THE SILENCE OF AL GRASSBY

"The Age", Melbourne, of January 16th, carried the headline, "RACIST LEAFLET HIT", with the sub-heading, "League of Rights probed over claims on refugees." The story was written by Tony Blackie, "Community Affairs Reporter" and quotes accurately parts of the brochure on immigration being made available by the League to Australians concerned about the programme to break down Australia's traditional immigration policy.
Mr. Grassby is reported to have said that the "anti-migrant" campaign by The League of Rights was "being investigated by the Commission for Community Affairs".

The League, of course, is not conducting an "anti-migrant" campaign. Many of its best supporters are migrants, but migrants of European and Christian backgrounds. Mr. Grassby threatens that "if it was found that the pamphlets infringed on the rights of Australians then action could be taken under the racial discrimination act." But Mr. Grassby's shallow bluff has been called in the following letter published in "The Age" of January 20th by the League's National Director, Mr. Eric Butler, "In response to Mr. Al Grassby's reported comments on the League of Right's campaign concerning the immigration issue (16/1), I invite the Commissioner for Community Relations to answer three questions:
1. Have Australians the right to decide what type of migration policy they favour?
2. If a majority of Australians indicate they reject Mr. Grassby's policy, should not the will of the majority prevail?
3. Will Mr. Grassby support a national referendum to ascertain if, in fact, public opinion polls showing an overwhelming majority against the Grassby policy are accurate? "The use of the term 'racist' as a political swear word must not be permitted to obscure the above basic questions."

The response from Mr. Grassby has been a deafening silence, indicating clearly that the well paid ($36,000 plus a year) Commissioner for Community Relations wants to change radically the structure of the traditional Australian society without the electors having an effective say. We have said it before, and now repeat: The Fraser Government should abolish Mr. Grassby's bureaucracy and pay Mr. Grassby off. The League of Rights' campaign on the immigration issue is to be intensified.

MR. B.A. SANTAMARIA'S BLIND SPOT

Mr. B.A. Santamaria of the National Civic Council makes so many commonsense comments on national and international affairs, and is such an outstanding exponent of traditional Christian values, that we dislike offering any critical comment on Mr. Santarmaria s observations. But the truth is that like many other outstanding anti-Communists, Mr. Santamaria has a type of "blind spot" concerning the realities of finance economics and their relationship to the use of political power.

In a survey of world affairs in "News Weekly" of January 3rd, Mr. Santamaria writes that Western Europe, fearful of American abdication in Europe, "has no hopeful option rather than to establish a federal community of 250 million people, which demands first of all a tight customs union. The fearful alternative to giving Germany a secure role in a secure continent is the risk that Germany may fall for the temptation of an accommodation with the Soviet Union, as it did during the Weimar period."

The false assumption underlying the above comment is that a Federal Union in Western Europe, a concept advanced originally by the Communist Leader Leon Trotsky, offers greater strength in resisting the Soviet Union than an association of independent States. Under present debt and inflationary finance economic policies, the problems of the nations of Western Europe are just as great as the problems of the United States of America. The promoters of the European Economic Community, including the international financial groups responsible for so much of the finance necessary to brainwash sufficient of the British people, have made it clear that they saw the EEC as a major first step towards establishing a World Government in which Communist nations would participate.

It is impossible to assure any Western nation of a secure future in a secure continent under present financial policies. Those policies are responsible, not only for the EEC adopting highly protective policies but also for aggressive exporting policies which are producing increasing friction with other exporters. These policies are also resulting in EEC countries striving to send more economic aid to the Soviet Union, the Germans being as guilty of this as all other Western nations.
The Germans are, of course, essential in any genuinely strong Western military alliance, but the persistent anti-German campaign promoted by the Zionists, much to the delight of the Communists, has been damaging to the West's best interests. The anti-German campaign has been conducted behind the smokescreen of the hoax of the 6 million Jews allegedly murdered in gas chambers.

It is perhaps significant that such a generally perceptive observer as Mr. Santamaria has apparently not seen through a hoax now so thoroughly discredited by the scholarship of Dr. Butz (viz "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" $5.60 posted) and others. Perhaps this is another unfortunate blind spot?

And then there is the description of Prime Minister Fraser as a man "possessed of considerable intellectual calibre.... He is a man of what is sometimes called conservative philosophy." Mr. Santamaria's thesis is that even though Mr. Fraser personally accepts the view that Australia faces great dangers, that "we have a political situation of total and undisputed control, in the hands of a person who believes thoroughly in the philosophy of Australian defence", he has allowed defences to decline because of the dead hand of bureaucracy, aided and abetted by what Mr. Santarmaria describes as the "corporate state".

While we are totally in agreement about government by bureaucracy and non-elected power groups, the fact remains that, as the Minister for Defence, D.J. Killen has said, defence spending has been reduced disastrously primarily because the "fight" against inflation has first priority. Mr. Santamaria has offered nothing realistic concerning how inflation can be constructively reversed.

If Prime Minister Fraser genuinely wishes to start upgrading Australia's defences, and is being thwarted by a non-elected bureaucracy and power groups, then it is his duty to tell the Australian people the truth with a view to rally them behind a survival programme. But in fact the real Mr. Fraser is not the Mr. Fraser described by Mr. Santamaria.
While we agree he is a puppet of the real government, this is a role he clearly does not mind playing. For this reason the sooner he is replaced with some one with more capacity and determination to change disastrous financial policies, the greater the chance of Australia surviving as an independent nation.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Generally unreported is the relationship between Mr. David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and the revolution in Iran. The London "Sunday Telegraph" of December 24th, 1978 reported: "In a series of super secret polls, Chase Manhattan Bank has asked its partners in a $l00m loan to an Iranian State controlled bank whether the loan should be declared in default. The implications of the Chase's actions are far wider than the money involved. Much of the Shah's heavy burden of debt to Western Banks includes 'cross default' clauses which means that if one loan goes under it is legal grounds for other banks to call in their loans."
It is certain that the Rockefeller and associated One Worlders are not concerned about the destruction of the Shah's s regime in Iran. They have moved closer to their declared objective of building the New International Economic Order. The loss of Iran's oil is a massive blow to South Africa and Rhodesia. Iran provided 90% of South Africa's oil supplies. The revolution in Iran must also have serious repercussions upon the massive international debt structure built up by the international financiers. 1979 is certainly going to be a year of major international explosions.

The Fraser Government's decision to suspend Australian aid for Vietnam because of Hanoi's assault upon fellow Communist criminals in Kampuchea (Cambodia) has nothing to do with principles. It is part of the Government's kowtow to Communist China. Vietnam is backed by the Soviet. If Vietnam had not overthrown their fellow Marxists in Kampuchea, aid from the Fraser Government would have continued.

The initial reaction by President Ching-kuo to the Carter betrayal of Taiwan was encouraging for genuine anti-Communists everywhere. The President said: "The Republic of China will never negotiate with Peiping or any other Red nation."