|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
23 September 1988. Thought for the Week: "Every effort is being made by secular humanists to persuade Australians that, in order to take her place in the world as a mature and independent nation, Australia must cut her links with her British and Christian origins. She must 'face the fact that she is now a multiracial, multicultural, multireligious, cosmopolitan community' with no common loyalty or tradition or morality except to whatever mass ideas are put out by the money controlled media. In other words, she is being urged to become just like every other blueprint for the regional units in the planned New Economic Order."
Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs in No.1 Bicentenary issue of Heritage
WHAT IS THE AUSTRALIAN 'NATIONAL INTEREST'?
As the immigration debate continues, there are numerous references to Australia's 'national interest', with little or no attempt to define what is meant by this term. It is a fact of history that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people have as the result of a combination of factors - geography, a long continuity of breeding, or ancestry and religion - been in the forefront of developing social systems designed to preserve individual rights and freedoms. The development of English Common Law was an expression of practical Christianity, incarnating the Christian revelation of the uniqueness - not the sameness - of every individual. There was a time when other peoples admired the British political and constitutional systems.
As the British Empire developed people from other than British countries came to join in what was an on going growth with its roots deep in two thousand years of history in the British Isles. Australia is a highly independent variant of what is a distinctive culture. Those who keep claiming that Australia "is part of Asia" are manifesting either their shallow and materialistic approach to life, or are consciously involved in a campaign to tear traditional Australia from its roots, thus assisting in the killing of the Australian soul. Australia is not "part of Asia", but an island continent situated in Oceania. Eastern Europe is closer to Asia than is Australia. But the question of distance is relatively unimportant.
A true nation, with its own ethos, lives in terms of time and history, not geography. The growth of the Australian nation owes nothing to Asia. Language, political, constitutional and legal systems have all been derived from the British tradition. Even the Federal system is modeled to a degree upon the American Federal system, this a product of the Anglo-Saxons who pioneered the USA, and who grew from the same roots as Australia. C.H. Douglas, author of Social Credit, observed that the British character and British culture were the greatest obstacle to the establishment of the Monopoly State, and that every effort was being made to remove that obstacle. The old British Empire had to go.
The traditional associations between the Crown Commonwealth nations also had to be broken, thus the long campaign to submerge the United Kingdom into a United States of Europe. Only Margaret Thatcher now stands between the final act of destruction the establishment of a European Central bank with a common European currency. The British Prime Minister says that such a step would mean the virtual dissolution of the British House of Commons. If what was once known as "the Mother of Parliaments" is killed, what of the future of "the children" of that Mother?
Probably more than any other development of the British and Christian stream of history, Australia still possesses sufficient of its traditional character to move off the present disaster course, setting an example to the rest of the world. The "national interest" will not be served by maintaining the monstrous lie that the Australian economy requires investments from Asia; that Australia needs Asia more than Asia needs Australia. The whole of Asia could disappear tomorrow and 16 million Australians would be left with all the natural resources, skills and technology to provide all the physical requirements for a high standard of civilised living. The major requirements would be a change in the rules of the nation's financial bookkeeping.
In campaigning for the next Olympic Games to be held in Greece, the Greek Olympic representatives are making the strong point that it would be an appropriate time to return to the roots of the games. The time has come for Australians to make every effort to return to the roots of traditional Australia. As demonstrated by the Germans, who this year are celebrating the anniversary of the German settlement in South Australia, peoples of non-British background, have had no difficulty in grafting their contribution on to the basic roots of the nation.
When the last word has been said, the best contribution to the national interest will be made when Australians internal financial and economic policies are changed in order that young families can grow in numbers without fear of the economic circumstances. And those young Australians require access to the nation's real traditions. None of these come from Asia.
Those who saw RSL leader Mr. Bruce Ruxton on last Sunday night's 60 Minute TV programme will agree that he was magnificent. It was instructive to learn from the programme that large numbers of Chinese are Australian citizens living and working in Hong Kong. Bruce Ruxton showed his compassion when taken on a tour of the camp in which Vietnamese refugees live under appalling conditions. He pointed out to the hostile TV audience in Hong Kong that the local Chinese badly treated these refugees. When President Lee of Singapore was quoted as being critical of Australians like Bruce Ruxton, the RSL leader quickly pointed out that thousands of Malays had been expelled from Singapore, a predominantly Chinese nation. The indigenous Malays insist on a dominant role in Malaysia, where the Chinese and Indians are a minority. Mr. Ruxton said that the Japanese had shown little sympathy for the Vietnamese refugees. His central thrust was that it was quite all right for Asian nations to have discriminatory immigration and racial policies, but that Australians like himself were being criticised for recommending that Australia was entitled to have similar policies.
A correspondent in a Sunday newspaper makes the neat point that if Members of Parliament need more money to carry out what they claim are very onerous duties, then electors need more say concerning what their representatives do. The Initiative Referendum is the answer.
We have never subscribed to the bizarre theory that John Stone was brought in to the Queensland National Party as part of a conspiracy. John Stone's economic views are the result of his orthodox training, although he has shown sufficient flexibility to admit that he had become a convert to the "flat tax" conception. He has also opposed the introduction of a consumption tax. John Stone is a genuine maverick and at least is a refreshing change from so many of his dull colleagues. John Howard has done John Stone and Australia, a service by sacking the Queensland Senator from the Shadow Cabinet. Obviously John Stone is emerging as a major figure in the continuing immigration debate. He should be encouraged to keep speaking out on the immigration question. There is no evidence to suggest that John Howard's re-shuffled shadow cabinet is going to make much difference to a Liberal Party, which is in a terminal state of disintegration. All the polls show that taxation is the number one concern of the Australian people. Unless John Howard and his colleagues can break clear of financial orthodoxy, they can offer the taxpayer no relief from the imposition of Treasurer Keating. Having triggered off the immigration debate, John Howard has since tried to escape the wrath of the media pundits by "playing down" the issue. A bold offensive would be more profitable. John Howard's worst decision was to remove the outspoken Wilson Tuckey from health, just when the West Australian was demonstrating that it is possible to stand up to the homosexual lobby.
Just as Australian government have had to accept the reality of a Malaysian constitution which is "racist", so will Australian governments, including that of Mr. Bob Hawke, have to accept the reality of a Fijian constitution with exactly the same objective as the Malaysian constitution. As no doubt Senator Gareth Evans has discovered, there is overwhelming support throughout the whole of the Pacific region for what has happened in Fiji. As the famous Disraeli said, race is a major factor in politics. The collectivists try to brush this reality aside with pseudo-intellectual arguments.
AUSTRALIA IS NOT PART OF ASIAIn The Age (Melbourne, 10/9) "J.D. McAloney", of South Caulfield (Melb. suburb) has this to say in "Letters":
"The fundamental weakness of the article 'Back to Bigotry' (Saturday Extra, 3/9) is the repeated assertion by the author that Australia is part of Asia; indeed, 'belongs to Asia'. This is about as accurate as saying Italy is part of Arabia because it is just across the sea from Egypt. "The essence of a nation is determined by more than simple geography; mostly it is determined by the people, their ancestry, culture and values. Australia is not part of Asia. "However, rather than take my word for it, prove the point for yourself by asking an Asian, a real one, that is. You will find that Asians do not regard Australia as part of Asia. They see us for what we are: an affluent mainly European race with Western values. "Another way of proving the point is to try, as an Australian, to become a citizen of, say, Malaysia or Japan - you will find your un-Asianness totally disallows you from becoming a fully fledged citizen. "I have travelled extensively in Asia and I generally like Asians, particularly Chinese and Thais, but I would no more presume to say I belonged to their part of the world any more than I would expect then to say they belonged to mine. "I found the article so one sided as to be patronising towards Asian identity. None of this may be particularly important except that your correspondent leaps from the false premise that 'we belong to Asia' to the wild assertion that Australia would be better off with 30% Asian population than 3%. That is an alarming, even dangerous statement and one which, if put to the Australian population in the form of a referendum question, would be soundly defeated."
ABORIGINAL TREATY SPARKS FLY IN TOOWOOMBAFrom The Chronicle (Toowoomba, Qld.) September 8th: -
"Claims that mixed blood Aborigines were falsely representing the Aboriginal society were made yesterday at a debate on the proposed Aboriginal Treaty at the D.D.I.A.E. (Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education.) "Mr. Rodney Rivers, a mixed blood Aborigine from the Kimberleys; in Western Australia, who is now based in Toowoomba, said it was only mixed blood Aborigines who wanted a treaty. "He claimed that the two other Aboriginal speakers in the debate - Jeff Warner (Rehabilitation officer for the Department of Community Services and Health) and Bill Buchanan (Co-ordinator of the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Student Support Program) had nothing to do with the true full-blood Aboriginal people. "They are part black, part white, who have turned black overnight. The people of the North have 'marked' men like Bill Buchanan, and in Western Australia we do not want the draft treaty,' Mr. Rivers said. "Black tribal leaders do not want anything to do with these people.'
"The three men debated the Sovereign Aboriginal Coalition's Treaty proposed by Prime Minister Hawke at Burunga. "Mr. Warner said he was distressed at the misrepresentation of himself and Mr. Buchanan as supporting the draft treaty. "'Mr. Rivers was only representing a small group of people', Mr. Warner said. "'It will cause more tensions in a country already divided on immigration, if the treaty goes ahead.' "The president of the Aboriginal and Islander Student Cultural Association, Mrs. Jenny Kite, said Mr. Rivers degraded the debate by making personal attacks. "'He (Mr. Rivers) questioned their aboriginality, which is degrading to say the least.' Ms. Kite said."
THE WORLD FISCAL POLICE
P.O. McGuiness, writes in Financial
Review (9/7) of the proposed O.E.C.D. Tax Treaty: This
is the convention, which, if Australia were to sign it, would
give the Government powers to legislate to exchange tax information
and files on a multilateral basis through a central clearing
house in Paris, and to enforce tax judgments made in other
countries against Australian residents regardless of the merits
of the case.
Recently, David Russell, a Brisbane Q.C., also gave the convention the thumbs down in Butterworth's weekly tax bulletin (August 23), suggesting that article 24/3 of the convention 'provides for the establishment of a co-coordinating body to monitor the implementation and development of the convention. It is to act as a forum for the study of new methods and procedures to increase international co-operation in tax matters. The history of bureaucracies, both national and trans-national, suggests that if the convention comes into effect this body will develop into an international tax police force.
"This has already been christened Interfipol- on the model of Interpol - standing for international fiscal police. Although this might be stretching a long bow, such dangers cannot be ignored. The recent behaviour of the Australian Tax Office, which now seems to think it is the F.B.I., adds to such concerns..."
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|