|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
8 April 1977. Thought for the Week: "There have always been in history satisfied nations, and those that were not, and it is always the dissatisfied, the lean nations, who have made history. The moment a nation reaches the point where it is satisfied, and does not want to go further, it is doomed because it tends to please its enemies, appease them, withdraw before them, surrender to them. When General MacArthur proclaimed in 1951 that there was no substitute for victory, he was not innovating or inventing; he was just forcefully expressing an old and basic truth. In revolutionary times, the truth is more important than ever."
Dr. S. Draskovich, in "Will America Surrender?"
BRITAIN'S PATHETIC ROLE IN AFRICAN CRISIS
Mr. Eric Butler reports from England, where he
is lecturing on the escalating crisis in Southern Africa
There is plenty of spirit left in the British people, but the record of British politicians since the end of the Second World War has been one of constant retreat and, in many cases, downright treachery.
In his famous BBC address of March last year, Solzhenitsyn sadly observed, "For some twenty years, Britain's voice has not been heard in our planet, its character has gone, its freshness has faded. And Britain's position in the world today is of less significance than that of Rumania, or even Uganda."
I was listening to a taped recording of the Solzhenitsyn BBC address on the same day that The Sunday Express had revealed that the Foreign Secretary of the Callaghan Government, Mr. David Owen, said in his book, The Politics of Detente, published in 1972, that it was possible to visualise a situation developing in Southern Africa "where a Russian presence could be used to ensure that South. Africa did not invade an African country which was harbouring and encouraging guerilla action."
Dr. Owen wrote that the Soviet build up in the South Atlantic posed no dangerous new military threat to the Cape route. He complained that the British economic blockade of Rhodesia had not been severe enough. But the most disturbing passage in Dr. Owen's book is the argument he puts forward for an international naval blockade of the whole of the South African coastline. Such a strategy, he writes, "is a perfectly viable strategy, provided the international will exists among the major powers in the United Nations to enforce it."
Dr. Owen said that by a complete blockade South Africa would be forced to change its internal race policies. Needless to say, Dr. Owen does not advocate economic sanctions against the Soviet Union to force it to change both its internal policies, and to cease its programme of international subversion. In fact the United Kingdom is engaged in providing not only the Soviet Union, but also its main client State, Cuba, with vital economic blood transfusions.
While the pro-Soviet, anti-South African and anti-Rhodesian stand of the British Socialists is easily understandable, what of the British Conservatives? With the exception of a handful, the Conservatives have supported continuing sanctions against Rhodesia, with some Conservative Members just as vicious in their anti-Rhodesian attitude as the Socialists.
After a copy of National Suicide, Dr. Antony Sutton's explosive work, had been placed in Mrs. Margaret Thatcher's hands, she did shortly afterwards issue a warning about Russian threats to the world. This earned the Conservative leader the title of "The Iron Lady". But Mrs. Thatcher has remained quiet since, and is not on record as advocating any constructive policy towards halting the developing Soviet strategy against Southern Africa.
The Conservatives' finance economic policies are on a par with those of the Fraser Government. The Conservatives have preached the same line as Prime Minister Fraser; drastically reduce public expenditure and all will be well. The British Socialists have been doing just that with the result that British defence spending has been reduced. The effect on the British armed services has been serious. The Communists must be delighted as they note how the British are being forced to play a decreasingly minor role in international affairs under the pressure of disastrous finance economic policies.
The reluctance of the British Conservatives to take a strong line on the Southern African situation is the result, in part at least, of the fear of upsetting the growing coloured vote. Party politicians are much more interested in trying to save votes than in worrying unduly about the long term future of the nation.
Australians might carefully heed the inevitable fragmenting effect of permitting large numbers of non-Europeans to become Australian electors. British public opinion is hardening considerably on the race question and while I am not numbered amongst those who see any real hope in the National Front Party, it is significant that this group is attracting increasing electoral support, because it is taking a firm stand against any more coloured immigrants.
As Enoch Powell says, the British have been written off as finished on a number of occasions, only to confound the forecasters of gloom. My own considered view is that the British are far from finished, and that providing the type of grassroots activities being developed by the British League of Rights can continue to be expanded, once again the British are capable of, to use Pitt's famous words, capable of saving themselves by their own exertions, and the rest of the world by their example. But time for effective action is perilously short.
AMUSING VOICES FROM THE PAST
"Australia would beat its inflation problems in 12 to 18 months, the Prime Minister (Mr. Gorton) said yesterday." The Age (Melbourne) March 3rd, 1971.
We came across this old newspaper cutting this week: inflation six years ago was certainly in the single digits. A ten per cent rate was "unthinkable". Now a single digit inflation rate is the intense aim. Mr. Malcolm Fraser, who is shortly to "talk to the nation" (we don't know what difference that will make to anything) stated several times last year that the Government would have inflation down to ''single digits'' by the end of the financial year: that means by June 30th, 1977.
So far from that being the case, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Bill Hayden, the hopeful "Gough Killer" of the Australian Labor Party. Again, we have strong reservations there, also. Mr. Hayden forecasts an inflation rate of 16% - 18% by the end of this year. (i.e. December 1977). There are the March quarter C.P.I. figures to work through the economy, and the jump in general costs due to the November devaluation last year.
We also came across an old newspaper cutting, dated 1974, which was headed: - "The D.L.P. will oppose the Federal Government's four latest Referendum Bills, ensuring their defeat in the Senate. On this occasion the Canberra Socialists, under Gough Whitlam, were pushing the "simultaneous elections" proposal, which Malcolm Fraser is pushing now. The Socialists are more consistent, they were for this proposal then, and they are for it now. The so-called anti-Socialists were against the proposal then; but they are for it now. Perhaps it is not amusing after all.
There isn't the space here to recapitulate on the other 1974 Referendum proposals; they were attacks on the States and the Constitution, just as Malcolm Fraser's 1977 Referendum proposals are attacks on the States and the Constitution. See the Australian League of Rights Vote "No" brochure, now available for mass distribution.
When we speak of "amusing voices from the past" we do not wish to infer that we think that the D.L.P. is amusing; we refer to Mr. Gorton's forlorn hope of conquering inflation, and the hypocrisy of most the Liberal-N.C.P. politicians. There are a few who condemn the hypocrisy of Malcolm Fraser and his close supporters.
Future political historians in Australia will
write that this coming Referendum was the beginning of the end for Malcolm
Fraser; for he will fall, as John Gorton, William McMahon and Bill Snedden
(although never Prime Minister) fell. He will fall when the rank and
file of the parliamentary Liberal Party has decided that he is not a
" winner"; that they can't win the next election with him at the helm
of the Party.
In The Australian (March 30th) former
Labor Minister, Fred Daly, was asked for his comments on the coming
Referendum proposals. Some of them are most interesting. On the proposal
to retire High Court judges at the age of 70 years, he said: "I think
Fraser only wants that one so that he can pack the court at the appropriate
time. I don't think he's so concerned about the ages of the judges at
The "Intelligence Digest (U.K.), Weekly Review" of March 30th has comment which we can well heed. It comments again (it has before on more than one occasion) on the Communist propaganda campaign to "Vietnamese" Korea, which, it says has been encouraged by President Carter's qualified pledge to withdraw ground troops from South Korea.
On the matter of the pact between the British Labour Party, and the British Liberal Party, it comments that . . .."this could be the beginning of a political realignment, with the Labour Party splitting into Marxist and Social Democratic wings. Already the Marxist element has denounced the deal. Such a trend would be in the opposite direction of that in France where the Socialists and Communists are collaborating."
The Legal Aspect of Government (continued)What does happen is that the party candidates are selected before elections, and they depend on the backing of the party machine for their success. When elected, they also depend on their party bosses for promotion, for the right to sit on committees, and for other perquisites of office. For any representative to vote against his party would be, in all but a minority of cases, to commit political suicide.
Armed with these powers of coercion, the party bosses experience little trouble from rebels, and decide beforehand how the voting shall go in parliament. Parliament, therefore is no longer the place where the laws of the country are made; even the debates therein are unheard and unread by the public (since these words were written some proceedings of Parliament are broadcast: however there is little public interest - the "ratings" are the lowest possible). Parliament is used merely to give legal formality to decisions made by a few men, in just the same way as elections are used to give legal status to candidates nominated by the party. All that is left of our political democracy are the legal formalities. These legal formalities are important but they should not be allowed to obscure the ruthless spirit behind them, the contempt for the public, and the contempt for parliament.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|