worried that the Wilson Government will be forced to make good their pre-election promises on the Common Market. A writer in The Sunday Telegraph of April 14th sadly comments that "Business would be wise to take seriously the possibility that, by next Easter, Britain may no longer be a member of the European Economic Community."

The revolt of the British people against the Common Market is an encouraging example of the revolt against centralised power of all types now taking place right around the world. But this revolt must, if it is to be successful, lead to alternative policies, which make decentralisation practical. A first essential is a genuine anti-inflation programme. By introducing consumer subsidies, even though financed out of taxation, Mr. Harold Wilson may in his desperate political situation, have indicated what could be done.

Jeremy Lee reports from Queensland on the National Anthem campaign

Efforts have been made through the captive media to depict the Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, as a man of intellect and depth, a cut above the average politicians round him. Such efforts have at times been startlingly artificial, the Frost interviews being but one example. However, once the salesmanship of such a personality cult has been identified - and it doesn't take long - one is struck with the fact that greater men have never been forced into trying to sell their intellectual capacity in this way. A dispassionate appraisal shows that Mr. Whitlam has had nothing of political note to offer. Great men are known for original thinking and creative capacity. Whitlam is barren in this regard. His policies are carbon copies of men like Evatt and Coombs who came before. He has yet to make any real contribution politically to the Australia of tomorrow.

The political spotlight is a searching one. Like the cruel looking glass, the blemishes sooner or later show through the greasepaint. Mr. Whitlam's behaviour on the National Anthem smacks of a crude vulgarity, a political crassness that no media campaign will hide. The chain of events on Labor's campaign to force a new anthem on the people of Australia is a miserable and sordid one. Many traditional Labor voters are as disgusted as the rest of the electorate. Whitlam's whim was a new Anthem whether the people wanted it or not. The first step was to announce, through nation-wide advertisements financed by the taxpayer, that a competition would be held. A panel was appointed to judge entries. After months of costly campaigning, the entries were of such immature and childish caliber that the judges themselves would not recommend any. So that campaign was written off, together with the expenses, and a further allocation of tax revenue was consigned to a survey of 60,000 people with a choice of three songs which did not include the anthem sung through 200 years of Australian history, and 800 years of Britain's history before.

Although one referendum has already been held, and another is due in two weeks, Mr. Whitlam denied the attempts that were made by Opposition parliamentarians to have the present Anthem included, at no extra cost at all, with other questions to be considered. The survey, conducted by a government department in the best traditions of a Kremlin-style government, finally announced that "Advance Australia Fair" was the one. Within a short space of time three State Governments announced that they refused to accept this undemocratic choice, as well as the Federal Opposition, several loyal organisations, and the Women's' Electoral Lobby, which claimed that the words of Advance Australia Fair were unacceptable because of an alleged bias in favour of male chauvinism. The phrases that offended these ladies, it seems, were "sons of Australia" and 'Sires of yore." Incredibly, the Prime Minister then announced that the words Advance Australia Fair were not suitable for a National Anthem!

This makes an even greater nonsense, if possible, of the survey that was carried out. No one was asked whether they favoured words or tune, and the latest Whitlam decision has been made entirely on his own!

The great democrat has been shown to be nothing more than a petulant and petty tyrant. Mr. Whitlam then ordered the armed forces that they were not to play God Save the Queen at Anzac remembrance services. No concession was made to those who gathered to remember the fallen. Up here in Queensland those organising Anzac services in Toowoomba are having tape recordings made of the real National Anthem, God Save the Queen, so that Whitlam's ignorant behaviour can be ignored with dignity.

The Australian League of Rights has made every effort to present as reasonably and respectfully as possible, clear evidence that there are thousands who disagree with Whitlam's decision. The evidence we have presented, while acknowledged by a number of State and Federal leaders, has been pointedly ignored by the Prime Minister - an example of sheer bad manners in itself. There was a time when the Prime Minister could have bowed out with some dignity. To admit honestly that one is wrong is not always to lower oneself in the eyes of others, and we could have respected Mr. Whitlam even while we disagreed with him. But we now express an open contempt for the Prime Minister as a little man, a petty man, a man whose own contempt for the traditions of Australians will return to clog his ambitions and thwart his conceit.

We know that God Save the Queen will sound out long after Mr. Whitlam is forgotten We are stepping up the fight in justification of that knowledge. Mr. Whitlam will yet regret the day he decided that he could safely tamper with the nation's heritage. It is highly questionable whether Whitlam's action in issuing particular orders to the armed forces is legal. A carefully worded and timed petition to the Commander of the Armed forces, the Governor-General, recently sent by the Darling Downs Electors' Association, may well be of great significance from a legal point of view, and further legal consultation is being taken.

RENEWAL OF LEAGUE JOURNALS

NEW AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE SOCIETY BROCHURE

VICTORIAN PREMIER"S REPLY TO ASSISTANT NATIONAL DIRECTOR

NATIONAL DIRECTOR

The Purpose of Social Dynamics

The political, financial, and economic proposals put forward in Social Dynamics courses are not revolutionary in the sense that they threaten the traditional basis of societies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S.A. The institutions of these societies have been evolved over long periods of time and reflect enormous experience and wisdom. The development of the industrial arts has reflected the discovery and successful application of Truth. All that is best in Western Civilization has found its most complete expression in the English-speaking world, where the Greek contribution of the idea of liberty; and the Roman concept of the Rule of Law, have been fused with the inspirational truths of Christianity.

Generally speaking, these Societies were, before the First World War evolving in the direction of providing increasing satisfaction for their individual members. Given time and the opportunity for further organic development, there was justification for the view that Western man was on the eve of a new Golden Age in which the personality of man could flower as never before - in which the best in man could develop. But the start of the First World War marked the beginning of a movement of revolutionary convulsions that now threaten the very existence of Civilization.

From Hansard: The Senate (13/3/74) Constitution Alteration Legislation. The Bill for a Referendum to allow the Commonwealth Government to make direct grants to Local Government bodies: -Senator Young: ... "its real purpose is to obtain more power and control for Canberra. Further it seeks to by-pass State authorities. Eventually this would cause erosion of the authority of State bodies.... But when we realize that the Prime Minister has stated in clear terms that the Commonwealth now has the power to make grants to Local Governments but via the States, one question is why this legislation is necessary. Why is in necessary to put a referendum proposal to the people? ... under Section 96 of the Constitution the Federal Govt. when it makes a grant, has not only the power to say what money will be allocated, but also how that money will be spent. When the Constitution was written, and when Section 96 was put in, it was never intended to be used in this way. Section 96 was included in the Constitution purely to help the development of this country, and to help the poorer and less populated States with grants. But today we see it used as a vehicle of direction and control from Canberra....Give Local Government the money now via State Parliaments. We have a system and the Prime Minister admits that it can be done that way. But he does not want it that way because the Government wants the power unto itself in Canberra.... I can only say to the people of this country that we have had a 3-tier System of government involving Local Government, State Governments and the Federal Government. This sort of legislation, if it were carried through to the ultimate and the power was situated in Canberra, would completely destroy the 3-tier System of government. We would finish up with a single parliament in Canberra, with the destruction of the State parliaments, and we would have puppeteers, not councillors, on Local Govt."