|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
29 April 1977. Thought for the Week: "The theatre and film productions of today are really typical bourgeoise phenomena. The bourgeoise have now reached the final stage in their descent towards decadence, and, show up their inherent rottenness as they surrender all claims to be standard bearers of responsibility. We Communists are interested in encouraging this type of production. As a technical policy our aim is to defend any enterprise that is pornographic... even more so with plays being shown that attempt to condone homosexuality."
from Cinema (July 25th, 1969: Italian Communist publication) quoted by Patrick Walsh in Behind the World-Wide Student Power Movement."
Mr. Eric Butler reports from Canada on the eve
of leaving for the 1977 World Anti-Communist Conference in Taiwan
There is a type of universal madness for which those operating the media must accept a high degree of responsibility. Although obviously very sincere the CBC interviewer reflected the general appalling ignorance about the realities of Southern Africa, which we were discussing.
Battling my way through a press conference, T.V. and radio programmes in British Columbia, again confirmed the fact that the great majority of interviewers either know nothing about African affairs, or attempt to present the Marxist viewpoint. Most clearly did not know that Canadian taxpayers were helping to subsidise the Soviet base of Mozambique.
The signing of a "friendship and co-operation" treaty by the Soviet Union and Mozambique in Maputo on March 31st left no doubt about the position of Mozambique. This is the third such accord the Soviet Union has negotiated with a country in black Africa; the others are with Angola and Somalia.
As Prime Minister Fraser has on a number of occasions drawn attention to the Soviet base of Somalia, I have been watching the news services to discover if Mr. Fraser will now admit that Mozambique is also a Soviet base, and that his Government will now stop helping to subsidise it. But I see no such admission, only that Mr. Fraser has severely criticised New Zealand Prime Minister Muldoon for refusing to prevent New Zealanders from playing rugby with the wicked South Africans.
I also note that Mr. Fraser urges that steps should be taken to prevent President Idi Amin from attending the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference in London. This is a most laudable objective, but if Mr. Fraser is logical, then a number of other African leaders should be banned. For example, President Kaunda of Zambia has done his fair share of killing. And while the same Kaunda is calling for more economic pressure on Rhodesia, he is doing business with Rhodesia. But perhaps Mr. Fraser, like the media commentators, is ignorant of these matters?
If the Canberra Government is influenced by the Carter Administration on African affairs, then Australians can expect no improvement in the Fraser Government's attitude towards Southern Africa. Just as incredible as American U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, best known for his statement that Cuban troops had brought "a certain stability and order" to Angola, is Brady Tyson, deputy U.S. delegate to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Tyson has a reputation as a revolutionary from way back, so it is not surprising to note that he believes that the Vietnam War and Watergate made America "more humble". He has also publicly apologised for the role the U.S.A. "played in the subversion of the previous, democratically elected Chilean government that was overthrown in the coup of September 11, 1973".
In the meantime talks are taking place to "normalise" relations between Castro's Cuba and Jimmy Carter's U.S.A. Perhaps Mr. Fraser and Mr. Andrew Peacock will take this question up with President Carter. Or will Cuba become more acceptable than Rhodesia and South Africa?
Not so many years ago such a question would have seemed absurd to the point of being hilarious. But as the universal madness spreads anything is possible. The most important thing to do at the moment is to make every effort to protect one's own sanity. Ignoring the media commentators is an essential first step!
PROFESSOR MILTON FRIEDMAN'S ANTI-FREEZE
"The Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor Milton Friedman, yesterday denounced wage and price freezes such as that proposed for Australia." - The Australian (April 16th)
We commented in last week's On Target on the proposed "freeze": enough is enough. We recalled that the 1971 ninety-day wage and price freeze in the U.S.A. just held down the lid of the saucepan over the flame for that long - that is all. When the pressure was relaxed after ninety days, the inevitable explosion of wages and prices occurred.
Says Professor Friedman: "I have no doubts whatsoever about wage and price freezes, be they conducted over two days, two months, or two years. "We have seen them tried for the past two thousand years, and we have yet to see one succeed. But countries seem reluctant to learn from these examples; they want to learn the lesson by trying it for themselves."
Professor Friedman recalled the 1971 wages and prices freeze in the first term of President Nixon: "It happened here in 1971, and failed. It has happened in Britain, I think, about three times; in Holland, and many other countries." Professor Friedman remarked that wage and price freezes were a temptation to politicians because they appeared to hold out a simple, short-term solution....But in the end they just aggravate the problem and finally you have a blowout. A freeze does not go to the cause or the root of the problem it is being used to solve - in fact, it makes it worse."
Modern day economists, with rare exceptions, and mere politicians, are like the old vaudeville magicians with their set box of tricks, certainly with respect to the economy. Some magic words are uttered, and the lady seems to disappear; a wave of the hand, and the pretty girl seems to be cut in two. The audience (electorate) is open mouthed. But the lady hasn't disappeared; and the pretty girl has not been cut in two. Politicians wave their hands and utter (they hope) magic words but inflation and unemployment are still there, probably worse. But DO they learn the lesson by trying it for themselves? Professor Friedman thinks so: we are more cynical.
THE 'EUROPEAN' PARLIAMENT
"It could be the great political experiment of the century: a directly elected multinational parliament of Europe." - T.S. Monks, in The Age (Melbourne) April 9th
It is approximately twenty years since the Treaty of Rome was signed, thereby setting up the European Economic Community (Common Market). The League of Rights has done all in its power ever since to expose, and thereby hinder this attempt by the One-Worlders to institute a United States of Europe, under which member nations will eventually lose their sovereignty. It is an international centralist ploy; the economic facet has never been advanced by its champions, as it's principal "benefit". There has never been any serious attempt to disguise its principal political objectives.
The "European Assembly" of part-time, nominated members of the various national parliaments of member nations has been largely a debating society. It had no "teeth". Ironically, the Left Wing of the British Labour Party is putting up a stout resistance to the concept of the elected European parliament with power to enact legislation binding on member nations. The Kremlin and Peking have always assumed a cautious attitude to the Common Market - dialectically cautious -the political centralization of political power of the E.E.C. would be right up the Marxist alley. In recent years the Kremlin has been carrying out a massive trade with the Common Market countries (one-way INTO the Soviet Union..."the Capitalists will provide the rope with which we shall hang them".... Lenin), and Peking now has a representative to the E.E.C. headquarters at Brussels, most probably for the same purpose.
The detail that meant the most to us in Mr. Monks' article is this: "M.P.s for the European Parliament are going to be far more lavishly paid than those at Westminster. About $30,000 a year, plus $60 a day seems to be the minimum being considered. Would there be envy and rancor between the super M.P.s of Europe, and those plodding on at Westminster on a comparative pittance?" There's no doubt that the man who pays the piper calls the tune. The lads on $30,000 a year, plus $60 a day, will be "Super-Europers" to their boot heels, and the mere "Westminster-Wallopers" will be clawing each others' eyes out to get to Brussels.
And what about John Smith, merchant, voter, of High Street, Stoke-On-Trent? Well, you know, times have changed, and it doesn't really matter any more what those little people back in little national electorates think and say. The wave of the future is political leadership, and it must come from people like US, experts in the international political arena. Those chaps back at Westminster (House of Commons) can do their best to deal with the routine administrative stuff, but of course, all policy matters are in our hands."
Can't you just hear them? And the poor devils will really believe that they will have some say in policy making. If they step outside the One World line (we shall tell them right now) they'll risk their $30,000 a year, plus their $60 a day.
From The Australian (April 20th) "Inflation in France more than doubled between January and February after the removal of the country's three month pay and price freeze on December 31st." Our comment? No comment necessary!
Mr. Al Grassby is not yet silenced. In Adelaide recently he stated that the Japanese think of Australians as having racial biases. If this is so, then this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Those who know something about Japan (and Mr. Grassby obviously does not) are aware that the Japanese are fiercely proud of their culture and tradition, and actually regard the European as an inferior race. Japanese immigration laws are among the most stringent in the world.
The Election Sleight-of-HandJust previously to a general election (or a Referendum....On Target) the people are deluged with floods of propaganda of a most confusing nature; often as not the questions involved are highly technical, with the ramifications and consequences barely understood even by a very small minority. A large number of voters have learnt that nothing of value will come out of this avalanche of words; a great many more are not even interested. But it would be disastrous to the illusion of the legal authority of the party bosses if the people refused to go to the polling booths, or were to realize that this voting business was only a trap. Therefore, the party bosses have been forced to compel the people to go to the booths by threat of fines. They have also had to hold out bribes to the voters in the form of various alleged gifts - gifts which, if received, are in reality paid for by the voter himself, plus, of course, the added expense of maintaining (1) an army of officials to extract the money from him (2) an army of officials to cross-examine him to see if he should receive part of his money back (3) an army of officials to explain to him why he did not get his money back.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|