|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
2 November 1984. Thought for the Week: "Old Bernard had once said, "When a politician, anxious for office, talks of 'reforms', it's time for citizens to inspect their guns. Something dirty is afoot, and dangerous' 'Well', young Jason had asked, 'What politicians would you trust, Dad?' 'None, and that's the truth. But I would be less suspicious of a man who talked of the 'ancient verities', such as patriotism, honour, sobriety, hard work, respect for authority, constituted law, decency, manhood - if there's any of that left in this country. But I would be afraid if a man were too pious; I'd investigate him, and that I would'. He had added, 'And beware of the rich man who cries for the poor! 'He is a cannibal. Like the tearful walrus who ate all the oysters in that book Alice in Wonderland... But the worst of all is the rich politician who 'suffers' for the common man. No, you can't trust a politician. You can't trust a government"
Famous American novelist Taylor Calwell in Answer As A Man
CLUTCHING AT POLITICAL STRAWS
The history of the League of Rights shows beyond dispute that the League has consistently exposed and opposed all policies for centralising power, irrespective of the label on these policies and irrespective of which party had advocated them. Centralisation of power is the essence of Socialism, and all parties at Canberra have supported centralisation.
We do not need to be told about the
threat to freedom and individual rights posed by the Hawke
Government; we have not only been in the forefront in exposing
the policies of this government, but are regarded by the more
informed Marxists as the only real threat to the government's
policies and at the top of the Government's "hit list" if
it can carry its totalitarian programme forward.
Political realists know that the much-publicised debate about taxation initiated by Mr. Peacock, is not only phony, but could prove counterproductive for the Opposition. The Opposition parties had seven years in office to implement "tax reform". They could have split family incomes and given a little relief to the family, but they increased total taxation to record new levels. Mr. John Howard, who sees himself as Mr. Peacock's successor, was the Treasurer who attempted to impose the iniquitous Sales Tax on books and magazines, only being stopped when at the last minute the Australian Democrats were forced off the fence by a national campaign of protest in which the League played a major and possibly decisive role.
The so-called debate about taxation is
not about reducing the total amount of taxation, but about
how to continue imposing high taxes. Continuing high taxation
is inevitable under the present programme of debt finance.
The truth is that the Opposition parties have no credibility
whatever concerning taxation and would be well advised to
turn their attention to other matters. Where is the credibility
of a politician like Mr. Ian Sinclair? This is the man who
continues his vicious smear against the League of Rights.
If candidates of integrity in the Opposition parties genuinely desire to turn back the threatening totalitarian tide, they will for a start, publicise the most fundamental necessity for the salvation of a free and sovereign Australia; the return of the Federal Constitution to the control of the Australian people. They can promise that if elected, their first action will be to promote a referendum designed to allow the Australian people to gain control of their Federal Constitution, and to halt its subversion by Federal Governments using UN Conventions to over ride the clear spirit and intention of the Constitution. Having been a party to using UN Conventions, Mr. Peacock now weakly says that the electors can trust him not to do this in the future.
As political realists, we believe that the Hawke Government will be re-elected, possibly with an increased majority. We are not losing any sleep about this, and we are not going to waste time and limited resources trying to prop up an Opposition which simply does not oppose. What is urgently necessary is that skilful non-party campaigning be conducted to ensure that the Hawke Government does not get control of the Senate and does not win the two referenda, which the Government is "playing down". Even the referenda battles are hampered by the fact that the Opposition, when in office, attempted the same attack on the Senate now being conducted by the Hawke Government. The only reason why some Liberals are opposing the Hawke referenda is, in the words of one Liberal cynic, "We cannot afford to be seen supporting the Hawke Government on anything."
Encouraged by Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Queenslanders should vote NO. Tasmanians will certainly vote NO, which leaves Western Australia as the "key" State. The League is devoting enormous resources to the Western Australian and Tasmanian "fronts". We believe that the Senate vote in Tasmania could provide a firm check on the Hawke Government's Senate ambitions.
While we feel that Victorian RSL President Mr. Bruce Ruxton has made an unfortunate decision in standing for the Victorian Senate, we also understand that he was answering what he felt was a powerful call to duty, standing on the Pensioners' ticket. We wish him well, as we do that man of tremendous integrity and courage, Mr. Barry Tattersall of Canaan College, who heads the Call to Australia team. Victorian electors can record a powerful nonparty vote.
We are pleased to see that veteran political actionist, Mr. Brian Peachey is heading a powerful pro-Family Senate team in Western Australia. Our general advice is to put Labor LAST in the Senate, and to support the non-party candidates. The bigger the vote, the stronger the message will be recorded at Canberra. If the senate can be kept out of the Hawke Government's hands, and the referenda defeated, Australians will have a situation, which will permit them to take the offensive against all policies of centralisation.
We can only hope that the better types in the Opposition parties survive the elections and then insist that any new conservative opposition that emerges must first repudiate the disaster policies of the past. Our greatest fear is that such an opposition will be captured by the same forces, which have led Australia to the present deepening crisis. We will be returning to this matter after the elections.
The blatantly dishonest ABC TV "Country Wide" anti-League of Rights presentation was a new low in the continuing national campaign against the League. Even The Age, Melbourne, television critic was not impressed. One observer has commented, "This programme was as much a smear of Australia's rural community as of the League. In essence, it suggested that the rural community was so gullible that they were easy victims for the devious tactics of the League." In the not too distant future we are confident that the Red Network's national smear will result in a massive backlash in Australia's rural communities. Using its own videotapes of two of the meetings covered by the ABC, the League will be making its own film.
Anti-League hatchet man, Phillip Adams, continued his campaign in The Bulletin last week. Painted a frightening picture of the League working in the shadows to create a climate that would see the emergence of an Australian Hitler! We expect worse to come as the national drama unfolds.
A prime example of the distrust with which we should hold politicians is that of Andrew Peacock's speedy abrogation of his pledge, in Tasmania, to allow the Franklin Dam to go ahead, if re-elected. The Opposition "Shadow Cabinet", and Andrew Peacock have caved in to the Wilderness Society now flexing its muscles for MORE action.
A WARNINGAt the present time a number of movements, purporting to be conservative, are emerging, issuing literature and appealing for funds. League supporters are urged to ensure that they do not divert urgently required finance away from the vital works being done by the League. A conservative political organisation which issues material from a box number in East Maitland (N.S.W.) has been issuing quite attractively presented literature at large, and inevitably, some of it has reached some League of Rights supporters. We wish to stress that the League of Rights has no connection with this above organisation, nor with any other organisation.
MR. JOHN BENNETT WRITES TO "THE MELBOURNE HERALD"Re; Grassby and Blainey
"The article by Mr. Grassby (Herald 18/10) contains many inaccuracies. His claim that people opposed to the current high level of Asian immigration are racists is wrong. The 7 in 10 Australians, whom Gallup Polls indicate oppose the present level of Asian immigration, do not claim that whites are superior to Asians. Most simply believe that racial groups prefer their own kind. It is because of this preference that Asian countries such as Japan, China, and Indonesia have immigration policies designed to maintain the racial homogeneity of their respective countries.
"Mr. Grassby's claim that Australia would become an outcast in the region if we returned to a policy of predominantly European immigration, is also wrong. Countries such as Vietnam, trying to get rid of ethnic Chinese, and countries such as Japan, which refuse to accept Chinese or white people as immigrants, clearly understand that multiracial societies are not viable.
"Mr. Grassby's claim that the Australian people will not listen to people who advocate a predominantly European immigration policy is also wrong. Australians supported the proEuropean immigration policies of Sir Robert Menzies and Arthur Caldwell, and polls indicate they support the views of Geoffrey Blainey and Bruce Ruxton."All that Blainey is saying is the current level of Asian immigration is too high. The official figure for Asian immigration is 51%, but when account is taken of illegal Asian immigration and European migrants returning to Europe, the figure for net Asian immigration is much higher probably about 75%. "I would not call Mr. Grassby a racist, but he seems to have little liking for the European heritage of Australia, little respect for the 95% of Australians of European background, and little tolerance for their views on immigration".
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|