|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
1 April 1977. Thought for the Week: "Under the two-party system, if one major party turns Socialist....then political contests tend to become a race between the two parties in the direction of State dictatorship."
C.H. Douglas, in 1948.
THE 'BRITISH' ANTI-RHODESIA CAMPAIGN
Mr. Eric D. Butler reports from England, where
following his recent visit to Rhodesia, he is conducting a nationwide
lecture tour designed to increase support for Rhodesia
The Conservative Party's Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lord Carrington, was in Salisbury when I was there. But he brought nothing new or constructive for the hard-pressed Rhodesians - merely the same old tired clichés about "majority rule."
'Following the Rhodesian declaration of complete independence in 1965, the only realistic action possible in the face of the devious campaign being conducted by the Wilson Government, the Conservatives said that they would have acted very differently. But it was the Conservatives who sowed the seeds of the Rhodesian crisis. In 1960 Harold Macmillan made his ill timed, and ill-mannered speech in the South African Parliament concerning the African "Winds of Change". This set extreme African power lusters, miscalled "nationalists", clamoring for "instant democracy".
When the Heath Government came to office, it treated the Rhodesians no better than the Socialists. And what does Mrs. Thatcher offer today? She chided Prime Minister Callaghan in the House of Commons for not accepting the Rhodesian Government's invitation for Foreign Minister Dr. Owen to visit Rhodesia on his trip to Southern Africa, but then went on to say, "We are very disappointed that the Kissinger proposals did not come to fruition, and we are particularly anxious that proposals should be found which are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia itself."
The British Conservatives are, like the Socialists,
dedicated to the dogma of "majority rule". The dishonest and superficial
argument is used that if only the Rhodesian Government will accept "majority
rule", which means African rule it will cease to be the target of Communist
backed attacks. The Communists must be delighted with this absurd nonsense.
One of the manifestations of the sickness of
the modern liberal mind is that once gripped by some theory, it stubbornly
refuses to admit that the theory in practice is consistently disastrous.
A former senior member of the British Colonial Service has recalled
that when Tafawa Balewa took office as the first Prime Minister of Nigeria,
before the British granted complete independence, he told the British
official at a Government House party not long afterwards, that he expected
to be assassinated on tribal grounds. Shortly after the British left,
he was murdered. There has been no election of any kind in Nigeria since.
The present Nigerian regime insists upon "majority rule" for Rhodesia!
The truth is that African "majority rule" has not existed in any former British, French, Belgian or Portuguese territories in Africa. If the European is driven out of Rhodesia, the Communists through their tools like Robert Mugabe, a member of the minority Matabele tribe, will do in Rhodesia what they are doing in Angola and Mozambique.
British Governments have moralised about their "responsibilities" to Rhodesia, but whenever challenged have never been able to demonstrate a capacity for responsibility. They have closed their eyes to crimes such as the abduction of African children and the cold-blooded killing of missionaries.
Foreign Minister Owen can visit the Marxist base of Mozambique, but cannot accept an invitation to visit Rhodesia. The Rhodesians are treated as moral lepers, much worse than Communists and terrorist leaders like Robert Mugabe. It is not surprising that an increasing number of Rhodesians are becoming disillusioned by "Kissinger plans" and talks with British politicians, and are demanding stronger action by the Smith Government.
Prime Minister Ian Smith is now faced with the strongest internal challenge in his long career. If that challenge ends with a change of Rhodesian leadership, then British Governments are going to find themselves confronted by a much more determined Rhodesian Government, one which will produce major convulsions inside the United Kingdom as well as right around the world.
The vicious campaign against Rhodesia is not, of course, a genuine British campaign. Those promoting this campaign are the same people who drove and tricked the British people to surrender to the Common Market. It may be that just as the revolt by the British colonists of North America forced subsequent British Governments back to the true British tradition of decentralised government and power, so the courageous stand by a predominantly British community in Rhodesia will bring Britain back to sanity.
There appears to be a stirring amongst the British electors as they find that all the rosy promises made by the pro-Common Market politicians have proved completely false. And an electorate increasingly disturbed by race problems in Britain, clearly sympathises with the plight of fellow British people struggling to maintain law and order against Communist backed terrorists in Rhodesia.
MR. CHIPP FOR THE WILDERNESS?
Yes, we think Mr. Don Chipp is for the political wilderness. Are we sorry? No, no way. Australian political life can well do without the Chipps. It was most unlikely that Mr. Chipp would have obtained the pre-selection for his Melbourne electorate of Hotham, for the next House of Representatives election; and we believe Mr. Chipp knew it. Accordingly, we are not impressed with his appeals to "principle", "integrity", and all the rest.
Most politicians have a strong dash of the ham actor in them; and some more than others. We don't think much of Mr. Chipp's chances of drawing Federal Liberal backbenchers away from the Party to his new "third force": we know our politicians too well. Wavering Liberal backbenchers (and we have no doubt they are there) might, just might, back what looks like a winner; but they won't back some nebulous "third force". They won't put their heads on the chopping block for that!
On the other hand, the men of the Australia Party, and the Liberal Movement (Steele Hall returned, himself, to the Liberal fold) have nothing at all to lose in joining forces with Don Chipp, and may even move themselves up a notch in public recognition. Mr. Chipp realises that he has no hope of winning office in Hotham as an independent: his personal vote (according to himself) is only 8%, and he says he wouldn't capture more than 20% of the total vote. So he has analysed his position thoroughly, as he would.
Mr. Fraser won't wear him at all: there is a personality clash there. Mr. Malcolm Fraser has a strong dash of the austere, puritanical Scot, and this clashes with the permissive, opportunist, bend with the wind, trendy, character of Don Chipp.
Incidentally, Mr. Chipp doesn't like the Australian
League of Rights. In The Sun (Melbourne, March 24th) in Laurie
Oakes's article, he is quoted as saying: "I'm not happy at reports I'm
getting about Right' wing infiltration of the Liberal Party" ..."I can
see evidence of the League of Rights and allied groups the maniac pro-Right,
fascist ethnic groups moving in."
The Legal Aspect of GovernmentIt is usual to say that in a democratic country political sovereignty rests in the people, and that legal sovereignty rests in parliament. In other words, the power to make laws, to tax, and if need be, to use the armed forces, rests not with the people, but with the majority party in parliament; or to be more precise, it rests with a small group of men who control the parliamentary party. Therefore, the supreme legal power over a country rests with a few men, and not with the people. In theory, the people are supposed to have a free choice of candidates, and candidates, when elected, are supposed to represent the people, in parliament. These representatives are supposed to discuss problems in open debate in parliament, and then to vote for them as their electorates wish them to vote. That is the theory. In practice, of course, nothing like this happens.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|