THE ARROGANT MR. ISI LEIBLER

"The Australian Jewish News" of June 22nd, quotes Mr. Isi Leibler, leading Zionist spokesman, as saying that he was disappointed "at the failure of Mr. Kennett Victorian Liberal Opposition leader to give an explicit guarantee against any appearances by members of spokesmen of the Liberal Party appearing on the same platform as League spokesmen". Mr. Leibler insists that "there are no circumstances under which any member of a mainstream political party" should share a platform with a representative of the Australian League of Rights. This is not only breathtaking arrogance, but a manifestation of absurdity. With League members or supporters, members of a large number of organisations, including Municipal Councils, they are constantly associating with members of all political parties.

There is, of course, much more to the mounting Zionist attack on The League of Rights than is apparent to the casual observer. Generally overlooked is the fact that from the beginning of the Zionist movement, which, as Douglas Reed showed, had a common origin with Bolshevism amongst Eastern European Jews, there has been strong opposition to the Zionist programme amongst Western Jews. Even in Israel itself, large numbers of Israelis are anti-Zionist.

The attempt to depict the League of Rights as some type of new Nazi threat is directed as much against the rank and file of the Jews as it is against the rest of the community. As a number of anti-Zionist Jews have pointed out, the Zionist programme requires the "Holocaust" as a threat to those tending to rebel. Mr. Leibler and his fellow Zionists can, on occasions, be hysterical, but Mr. Leibler knows that it is insulting nonsense to claim that the League of Rights, "the most significant Australian distributor of literature which claims the Holocaust did not occur", seeks to whitewash the Nazis". The undergirding Christian philosophy and programme of the League of Rights is completely opposed to that of National Socialism. It is the programme of pro-Zionist Prime Minister Hawke that is a form of National Socialism.

The League of Rights makes available for those interested, literature, some of it by Jews, which questions the authenticity of the widely publicised Zionist claims that six -million Jews were gassed systematically during the Second World War. People are invited to read, for example, "The Hoax of The Twentieth Century", by Dr. Butz, ($8 posted from all League bookshops), and make their own judgment.

Why should there be at present a nationally orchestrated campaign against the League of Rights merely because it makes available literature providing a view of history different from what until now has been generally accepted? The answer is, of course, that the League has evolved the only effective grassroots movement in Australia that offers any threat to a revolutionary programme, which threatens the very foundations of traditional Australia.

In his attack on the League of Rights at the Victorian Labor Party conference last weekend, Premier Cain left no doubt that while he does not like the radical Socialists of his party; he is prepared to make common cause with them against the League of Rights. If the Liberal and National parties keep retreating in the face of what can now be seen as an unholy Zionist-Marxist alliance, they are demonstrating that they are not fit ever to regain office. With every day that passes, the battle lines for the future of Australia are being more clearly drawn. Now, as never before, is the time for all League of Rights supporters to "pull their weight" in the mounting battle.

DEBT AND REVOLUTION

Writing in last Weekend Australian Nicholas Rothwell in New York, says that "Senior US Administration officials have begun voicing publicly the dreadful truth that few have before dared utter - that the full Argentine debt may not be paid before the crucial deadline expires at the end of the month". The International Monetary Fund is prepared to make available a "bridging loan", but only on the same conditions imposed upon other debt-ridden nations, there must be a "readjustment" programme, the essence of which is a general reduction in the standard of living. Where such austerity programmes are imposed, there is an increasing impetus to revolutionary activities.

The debt crisis throughout Latin-America is making it impossible for the Reagan Administration to hold back the Marxist backed Revolutionary movements by military means alone. There is a close nexus between debt and revolution. Rothwell reports that if Argentina defaults on its debt payments; other Latin debtor nations could start to do likewise. This has fueled speculation that some of the International Banks could be bankrupted. Much of this type of speculation is misleading and a reflection of an ignorance concerning the mechanics of money creation by the banking system.

The bulk of all money created by banking systems is in the form of financial credit. Notes and coins are today only the small change of a nation, as an examination of banking figures will reveal. If all people with bank deposits went to the banks at the same time and asked for their deposits in legal tender - notes and coins - the Central Bank would either have to order the printing of a flood of notes, or the banks would have to close their doors. All this is simply explained in "The Money Trick" ($4 posted from all League addresses).
Once it is grasped that all that the International Banks have loaned to the debtor nations is financial credit which they have created, it can be seen that there is no possibility of the world's banking system collapsing - unless those in control of policy want it to collapse as part of a revolutionary strategy associated with the New International Economic Order.

Events have proved the warnings of the League of Rights correct: that all attempts to operate economic systems financed through expanding debt, must produce increasing economic, social and political convulsions. Some commentators are belatedly conceding, at least by inference, that the League has been right about debt finance. But they refuse to face the reality that there is a solution which does not challenge the right of any institutions, State or private, to issue the financial credit of a nation, on terms which insist that the credit created belongs to its creators. Such credit has no value, irrespective of what form it takes, in the absence of the productive capacity of a nation. That productive capacity belongs to the individual members of the nation. If they are forced, either as individuals, or as a nation, to go progressively deeper into debt in order to make use of their own productive capacity - on terms - then they are slaves to the Debt Merchants. The debt problem is the key problem facing a disintegrating Civilisation. The disintegration will continue until the problem is faced and solved.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Victorian State Cabinet Secretary, Mr. Ken Coghill has added a new dimension to the debate about Aboriginal Land Claims - claiming that the opponents of his programme are anti-Christian. We were not aware that Dr. Coghill had shown any previous concern about Christian values, but he now says in a recent statement that he was "dismayed to see the rejection of basic Christian values and the teachings of the major churches by the extreme Right Australian League of Rights and its fellow travelers". The first objective of the League of Rights is to promote loyalty to the Christian concept of God. The League supports the principle of private property ownership and believes that Australians of Aboriginal background should have the same property rights as other Australians. But the Fabian Socialists like Dr. Coghill do not believe in these types of rights.

"News Weekly" makes the suggestion that the Hawke Government could extricate itself from the difficult position in which it finds itself on the uranium issue, by having a referendum. We agree with "News Weekly's" assessment that the majority of Australian people would favour uranium mining. But a majority of Australian people would at a referendum also reject the present immigration policy. What about a referendum on that also? Mr. Al Grassby has recently claimed once again that only one percent of Australians oppose the present immigration policy because they vote overwhelmingly for the parties supporting it. A majority will probably vote for the Hawke government at the next elections. But will not mean that they are endorsing an anti-uranium policy imposed upon Mr. Hawke. It will merely provide yet one more example of the undemocratic nature of party politics. None of the parties favour putting major issues to the electors at a referendum.

If the NSW doctors and surgeons can maintain their present stance, they could render a deadly blow to the overall Fabian Socialist strategy in Australia. The controversy is not basically one concerning the monetary rewards of the medical profession, but is about freedom of choice. There are many truths concerning public hospitals, myths that all political parties have helped to perpetuate. One myth is that the public service is efficient in administering public hospitals. A government bureaucracy is never genuinely efficient, and the bigger it becomes, the less efficiency.

The disgraceful attacks on Professor Blainey are yet one further manifestation of the totalitarian and subversive policies of those who seek to continue undermining the nation by their "multiculturalism". There may be a case for allowing some genuine refugees into Australia. But this should not mean that everyone permitted into Australia has the right to participate in the political process, and become tools of power politics and subversion. It is to be hoped that Professor Blainey maintains his firm but dignified stand against the present immigration policy.

A BURAKIN (W.A.) ACTIONIST sends us a reply from a senior official of the Queensland Government that puts that Government's attitude to the attack on the Australian Constitution by the forces of Socialism! Humanism:
"The Queensland Government believes that if the rights of the States are not to be subjugated to those of the Commonwealth, it is essential that Constitutional change acceptable to the States be introduced as soon as possible. "The States face a difficulty in having acceptable Constitutional amendment proposals submitted to Referendum as the necessary Referendum Bills have to be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament before being submitted to the Electorate. The Commonwealth Government is, of course, reluctant to submit to Referendum any proposal likely to reduce the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. In an endeavour to overcome this difficulty, one of the (Constitutional) Convention's Sub-Committees is examining a proposal, which will enable State Governments to initiate Referendums. "
Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen suggests that you could best assist in effecting Constitutional change by writing to Commonwealth Parliamentary representatives in your State expressing your opposition to the Commonwealth Government' s use of the external affairs power to intrude into matters traditionally the responsibility of the State.

FROM HANSARD

Senate: June 13th: Senator Peter Walsh (A.L.P.-W.A.) provides an answer to a question of nuclear accidents:
"The Nuclear Energy Agency has advised that to the best of its knowledge there has not been to date a radiation induced death or serious radiation induced injury at any nuclear power station in Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development member countries. There have been a few fatalities due to non-radiation causes, for example, falls and steam burns. However, this Agency has advised further that it does not keep statistics on these 'non-nuclear' accidents and it is therefore not in a position to provide detailed information on the number and causes of such accidents in nuclear stations."

Senator Gareth Evans: Senate: June 13th Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill:
To put all five of the machinery of government proposals in conjunction with an election would have been too complex. It is vital that electors have a proper understanding of the issues involved in a referendum so that they can cast informed votes and thereby play a meaningful role in constitutional reform. That is why the Government is only proceeding with two of the proposals at this time. However, that does not mean that the others have been abandoned. The Government remains firmly committed to systematic constitutional reform and will keep the balance of the February proposals as well as a number of other important proposals under consideration for putting to referendum at a later date...."