|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
6 May 1983. Thought for the Week: "If you place the security of any institution before the security of the individual, you may prolong the life of that institution, but you will certainly shorten the lives of a great many individuals. Institutions are a means to an end, and I do not think it is too much to say that the elevation of means into ends, of institutions above humanity, constitutes an unforgivable sin, in the pragmatic sense that it brings upon itself the most tremendous penalties that life contains."
C.H. Douglas (1937)
THOSE 'HITLER DIARIES'
Prior to leaving for a Victorian country
programme late last week, Mr. Eric Butler provided the following
Professor Hans Booms, chief of Western Germany's federal archives has added to the debate about the "Hitler Diaries" by stating that his experts had examined eight documents from the so-called diaries and declare them to be genuine. It may prove that parts of the documents are genuine and the rest fabrications. But whatever is eventually determined will do little to add to an understanding of real history of this century, which can be observed by events, the major ones being the break up of the British Empire, the worldwide expansion of International Communism, with the Soviet being used as the main base for this expansion, the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel in the Middle East, and as crisis after crisis convulses the industrial nations, all dominated by debt financial policies, the open promotion of a long-term strategy to establish the World State via the New International Economic Order.
Like all demagogues, Hitler may not have been aware of whose purposes he was really serving. He served the purposes of those who financed him to power as part of a long-term strategy. Hitler is long since dead, of no value except to fill the screens with anti-German films, to be exploited as a diversionary and psychological move by those international power groups who, unfortunately, are still very much alive. By concentrating people's attention on a manifestation of the centralisation of power which died nearly forty years ago there is created a skilful way of diverting attention from the much greater threat of centralised power which is very much alive."
MALCOLM FRASER'S COLOSSAL IGNORANCE
The views of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser on Zimbabwe, as given in an interview with Mr. Sam Lipski, published in "The Bulletin" of May 3rd, further confirms our consistent view of Fraser as a shallow man afflicted with an incurable stupidity. After expressing the incredible view that multiculturalism "is one of the strongest unifying factors in this country", Mr. Fraser later said that if the Rhodesian question was not resolved, the Commonwealth would fall apart. The truth is that some of the members of the Commonwealth, several only in power because of criminal thuggery, only want to belong for what they can get out of it.
Asked by Lipski if he was disappointed with Mugabe's moves towards one party government in Zimbabwe, Fraser replied, "Yes, in part. But I've been reluctant to comment because I don't know enough about what's happened. Nkomo had always received support from the Soviets. Mugabe would not have the Soviet or East Germans." The man who says he is reluctant to comment because of lack of knowledge was the same man who before the Federal Elections was claiming Zimbabwe under Mugabe as a success story.
In spite of his appalling ignorance concerning the Rhodesia he had never even visited, Malcolm Fraser was not backward in expressing his critical opinions about what he claimed was happening. Mugabe is a declared Marxist and has brought in the North Koreans to train and equip the murderous Fifth Brigade which has been murdering and terrorising the Matabele people.
When it was put to Malcolm Fraser that Mugabe was no more a democrat and worthy of support for not taking aid from the Soviet Union, he again demonstrated either his appalling ignorance or his capacity to engage in double talk. He said that Mugabe was "a nationalist above all." Anyone with the most elementary knowledge of African realities knows that there is no such thing as "African nationalism"; that the dominant factor in Africa is tribalism.
Brushing aside the question of Mugabe's attempt to create a one-party state, which, of course, he had to say he opposed, he went on to say, "But let's be clear what we are talking about. Kenya is a one party state but a minister lost his seat because he was opposed by three people in a general election who stood against him in his own party. What we mean by a one party state is not necessarily what Africans mean. Therefore before the condemnation comes we should know what's happening there. What has happened right throughout Africa is a horrible and bloody story, with a progressive collapse back towards the charnel house conditions described by David Livingstone and other Christian missionaries. But a former Prime Minister would have us believe he is quite ignorant of all this. The fact that Mr. Bob Hawke is just as ignorant about African realities as Malcolm Fraser is no reason for the former Prime Minister to escape the most severe criticism.
SIR ARTHUR BRYANT SPEAKS OUT
The recent National Summit has resulted in a Hawke Government policy for a further squeeze, higher taxes, and reduced purchasing power. A demand for increased productivity, in a world sinking in gluts, can only lead Australia into increased economic convulsions.
Writing in the February issue of the
Illustrated London News, famous historian Sir Arthur
Bryant has brilliantly highlighted the essential features
of Britain's financial problems, and succinctly described
the necessary remedy:
Sir Arthur then carefully spelt out
the inevitable effects on production, consumption and stability,
concluding with the following recommendations:
PREPARING FOR THE COMING REFERENDUM
Senator Gareth Evans and his fellow Labor Socialists are determined to remove the constitutional protection of the Senate. But they know from past experience that the direct attack is the most difficult. Both Whitlam and Fraser tried that approach and were defeated at both referendums, although the Fraser attempt went close to success. The League of Rights played a vital role in that campaign.
Now there is to be a referendum, which seeks to obtain a constitutional amendment to provide fixed terms for the Federal Parliament. Aided by some members of the disintegrating Liberal Party, the Labor Socialists would like also to have four-year parliaments, but may, for tactical reasons be prepared to accept the present three-year term if that enables the fixed term to be accepted. A fixed term is the major objective.
The League has, of course, been providing educational material on the constitutional issue, the only non-Socialist organisation doing so, but it is already preparing special campaign material on the new threat to the Senate. Assuming that the poll findings are accurate, it appears that through lack of understanding and a dislike of elections, which appear to make no difference to financial and associated policies, it is a distinct possibility that the centralisers will have their way unless an effective nationwide campaign of exposure and opposition is mounted.
If Mr. Hawke can stampede the electors
into carrying the proposal of a fixed term of parliament,
preferably for four years if he has his way, it is almost
certain that Mr. Hawke will call another general election
next year, knowing that if re-elected he can do practically
as he likes for the following four years. By which time Australia
will move through a period of major changes to the Australian
constitutional, political and social system.
In discussions and letters actionists
should make the following points
2. As the Senate is part of the total system of government of Australia, elected by the same people who elect the House of Representatives, then it should also have a say in all legislation, including the Budget. If the Senate is to be deprived of the power to check financial legislation, then what is the point in having a Senate?
3. The so-called "constitutional crisis" of 1975, which allegedly deprived the Whitlam Government of office, is a major myth, carefully fostered. The Governor General, representing the Crown, resolved a difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate by asking the electors to vote. It was the Australian people who voted the Whitlam government out of office.
4. There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that a fixed, four-year term for government in the United States has produced any better results than the Westminster system used in Australia.
5. Democracy means that the electors have effective control over their elected representatives. Control means the right to dismiss servants when their masters do not think they are satisfactory. The Watergate affair started in 1972. It took two years, while the United States was paralysed in many vital areas, before Richard Nixon was induced to resign. Rightly or wrongly, the overwhelming majority of the American people turned against Nixon, but because of the fixed term of government the people had no opportunity to vote against Nixon or his unelected successor, Ford, until November, 1976. By the time President Carter actually took office, this was 4½ years after Watergate. That could not happen under the British system operating in Australia. The Watergate disaster convinced many Americans that they required a more flexible system to remove an Administration, which had clearly lost the confidence of the people.
6. A fixed term means that a government can do as it likes for the term set. It would have no fear of being removed from office, irrespective of how incompetent or corrupt it became.
7. A fixed term would deprive a government of its right, under the Westminster system, to seek the views of the electorate for a number of reasons, one that might be to seek endorsement for a change of policy.
8. Most of the alleged high cost of having elections less than every three years is incurred by the parties. The staging of an election actually costs the electors only a few cents per head, surely not a high price to pay for the opportunity to have a say concerning their political servants. If the politicians are so concerned about the cost of electing governments, they might consider reducing their own salaries for a start.
It is as certain as the night follows day that if Mr. Bob Hawke, Senator Gareth Evans and associates achieve their objective of a unitary system of government in Australia, it will result in a bureaucratic monster and the end of freedom.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|