DANGEROUS HYPOCRISY AT COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

Eric Butler reports from Vancouver, Canada
A few days before arriving in Vancouver, on the eve of the Commonwealth Conference, I was deeply moved by an experience at the Annual New Zealand League of Rights Seminar in Auckland. I listened to a remarkable and courageous young New Zealander who, for good reasons, does not want his name publicised, relate his first hand experiences in Afghanistan.

Looking even younger than his 22 years, the outward appearance of this slim, fair boy tended to mask the iron courage and dedication of one who, on his own initiative, found his way into Afghanistan through Pakistan and then shared the dangers of the resistance forces striving to survive against the horrendous Soviet genocide programme, carried out with modern technology. The young man showed photos he had taken of the complete destruction of village after village, vast areas with no sign of life left.

Sickening photos of broken bodies revealed that the Soviet destroyers were using weapons violating the conventions concerning warfare. Acid rain had been used. There have even been Soviet promoted terrorist attacks against the one and a half million Afghan refugees across the border in Pakistan.

Since December 1979, the Soviet has been engaged in a campaign of mass destruction on a scale dwarfing that of the notorious Ghengis Khan. As he finished telling his chilling story, the young man, who had cheated death by only seconds on many occasions, posed the question: What side is the West on? He suggested that it was strange that the media could devote enormous time to dealing with what was allegedly happening in South Africa, but was comparatively silent about the Soviet's policy of genocide in Afghanistan, a policy related to the Soviet's long term strategy of establishing a warm water port.

I was not surprised to learn that the young New Zealander was a dedicated Christian. I could not help thinking about that young man when I arrived in Vancouver, with the media dominated with reports concerning the Commonwealth Conference. The Canadian host government, humorously described as Conservative, and led by Mr. Brian Mulroney, was calling for an intensified anti-South African campaign. Marxist Mozambique, the former Portuguese colony, with no history of association with the Commonwealth, was present by special invitation, being one of the "front line" nations, which Mr. Mulroney claims must be backed in every possible way against South Africa. $300 million has already been written off Mozambique's debts to Canada. Canada's hard pressed Canadian farmers are pointing out that they and their families would be able to survive on their farms if Mr. Mulroney would also wipe off their debts.

There are 49 members of the Commonwealth, but a few were missing at the Vancouver conference. It is still recalled that when Obote of Uganda attended a Commonwealth Conference, Idi Amin took over in his absence. Then there was the London Conference when during the conference the representatives from The Seychelles were suddenly replaced as the result of a coup.
The President of Sri Lanka was not present in Vancouver. With the aid of troops provided by Ghandi of India, the Sri Lankan Government is engaged in attempting to suppress the Tamils. If the killing in Sri Lanka were taking place in South Africa, there would be an international outcry with calls for military intervention by the UN. Ghandi of India is one of the Commonwealth members who never ceases to moralise about "oppression" in South Africa. During the current Commonwealth Conference one of the tasks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been to hold back the local protesting Sikhs, who charge Ghandi with brutal oppression of their people in India, where hundreds have been killed.

One of the keynote addresses at the Vancouver conference was given by Comrade Mugabe of Zimbabwe. This murderous thug, whose country would collapse even faster than it is, without South Africa, was loud in his call for "justice" in South Africa. Kaunda of Zambia, fawning on the Queen in an attempt to project himself as an elder statesman, said nothing about his own brutal totalitarian regime, but also called for stronger action against South Africa.

Following the advice of Archbishop Tutu of South Africa, who argues that "the greatest contribution the frontline states can make to the process of change in South Africa is to be a success", the Canadian Government has pressed for massive economic aid to countries like Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Zambia. In reality this means that Canadian - and Australian - taxpayers are to be further exploited to pour resources down a bottomless pit in countries, which are doomed to further disasters - with European aid. It is time for the present Commonwealth to be wound up and only the Crown Commonwealth nations to continue an association.

THE FIRST & SECOND GREAT CENTRALISATIONS

"Whereas the 1929 crash was deliberately engineered by the Federal Reserve, the 1987 crash should go down in the books as a bona fide revolt of the financial markets against uncertainties created by policy makers themselves." - The Weekend Australian, November 7-8.

The article from which the above quote is taken is by "David Hale", who is economic analyst for Kemper Financial Services, USA. We have rarely seen any "orthodox" economists admit that the 1929 Crash was deliberate and intentional, which indeed, it was. Even then, the action of the American banks is passed off as some sort of "mistake", "over reaction" "misinterpretation", etc. We think that the people making these sort of absurd claims most probably believe them. Why not? They wouldn't want to believe that the ultimate perpetrators of financial misery to so many millions over so many years knew precisely what the result of their actions would be.
We have no difficulty at all in accepting that such was the case: indeed, we KNOW that the powers behind the American banks at the time (1929) wanted the ensuing result. C. H. Douglas has remarked "they care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent than the death of a sparrow." He (C. H. Douglas) also remarked that he was not overly concerned with the idle rich - it was the busy rich, which concerned him.

David Hale lists three actions, which the Federal Reserve took at that time to guarantee the Great Slump.
1. "Congress imposed high tariffs in the face of a large US trade surplus." These tariffs would have kept out foreign goods, and certainly would have restricted trade with the USA.
2. "The Federal Reserve deliberately jacked up interest rates in order to cool down an overheated stock market." They did more than cool it down, they stopped it. The interest rates were jacked up, without warning to 30% and even more. We don't swallow the "overheated economy" legend.
3. ". . .once the slump got under way, the Federal Reserve failed to protect the banking system." The Federal Reserve had no intention of protecting the banking system. More than two thousand private banks were wiped out in the USA in the thirties. It was intentional, and it was the First Great Centralisation: that of Finance and Banking.
The Second Great Centralisation is to come, the centralisation of Industry and Commerce, which, the propaganda of the internationalists will have it, is essential to avoid "another 1929". We don't want that, do we? No: industry and commerce must be "re-structured" (centralised) - the deregistered megabanks playing a "helpful, constructive" role (in the advance towards internationalisation, i.e. the New International Economic Order).
Is it likely that we shall have severe recession first? Yes, we think so. To condition countries like Australia that "re-structure" of industry and commerce is now absolutely essential? Yes.

LIBERALS PLAYING OLD GAME IN NEW ERA

"Liberal preselection is frozen in the sepia tones of Empire, and like the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, the party's best days are gone..." - Des Keegan, in The Weekend Australian (November 7-8).

Des Keegan can say that again. In the face of aggressive Fabian Socialism, as is now being thrust forward by the HawkKeating Government, a rootless, so-called, "conservative" government, without any unifying philosophy, can do little other than fight a series of rear guard actions. They can hope to just squeeze into power on the general dissatisfaction of the broad electorate with the Fabians. That's all.

The same uninspiring "leaders" are flogging the moribund party horse. They had a chance with the ID Card "debate", but they blew it. Des Keegan observes: "The Liberals were mute before the ID Card. The ID Card was a creature of big government, tax by stealth, state meddling and poor economic growth from protection and union rapacity. The Liberals, architect of these blights, brought us retrospective taxation .." John Howard "blew" the ID Card issue because he thought there were no votes in it. This has been admitted. He probably got the shock of his life when public antipathy to the Card suddenly (more or less) took off then, he was your anti-ID Card boy; even coming out and promising that the Card would be disbanded, even if imposed, on a Liberal return to government.
Whilst on the ID Card: there are people who still consider that we shall have it. Some make what we consider to be exaggerated claims, and others are out of their depth on the issue. We closely monitor the situation, of course. At present, the Card is "not on" even though the technology is in place. We know that.

DOB-IN DANGER

MIGRANTS SHOULD BE ONE BIG FAMILY

THE PERSIAN GULF