|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
23 November 1979. Thought for the Week: "Security shatters, not because there are no more locks, but because the men naturally trusted with the keys and combinations are themselves the conspirators."
Whittaker Chambers in "Witness".
SUBVERSION IN HIGH PLACES
The case of Anthony Blunt comes as no surprise to the informed student of the Communist conspiracy. It highlights once again that the effective Marxist conspirators operate in the most influential positions in society. And the treachery of Anthony Blunt, like that of his known colleagues, Burgess, Maclean and Philby, demonstrates once again the idiocy, or worse, of those who sneeringly refer to the League of Rights and similar anti-Communist organisations as being so "obsessed" about Communism that Communists are seen "under every bed".
Alger Hiss, the top American official, first
acting secretary of the United Nations Organisation, who was exposed
by his former Communist colleague, Whittaker Chambers was not found
crouching under a bed. He had moved from his position as a senior American
official to the prestigious Carnegie Foundation. Like Anthony Blunt,
he was protected by the "best" people. And some of these "best" people
have demonstrated that they are extremely gullible concerning subversion
in their own strata of society.
Anthony Blunt's status, a former Cambridge don, former intelligence officer, former art adviser to Monarchs, and former cultural emissary, was always his protective shield. It protected him first from suspicion at the time of the defection of the Foreign Office officials, Maclean and Burgess, followed later by their friend Kim Philby. And then when he feared that Burgess, wishing to visit the United Kingdom from Moscow, might expose his role as a KGB agent, and he confessed, his influential position protected him from prosecution. If it had not been for the brilliant investigation of writer Andrew Boyle, and his book, "The Climate of Treason", British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would not have been forced to make her dramatic announcement in the British House of Commons last week. Anthony Blunt would have continued in his prestigious position and anyone who suggested that he might be a traitor, would have been laughed to scorn.
There are still, of course, some unanswered questions.
Blunt was the man who gave the Soviet major protection, when in 1951
he warned Maclean and Burgess that British intelligence was about to
move, and that they should leave the United Kingdom immediately. This
warning ensured that the Soviet espionage system in the United Kingdom
was not destroyed. But who told Blunt what was happening? How many Blunts
have remained unexposed?
It is instructive to note that Marxism has always had a powerful appeal to many University students, and that many of these, like Blunt, have been brilliant intellectuals. But it was these same intellectuals, divorced from reality and slaves to idealism, who have been in the forefront of present Communist hells as heavens on earth.
However, the subject of treachery must be kept in perspective. It is certainly true that treachery has enabled the Soviet nuclear programme to be advanced much more quickly than otherwise would have been the case. But as Dr. Anthony Sutton has documented in "National Suicide", the industrialisation of the Soviet Union has only been possible because of the massive economic blood transfusions financed from the West. In what realistic sense can an Anthony Blunt be described as a more dangerous person than those engaged in financing Communism?
Western finance economic policies are policies of suicide. They are also treacherous policies, and with many people shaken by the Blunt affair into a realisation that treason does flourish in high places, now is the time to draw attention to the wider aspects of treachery. (Most appropriate at present is Eric Butler's Commentary "The Real Communist Menace", on the famous Canadian Royal Commission's Report on Espionage, with special reference to the chapter on "Ideological Motivation". Price 85 cents posted.)
It is certain that if the British Conservative Party had not promised a drastic curtailment of non-European migrants before the last British elections, they would not have obtained their present majority. Mrs. Thatcher is now attempting to placate that section of the Conservative parliamentary party, which has been insisting for some time that the pre-election promise on non-European immigration be implemented. Predictably, the cry of "discrimination" has gone up, with one spokesman for the Indians in the United Kingdom declaring that an appeal should be made to the Court in the European Economic Community. Events in the United Kingdom are confirming the warnings of Enoch Powell. Race has emerged as a major political issue in British politics. Australians can ensure that this does not happen in Australia by protesting NOW against any further non-European Immigration and calling for a referendum on the issue at the next Federal Elections.
The essence of Mr. Bob Hawke's proposal to abolish the States outlined in the first of his Boyer lecture series is that a war crisis would require the central Federal Government to take complete control of all power in Australia; to create what in effect would be a totalitarian State. The logic of Mr. Hawke's proposal is that the people of Australia should live in a state of permanent crisis. And the next step, already being carefully fostered by some of the most powerful groups in the world, is that in a state of world crisis, nation States should be regarded as outdated with only a World Government being capable of controlling the crisis. In the meantime Mr. Hawke does not tell the people of Australia how they can stop the Federal Government, with its near monopoly of power, from crushing them with progressively harsher taxation.
In a submission to the Senate committee on national resources last week, the Federal Treasury revealed that it is "tuned in" to the carefully orchestrated international campaign on energy. This campaign is designed, amongst other objectives to force down the standard of living of industrialised nations. The Treasury wants gas and electricity charges increased. The Treasury criticised electricity authorities who obtained and used coal at prices below world parity prices. Increased prices for gas and electricity must inevitably intensify inflation. The Big (International) Idea is becoming clearer. The campaign to create the World State is moving into the open. Freedom lovers should take advantage of this. Their task becomes easier.
The Australian League of Rights warned as far back as 1960 that the European Economic Community (Common Market) was a monster designed to gobble up sovereign nations, but that, in the process, the whole thing could come apart at the seams, as it ran counter to the individual desires and aspirations of such sovereign nations. We were not at all surprised to read in The Sun (Melbourne) Nov. 19th, that the Common Market "lamb war" has escalated, with France snubbing the E.E.C. headquarters in Brussels, and continuing to flout the European Court. This French defiance over its refusal to lift its ban on British lamb illustrates that there are really no effective sanctions against a rebellious member of the E.E.C. Nor do we believe there should be: nations should maintain their sovereignty.
Mr. A Street, Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, has warned that higher wages could put thousands more on the dole. He was commenting on the present hearings before the Arbitration Commission on a national wage case. Of course there must be higher wages. Of course these higher wages will be a factor in higher prices - they are a basic cost in the production of goods and services. The wage earner must have higher wages to cope with inflation of prices. The employers want lower wages to keep their costs down so that they can compete in the domestic and overseas market places more effectively. There is no answer to this "'Catch 22" situation under the existing conventions of finance economics. We use the word - conventions, advisedly: we are not aware of any "inexorable economic laws." The conventions of finance economics are ones made and observed by modern man. They will eventually be radically changed by modern man also in order to save himself from economic slavery and political tyranny.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|