|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
6 October 1995. Thought for the Week: "Debt locks up the future against us. It destroys hope. It reduces politics to a futile contest between parties of money slaves for the favour of their money masters, leading to ever more centralisation of power. It is the very essence of despair."
Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs in the August issue of the British quarterly, Home
THE LIBERAL PARTY TRAGEDY
by Eric D. Butler
It is no secret that even some Members of the Coalition Parties are of the opinion that they have only a 50 percent chance of wresting government from a Keating-led Labor Party. And the reason? It is not merely the lack of any real leadership from John Howard, but the widespread perception that there are no basic differences between the programme of the Labor Party and that of the Coalition Parties. The best that John Howard can suggest is that he is more capable of implementing the same programme being implemented by the Keating Government.
At a time when he had been deprived of the leadership of the Liberal Party, John Howard managed to tap into the deep concern about the rate of Asian immigration. But when the subversive forces inside the mass media turned their venom against Howard's "racism", he refused to stand and fight and attempted to adopt a strategy of retreat. He has been retreating ever since, abjectly apologising for what he said about immigration.
It is important to recall that John Howard took over the leadership of the Federal Liberal Party after the media and the Zionist Jewish lobby destroyed Alexander Downer. The central feature of the destruction of Downer was the allegation that he had once spoken on a League of Rights platform. When John Howard took over the leadership he lost little time in making it clear that he found the League of Rights "abhorrent". When the Labor Party formally "proscribed" the League of Rights, John Howard informed the Zionist Jewish lobby that while the Liberal Party did not "proscribe" anyone, he would not tolerate any Liberal Party member appearing on a League platform. The desperate John Howard has now resorted to circulating the infamous Senator Boswell attack on the League in the Senate on April 27th, 1988.
With the full co-operation of the Labor Party, Boswell had inserted in Hansard a document, which had been prepared for him. The usual allegations of "neo-Nazism" and "racism" were used in the Boswell document. A senior and reputable political journalist rang me on the day of the Boswell attack to say that the manner in which the Boswell material had been introduced in the Senate was the most incredible political event he had ever witnessed at Canberra.
The Boswell attack proved to be the foundation of an on-going national campaign, which reached a climax on September 29th, 1988, with Queensland Labor Member Keith Wright, at the time being mentioned as a possible future leader of the Labor Party, proposing an all-party investigation of the "sinister" League of Rights. As Wright had a close association with League supporters in his early career, it is legitimate to ask what type of influence was brought to bear on Wright to make outrageous allegations, which he knew to be false. The serious character defect, which led to Wright being sent to prison, was known in his Queensland electorate.
By circulating the filth, which originated in the gutters of the Australian political underworld, John Howard has demonstrated that he has nothing to offer for the salvation of the Australian people. Even if he is acting only on material provided by his "advisers", he stands condemned as a man of straw.
For the record, I have no confidence whatever in John Howard, and I have progressively lost any respect I might have once had for him. Both the leaders of the Liberal and National Parties have clearly demonstrated that they are terrified of the mass media branding them with being pro-League of Rights. What confidence can Australians have in any political party, which bows to campaigns conducted by the mass media and the subversive influences it reflects?
If John Howard makes it to the Lodge, he has made it clear that he is a captive of the same forces Keating serves. The Senate offers the one opportunity to break up the threatened monopoly of political, economic and financial power.
REPUBLICAN WOMEN TO SEIZE THE MOMENT
Former Victorian Premier, Mrs. Joan Kirner, urges republican women to assert themselves, and play a role in the formation of an Australian republic, and the re-writing of the Constitution. She wants women to "take the opportunity to shape the nation into a republic that reflects our values as women "
Perhaps Kirner is seeking some sort of
outlet for frustrations generated as a disastrous Premier,
but her suggestions concerning the republic are clearly divisive
and reflect the "tribal nation" approach of the philosophy
behind multiculturalism. Ms. Kirner also wants Aborigines
and Torres Strait Islanders to have their "values" reflected
in a re-written Constitution, which replaces the present "boring"
Constitution. But why stop there? What about the "cultural
and lifestyle values" of the homosexuals?
The reference to the Constitution as being "boring" apparently justifies all kinds of madness being included, simply to relieve the boredom of constitutional law. Perhaps circus clowns should be invited to make a contribution reflecting the "ideas, values, traditions and hopes" of clowns! At least the Constitution wouldn't be boring.
The purpose of British constitutionalism was never "entertainment". It was to ensure that the frailty of human nature could be contained when the temptations of political power were confronted. The Westminster system of government depends upon the successful divisions of power, and the accountability of those who exercise power, to the individual. It matters little whether the individual is male or female, single or married, homosexual or Aboriginal; his interests are best served when he is in control of his own life, and responsible for the results. His (or her) interests in terms of the exercising of power are the same.
When the time comes that a constitution must reflect the particular interests of every conceivable sector of the population, it becomes an unwieldy, totalitarian, 'discriminatory' mess. Ms. Kirner's contention that women have qualities that are superior to those of men, which will transform the political climate from one of conflict to one of consensus, does not seem to be borne out by the experience. Dr. Carmen Lawrence, a senior Cabinet Minister, does not seem to have brought such qualities to the fore in Canberra.
If the W.A. Easton Royal Commission is any indication, Dr. Lawrence's honesty does not seem to be superior to that of her male colleagues. Either her honesty or her powers of recall seem to reflect the failings of her male colleagues. Even questions of corruption are now being raised around Dr. Lawrence's contest with the W.A. Royal Commission.
The Executive Government in Canberra has decided to fund Dr. Lawrence's legal fees, drawing funds from an emergency facility available to the Minister for Finance. The Senate has raised the legality of this process, and suggested that spending such funds should be scrutinised by Parliament. One question considered by the Senate was: could the payment of Lawrence's legal bills for a matter relating to a time before she became a Minister be justified as relating to "carrying" out functions as a Minister"?
Dr. Lawrence is one of those whom Ms. Kirner is urging to grasp the opportunity of re-focusing the flagging republican debate, and helping to "create a society in which women share power equally".
THE FAMILY COURT DISASTER
Having now been in existence for 20 years, ex-Senator and late Justice Lionel Murphy's social experiment is surely due for realistic assessment. The Fabian Murphy, being a humanist, took the view that matters such as the sanctity of marriage was a relative moral judgment, which not everyone shared. Why impose such old-fashioned moral restrictions on everyone, including that of the burden of guilt for adulterous behaviour, etc.?
Family Court Chief Executive Officer,
Len Glare, offered his own views in a revealingly frank interview
with The Sunday Telegraph (1/10/95). Glare is quoted
as saying that he thought Murphy's vision of "a friendly family
court" was flawed. "The thesis of it was the friendly, helpful,
caring court and taking the fault out of it to get rid of
the bitterness. The fact is, it doesn't, and the fact that
they can't have a court blame one partner or other often creates
a great deal of bitterness.
The history of the Family Court shows that it has generated enormous bitterness, particularly among fathers. In many cases, men whose wives have moved to dissolve marriages against the husband's wishes, have lost not only custody, but contact with their children. In addition to this, the property divisions have often exacerbated the conflict and bitterness, and such men find themselves required by the Court to support a "family" from which they have been excluded against their will. It is not surprising that attempts have been made on the lives of Family Court judges, with tragic results.
Murphy will be remembered for his thrust at the jugular of the family.
HOLDING THE EUROPEAN UNION TOGETHER
Even before the European Union is complete with monetary union and the elimination of national barriers, the dream of a united Europe is under intense pressure. Many nations have strong minority protest movements, which often gain majority expression. The Danes originally voted against joining Europe, but were eventually persuaded, by a very slim majority, to accept Union. A similar French referendum on Europe produced an even slimmer majority in favour of Union, and a number of other countries have forestalled any referendum at all, in case the vote is against Union. Britain is one of these.
The Swiss, having the opportunity to initiate their own referendums, have voted convincingly not to join Europe. The Swedes have recently added to the anti-European sentiment, by turning out in large numbers to vote for anti-E.U. parties in the nation's first direct elections for the Strasbourg Parliament. As a result, at least seven of Sweden's 22 European Parliamentarians will be opposing the Swedish membership of Europe. It is likely that some of these seven can make common cause with Sir James Goldsmith's 17 members of the Europarliament elected from France, who campaigned strongly against the Maastricht Agreement - 'the constitutional' base for the E.U.
In France, the new Prime Minister, Mr. Alan Juppe, finds that if he is to push France further into the E.U., he must abandon campaign promises made by Mr. Chirac to cut taxes. Speaking to the French Parliament, Mr. Juppe said cuts in public spending, coupled with a rise in taxes, would allow him to steer France s economy along the path laid down, by the Maastricht Treaty towards complete political and monetary Union. Union was worth some financial sacrifices, said Mr. Juppe, in a forlorn attempt to convince the French to accept this aspect of his 1996 budget.
The European Union might be a reality on paper, but it is far from reality otherwise. The conflicts that can eventually blow the European Union apart are all present in the Pacific, where Prime Minister Keating lectures the Asians on the necessity for a Pacific Basin Union, in order to maximise the benefits of "trade". If centralised power is a form of insanity, the dream of a Pacific Nation is a form of insanity, as is the European Union, as Europeans are finding to their cost. The main question is whether it can be dissolved again without war.
THE IMPORT BINGE CONTINUES
The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on the June balance of payments showed that Australia finished the financial year with a current account deficit of $26 billion. Around $75 billion was spent on imports, many of which were produced here by Australian Industry, using Australian resources, and Australian labor. As manufacturers have pointed out, some of the imports, which are not produced here, are essential, like the $1.8 billion spent on telecommunications equipment, and the $7.9 billion for specialist machinery and equipment.
However, the figures show that we also imported well in excess of $2 billion worth of food and drink, nearly $2 billion on textiles, clothing and footwear, $1.75 billion on consumer electrical appliances, and about $2.5 billion on toys, books and leisure items. How can a primary producing nation justify spending $12.5 million on frozen pork? We also spent $163 million on bolts, nuts and screws, while our own manufacturers are struggling to survive. $112 million was spent on frozen prawns, and the same amount again on frozen fish.
One of the most environmentally clean and safe countries in the world, we spent $16.5 million on mineral water. And with primary industry struggling we also spent $58 million on unprocessed wool, $51.5 million on fresh vegetables, $13 million on dried vegetables, $285 million on wines and spirits (as well as $122.7 on whisky), $115 million on processed leather, $12.5 million on sunflower oil, as well as importing raisins, corn and potato starch, soy sauce, cashews, gelatin, olive oil, smoked salmon, tuna, chewing gum, tea, coffee, lobster, crab, etc., etc.
When will this situation improve? The only possible answer to such a question is that it will not improve at all while we are bound by disastrous international agreements like GATT. In fact, it will actually become worse. What is required is a complete rejection of the present form of internationalism, and a return to the long-standing Australian policy of national economic self-sufficiency. But such a policy is at complete variance with the global market, and GATT.
AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CONDEMNS 'RACISM'
Dr. Bob Birrell, Director of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, has pointed out that the Federal Government's failure to control the numbers of foreign doctors entering Australia, is seriously jeopardising medical careers of Australian-born medical students. The A.M.A., however, claims that any discrimination in favour of Australian students is "racist".
The A.M.A. is suffering from the influence of the human rights extremists, who have continually applied pressure to the point that we now discriminate in favour of foreigners. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission produced the astonishing ruling that a 1992 quota, which limited overseas trained doctors, violated the Racial Discrimination Act. Since when were "doctors" a racial group of their own? The fact that an Indian doctor, Burney Siddiqui, made a complaint to the Commission may have influenced the result. But this is clearly a case of discrimination in reverse.
Dr. Birrell also found that 39 percent of medical students were born overseas, and a large proportion of these were from Asia The A.M.A. claims that the fact that they were born overseas is irrelevant, because many of them are now Australians. But the truth is that "Australian" is now a relative term. An Asian-Australian may not have quite the same outlook on life as a "British" Australian.
The philosophical approach to life is important in medicine. The doctor who believes in reincarnation, for example, is less likely to attach the same importance to human life as a doctor from a "Christian" background. If we continue to pursue insane immigration policies, and ludicrous policies concerning our medical trainees, Australian patients can expect to be treated by Indonesian, Malaysian or Hong Kong born doctors. To refuse to "discriminate" in our own favour is a deliberate policy of national suicide.
LAMENT FOR THE FAMILY FARM
from The Courier (Ballarat, Victoria),
"'Those who are not big enough . are not surviving', he said. True! 'Sadly, many hold on until their equity is used up.' True again, but how long is this process of decimation to continue? According to Bishop Wilson's assessment until the whole of agriculture is corporatised. 'The farming population of Australia has been declining for decades - for years before the disastrous get-big-or-get-out slogan was coined. The number of farming units has fallen from 290,000 to about 100,000 today. In 45 years we have lost 2 out of every 3 farmers to the dole queue. The basic reason is debt - the using up of equity, as Bishop Wilson put it.
"Simultaneously, with the decline of farm numbers has come an astronomic increase in debt. Figures delivered to the National Outlook Conference '95 highlight this fact. Farm debt rose by 2.9% a year between 1980 and mid-1994 to $17.85 billion, with most banks charging a risk margin between 1.5% and 3.5%. The total debt spread over 100,000 farms averages $178,000. At an interest rate of 12% (8.5% + 3.5%) debt equals $21,000 before you even start to buy fuel etc. ... While this is happening, the economic debate focuses on interest rate rises - 'to be or not to be'.
"Christians like Bishop Wilson should
realise that the money changers are in the temple - the temple
that is the body and soul of every farming family in Australia.
To be truly Christ like would be to throw them and their tables
out into the street"
AGAINST THE GRAIN
from Financial Review, 11/8
"This is the man whose policies have contributed to the dire financial situation many farmers now find themselves in; circumstances which the present drought are serving to exacerbate. According to ABARE statistics 50% of farmers have recorded negative incomes in the last year. This decline in the rural sector has a flow on effect to country towns making life very, very tough for small business people in these areas.
"Mr. Keating (or should I remind him our country's taxpayers) has brought drought relief payments through the social security system for those in difficulty in the most extreme drought areas, and interest subsidies via the rural adjustment scheme to those deemed viable. "This assistance has been helpful to some but does not address the underlying problems which include much higher costs than our competitors. At the same time a lot of these competitors are heavily subsidised, and still will be even after GATT phase-ins are completed.
Our industry is facing even more onerous responsibilities and regulations in areas such as workplace health and safety, the environment and food safety standards; yet we are either losing government services in many areas, or having to pay much more for the services that remain.
"It was heartening to hear Mr. Keating's
stated belief in the value of the family farm, but his speech
would have been a lot more interesting if it had included
an outline of meaningful policies that would actually deliver
sustained recovery to our family farms, thus ensuring their
KOW-TOW WITH CAUTION
from Herald-Sun, Melbourne, 30/8
"I question the integrity of our politicians, kow-towing and co-operating with the Indonesians to the extent that we are helping train their forces to take our country over, as was done in East Timor. In comparing the strength of our forces with theirs one cannot help being concerned for our freedom should the need arise.
"Do our politicians really care for the
future of our country? I ask, is it more politic to shut one's
eyes to the continuing belittlement, which Australia is subjected
to, and so ignore the need to react in such a manner that
would ensure respect from the Indonesians (sadly lacking at
this juncture)? "We are a joke as far as Indonesians are concerned.
As one of the many thousands who enlisted during World War
2 to guard our country, I question on this 50th anniversary
of V.P. Day, were our efforts in vain?"
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|