|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
24 February 1995. Thought for the Week: "Unfortunately centralisation is one of the easiest forms of organisation to arrange as distinct from its efficient operation, and is, in fact the only form which a mediocre and untrained intelligence can grasp."
THE VICTORIAN REVOLUTION
by Eric D. Butler
Jeff Kennett is not generally regarded, even by some of his own colleagues, as one of the nation's deep thinkers. It is highly improbable that he has ever heard of a book entitled The Managerial Revolution, by James Burnham. Burnham was a former influential Marxist who later joined with Will Buckley's National Review. Burnham's thesis was, in one sense, an extension of Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State, in which the famous Roman Catholic writer argued that mankind was threatened by the establishment of a society in which officials had unbridled power. But Burnham's book might be described as a preview of what is being implemented in Victoria under the Kennett Government.
Treasurer Alan Stockdale was, according to one short study of his background, greatly influenced by the privatisation of the Thatcher era and as a young student absorbed the latest concerning modern planning while a student at the London School of Economics. According to a feature article in The Melbourne Times of February 8th, Kennett's sweeping "reforms" of Victoria's Municipalities has "spawned converts" among the bureaucrats to the teachings of two U.S.A. gurus, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, authors of Reinvesting Government. This has become the bible of the new breed of planners taking over in Victoria.
Victoria can now be described as the front-runner in a national programme, outlined in the Hilmer Report. To understand the enormity of what is planned, it is essential to sit down and look at Cr. Bevan O'Regan's second video on Local Government, Councils at the Crossroads. It is all there, including the concept of exposing all forms of State activities (including those of the newly re-structured Councils) to extensive competition. "Privatisation" is a major part of the total revolutionary programme.
The fact that an overwhelming majority of Victorians are opposed to what has been described as "the sale of the century" does not deter Kennett, Stockdale and their financial "advisers". They know what is best. The fact that privatisation has not produced the promised results in the United Kingdom; that the overall result is that the rich are getting richer while the great majority are getting poorer, creating major social problems, does not apparently worry the State's political masters. They keep arguing that they are driven by the pressure of debt to take the course they are on. Premier Kennett says that local investors lack the financial capital to invest in the State's public utilities.
The Victorian A.L.P. "Opposition" pathetically says that it is looking at plans to force the re-sale of the State Electricity Commission if they regain office. It is too much to expect the Labor Party to suggest that they would use their own banking powers to finance the issue of shares to all Victorians, so that public ownership could be made a reality. The privatisation of power in Victoria is designed to fit into the proposed national power grid system for the whole of Australia.
In the meantime the papers are full of advertisements for the new type of managers for Victoria's amalgamated Councils. Salaries being offered are from $120,000 annually, plus cars and superannuation, upwards. It is now being openly stated that a "new" and more "progressive" type of Councillor is required for the future - when elections are permitted. These will, of course, have to be paid. The Councils of the future are envisaged as companies with Councillors as directors. The real policymaking will be by the planners.
Yes, Jeffrey Kennett, the "Managerial Revolution" has come to Victoria. But one thing is certain: it will not result in any of the promises associated with it being fulfilled. Victorians can make a start towards regaining control at the next State Elections.
THE U.K. VERSUS E.E.C. ON IMMIGRATION
The pro-multicultural Australian media
has generally ignored the news that the British Major Government
has been further jolted by the resignation of Immigration
Minister Charles Wardle. Although Wardle has supported British
membership of the "Common Market", he is alarmed by the threat
of a "tidal wave of immigrants" flowing into the United Kingdom
from Common Market countries. Large numbers of these immigrants
are non-Europeans who have either legally or illegally entered
Europe and under E.E.C. rules framed by the Brussels bureaucrats,
are then free to move into the United Kingdom.
A recently retired head of immigration, Peter Tompkins, revealed in The Daily Mail a year ago that Government statistics seriously underplayed the number of illegal immigrants now living freely untraced in the U.K. But as Charles Wardle points out, unless the British Government challenges Brussels, a flood of immigrants can enter legally.
Margaret Thatcher was hailed as a heroine in 1985 when she negotiated an opt-out from the Single European Act that would protect Britain's frontiers. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher says she derived most "satisfaction" from the so-called General Statement that nothing should affect the right of the U.K. to control the flow of immigrants. Clearly Margaret Thatcher was seriously misled. If the U.K. insists on controlling immigration, it could be taken to the European Court.
In his resignation statement, Charles
Wardle said, "The British people have never been asked if
they want to leave the back door open to uncontrolled numbers
of immigrants. If they were, their answer would be a most
emphatic No." Wardle warns that a flood of economic immigrants
would place intolerable strains on social security and housing
at taxpayers' expense. It would quickly and quite unfairly
heighten racial tension for ethnic minorities lawfully residing
Those advocates of Australia joining an Asian-Pacific Common Market are inviting the same type of problem now confronting the British: how to control the flow of immigrants into Australia. The essence of the Common Market philosophy is that ultimately there should be free movement of people as well as capital among the members of the Common Market. The U.K's. experiences should be a warning to the Australian people. A nation, which cannot control immigration, has no future. This truth is now starting to dawn on even those British who originally endorsed the E.E.C.
DAVID IRVING CONFRONTS PROFESSOR LIPSTADT
Jewish Professor Deborah Lipstadt, who visited Australia last year, has been presented by the Zionist Jewish media as one of the world's leading experts on the "Holocaust". On November 11th, 1994, Irving managed to confront Lipstadt in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., after she had addressed University students. With her scathing references to Irving, Lipstadt obviously did not know that Irving was present. At question time Irving seized the opportunity to speak, announced who he was, much to the dismay of Lipstadt, charged her with telling the students lies and held up $1,000 which he would pay her if she could produce the blueprints of a gas chamber she claimed to have, one complete with holes through which the gas pellets were inserted. The good Professor screamed at Irving and a security guard was called. Irving had offered to show aerial photos of Auschwitz to prove that Lipstadt had been lying. The students accepted free autographed copies of one of his books.
Copies of Irving's historic video film, The Search For Truth in History, which Zionist Jews tried to prevent from being publicly shown in Australia, are available from all League addresses: $30.00 posted.
'A SUCKER'S PUNCH'?Kenneth Davidson, financial writer for The Age, is one of those who endorse the view of Eric Butler (see last week's On Target) in his examination of the probable source of the "leaks" on possible spending cuts, seized upon by the Opposition. Davidson writes in The Age of February 15th: "Rather than the Paper being leaked by an embittered public servant, it is much more likely that Mr. Keating or Mr. Beazley or their political advisors came up with the idea of offering Mr. Howard a 'sucker's punch'....In summary, as unpalatable and as unrealistic as the cuts suggested in the paper were, they are still probably the least unpalatable and unrealistic that could be offered. Does the Opposition support these cuts or some alternative? The Government has laid a landmine which the Opposition must traverse at some time before the next elections despite Mr. Howard's apparent triumph at present."
After the spending of tens of millions
of dollars by both Canada and Australia, not one conviction
has been obtained against an alleged "Nazi war criminal".
But Zionist Jews and others are still persisting with demands
that more alleged war criminals be tried. Former head of Canberra's
Special investigation Unit, Mr. Bob Greenwood, Q.C., has charged
that there was a "gutless" approach to the subject, this bringing
a strong response from former Attorney General Michael Duffy
who rejected Greenwood's comments as "irrelevant".
* * * * * * * *
The multi-racial U.N. forces which were to have brought food, peace and orderly government to Somalia is leaving after two years of disaster, leaving the country to the feuding war lords. This has been yet another costly and futile U.N. operation.
W.A. LIBERALS REFUSE TO DISSOCIATE WITH LEAGUE OF RIGHTS
Last weekend the Western Australian State
Council of the Liberal Party was urged (by the University
of W.A. Liberal Club) to accept a motion formally dissociating
the Party from the League of Rights. As we go to press, we
understand that this motion was defeated, on the grounds that
the Liberal Party supports freedom of association and speech.
This does not mean, however, that the W.A. Liberals would defend all that the League stands for. It is unlikely that the majority of members of the Liberal Party in W.A. even know what the League stands for. However, they must be given the credit for upholding the principle of free speech, especially when it involves the League, which could perhaps be described as "politically incorrect", and even incompatible with a good press "image", which could be deadly to parties in the pursuit of power.
When the Young Liberals condemned the League at their National Conference in Adelaide in January, it was claimed that the values of the League are diametrically opposed to those of the Liberal Party. Since the League also upholds the principles of freedom of association and freedom of speech, perhaps the Young Liberals are out of step with their seniors. The W.A. Liberals should be congratulated for standing on principle.
SLUGGED TWICEfrom The Australian, February 20th
"Last Thursday I was given a very rude shock when I went to deposit a cheque in a Perth branch of my bank account, which is registered in Darwin. "Although I am fully aware of the hideous 'credit tax' as it applies to my local bank account, I was not prepared for the double tax that I now know applies in all States except Queensland: that is, if a deposit is made in an interstate branch, not only does the State in which the deposit is made collect a 'credit duty' the State in which the account is registered also collects a credit duty! "Surely this is double taxation in its most insidious form? Does the general public know about this? Can you give this matter the proper airing it deserves in order to remedy what can only be described as malfeasant practice by our governments?"
Allan M. Cox, Brinkin, N.T.
GAUDRON'S NAYfrom The Australian, February 20th
"In your front page story, Gaudron Baulks At High Court's Top Job (The Australian, 14/2), your High Court correspondent, Bernard Lane, writes that, in the appointment of a Chief Justice from within the Court, precedent calls for the appointment of the most senior judge. He quotes legal sources as saying that 'the reason for this precedent is that if the Federal Government, a prime litigant before the Court, is seen to be referring one internal appointee over another, judicial independence might be seen to be compromised'.
"According to these legal sources, Justice Gaudron is said to agree with this argument, and to have refused an appointment in the Order of Australia for the same reasons.
"May I be permitted to point out to these legal sources that, while appointments to the High Court are in the gift of the Federal Government, appointments to the Order of Australia are not."
Sir David Smith, Mawson, A.C.T.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|