|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
29 March 1996. Thought for the Week: "What the population of the world wants, and is determined to get, is a sufficiency of goods and services, either actual or potential, but they cannot be obtained except through the agency of money, of which there is a lack. This lack of money is not natural, in the sense of being unavoidable, but is wholly artificial, and is the result of a deliberate policy in the operation of the money system, although that policy may not perhaps be wholly conscious."
C.H. Douglas in The Break Down Of The Employment System
JOHN HOWARD'S ANTI-CHRISTIAN FRIENDS
by Eric D. Butler
The Australian Jewish News reports that Anthony Benscher graduated in economics at Sydney University. John Howard was Shadow Industrial Minister in the Coalition headed by John Hewson when Benscher, who had never previously met John Howard, wrote expressing his interest in government and in industrial relations policy and asking if he could get work experience. Benscher is quoted as saying, "I told him I was interested in joining the struggle. I started doing general research and electoral work." Eventually Anthony Benscher became, first, John Howard's full-time paid secretary and, later, Howard's senior advisor on industrial relations. And when John Howard became Opposition leader early last year, Anthony Benscher became his press secretary.
In view of the anti-Christian Zionist
Jewish lobby's persistent campaign against the Australian
League of Rights, it is legitimate to ask if Anthony Benscher
played any part in the abrupt ending of correspondence between
Mr. Edward Rock, Chairman of the Christian Alternative Movement,
and Mr. John Howard concerning the role of the Christian in
Practically the whole of John Howard's life has been that of a professional politician. Long before Bob Hawke and Paul Keating he was promoting the deadly doctrine of internationalising the Australian economy. Only once has he violated Zionist-Jewish strategy: when he suggested that the rate of Asian immigration was too far ahead of public opinion. The campaign launched against Howard was so severe that there was the pathetic spectacle of Howard wringing his hands and abjectly apologising, promising never ever to do this again.
When Zionist Israel Prime Minister Rabin
was assassinated, not by a Palestinian "terrorist", but by
a Zionist fanatic who represents those who are not prepared,
even for tactical reasons, to try to ease the continuous pressure
by the dispossessed Palestinians to control their own destinies
in the land which Rabin and other Zionist terrorists took
from them, John Howard complained that Paul Keating would
not assist him to join the throng of world's politicians who
felt it imperative that they be seen visiting Israel.
John Howard also sent a message to the Zionist Federation of Australian stressing the Jewish community formed "one of the very strong bonds" between Israel and Australia. Every civilised person deplores all acts of terrorism, but acts of Palestinian and other Arab terrorism have in the main been the result of nearly 50 years of terrorism by Zionist terrorists.
To his credit, National Party leader Tim Fischer has on occasions raised his voice in protest against what he has stressed has been a bias in the international community against the Palestinians. But clearly John Howard is determined not to offend the local Zionist lobby in any way. It will be interesting to see how the Howard Government treats British historian David Irving's application for a visa to visit Australia to promote his books.
GLOBAL MIGRATION AND CULTURAL TENSIONS
by David Thompson
She has been placed under immense pressure, particularly by the press, whom Ms. Hanson claims have been harassing her, and quoting her out of context in order to suit their own purpose and agenda. Other M.P's., like Bob Katter and Graeme Campbell, have been condemned for their comments concerning immigration or other matters of race or culture.
It is clear that every attempt is being made to depict the election of such candidates as a serious aberration in a tolerant society. Their views are portrayed as "extreme" and "unrepresentative" of Australians. It is openly suggested that the sooner such people are removed from the Parliament, the better. Better for whom?
In reality, the election of Katter, Hanson, Campbell, etc., is far from an aberration. They do not represent a minority "extremist" element from the fringes of Australian society. A brief study of conditions in other countries confirms that questions of migration, race and culture are of primary concern by the mainstream populations in a growing list of countries.
In New Zealand, immigration levels have more than doubled in the last two years, to 55,000 per annum, as a result of the Government's enthusiasm for attracting Asian investment. Last year 37% of permanent residents were from Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, and 23% from elsewhere in Asia 12% were from Britain. Recent surveys indicate that 57% thought New Zealand had too many Pacific Island residents, and 51% thought it had too many Asians. Former Minister for Maori Affairs, and a part Maori himself, Winston Peters, is campaigning for immigration to be "cut to the bone".
As a result, his New Zealand First Party has enjoyed a flood of support, and it would be amazing if Mr. Peters and a number of his colleagues were not elected to the next New Zealand Parliament. As in Australia, every effort is made to depict Peters as "extreme", bigoted, and racist, despite his Maori ancestry. But as with Hanson, Katter and Campbell, it is clear that Peters is simply giving expression to widely-held views, whether 'correct' views or not.
NORTH AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
With a flood of illegal immigrants running at about 300,000 per year, U.S. legislators are now attempting to put legislation in place to satisfy disgruntled taxpayers who foot the bills for illegal immigrants' health and education requirements. In 1994, California residents passed a referendum on illegal immigrants by a large margin, demanding that "illegals" be denied health and educational services.
Under such pressure, the U.S. House of Representatives last week approved new legislation to give effect to those demands by 333 to 87. For the last few months, the U.S. presidential 'primaries' have been enlivened by Patrick Buchanan. who is contesting the Republican nomination for the Presidency. Buchanan shocked the political gurus by polling extremely well in many States, and becoming a serious force in Republican politics. Among other issues, Buchanan is campaigning on the reduction of immigration, and tougher measures to deal with illegal migrants and refugees.
Every effort has been made to depict Buchanan as an "extremist", a racist, and as representing the U.S. political "fringe". But the reality with politicians like Buchanan, Peters, Hanson, Campbell, Katter, etc., is that in each case, PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR THEM. Eventually the voters will find a way of prevailing over institutionalised arrogance. Pauline Hanson, Katter and Campbell in particular, need all possible support for their courage in the face of press ridicule and "ethnic" pressure.
CORRUPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
N.S.W. Premier, Mr. Bob Carr, is the last remaining Labor Party political leader in Australia heading a government. As such, Mr. Carr appears to want to carry the torch of reform with a zeal that responds more to Labor theory and ideology than to practical political requirements. Mr. Carr's A.L.P. Government in N.S.W. has such a slim majority in the Assembly that he must tread with caution. He does not control the State's Legislative Council at all, yet appears to be taking unnecessary political risks for the sake of reform.
Earlier in the year Mr. Carr enraged monarchists, and even many republicans, by downgrading the role of State Governor when appointing Mr. Maurice Samuels in a "re-defined" role in which the Governor would not even use the Government House residence, which was to be opened to the public for alternative uses.
Mr. Carr's latest "reform" proposal involves changing the N.S.W. constitution in order to open some State Cabinet posts to people from outside the Parliament itself. He argues that such "flexibility" would permit the Government to benefit from any skills outside the Parliament that Government needed. He proposes a system that might reserve four Cabinet posts in a 20-member Cabinet for non-elected "experts" from the wider community. Presumably the Premier would choose the "experts" himself, according to the kind of skills Cabinet lacked.
The Carr proposal reflects former Prime Minister Hawke's suggestion in his 1979 Boyer Lecture, in which he claimed that talented people who would not be involved in election campaigning or political party manipulation of pre-selection, etc., would otherwise be available to serve the community in the Cabinet at the Prime Minister's appointment. Out-going Governor General, Bill Hayden, also predicted that such an arrangement may eventuate, with highly paid, unelected Cabinet Ministers being required to appear in Parliament to be questioned on their portfolios.
The Carr suggestion is a product of his fascination with North American politics. In the United States, executive government is separate from the Parliament. The Head of State - the President - chooses his executive from industry, military, academia, etc. But the British/Australian approach to political accountability differs to that of the United States. In the Westminster system, the executive government is accountable to Parliament because it is drawn from Parliament. All members of the executive, except the Governor General, must present themselves for re-election. Bob Carr is proposing a departure from this.
If Australians of "talent" refuse to become a part of the election process, and be accountable directly to the electorate, then Government is not for them. Their talents can still be used in administration, as consultants or advisers to Premiers or Prime Ministers. This is what occurs now. There is no evidence that the United States' system is superior to our own in terms of the executive's accountability to the voters. Mr. Bob Carr's proposal is a corruption of representative government.
"Experts", no matter how laudable their talents, should not be making decisions on policy. The electorate itself, through its elected member of Parliament, should be making policy decisions. The role for "experts" is to efficiently achieve the required policy results as administrators under the supervision of the executive. The executive consists of the Crown (represented by the Governor General) and the Crown's Ministers, drawn from and responsible to the Parliament.
VICTORIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BACKLASH
Premier Jeff Kennett's dictatorial handling of Local Government, which he has forced into compulsory amalgamation, has generated a backlash that has resulted in the A.L.P. polling well in recent local government elections. Elections were held on March 16th in 21 new city and rural municipalities for the first time since 1993. It is ironic that the A.L.P. had first campaigned for the radical centralisation of local government more than 10 years ago under Premier John Cain. Kennett and his Coalition colleagues had campaigned against amalgamation, but subsequently betrayed local government.
The Secretary of the Victorian Local Government Association, Mr. Mike Hill, interprets the election results as strong protest against the amalgamation programme, and as benefiting the A.L.P. We note that the business-backed "Melbourne First" group of candidates performed poorly, winning only two of nine seats on the Melbourne City Council. This is a personal rebuff to Mr. Kennett, who had raised the suggestion that Melbourne be permanently governed by professional administrators drawn from business circles, without being hindered by tiresome elections!
'TREATY' FOR ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION
Ten years ago Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised a "treaty" between indigenous Australians and others, in order to promote reconciliation. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation plans to proceed with the treaty, irrespective of the recent change of government in Canberra. Press reports indicate that the "treaty" is likely to include an acknowledgement that Australian belonged to the Aborigines before they were dispossessed by white settlers, or conquered by colonial forces. The "treaty" may propose some form of reparations or financial compensation to today's Aborigines for what some regard as the "theft" of their land.
In 1988 Mr. John Howard strongly opposed a "treaty" with Australian Aborigines, describing it as "an absurd proposition that a nation should make a treaty with its own citizens". But has Mr. Howard changed his views on this, as he apparently has on so many other issues? We recall that it was at about this time that Mr. Howard expressed some mild reservations about the level of Asian immigration to Australia when Leader of the Opposition. The result was that John Howard was blasted out of his leadership post, and told in no uncertain terms that such views were not satisfactory.
The Deputy Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Mr. Ian Viner, Q.C., was formerly Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in a Fraser Government. As a small "1" Liberal, Viner regards a treaty as "a political imperative for Australia between now and 2001". On the results of the recent Federal election, Viner said: "We are very disturbed that there are still within Australia pockets of racial prejudice and lack of knowledge of the facts and a lack of understanding of the historical and present position of Aborigines and Islanders. It gives us both a sense of urgency and commitment to overcome that prejudice."
Presumably Mr. Viner and his Council colleagues know better than Pauline Hanson's constituents, and will have access to taxpayers' funds to "re-educate" us.
CAMPAIGN FOR 'AUSTRALIAN' HEAD OF STATE SUPERFLOUS
In a desperate attempt to wrest the initiative away from an inexorable Coalition campaign during the election, former Prime Minister Keating played his "republican card". Not only did it fail to give him the initiative, but it is quite clear that his championing of a republic gave Mr. Keating few, if any, votes. Keating had promised a vote on whether the Head of State should be an Australian citizen. This, however, is most misleading, according to former Queensland Senator Dr. Glen Sheil, a Patron for Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy.
In a letter to the press (unpublished, to our knowledge) Dr. Sheil wrote in February: "A republican movement spokesman has falsely claimed His Excellency Bill Hayden was confused in calling himself our Head of State at recent vice-regal retirement ceremonies, and then questioned, in that case what is the Queen? When do we start addressing Governors General as 'Your Majesty'? Or are we not a Constitutional Monarchy?
The answers are easy to come by if one conducts some basic research into Australian statute law, and the results would indicate that it was not His Excellency who was confused. "The Queen is Australia's Symbolic Head of State and has been since the Empire Conference of 1926, which decision was not ratified by Australia until 1972. Her only role for Australia today is the appointment of our Governor General on the advice of our Prime Minister, which is a congenial reminder of our constitutional development. "The Queen is deferred to as 'Your Majesty', the Governor General (and spouse) as 'Your Excellency'. "The Queen is an Australian since the 'Royal Styles and Titles Act' of 1954, agreed to by all political parties.
Not only is a referendum to endorse an Australian as Head of State superfluous, it is also dangerous. This is because immigrants are permitted to retain their passport of origin, which means that under the Keating proposal, a person who owes allegiance to a foreign power could become our Head of State."
ASIAN IMMIGRATION TO FIRE MASSIVE WA. GROWTH
A new report, "W.A. 2029: STAGE II" commissioned by the W.A. State Government, offers a proposal for "quantum expansion" that would result in a population of 3.7 million people by the year 2029. If this were achieved, 20 percent of the population would be Asian, because a big population growth rate would depend on high levels of immigration from Asia.
The Report's authors also project a scenario in which Perth becomes a "global city" with its business activities focusing more on international matters than the domestic economy. They suggest that "quantum expansion" means a five percent growth rate in annual gross state product, which becomes harder and harder to achieve because of the limits of rapid population growth.
According to articles in The West Australian (2 1/3/96) even sustained immigration would not be sufficient to sustain such growth, and the W.A. workforce would need to work longer hours for longer periods, even past normal retirement age.
The report, commissioned by the W.A. Department of Commerce and Trade, also notes that problems of expansion for Perth could be solved by decentralising the workforce, so that a priority would be given to those working in the "global economy": to be based in Perth, and other "routine" jobs relocated to other regions, or outer metropolitan areas.
The press reports, however, do not clarify the ultimate purpose of "growth". It almost appears that West Australians themselves exist for the purpose of facilitating the "growth economy". The higher the "growth", the better, and as a result, more raw materials for "growth" - like people, are needed. Where will they come from? From Asia, where over population and pollution are producing a steady stream of migrants, all looking for somewhere to go.
Perhaps someone should begin asking basic questions of Mr. Richard Court's W.A. administration. What is the purpose of economic growth? Do social objectives or quality of lifestyle count in the scheme of things? Where do such priorities lie? Are the interests of Western Australians a priority, or must these be subservient to the growth requirements of "the global market"? If population growth is genuinely required, why not offer incentives for Australians from other States to move to the West and participate, rather than Asian migrants? Are the interests of Australia to be considered?
Where "economic growth" becomes an end in itself, rather than a means of satisfying human social requirements, the human being becomes the servant of "the market". This is not freedom, but a new and subtle form of totalitarianism.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|