|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
27 June 1986. Thought for the Week: "The underlying philosophy of all Socialist policies, whether advanced by the Marxist-Leninists, the Fabians, or any other brand of Socialists, is collectivist, reactionary, and opposed to the freedom of the individual. All central planners fear individual freedom, because no one can predict how the individual is going to use his freedom. Central planning requires that planners have effective control of all aspects of human activity. The exercising of freedom by the individual is essentially a creative and spiritual activity. Self development depends not only on freedom of choice, but the acceptance of personal responsibility for the choices made."
Eric D. Butler in The Fabian Socialist Contribution To The Communist Advance
SOUTH AFRICA FIGHTS BACK
In spite of our reservations concerning the policies of the South African Botha government, we congratulate the South African Government for taking appropriate action concerning the threatened uprising on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Soweto riots. There is no doubt that the threatened national riots were Communist masterminded through the African National Congress, an organisation that conservative, anti-Communist black South Africans loathe. The much-publicised bloodbath did not take place because the South African Government acted on the fact that it was the target of an international war, and that the media was playing a major role in fomenting that war. The declaration of a state of national emergency enabled the South African Government to act decisively. Only a few deaths have occurred as a result of the activities of the security forces during the national emergency and a big reduction in casualties as a result of the reduction of inter-black violence.
Mr. Malcolm Fraser's Zimbabwe friend, Comrade Robert Mugabe, told a mass rally of supporters in Harare, called to commemorate the Soweto anniversary, that the black nations must combine to arm South Africa's guerrillas and to establish a military force to overthrow the South African Government. Malcolm Fraser revealed last week that he is an open supporter of revolution in South Africa. He grabbed headlines with his prediction that "millions" could die in South Africa unless the Government accepts "peace negotiations". His report on South Africa displays an appalling ignorance of, both political and economic realities. And with whom should the South African Government conduct "peace negotiations"?
Fraser's highest praise was bestowed upon top Marxist revolutionary, Nelson Mandela, whose wife, Winnie, has recently lauded the Soviet Union. Malcolm Fraser says that "Mandela impressed all of us, probably as being head and shoulders above most other people in South Africa, no matter what color they were ... It is a tragedy to think that somebody like that is wasted in jail when he could be contributing something to the problems of the country."
Before too many people get carried away with National Party leader Ian Sinclair's attack on Fraser on the South African issue, describing him as a "bigot", we recall that the same Sinclair paid lip service to the Rhodesian cause, but extolled the virtues of Fraser when he and Andrew Peacock were betraying the Rhodesians. We warned about the real Malcolm Fraser from the beginning.
The Zionist, revolutionary movement in the U.S.A. the B'nai B'rith, awarded Fraser one of their gold medals for his role in betraying civilised government in Rhodesia. When a man like Dr. Henry Kissinger, architect of the "peace" agreements which paved the way for the Communist takeover in South Vietnam, praises Fraser in a foreword to Fraser's new book, there is no doubt that the former Australian Prime Minister is highly regarded in the higher strata of global power politics. Fellow Zionist supporter Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, knew what he was doing when he appointed Fraser to represent his Government in the campaign against South Africa.
Opposition housing spokesman, Julian Beale, has joined former West Australian Liberal Prime Minister, Sir Charles Court, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and others in saying, even a little belatedly, what a complete disaster Fraser has been. Last week Julian Beale advised Malcolm Fraser to "go back to his farm and relax. He spent nearly thirty years in Federal Parliament and seven years as Prime Minister. No one would claim that his contribution over those years had any particular distinction ... As Prime Minister he inherited an economy in a mess and it was not much better when he left. His foreign policy achievements are symbolised by the dictatorship which has been set up in Zimbabwe."
Events may prove, however, that the open revolutionary attack on South Africa, with the mounting call for sanctions, will prove a major turning point in the battle for South Africa. The imposition of international economic sanctions against South Africa would force the South African Government into the position where it would have to consider seriously a break with financial orthodoxy and concentrate upon becoming completely self-sufficient. As part of a policy of economic self-sufficiency, and accepting that it was in a state of war, the tens of thousands of guest workers should be sent back to neighbouring states. A genuine stand by the South Africans would quickly bring into existence an international grassroots movement of support from around the Western world.
THE DISMAL JOHN HOWARD PERFORMANCE
Opposition leader John Howard may be as earnest and decent as his supporters claim him to be, a "plus" being that he is not vitriolically anti-South Africa. But his national broadcast offering an answer to Australia's economic problems, revealed that Howard has learned nothing since he was Federal Treasurer, imposing policies, which helped bring the Hawke Government to office.
The abolition of the fringe benefit tax and capital gains tax would be welcome, but Australia was on a disaster course under the Fraser Government, before these taxes. John Howard was the Treasurer who attempted to impose the iniquitous Sales Tax on books and magazines. Even if it were possible to have a three year Public spending freeze, such a freeze, in association with a freeze on wages, would make no contribution whatever to basic problems. Howard mentioned high interest rates, but did not say that he would give a directive that they may be drastically reduced as a major contribution towards reducing costs. There was no assurance that total taxation be reduced.
Like Treasurer Paul Keating, John Howard is an advocate of a greater emphasis on indirect taxation. The proposal that those receiving social welfare be required to undertake some community work or training conflicts with the proposal to freeze the public service. As has been demonstrated, supervision of community projects is costly in terms of manpower and financial cost. The great majority of young unemployed would prefer to be engaged in meaningful economic activities, not in the type of "Mickey Mouse" projects which the Whitlam Government attempted with its RED schemes. It should be financially possible for a much greater intake of trade apprentices, rather than having an immigration policy designed to bring skilled tradesmen into the country.
Promises to abolish the Human Rights Commission, which John Howard and his colleagues originally voted to establish, the Constitutional Commission and the Commission for the Future, are welcome. But any government which fails to implement a constructive programme to reverse the deepening Australian depression, will not last long. The very momentum of a debt inspired revolution is such that a major break with financial orthodoxy is required to reverse it. John Howard's policy for reducing restrictions on overseas investments should be a red warning light for all those prepared to face realities.
A report in The Australian Jewish News helps to explain the hysterical campaign to prove that Dr. Kurt Waldheim was a "Nazi war criminal". Waldheim was Secretary General of the UN when the resolution equating Zionism with "racism" was adopted. The smearing of the Austrians as "anti-semitic" neglects to point out that the Austrians elected the Jew Kreisky as a Chancellor. But Kreisky was anti-Zionist and had some hard things to say about Zionist policies. He was particularly critical of "Nazi-hunter" Simon Wiesenthal, charging that he had collaborated with the Nazis.
Mr. Mark Leibler, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia, has commended the Hawke Government for establishing an inquiry concerning allegations that "Nazi war criminals" have settled in Australia. The allegations were initially made on the ABC by Marxist Aarons. Another example of Zionist-Marxist collaboration. The Australian Jewish News of June 20th, features an outrageous claim by Victorian Left-wing MP, Mr. Lewis Kent, that ASIO deliberately allowed Nazi war criminals into Australia. Members of Australia's ethnic groups of Eastern European background are extremely concerned about the Communist-Zionist campaign.
The Sun (Melbourne) June 21st reports that the Hawke Government has bludgeoned its way into the controversy over' the ordination of women priests (none of its business!) with a grant of $5,000 to the "Movement for the Ordination of Women". This grant was made by the Office for the Status of Women, responsible to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We are convinced that the issue of the ordination of women priests is primarily designed to fragment the Christian Churches; so we are equally convinced that the above mentioned grant is for the purpose of this fragmentation; thus revealing the quite blatant, Humanist, anti-Christian nature of the Hawke Socialist-Humanist Government. This "Movement for the Ordination of Women" is, of course, part and parcel of the Feminist Movement, which has done so much damage (as intended!) around the Western World. Affirmative Action is, again, linked with the Feminist Movement (it is "reverse discrimination" against men) and, if enacted, will wreak its havoc in commerce and industry (as intended).
Bill Is Far Reaching, Dangerous: Blainey
RIGHTS BILL 'DEVIOUS'
Professor L.J.M. Cooray is Associate
Professor, School of Law, Macquarie University, N.S.W. This
letter was published in The Herald (Melbourne), June
3rd, under the title given:
"Paragraph (d) above has been widely misinterpreted. "One of the many misleading assertions in a Statement issued by the Council of the Synod of the Uniting Church is that the rights included in the Bill include: the right of parents and legal guardians to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children (is) in conformity with their own conviction. THIS IS FALSE. "The Bill guarantees rights of many types. But in the context of the parents it is very significant that the Bill does not confer a 'right'. It merely says that 'liberty' in the above-specified cases 'is to be respected'. "This language which omits the word 'right' contained in other parts of the Bill is very significant. Paragraph (a) confers a right to a child, which is stronger than the liberty conferred on the parent. "It is illustrative of the intentions and scheming design of the drafters. (our emphasis. .O.T.)
"The body administering the Bill (the
Human Rights Commission) can say, "We respect the parents'
wishes, but there are other compelling factors (such as the
child's views on another right guaranteed by the Bill) which
we must take account of to overrule the parents' wishes."
"A Teaching Resources Kit put out by the Human Rights Commission condemned the family for reflecting a 'highly stratified society' and 'secular, racist, sexist, and materialistic values'. "What value will be a provision for 'respecting' parents' views be when the issue is argued before the H.R.C. which has a track record for not being concerned about democratic and political liberties except in the context of issues on the trendy Left-wing agenda.
"An extract from Occasional Paper No. 9 of the Human Rights Commission is relevant in this context: "'The program (of the H.R.C.) makes no pretence at all of being value free. It is value heavy, has explicit ideological commitment and eschews the notion of neutrality in education.' "This example is illustrative of the devious minds behind the Bill. The Bill cannot be taken at face value."
HUMAN RIGHTSThis letter published in The Advertiser (Adelaide) May 28th over the name of "David S. Hogarth" of Walkerville, S.A. Mr. Justice Hogarth is retired from the Supreme Court of South Australia:
"In your news item headed 'Rights Bill seriously defective' says bishops' (The Advertiser 26/5) the Roman Catholic Bishops of Australia are reported as voicing their concern at some of the contents of the Australian Bill of Rights. "I refer particularly to the reported right of the Human Rights Commission to force a person to come before it for interrogation, without giving the person the right to know the identity of the person who initiated the investigations, nor the right to be represented by a legal adviser. I refer also to the reported right of the Commission in some cases to act both as a prosecutor and judge.
"Any Act of Parliament which contained such provisions would, in my opinion, be a shocking invasion of the rights of the citizen which are now guaranteed by the general law. It would give the Commission inquisitorial powers not unlike those experienced by the Court of Star Chamber in England, until they were abolished by popular demand in the reign of Charles I. For such provisions to become law in Australia would be a flagrant infringement of our existing civil rights.
"Quite apart from these particular objections, however, I query the need or usefulness of any Act of Parliament which really did try to guarantee fundamental rights in general terms. The present law already does this. Where a particular shortcoming in the present law is detected, then let Parliament deal with the problem in detail, and provide a specific remedy. To pass an Act which speaks only in general terms would almost inevitably lead to protracted litigation (at great expense to the citizen) when the courts would be called upon to interpret the Act, and work out in detail what Parliament should have done before passing the Act.
"In summary, I have come to the conclusion that, at best, the Act which contains items, such as those reported, would be almost useless and, at worst, extremely dangerous."
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|