TAXPAYERS TO SUBSIDISE ANTI-LEAGUE CAMPAIGN

As Mr. Geoff McDonald, the first speaker at the League of Rights' Warragul (Victoria) meeting last Monday week, was in the middle of his address, a woman entered and passed a note to Mr. Eric Butler, requesting that he immediately ring a member of the press gallery at Canberra. The note said that the matter was urgent. Mr. Butler did not bother to ring until after the meeting and was astonished to be asked by a Melbourne "Age" correspondent for his reaction, to Mr. Clyde Holding's appointment of Mr. K.D.Gott to act as a consultant to Mr. Holding's Department, his main task being to "monitor" the activities of The Australian League of Rights.
As Mr. Butler was not at that time aware that such an appointment had been made, he could only express his astonishment, observing that if, as Mr. Holding had said, the League was a "fringe lunatic" movement, it was incredible that for the first time in Australian history a Minister had engaged a consultant to report on a political movement whose activities were in keeping with the traditions of the free, open society. Mr. Butler observed that Australian taxpayers might find it strange that they were being used to help subsidise what clearly is a type of psycho-political warfare.

On Tuesday, July 17th, Mr. Butler was inundated with telephone calls from various journalists. Even one of these expressed the view that he and others were amazed, volunteering that Premier Cain had been asked at a press conference if he did not feel that perhaps Mr. Holding had over reacted to the League by appointing a special consultant to monitor the League. Mr. Cain made the interesting response that while he had not seen Mr. Holding's statement, the fact was that the League of Rights was a most influential organisation and that it was not going to go away. Thank you, Premier Cain.

The shape of things to come quickly became obvious when following an interview with the "Red Network", the public affairs section of the ABC, this interview was then used, sandwiched between an interview with Zionist leader Mr. Isi Leibler, who spoke about death threats he had received (these, however, being in the past) and an interview with Mr. Gott on the League, during which the impression was created that the League was an extremely dangerous organisation.
Some listeners might well have been left with the impression that the League of Rights might create feelings leading to death threats or other extreme activities. This episode was followed later with a Gott interview with Mr. Michael Schildberger on Friday morning, 20th July. In an anti-League smear in "The Wimmera Mail Times", Mr. Gott revealed that he was a member of the Labor Party.

Ex-Communist Gott might be best described as a Fabian Socialist engaged by a Federal Minister to promote a hatchet campaign against a movement whose activities have thrown the whole Aboriginal Land Rights strategy into disarray, with even the vacillating Liberals suddenly deciding that they could gain some desperately needed electoral support by taking a stand against the land rights movement, even though it was the Fraser Government which gave the movement a major impetus.

Dr. Coghill will recall that in a personal discussion with him after the St. Arnaud debate, Mr. Butler warned him that the land rights issue could prove a major political disaster for his Government. The Labor Socialists have now grasped the truth of Mr. Butler's warning, and Mr. Gott has been engaged to conduct a campaign that it is hoped will mute the potential opposition of the Opposition parties by claiming that they are linked with the League of Rights.

Hopefully the political babes of the Opposition parties can be forced into the position where they either denounce the League, using the very smear terms coined for them by Mr. Gott and his associates, or attempt to distance themselves from the League. This dialectical strategy is designed to take the "heat" out of the land rights (and immigration) issues before the Federal Elections, and hopefully to smear the League to the point where it will be ineffective in providing the necessary organisation and expertise required for any conservative resurgence next year, when the Hawke government will stand exposed by events.

If the Opposition parties, both Federal and State, had an ounce of political sense, they would expose the Hawke Government for placing one of their fellow Fabian Socialists on the public payroll to conduct what is in reality a party political campaign. There is nothing new in what Mr. Gott is charging. For example, a featured article in last Sunday's "Sunday Observer", a Peter Isaacson publication, repeats his tired and only theme that behind a facade of advocating Christian values and patriotism it is "spreading racial hatred propaganda throughout Australia". As even Mr. Gott knows the League is not a power movement, seeking not to gain office, he might care to explain why the large numbers of basically decent Australians involved in League of Rights activities act as he claims they do. Mr. Gott can advance no logical motive for such pointless activities!

But there is no secret about Mr. Gott's motives: to conduct a political campaign on behalf of the Labor Socialists and those backing them. And, of course, be well paid by the Government for directing this campaign.

League of Rights supporters finance their activities by putting their hands in their own pockets. As we have said before, the battle for the future of Australia is increasingly dependent upon the future of The League of Rights; the appointment of Mr. K.D.Gott to direct the anti-League campaign clarifies the reality of the situation. A new and more deadly phase of the battle for Australia's future has opened. We are more than ready, Mr. Gott!

BRIEF COMMENTS

In an attempt to heed the advice of those who are urging him to "lift his game", Federal Opposition leader, Mr. Andrew Peacock, told Victorian Liberals that they must go back to the basic values upon which the Liberal Party was established, such as freedom of choice. Does this mean that in the Victorian "heartland of Liberalism", Liberals will abolish compulsory mass medication by fluoridation, and permit individuals to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to add fluorides to their diet. We do not recall Mr. Peacock opposing this type of totalitarianism.

The Hon. R.J.Long, M.L.C. for Gippsland Province, makes a telling point in answer to the Cain Government's claim that there is no connection between the Aboriginal Land Claims Bill and the compulsory acquisition of privately owned land. All that is necessary is for the Victorian Government to invoke The Crown Land (Reserves) Act, 1978, to either purchase or compulsorily acquire private land for the "conservation of areas of historic or archaeological interest". Such land then becomes Crown Land. Under the Aboriginal Land Claims Bill "any group of Aboriginals may make a claim for an area of public land". A Minister could be persuaded that certain privately owned land did have an "historic or archaeological interest" to them. The Minister could then compulsorily acquire that land and have it permanently reserved. A group of Aboriginals could then claim that land. Dr. Coghill has attempted to avoid the point made by Mr. Long.

The latest figures from the Australian Finance Conference show that the total level of adult consumer debt has now reached $14,058 million - nearly twice the amount owed in 1979. Without this debt, financed directly and indirectly by the banking system, consumer spending would have been so low that the recession would have been much worse than it has been. Debt is absolutely essential under present financial rules to prevent a major national collapse. But it is also a drug with disastrous "side effects" - such as progressive inflation. Debt finance is the key factor in the break up of Civilisation. What is required, for a start, is the writing of some national credit instead of national debt, this permitting taxation to be substantially reduced. This would constructively reverse inflation. Why isn't such a policy implemented? Because it would decentralise power and result in stable societies in which there would be no scope for revolutionaries.

The latest Victorian Liberal Party "State Report" provides a classic example of double talk. An item headed "LEAGUE OF RIGHTS" comments on Premier Cain' s forbidding of Government members from sharing platforms with League speakers, correctly stating that this showed the worth of Premier Cain's "pretensions to democracy and free speech". But in the next paragraph it is stated that Mr. Kennett "declared the Liberal party's view that Parliamentary Liberals would not appear at meetings organised by or on behalf of the League".

The Archbishop elect of Melbourne, Bishop David Penman, has fired a broadside at the League of Rights. Significantly, Bishop Penman is quoted by The Sun (Melbourne) as stating: "(he) supported the Jewish Community's call to oppose its activities and reduce its influence". Mr. Isi Liebler and his fellow Zionists have been busy at Bishopscourt! (Bishopcourt, in East Melbourne, is the traditional home of the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne).
Interestingly enough, the Melbourne Zionists were exerting pressure until quite recently to prevent the election of Bishop Penman to the Arch Bishopric because of suspected "tainted" attitude by him in favour of the Arab cause. The Archbishop elect repeats the usual allegations against the League; nothing specific: we are a troublesome crew who should be "dealt with", by law if necessary. No further details. He is 100% - for Aboriginal Land rights, and NOW. The Cain Government is dragging the chain. Perhaps the Archbishop elect might like to similarly condemn Andrew Peacock and the Federal Liberal Party: Mr. Peacock has announced that a Federal Liberal Government will "Oppose, and if necessary repeal, Labor's uniform land rights legislation". Some Anglican actionists might like to question Bishop Penman on this.

RUDYARD KIPLING ON THE MULTI-RACIAL SOCIETY

An actionist has sent us a copy of The Stranger, by the author-poet in the days of the British Raj, viz. Rudyard Kipling

"The Stranger within my gates,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk,
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may be ill or well,
But the lies they tell I am wonted to
They are used to the lies I tell,
And we do not need interpreters,
When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control
What reasons sway his mood,
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see,
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief,
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge,
By bitter bread and wine".

THE GUILT-RIDDEN WIVES