FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS

Genuine democracy is only possible when the individual has the opportunity to obtain from his institutions the results he wants. Under free enterprise, with individuals possessing enough money ''votes'', most individuals can get what they desire. And they have to accept personal responsibility for how they cast their vote. "Let the buyer beware" is an old truism. But voting politically is rather different. The modern rigid party system has resulted in Governments obtaining office by fraud and trickery.

In his final address in Parliament, Mr. Clyde Cameron, a bitter critic of the League of Rights, did, however, reveal the reality of Government. Parliament, he said, has been reduced to the role of a rubber stamp of the Executive this dominated by the Prime Minister and the permanent bureaucracy. Mr. Cameron commented that there was no longer any meaningful debate in Parliament, and that there was a type of elected dictatorship. Symptomatic of the disease afflicting Parliament is the fact that Mr. Cameron, like others, waits until he is retiring from Parliament before revealing the reality. Until they retire, the politicians are, in the main, prepared to take part in a fraud. However, politicians only obtain office because electors vote for them, often on the basis that they are the lesser of a number of evils offering. People do get the governments they deserve, although one must feel some sympathy for those who cast a vote on the basis of propaganda, which they are not in the position to assess, whether it is true or false.

The regeneration of a society must start with the individual members of that society. An elector who votes consciously for the lesser of a number of evils is in reality endorsing evil policies imposed by the politicians for whom he votes. What is required is a moral approach to voting, and a decision not to cast a vote at all, if it means endorsing evil. If only a few thousand electors publicly declared that their consciences precluded them from casting a vote for any of the candidates offering, this would see the beginning of a type of constructive political revolt against the prevailing political tyranny.

In reducing the time for election campaigning, Prime Minister Fraser is making it that much more difficult for electors to ask questions on policy matters and to obtain answers. With increasing emphasis on the electronic media, which is used, not to inform, but to brainwash with repeated slogans, the elector is even more disadvantaged. Those who watched the recent ABC "Four Corners" programme, in which Mr. Ian Sinclair was the main spokesman for the Fraser Government, were treated to an example of modern, immoral politics. No serious attempt was made to deny that the Government had broken a large number of promises. This was brushed aside as of no importance. The main thing was "performance", and electors were invited to vote on Mr. Fraser's "performance".
As regular readers of this commentary know, we have constantly pointed out that Mr. Hayden offers nothing basically different from Mr. Fraser in either domestic or foreign policies. But his expansionary programme, typical Keynsian economics is met by the old cry, "But where will the money come from?", or mindless taunts about "running the printing presses".

In a short campaign there is the inevitable tendency for the party managers and their trained performers to resort to abuse, leaving the victims with little opportunity to correct false allegations. In deciding on campaign in which the electors will only have 16 days in which to assess his policy speech, Prime Minister Fraser obviously does not want any searching examination of his policies and promises. "By their fruits ye shall know them". That test shows that irrespective of what has been SAID, the policies of the Governments headed by Mr. Gough Whitlam and Mr. Malcolm Fraser have, over the past eight years, been destructive. Mr. Hayden was Treasurer in the last Whitlam Government.

In the short time available to them, electors must attempt to project into the election those major issues, which THEY are concerned about. But irrespective of who is the Prime Minister after the coming Federal Elections, and the indications are that Prime Minister Fraser could survive with a greatly reduced majority, the Senate is going to be much more evenly divided and capable of exercising a much greater restraining influence on the Government. Responsible voting for the Senate is the first essential for the regeneration of Australia.

THE RHODESIAN TRAGEDY CONTINUES

The betrayal of Rhodesia in order to establish "Zimbabwe", which is a Shona term for heap of ruins, will not be discussed during the Federal elections. Not unless Prime Minister Fraser continues to claim that he played a major role in imposing the terrorist thug Mugabe upon Rhodesia. Such is the plight of the world, with politicians cynically rejecting even what was once accepted as common decency, that as growing violence, including murder, takes Rhodesia closer to full scale tribal war.

Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock says in a statement at the United Nations, "Australia warmly welcomes the accession of Zimbabwe to membership of the United Nations....For many years the Rhodesian issue at the United Nations appeared intractable, defying easy solution. But when change came, it came quickly. The turning point was the Commonwealth meeting in Lusaka last year. Let me pay special tribute to the leaders of the new nation, and in particular to Prime Minister Mugabe..." This statement was issued on August 27th.

The terrorist Mugabe was responsible for some of the most frightful atrocities, most of them against Christian missionaries and civilian blacks. Mr. Mugabe has now sacked Rhodesia's former military commander Lieutenant General Peter Walls, who recently revealed in a television interview that he had advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to declare the Rhodesian elections null and void as widespread terror and intimidation had been used to bring Mugabe to power. The Mugabe sacking of Walls will enable the Zimbabwe Government to withhold some of the General's leave pay. But the sacking, coming at a time when violence is escalating, is also increasing the rate of the white exodus, many of these farmers who, in spite of the fact they are leaving with practically nothing, are not prepared to stay and risk any longer the lives of their families.

The white refugee exodus from Rhodesia is now increasing the problems of South Africa. Reports from South Africa indicate that South African bureaucrats are not making it easy for the white Rhodesians. South Africans have their own mounting problems and do not readily welcome those who may add to those problems. And there is some resentment against what is termed the surrender, which also threatens South Africa.

Not only is there no regret by Prime Minister Fraser for what is happening to Rhodesians; he is now making it clear that he and his colleagues propose to try to have "majority rule" imposed on South Africa. Eventually there will come a day of reckoning concerning the Rhodesian tragedy, and it is important that the treacherous role of the Frasers should not be forgotten.

LEAGUE THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE

ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCE IN WORLD POWER STRUGGLE NO LONGER SECRET

"The strikes in Poland have made Americans aware that their banks have been propping up its faltering economy." - Adelaide Advertiser, September 6th.

This remarkable article appeared over the name of Randal Heymanson, a well-known foreign correspondent. The article was sent to us by an Adelaide actionist. We cannot quote from this article at length, however, what we are able to mention will convince supporters that "the message" of the support for International Communism by Western financial institutions is now "out", and becoming more widely known as time passes. Mr. Heymanson observes that Poland's indebtedness to the West amounts to a staggering $20,000 Million, which requires between $7000 M and $8000 M a year to service and amortise (spread the debt). The Polish Government has been borrowing to meet interest payments; and last month sought $800M from West German banks and $500M from American banks: both groups of banks did oblige, but with less accommodation.

Mr. Heymanson expresses the opinion that. . . "because of pressure from their governments, or their own imprudence, Western Banks have allowed their Communist clients to borrow so much that they have a vested interest in the survival of the oppressive regimes of the Communist world". We consider that this is a naive interpretation of the basis of Western financial assistance to the Communist world: our view is that such is a most definite policy, as Western financial institutions could survive well without the expansion of their interests beyond the Iron Curtain. Also there has been, and still is to a lessening extent, the closest secrecy surrounding these financial offensives: the Masters of International Finance know what they are about; and this can be summed up in two words - Power and Control.

As this policy of International Finance becomes more and more understood at the "man in the street" level, there will be sure to be some sort of revulsion, even rebellion at this level, and Mr. Heymanson does sound the alarm.... "Since the only way that the borrowing governments can service their debt is by increasing their exports, American and West European unions are harsh critics of the banks (our emphasis). So, too are businessmen." And to finish. . . "the Soviet Union is able to arm against the West largely because it receives Western financing and technology."