THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS APPROACH TO MAY 18th

By Eric D. Butler. National Director of The Australian League of Rights.

Election fever is in the air again. This fever can easily become a most serious complaint, sapping the commonsense of even the best informed. Wishful thinking supplants realism. The League of Rights has been both requested and implored to throw its full support behind a campaign to "defeat Whitlam at all costs." As the League's record shows that it has done more than any other organisation in Australia to expose and oppose the in-depth Socialist strategy of the Whitlam Government, we cannot be charged with any bias when we state that the League is determined to maintain its traditional non-party and objective approach to the questions which Australian electors must consider before voting on May 18th.

A major feature of the Socialist strategy for destroying the States and centralising all power at Canberra is the programme for bringing Municipal Government under direct control by Canberra via grants to Regional Councils. It is well to recall at this time that Mr. Snedden and Mr. Anthony originally supported this Socialist strategy by voting for the Commonwealth Grants Bill. In his criticism of the "obstruction" tactics of the Senate, it is significant that Mr. Whitlam has not conceded that the opposition permitted him to pass one of his most important pieces of Socialist legislation. It was only after the League of Rights national campaign generated a grass-roots opposition, based upon effective exposure of the real meaning of the Commonwealth Grants Bill, that the Opposition had second thoughts and at least have been forced into the position where they are supporting a vote against the proposed Constitutional amendment designed to ensure that the Commonwealth can make grants direct to Municipal Government without the fear of this policy being challenged in the courts.

It can be predicted with complete certainty that should Mr. Snedden form a Government, his "anti-inflation" programme will be shown to be dangerous political humbug and blatant dishonesty. Unless present finance-economic policies are radically changed, inflation will continue irrespective of whether Mr. Whitlam or Mr. Snedden is Prime Minister after May 18th. I am prepared to go on record as predicting that by the end of this year inflation will be increasing at 18 or more percent.

As the League has warned over many years, the policy of attempting to make the economy work by accelerating the rate at which debt finance is created and distributed, makes increasing inflation a mathematical certainty. The momentum is now so great that Mr. Snedden would have to plunge Australia into a depression much worse than the Great Depression of the 'thirties' in order to reduce the inflation rate to the 3 percent he talks about. That would mean an open revolutionary situation, which the Marxists are keenly anticipating.

Mr. Anthony's views on finance-economics are even more terrifying than those of Mr. Snedden. Mr. Anthony is no doubt a pleasant and a reasonably decent individual as politicians go, but having closely studied his views on finance-economics over many years, I must, without being personal in any way, describe him as an economic illiterate. For the League of Rights to endorse uncritically the Opposition merely because of the ghastly Whitlam Government would be an act of gross irresponsibility. The League therefore declines to give that endorsement.

What it does advocate is that electors act in a responsible manner by making every effort to insist that candidates provide them with firm commitments concerning major policy issues. It would be a step forward if at least a few non-Labor candidates would pledge themselves to an examination of some alternative anti-inflation policies to those being put forward by Mr. Snedden and Mr. Anthony and that a Senate is elected pledged to defend the Federal system.

But the major questions to be faced on May 18th are to ensure that every one of the four proposals to change the Constitution are rejected. It is not political parties, but constitutions, which protect individuals. Therefore the League of Rights is recommending that all its supporters concentrate their efforts upon defeating Mr. Whitlam's revolutionary constitutional proposals. And that no Senate candidates are supported who will not give a firm pledge to uphold the Federal system of Government.

As a general principle, we recommend that sound minority Senate candidates be supported as a means of minimising the domination of the major parties. If the Constitution can be protected from further erosion, and a strong Senate elected to defend the Constitution, then at least the electors will be in the position to wage the fight effectively in the coming battles now looming before them. The truth must be faced that Australia is entering the most convulsive period in its history.

JEREMY LEE REPORTS FROM THE QUEENSLAND FRONT

Although replies have been received from State Premiers, Opposition leaders in the States, the leader of the Senate, Mr. Doug Anthony and other Federal politicians, acknowledging the receipt of the open letter to Mr. Whitlam on the National Anthem, I have not as yet had the courtesy of a reply from the Prime Minister. Perhaps he is too ashamed, after the widespread indications of disgust and rejection of his phony imposition of Advance Australia Fair.

Reports from all over Australia show a marked preference for the traditional God Save the Queen in the biggest Anzac crowds ever. A very big crowd in Townsville broke into applause when the proper Anthem was played. The first Heritage advertisement since the Whitlam announcement in Queensland brought a deluge of mail, and the financial donations show that there is widespread support and appreciation for the lead given by the Heritage Society in stepping the fight up.

We will not believe that the Opposition parties have any more than an interest in the electoral advantages to be gained by supporting in a desultory manner God Save the Queen, until they have approached the whole question of loyalty with much more fortitude than they have yet displayed. To this end, spokesmen for the Australian Heritage Society in Queensland and Western Australia are already seizing the initiative.

An open letter to all candidates to declare themselves specifically on the whole subject of loyalty with regard to the oath of allegiance they will be expected to take, and the specific issue of God Save the Queen has already been inserted in Queensland papers, and plans are under way to publish the answers of all candidates, so that the people will know where they stand. Those who do not reply will also be specifically named.
Western Australia already has similar plans in hand. Votes and petitions are still coming in from many parts of Australia.

The attack on God Save the Queen is, as we indicated some time ago, only part of a subtle attack going on in many quarters. The following remarks by Archbishop Thomas, in his letter in the April edition of the Adelaide Church Guardian are indicative:
"Lovers of semi-precious stones, animals, crustacea and oil paintings will be delighted with the new definitive postage stamps which are being issued, but those who have a deep and abiding loyalty to the Crown will not be so pleased. In a short time you will not be able to purchase an Australian stamp upon which the Queen's Head is depicted. One cannot help suspecting that this is another step in a policy designed gradually to turn Her Majesty's Kingdom of Australia into a Republic. If the plea is made that we desire beautiful stamps, interesting and arresting, which will attract philatelists and help the finances of the Postal system, it could be replied that the Postage Stamps of England are amongst the most attractive in the world, yet everyone of them has a small Queen's Head upon it, which in no way detracts from the beauty of the stamps and, indeed, when it is inadvertently omitted, a valuable variety is produced which gladdens the heart of the philatelic specialist. Surely the picture of our Sovereign should be restored to our stamps. Pictorials without it could be reserved for commemorative issues of which there are plenty; indeed so many that there is a danger that the P.M.G. Department will kill the philatelic goose that lays the paper dollars."

Who, we might ask, decided that the Queen's Head should appear no more on postage stamps? We have seen no debate in Parliament. Could it be that some obscure P.M.G. bureaucrat - never voted for, un-named, unhonoured and unsung - has usurped a prerogative that is not his? Those who are seeking votes on May 18th should be asked whether they would put the Queen back where she belongs.

EDITOR OF "THE TIMES" (LONDON) DWELLING IN MONETARY PAST

"A call for a return to the gold standard to halt inflation is made today by the Editor of 'The Times' in a full page article, and in a radio interview," - The Age (Melbourne) May 2nd.

The Editor, William Rees-Mogg, claimed that gold held its value right through history. He spoke of periods back to ancient Greece; and pointed out that gold held its value between the Napoleonic wars and the First World War. So what! The economic system operating in those days bears little resemblance to today's inflation-generating monster. Mr. Rees-Mogg is quite wrong, anyway, in stating that gold has held its value right throughout history; for example its value fluctuated up to 30% in the early post World War (1914-1918) years. Professor F. H. Irvine states this, in his book - 'The Midas Delusion'! (Professor F. H. Irvine was Professor of Economics at both Sydney and Adelaide Universities in the 1920's.)

The Editor of the London "Times" is, like so many others in positions of influence, hypnotised by gold. He says: -
"Your London house may be worth twice what it was three years ago; so may an acre of land in Wiltshire. Yet the fine town house, or the acre of good farm land, are still worth much the same number of ounces of gold as they were in 1960. So indeed would the gallon of petrol you put in your car. "At a time of extreme inflation of currencies, gold has quietly provided what money is for; a stable medium of exchange and standard of value . . .Gold is real money, and paper is pretend money."

That Mr. Rees-Mogg is ignorant of the real nature of money is obvious. Firstly, he takes the mistaken view that money is a commodity; a thing limited in quantity. lt is nothing of the sort. In the modern finance-economic system it is an abstraction, its volume created or destroyed at the whim of the Authority in control of the levers of monetary power; nominally the Government; but more accurately, the Central Bank. The deficit budgets now brought down; several hundreds of millions of dollars alone in a small country like Australia - billions of dollars in the United States - should be sufficient to drive home the point that money is not a strictly limited commodity, but an abstraction under the control of the Money Authority; and this control regulates the rate at which the economy moves.
Those in ultimate control of the Money Authority, regulate the lives of the individual citizens of respective nations.

Secondly, Mr. Rees-Mogg's "gold-hypnotism" prevents him from understanding that the value of money lies largely in its psychological acceptance. Money is "anything, anything at all, which will be accepted in exchange for goods and services." It may take the form of shells, leather discs, beads, cattle etc., etc. Throughout history, money has been all of these things. Modern money consists primarily of financial credit created by the banking system - an abstraction. Notes and coins consist of no more than 7% of the total volume of "money" in circulation.

Mr. Rees-Mogg doesn't realize that men value gold for psychological reasons, paper money has risen and fallen in value; it is tumbling all over the world now but because people have faith in gold, it has done very much what Mr. Rees-Mogg says. There are other problems, of course, which he overlooks; particularly that gold, itself, is a commodity (not money) and the volume of money, which it represents in the modern world, is small, and becoming smaller. That is one of the prime reasons that International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.s) were introduced back in the sixties.

Let the Deputy-Governor of the West German Central Bank, (Dr. Otmar Emminger) have the final say on gold: -(From an address at Basle, Switzerland - June '73) "In this connection (gold) I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty, who as you know, had a great fall - and then the story continues: 'all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again'. "I am afraid this seems to apply as well to gold as a numeraire; that is, as a measure of value in our System (the International Monetary System)".

Those with an interest in this subject should read "The Creation and Control of Money" (price 37cents, post free), and "The Use of Money" by C. H.Douglas (price 22 cents, post free) both available from G.P.O. Box 1052J, Melbourne. Vic, 3001.

ALL ELECTORAL COMMENT AUTHORISED BY E.D. BUTLER, 273 LITTLE COLLINS ST., MELB. VIC. 3000

The Finance - World Revolution Nexus

Although its philosophical roots go back deep into history, and much of its organizational programme was being shaped last century, the Movement called Communism had to await the event of the First World War before it emerged into the open as an international force. The subversive movement was given a tremendous impetus by another international convulsion, the Great Depression; even more destructive in many ways than the First World War. The fundamental credit of nations; the faith of their individual members in their Society and its institutions, was badly shaken. Skilful propaganda was directed at the individual in an endeavour to persuade him that his desperate plight could only be alleviated by submitting to a policy of increasing centralisation of power. This was a deadly attack upon the philosophical base of the free society and its institutions. As the Great Depression of the thirties was directly caused by a drastic reduction of the rate of financial credit restriction, starting in the U.S.A. with the action of the Federal Reserve Bank; those who used their enormous power to produce mass unemployment and economic chaos overnight must be held responsible for the increased Marxist revolutionary activities which resulted from their policies.

No realistic study of international power politics of this century is possible without an understanding of the nexus between power exercised through centralised finance-credit, and power exercised through revolutionary political activities.