|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
8 February 1991. Thought for the Week: "Thus above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."
From Shakespeare's Hamlet
CAN AUSTRALIA BE DEFENDED?
by Eric D. Butler
Australians who believe that what is happening in the Middle East, or in other parts of the world, does not directly affect their security, are living in a fool's world. There was never a greater need for Australia to pay heed to that old maxim that self-help is the best help. Just as only a strong, independent man can resist threats of subjugation and deal fairly with his fellows, helping those deserving of help, so only a strong independent nation can co-operate fairly with other nations and resist all threats to its independence.
No one can predict with certainty what
will be the outcome of the Gulf War, but it is almost certain
that anti-Western feeling will be greater than ever before.
The Gulf War has already exposed a growing weakness in Australia's
potential to defend itself - fragmentation as a result of
the multicultural programme. Spokesmen for migrants from the
Middle East are putting a different point of view concerning
the Gulf War compared with Jewish spokesmen.
A headline in The Age, Melbourne, of January 31st, reads, BILINGUAL CLASS REFLECTS A CHANGING SOCIETY. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal that over the past 20 years Australia has dramatically become more non-Christian. While a growing number has indicated no religious affiliation, there has been a big increase in the size and diversity of non-Christian religions. If Australia is to be defended, the present immigration policy and the deliberate financing of multiculturalism must be stopped. No cohesive society can be evolved which is cut from its cultural, political and constitutional roots.
In an Australia Day address which received relatively little publicity, Sir David Smith, former secretary to a number of Governors General, observed that although of Polish Jewish background, he had no difficulty in serving a nation whose roots were predominantly British. Sir David's complete address should be compulsory reading at the present time.
Genuine national independence requires economic independence. But Australia's economic base is being progressively eroded. The recent announcement by Black and Decker, the well-known power tools manufacturers, that they are closing their manufacturing operation in Australia is yet one more example of the destruction of Australia's manufacturing base. It was that base which enabled Australia to equip itself with many of the means of military defence during the Pacific War against Japan. Even first class planes were built. Australians are now being told that the time is coming when they will not be able to build motorcars.
The spurious charge about high costs is used as the major excuse to force Australia to surrender its economic independence. Primary producers are victims of the same economic disarmament programme. If desperate Australian primary producers are looking to the present Federal National Party to save them against a growing flood of overseas food products, they might be well advised to heed the views of Victorian National Member, Mr. Bruce Lloyd, Federal National Party deputy leader and Opposition spokesman on Primary Industry.
Mr. Lloyd is quoted in The Australian Rural Times of January 9th-l5th as warning primary producers against organisations like the Australian League of Rights. Typical of party political League critics, Lloyd falsely charges the League with ''funny money solutions - ''why do farmers need to pay such high interest rates when you can just print more money?" Presumably Mr. Lloyd has no alternative to present crushing interest rates. Mr. Lloyd has no time for what he describes as "fortress Australia" suggestions and reveals himself as a thorough going internationalist. All he can suggest is that primary producers must prepare themselves for the hard times ahead and not become too militant - or listen to the League of Rights. Mr. Lloyd overlooks, or perhaps he doesn't know, that it was the "fortress Australia" philosophy, which played such an important role in Australia's contribution to the Pacific War against Japan.
The serious plight of the Australian economy, with even worse to come, provides the type of challenge Australians must face if they are determined to defend themselves, and to be strong enough to join with like minded people in defence of common objectives.
"Collective security" under the auspices of a United Nations in which the Soviet Union and Communist China are permanent members of the Security Council, is a dangerous delusion. If Britain had used the Great Depression to stimulate the economy through big increases in defence spending, the Second World War might have been avoided. Australia has the physical capacity to embark upon a great-expanded military defence programme, and the restoration of National Service training, with an enormous economic spin off which would greatly assist both primary and secondary industries. This in turn would lift a national morale, which is sagging at the present time. Admittedly such a programme would require a modification of present financial policies.
Those genuinely interested in the defence of Australia as an independent nation can with profit examine the type of financial and economic policies used by the Curtin Labor Government during the Pacific War, including the use of consumer discounts to eliminate inflation.
AMAZING U.S.-SOVIET 'CEASE FIRE' PROPOSAL
President George Bush's annual State of the Union address to the American Congress was, understandably, warmly applauded by a Congress which, even if a big percentage of the Congressmen had originally voted against the war, wanted to demonstrate that having committed them to war, the American troops were entitled to know that they were being fully supported. We believe that Australian forces are entitled to the same type of support and trust that they will return safely.
But the joint statement by the U.S. and the Soviet has raised many questions about the type of peace envisaged. Some commentators have correctly described the joint statement as little short of "amazing", and an apparent shift in American policy, although President Bush strongly denies this. The statement called for a ''meaningful peace process'' to deal with the Palestinian problem once the war was over. "Without a meaningful peace process - one which promotes a just peace, security and reconciliation for Israel, Arab States and Palestinians - it will not be possible to deal with the sources of conflict and instability in the area", the statement said.
As a number of observers have pointed out, this statement sounds suspiciously like what Saddam Hussein was proposing as a basis for negotiating a withdrawal from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein is no fool, and is trying to fight a different war to that of the Americans and their allies. As we have often stressed, his mentality, as demonstrated in the long and bloody conflict with Iran, is such that he is prepared to sacrifice troops on a scale completely unacceptable to a European military leader in today's world. Saddam is looking to the future when, having demonstrated to the Arab world, that he was able for a period to stand up against Western technological might, and stress that he had forced the U.S. to agree to his original proposal, a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, he will emerge as a tremendous Arab hero. If the Western nations do not then resolve constructively the Palestinian issue, there will be no genuine peace and stability in the Middle East.
A number of American commentators have observed that the Gulf War has, for the time being, helped to save George Bush from being swamped by a rising tide of American opinion revolting against the worst depression since the Great Depression. Massive war spending will help to stimulate the badly depressed economy, but under present financial policies, this means increased inflation. Social friction in the U.S.A. is mounting. Multiculturalism has drained an enormous amount of creative vitality out of the U.S.A., with a number of its deeper thinkers claiming that the U.S.A. is a nation in serious decline. Republican U.S.A. is not a model, which Australia should follow if it wishes to continue growing from its original British and Christian roots.
The Land Rights issue is back on the political agenda. Writing in The Age of January 26th, Professor Harry Reynolds of James Cook University, Townsville, comments, "The idea of a separate Aboriginal nation in Northern Australia may be inconceivable now, but what happens won't just depend on what we think and do in this country. In 100 years time it may be in the interests of a regional power to actively support an Aboriginal homeland. Who knows?" Exactly, and this type of development might take much less than 100 years. All discussion about some type of treaty with the Aborigines should be laid to rest as quickly as possible.
FROM THE CHRISTIAN ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT
"The Gulf War is being conducted to ensure the consolidation of those objectives. Even while Communism crumbles, Messrs. Hawke Bush assure us that the New World Order will be established and 'collective security' will ensure it. Such collective security has never been used by the United Nations to defend innocent people against Communist expansionism and brutality, or Zionist expansionism in the Middle East.
"All war results from rebellion against God's authority who sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to bring 'peace on earth and goodwill towards men'. "The Principles of peace are involved in the principles of self-determination, national sovereignty and personal freedom. Christ came to set each individual free. Individual freedom and national freedom - sovereignty are the basis of international peace, not 'collective security', which means thinly disguised international aggression.
"The international propaganda machine makes Saddam Hussein the aggressor. No amount of propaganda can make Hussein the author of international aggression no matter how evil he may be. The forceful establishment of the State of Israel was an exercise in power politics. A peaceful country, in which a Jewish and largely non-Zionist minority lived peaceably with their hosts and neighbours, and had done so for hundreds of years, became a raging inferno when it was invaded by a foreign force, aided, abetted, and backed by world powers using their superior political, material, and financial power to destroy and evict the rightful owners. A clear case of destruction of national sovereignty and personal freedom. Ever since, backed by evil propaganda, Zionist expansionism has been condoned, and Arabs have been depicted as second-class citizens incapable of sustaining civilised standards.
Now that Zionist propaganda machine is promoting a 'hate Arab' syndrome, which will undoubtedly justify Israel if Israel's atomic weaponry is used against Hussein. Yet this war could have easily been averted. Why did Messrs. Hawke and Bush refuse Hussein s offer to withdraw from Kuwait if Israel withdrew from occupied Arab lands? I wrote just before the war started asking Mr. Hawke, why? I await his reply with interest.
The forces of 'collective security' have made it clear that nothing will be done to inhibit the expansion of the three objectives outlined at the start of this letter. Lithuania is, Latvians, Estonians, Russians and others want national sovereignty and individual freedom. Messrs. Hawke and Bush side with the hard line Marxist-Leninist Mikhail Gorbachev against Boris Yeltsin and other fighters for freedom. The long enslaved peoples of these countries will watch proceedings in the Gulf with great interest knowing the forces which oppressed them for so many years are still forging the weapons for the Marxists world state the many politicians who voted for this war,...can start to undo the evil they have done by endorsing the concept of the Citizens' Initiated Referendum which is the weapon the Swiss people use to keep their nation sovereign...."AUSTRALIA DAY REFLECTIONS
Australia Day provided the opportunity to air the growing soul searching about national identity. In Melbourne the Australia Day luncheon was addressed by former secretary to the Governor General, Sir David Smith. He pointed out that he was of Polish heritage, then vigorously condemned the deadly doctrine of multiculturalism, saying that it was nationally divisive. He also described it as a mistaken philosophy, because it implied that Australia doesn't have a distinct culture worth preserving. Such sentiments, while widely shared at the grassroots of politics, where a strong cultural identity is there for those who seek it, strikes at the heart of the liberal disease being incubated constantly at Canberra. No wonder Sir David's comments were barely reported by the media!
In another Australia Day address, Liberal N.S.W. State M.P. Guy Yeomans called for big changes to citizenship laws. He wants the citizenship qualifications tightened to include compulsory competence in spoken and written English, and knowledge of Australian history and the Constitution. Yeomans said that people demonstrating against the Gulf War should be deported if they were not citizens, and comments that public figures feared to speak out lest they be labeled 'racists'.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|