|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
20 July 1984. Thought for the Week: "The corruption of language described in 1984 is widespread in the media today with 'Newspeak' terms such as democratic, socialist, fascist, war criminal, freedom fighter, racist and many other expressions being used in a deliberately deceptive propagandistic way to whip up mass hysteria, or simply to ensure that people can never achieve even an approximation of the truth. The fact that almost all media comment, book reviews, and feature articles about the book '1984' ignore the central role of controlling the past, indicate that Orwell's prophecy has already become partly fulfilled. The central theme of his book, the control of history, has already been largely written out of references to his book and has gone down the memory hole".
John Bennett in "Your Rights 1984"
OPPOSITION PARTIES ENDORSE LEAGUE POLICIES
Last week witnessed the amazing spectacle of the Opposition parties virtually endorsing the consistent stance of the League of Rights on Aboriginal land rights and immigration, while at the same time vigorously protesting that no member of the Opposition parties would share a public platform with the League. Mr. Porter, Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs, said last week that land rights would be a major election issue, promising that the Opposition would make significant changes to the Northern Territory Land Right Act and repeal any national land rights legislation if it won the next elections. However, Mr. Porter was careful to dissociate himself from the League of Rights, describing it as an extreme group.
The League of Rights is not particularly interested in what the Opposition parties think, and certainly does not crave to share any public platform with Opposition politicians, State or Federal. The League is a service movement, which can neither be bought nor intimidated, and is satisfied when the paid representatives of the people indicate that they are willing to reflect public opinion. The League of Rights has moved to the centre of the political stage in Australia, and will be increasingly smeared by government politicians in an attempt to embarrass the Opposition parties.
"The Age", Melbourne, of July
14th, quotes the Federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr.
Holding, as charging the Opposition parties with "embracing
League of Rights propaganda". Mr. Holding said, "The League
of Rights is providing the bridge across which both opposition
parties are crossing to take an extreme position on the question
of Asian immigration and Aboriginal land rights".
THE SMOTHER UP
"The Australian Democrats warned the Federal Opposition yesterday not to use the controversial Asian immigration issue as an electoral tactic". The Sun (Melbourne), July 16th.
According to recent Gallup Polls, no less than TWO THIRDS (66%) of all Australians are opposed to further Asian immigration. Some Opposition politicians are not game to come straight out and endorse what two thirds of their fellow Australians feel, but pussyfoot around with "quotas" and "balances". Such politicians are already defeated. Also, no less than TWO THIRDS of Australians do NOT want the Union Jack removed from the Australian Flag: no mention of this by the Opposition politicians. The Shadow Minister for Immigration (Mr. Hodgman) believes that political capital can be made out of the Asian immigration issue (Who knows? He may even be sincere). Senator Colin Mason (Australian Democrats) has said that his Democrats will campaign against the Opposition on the Asian Immigration issue.
The main point, which actionists should
fix in their minds, is that the Hawke Socialist Government,
the Australian Democrats, and (probably) many of the Liberals
and Nationals themselves, have taken a stand on (Asian) immigration
in defiance of the will of the majority of Australians. Well,
if they are not implementing the will of the majority of Australians,
then whose will are they implementing? Their own? Maybe, but
we have deeper doubts.
However, once again we observe the promotion of fallacies by the United Nations with its various Covenants and Declarations "binding" upon member nations (meaning, if it suits a particular nation). Senator Colin Mason asserts that - "One can hardly see a better way in which the Liberal Party could commit political hari-kari". Is that right? We don't think so at all. Anyway, why is Senator Colin Mason so solicitous, now, for the fate of the Liberal Party? Our noses are twitching; we smell something "funny'!.
No, we don't think much at all of the
Australian Democrats. Senator Janine Haines (Australian Democrats
- South Australia) has written to an actionist (and this is
the popular "line" now to muzzle debate) that "statements
regarding the value or otherwise of specific ethnic groups
into Australia are only likely to inspire racial prejudice
and attacks of the worst kind .." Also, and this has been
trotted out by "Labor" (Socialist/Communist/Humanist) politicians
.. "the technology which saved their (heart transplant patients')
lives was developed by an Asian doctor resident in Australia".
PROFESSOR GEOFFREY BLAINEY STRIKES BACKWe do not normally reproduce letters in the body of the On Target, leaving such, if space permits, to the On Target Bulletin. Occasionally, there must be an exception, and this is such a case. In The Advertiser (Adelaide, July 5th) Professor Blainey strikes back (most successfully, we believe) against his critics in the media
"Your long editorial (The Advertiser 21.6.84) was headed, "Blainey should take stock". I accept your advice. I have tried as best I can to take stock throughout the controversy on immigration. "Your likening me in part to Enoch Powell suggests that you, yourself, might well take stock and read again what I have said on this issue. "I believe that all nationalities are worthy and that we have gained many fine migrants from Asia and others parts of the world. "But I also believe that it can be a perilous task to create a multicultural society, as so many of our new immigrants will tell us, and that it is (not) very wise to bring in record numbers of Asian immigrants at a time of high unemployment. (the word "not" was omitted in the letter. (Deliberate? Who knows?)
"Your editorial accuses me of being 'unwilling to stand back from the debate for a while and let passions cool'. I have made few comments in the last two months - far fewer than The Advertiser and its editorials and writers.
"Your editorial claims that I sound 'more like a politician in every speech'. I have made only one speech on the issue in the last ten weeks. If I sounded like a politician, perhaps it was because I was speaking in a crowded Sydney hall where rowdies, in support for Mr. Hawke's immigration policy, used megaphones to try to silence me.
"In the other episode you allude to, I didn't speak on immigration at all. It was at my university and a group of those supporting the Government's policy on immigration tried to prevent me from speaking on Australian history.
"I would think that a newspaper might offer support for freedom of speech rather than criticise someone for trying to speak in the face of threats. "It is a passionate subject. We should all do our best to be careful and fair."
The Muldoon government of New Zealand dug its own political grave by intensifying financial policies which burdened the nation with astronomical international debt. Mr. Muldoon's financial orthodoxy paved the way for the takeover by a radical Labor Socialist government. If the stated policies of the new Lange government are implemented, including the breaking of diplomatic links with South Africa, New Zealand is on the eve of the most turbulent period in its history. Hopefully a stern dose of radical Socialism will bring the New Zealand people to face the necessity for a change of finance economic policies. The National party would be well advised to rid themselves of Mr. Muldoon as soon as possible.
Before the Falklands war, the finance economic policies of the Thatcher government were reflected in the sagging public opinion polls. The Falklands war changed all that but only temporarily. As memories of the Falklands recede, and industrial friction increases under the Thatcher Government's "monetarism", so does the electoral tide run stronger against Mrs. Thatcher. She is locked into a stance which, if maintained, will ultimately produce revolt in her own Tory ranks, and eventually result in the election of a radical Socialist government. Many years ago a well-known Roman Catholic scholar, Dr. Coffey, warned that debt finance was the bridge between the free society and a collectivist society.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|