|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 August 1993. Thought for the Week: "And if Christianity is true, the Church must condemn with all the authority it can regain the actions of governments, which are quite definitely and obviously anti-Christian. How dare they connive at the destruction of religion in the schools! Suffer little children to come unto ME - not unto full employment."
B.W. Monahan, in Mystery, Magic, Music, and Metaphysics
GOVERNMENT BY 'DAMAGE CONTROL'
by David Thompson
The Treasurer's answer to devastating financial problems seems to be a Budget cobbled together on a wing and a prayer. It comes as no surprise, then, that one of the Prime Minister's key advisers reveals that we are suffering government by 'damage control'. Dr. John Edwards is Prime Minister Keating's economic adviser, and has offered a devastating disclosure of how the Keating administration really works. In his Bulletin article (24/8/93) Laurie Oakes quotes Dr. Edwards's article in "Governing In The 1990s", published by the committee for the Economic Development of Australia.
Edwards refers to a process of continuous manipulation on every issue, "with one rationale for action giving way to another more sophisticated one as each was successively undermined by fact and experience Edwards elaborates: "Very often the personal success of politicians or the continued electoral success of the government depends on the ability of the cabinet members and their officials to persuade us to see the world as they wish us to see it and then, when reality intrudes, to persuade us to see it in a somewhat different way without noticing the change or being annoyed by the contradiction."
Over the next few months we can expect to see this process in action, as the Government Ministers stump the country attempting to "sell" the Budget, not as the clutch of broken promises that it is, but as an economic elixir for the next 12 months. Dr. Edwards' political indiscretion has caused something of a sensation, but it is unlikely that the Opposition can capitalise upon it, as they now seem to employ the same techniques!
FUEL TAX: WRONG PRINCIPLE, BAD POLITICS
The savage response to the Budget provision to raise taxes on leaded fuel by (eventually) l0c/ litre, has almost as much to do with the blatant dishonesty about the reason for the tax as the financial penalty itself. The fuel tax is to be "sold" as an environmental and a children's health measure. Motorists are to be "discouraged" from using leaded fuel. Such an assertion implies that the Government is responsible for the health of children. Parents are responsible for Children, not the State. Such a tax is also grossly unfair, since, although there is little evidence that country children suffer lead poisoning, their parents are more likely to be penalised with the fuel tax than anyone else!
Hardly a single taxpayer doubts that the purpose of the savagely unpopular fuel tax is to raise revenue. If the Government was serious about the environmental effect of leaded fuel, the Budget could have offered incentives for motorists to switch to alternatives like gas. The only honest assessment of the 1993 Budget is that it mainly consists of wishful thinking and optimistic forecasts. Dr. Edwards' remarks should be carefully studied, and remembered by all taxpayers, including his following comment: "We should always be wary of crediting politicians and their officials with the control over events which they wish to claim, and which the repeated error of their predictions silently denies."
THOSE FORMER COMMUNISTS
There are many examples of former Communists who have openly repudiated Communism. A few, like Mr. Geoff McDonald, author of the best selling work Red Over Black, subtitled "Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights", have tried to warn their fellow Australians about Marxist strategy and tactics. But a number of former members of the Communist Party have gone on to hold influential positions in society without repudiating what they formerly believed and practised. The case of Ms. Pat O'Shane, constantly referred to as the first Aboriginal Member of the Bar, is currently of interest. In fact, Pat O'Shane is of part Aboriginal and part Irish background.
Geoff McDonald provides the following information about Pat O'Shane in Red Over Black: "Miss O'Shane is the former wife of the Northern Queensland part Aboriginal activist, Mr. 'Mick" Miller, and has a long record of involvement in pro-Communist activities. She has been involved with the Soviet Front Organisation, The Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament ... In 1977 Miss O'Shane's booklet, Law In Disorder Politics, was published by the Queensland State Committee of the Australian Communist Party.
In 1980 she attended the Labor and Communist
Movement Conference. She has written for the Communist Tribune.
Tribune reports that on October 5th, 1981, a delegation had met
the Hon. Frank Walker of the Wran New South Wales Government, and nominated
Miss O'Shane to become head of the new Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Miss O'Shane was subsequently appointed at $48,000 a year. This is another
example of Australian taxpayers financing Marxists in Government positions
to advance Marxist programmes.
In its issue of August 14th, News Weekly, in which Mr. B.A. Santamaria is a prominent contributor, reports that because it had stated in its issue of October 15th, 1980, that Pat O'Shane was a member of the Communist Party of Australia, it had received a lawyer's letter claiming that the statement "is highly damaging to her good name and can have serious repercussions on her reputation her livelihood and her ability to retain those positions". There was a demand that News Weekly apologise and pay damages and meet Pat O'Shane's legal costs. Unable to verify their statement, News Weekly met the demands.
THE TARGET OF THE MOMENTWe insert this item in the body of On Target rather than the On Target Bulletin in order to emphasise its importance. It was sent from Adelaide by the Advisory National Director Mr. Eric D. Butler.
"Yes, by all means let your House of Representatives Members know what you feel about the Dawkins horror Budget; but direct your main fire power against your Senators. "Tell them in no uncertain terms that your will is that they oppose the Budget, and that you expect them to vote against it. "Now, as never before, the Senate must play a major role in the Commonwealth Parliament. "Let us know what your Senators are saying in order that we can then let a wider audience know."
Much has been said by Treasurer Dawkins and his colleagues concerning the lowest inflation rate for 30 years, which has come as a result of their economic programme. This lower rate has been achieved by their brutal policy of record bankruptcies, and record unemployment. But Treasurer Dawkins and his "experts" are not mentioning that inflation is rising again. We predict now that if the Dawkins Budget is implemented, this will inevitably ensue. Increased petrol prices, alone, will increase transport costs, which must then flow through into other parts of the economy.
Lurching From One Disaster to the Next
NO SECRET ABOUT CREATING MONEY
from The Australian, August 13th
Briefly, the goldsmiths received gold and deposit for which they issued receipts. The depositors soon realised it was more convenient to trade the receipts for goods than to redeem them for gold, the first paper money. The goldsmiths then had vaults full of gold for which few people called. The audacious idea developed that receipts could be issued in the form of loans without first receiving the gold, so long as some gold was held against the contingency that someone might wish to redeem. The goldsmiths found that for every 100 pounds worth of gold deposits they could safely lend 900 pounds at interest. This is exactly what banks do today, only they use the sophisticated technology of computers.
If, therefore, a bank pays 5% on its deposits and charges 10% on every dollar it lends, at a ratio of advances to deposits and charges 10% on every dollar it lends, at a ratio of advances to deposits of as little as 5 to 1, it is in fact returning 50% on its deposits, not 10%, thus a margin of 45% not 5%.
Many Royal Commissions have been conducted into
the banking system in countries such as Australia (1937); Britain (1920);
Canada (1939); and New Zealand (1955). In every case it was admitted,
often under cross-examination, that banks create what they lend. For
example - Mr. H.W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of N.Z.:
'There is no secret about banking, there is no secret about banks creating
It is not clear from Tim Blue's report, Banks Attacked Over Lending (4/8) whether he or Mr. Denis Jarrott subscribe to the time-worn cliché that banks are mere intermediaries, borrowing and lending the same money, or whether they have the background knowledge to challenge the banks on credit creation. If the former, the above facts should be brought to their notice." (Ron Fischer, Talbot, Vic.)
CLEAR CASE OF UNFAIRNESS OVER QUEENfrom The Australian, August 2nd
"So the Prime Minister has refused the request by the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy for equal funding to put their case to the public. This is surely grossly discriminatory in a society where everyone is supposed to be entitled to equal treatment. I have also been informed that he has issued instructions to Australian Government Book Shops that they are no longer to sell photographs of the Queen. If this is so, by what right does this man take it upon himself to make such decisions? One might expect such autocratic edicts from the head of a dictatorship, but not from the Prime Minister of a democratic government. It seems to me Mr. Keating needs to be reminded that the Queen is still Head of State and that Australians are entitled to buy photos of the holder of that position from official government book shops." (Denis Winterbottom)
NOT STUPID BECAUSE WE DON'T TOE TURNBULL'S LINE
from The Australian, August 2nd
I am an Australian of Italian extraction. I bear no special historical allegiance to the House of Windsor. I do believe, however, that our current Constitution has served us very well indeed. I do not believe that it should be changed, although I am willing to consider arguments as to why we need to change to a republic. I take strong objection to the Malcolm Turnbulls of this world telling me that, because I am not willing to jump on the latest politically correct Labor Party inspired, diversionary bandwagon, called republicanism, that I am un-intelligent, un-Australian and un-patriotic. (Tony Gentile, Kingsford, N.S.W.)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|