|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
19 July 1996. Thought for the Week: "No method of procedure has ever been devised by which liberty could be divorced from self government. No plan of centralisation has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflexibility, reaction and decline....Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted it breaks down representative government, and overwhelms democracy. It is the one element in our institutions that sets up the pretence of having authority over everybody, and being responsible to nobody."
U.S.A. President Calvin Coolidge, 1926
JOHN HOWARD AND SHADES OF 1944
by Eric D. Butler
Under the Federal Government John Howard and his Government have no constitutional right to legislation on the subject of gun registrations. Neither have they the right to legislate on housing, education, municipal government and other matters. But over the years Federal Governments of all labels have used the Fabian technique of gradualness and their monopoly of finance to expand centralised controls at the expense of the States and the Australian people. This development was predicted by the great Alfred Deakin.
Early in the Second World War Dr. Evatt used every possible pressure to persuade the States to surrender vast powers to the Federal Government. Dr. Evatt told the States that if they failed to grant him the powers sought, they would be guilty of failing to ensure that the post-war period was one in which the grandiose post-war planning of prominent planners like Dr. H.C. Coombs, would make certain that there would be stability and prosperity for all.
Those opposing the Evatt vision were charged with betraying the future of Australia's returning soldiers. John Howard implies that those who oppose his gun laws will be guilty of any further massacres with guns in the future - although he says that he can give no guarantees that his gun laws will prevent violence in the future. Obviously no such guarantee can be given in an increasingly disintegrating Australian society reeling under the policies of "economic rationalism" which John Howard has enthusiastically endorsed.
Dr. Evatt's attempt to seduce the States, with even non-Labor State Governments reluctantly yielding to the pressure applied to them, only failed because of the opposition of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, with former Australian cricket test captain Joe Darling mobilising the opposition. Darling never played a finer innings for Australia than when he inspired his colleagues to refuse to yield to Evatt's threats and blandishments. The result was the famous 1944 referendum, with Dr. Evatt's spiritual bedfellows, the Communists, playing a leading role.
It should be recalled that during his campaign to centralise power, Dr. Evatt made every effort to neutralise those he regarded as his major opponents, Social Crediters like the author. First he attempted to intimidate them with threats of internment, then sought a meeting, at which he said he agreed with the Social Crediters that "What was physically possible should be made financially possible", but what was financially possible was not constitutionally possible. This ploy did not weaken the Social Credit opposition. Evatt and his associates then resorted to the type of smearing used against the League of Rights today.
John Howard says that a movement formed by Australian patriots, some who served during the Second World War with outstanding distinction, and supported by some of the nation's most distinguished leaders, is "reprehensible" and that he could not be associated with them. Nothing has changed over half a century.
When the Australian electors firmly rejected Dr. Evatt's 1944 Referendum, Evatt's close friend, the notorious Marxist theoretician at the London School of Economics, expressed his deep disappointment subsequently stating in The Social Justice Review (U.S.A.) of December, 1944, that "once there has been a division of power under a Federal system, it took something like a political or economic earthquake to change the categories of the division". This reflected an earlier Fabian view that "only in war or the threat of war will the British people accept large scale planning".
John Howard has been using both financial and emotional blackmail in his attempt to by-pass the Federal Constitution. It was the Tasmanian Legislative Council, led by Joe Darling, which saved Australia from a major assault on the Federal Constitution. Perhaps history can repeat itself, with several of the States so badly weakening John Howard's bid for power via gun legislation, that he has no alternative than either leave the subject of gun regulations to the States, or go to a referendum. John Howard and his supporters talk loosely about having "overwhelming" public support. Let him put this claim to the test.
The writer's view that if a referendum were held, John Howard would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining a majority of electors in a majority of States to vote to give any increased powers to the Commonwealth. A referendum would permit the basic issues concerning growing violence in Australia being brought into the open and rationally discussed. What about it, John Howard? Have you the courage to go to the Australian people and allow them a real say? State Members reluctant to support John Howard's gun controls should be encouraged to press for a referendum.
ORCHESTRATED ATTACK ON AUSTRALIA FIRST
by David Thompson
This extraordinary piece of mischief needs placing into proper context, even if only for the historical record. It is clear that this meeting was never "top secret", and nor was the location. Those who were invited were told where to gather. The meeting was private, but hardly "secret". Many groups meet in private for many reasons. The Reserve Bank of Australia holds its Board Meetings in private, but McManus could hardly describe this as "secret"!
At the Lithgow meeting's conclusion,
a public press statement was issued, which the press appeared
to routinely ignore. The League, however, aware of the significance
of the events unfolding, reported the press statement in On
Target on May 3rd. The opening lines of the text read:
"At a meeting held deep in the Blue Mountains over April 26th/27th,
Graeme Campbell met with some 24 people from across Australia.
The outcome is a shared vision for Australia..."
McManus has either described it as such either because he has only just found out about it, or he wishes to place this construction on the meeting for a purpose. In either event, it reflects no credit on him. The fact that the League and A.A.F.I. were represented at the meeting is also regarded as sinister. But it is a matter of public record that Campbell has appeared on platforms provided by the League and A.A.F.I. This report is obviously a rather unprofessional "beat-up" for the purpose of denigrating Campbell and Australia First.
WHAT ARE TED DRANE'S MOTIVES?
A second, and perhaps more vicious report
appeared in Brisbane's Courier Mail (13/7/96), in which
Sporting Shooters' President Mr. Ted Drane is quoted as saying
that Campbell has attempted to introduce a "secret society"
of right-wing racists into Federal politics. Drane accuses
Campbell of trying to seize control of his Reform Party, and
is reported to have told the Australia Israel Review
that Campbell was a supporter of the "radical League of Rights
organisation, known to hold anti-semitic views..."
There is some doubt about the accuracy of the Courier Mail report, which quotes Drane as making the hilarious claim that the League is a "secret society" which had attempted to "take over the Reform Party". Not even Mr. Drane could really believe such nonsense. Drane claims that although he thought he could work with Campbell in a new party, Australia First Reform, he later "discovered" that he didn't agree with Campbell on immigration, and didn't want anything to do with the League, which he now believes has links with Scientology.
Mr. Drane's position seems to change with the breeze. Originally he agreed to a relationship with Campbell in agreement with Campbell's basic policies, including on immigration. He later says he disagrees with Campbell on immigration. At his National Press Club address last week, Mr. Drane is quoted as saying that he was not anti-immigration, but "we should have no immigration at the moment for a variety of reasons". It should be noted that Mr. Drane's position on immigration (if it can be pinned down) is far more "extreme" than Campbell's position, the A.A.F.I. position, or even the League's position! Campbell recommends a "low immigration policy", A.A.F.I. recommends "zero net immigration", the League calls for a referendum on immigration, but Mr. Drane says, "Have no immigration".
Basic questions must be asked about this mish-mash of turgid allegation. What is Ted Drane's game? It is clear that he is not content to merely part company with Campbell. He appears prepared to be used by other forces in an attempt to destroy Australia First. League supporters who know Drane personally report that he has privately expressed respect for Eric Butler, and sympathy with much of the League's policy. But it is clear that Mr. Drane has political ambitions of his own. His "image" is not improved by associating with "racists", although when it suits him, he professes similar policies.
Mr. Drane is unreliable, and unwisely permits himself to be associated with forces he clearly does not understand well. Campbell has obviously proceeded to form Australia First without the erratic Mr. Drane, who, when it came to the point, simply failed to appear. He claims to have thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of dollars, but no one has yet seen evidence of this. Australia First, in our view, is well rid of Mr. Drane.
The role of the League has not changed. As an educational organisation, our services, including experience gathered over half a century, are available in the form of advice to those who are attempting to achieve useful results. Graeme Campbell does not "support the League" as is alleged. He has never subscribed to any League journals, nor offered any contribution to the League programme, except to appear on a League platform to put his own views. The League does not "control" Graeme Campbell.
The League supports Graeme Campbell on the basic issues he promotes. We disagree with him on other minor issues. We do not support political parties per se; as a generalisation they are a corrupting blot on the political landscape. But any group pursuing the right issues is worthy of support, while ever their objective remains the achievement of results on the key issues.
In the longer term, Graeme Campbell may prove to have feet of clay, but for the present he stands head and shoulders above his other Parliamentary colleagues. Political realities dictate that any politician providing vision, courage, and leadership on key issues is worthy of support.
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS POPULAR
It is clear that Prime Minister Howard and his Ministers have "sniffed the political breeze" on immigration. They have demonstrated that political promises are "pie-crust" promises (made to be broken) on immigration as well as other issues, by altering the immigrant qualification criteria, which will result in fewer migrants, and apparently less from Asian origins. The Government has clearly picked up the national mood on immigration, and a small matter of election promises ("the immigrant numbers and mix is 'about right"') is apparently unimportant.
Following the Ruddock announcement, Melbourne's Herald-Sun (5/7/96) ran a telephone poll in which 96.2% of 1,390 callers agreed that "immigration levels be cut". It is also clear that there is considerable discomfort about the origin of Australia's migrants - particularly those from Asia. This may be coloured by the expectation that when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese (communist) control next year, a wave of Chinese immigrants is fully expected.
The Age (5/7/96) reports that up to 95,000 Hong Kong residents could be allowed to enter Australia after July 1st, 1997. Foreign Minister Downer has confirmed that the 95,000 have multiple entry visas, which gives the holder three months in Australia, then application for permanent residency. In addition to these 95,000, up to 20,000 Hong Kong students could also apply to stay in Australia. Statistics show that a further 50,000 Hong Kong Chinese carry Australian passports, 30,000 of whom are still in Hong Kong. Rudimentary calculations reveal that by the middle of next year, up to 165,000 Chinese could expect to secure permanent residency in Australia.
It is known that already tours of Chinese professionals have deliberately secured Australian recognition of their professional qualifications, before returning to Hong Kong. Australian professionals in the field of dentistry are known to expect an influx of "cashed-up" Chinese dentists to undermine established practices. A similar scenario in other professions would be no surprise.
Perceptions that new forms of crime are the result of Asian immigration was expressed by Piers Akerman in his Sunday Telegraph column on July 7th. "If recently arrived individuals abuse the laws of this nation and abuse the obligations of Australian citizenship.... it should be within the power of this country to expel them," he wrote. As Akerman observes, the leaders of the "ethnic industry" would vehemently oppose compulsory deportation for convicted immigrants. But the press continues to report cases of Asian gangs and individuals attacking others in Sydney streets. The advent of "home invasions" appears to be an Asian gang innovation, for which many Sydney residents would prefer to be able to apply for a firearms licence. Personal protection, however, is not a "sufficient" reason for owning a firearm.
HOWARD VERSUS BRADMAN
The following letter to Mr. Howard, dated May 30th, was written by Mr. Edward Rock, Chairman of the Christian Alternative Movement.
"Can a politician who has acquiesced
in the sale of his country's financial and political sovereignty,
who disarms those who would defend the nation against the
war-lords of Indonesia, Japan and China, make any claim as
Sir Donald Bradman justifiably did last night on Channel Nine
to being a man of integrity?
HITLER AND GUN LAWS
The League of Rights makes every effort to source and document quotations it uses. But we are unable to source the widely publicised statement concerning Hitler and Gun Controls. Whatever their motives, it is a fact that Zionist Jewish leaders in Australia, the U.S.A. and other countries, have been prominent in advocating the type of gun controls demanded by the Howard Government.
Mr. Eric Butler is currently making a thorough examination of the alleged Hitler statement. His studies reveal that the statement was first published by a small Jewish group in Milwaukee, U.S.A. The group is known as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. At the moment they cannot be contacted and do not return telephone calls. This group asserts that Hitler was the father of all gun control legislation. Eric Butler's researchers in the U.S.A. suggest that the statement was taken from a Chicago Herald report in 1935 about Hitler. The statement could be true, but it is false to claim that this was the beginning of a Hitler programme for disarming the German people. League actionists campaigning against anti-gun laws now being proposed should not use this statement.
Eric Butler says, "It is possible that Hitler made the 1935 statement attributed to him, because in 1934 the Nazi government introduced its laws on firearms. In the 1934 laws the Hitler government tightened up on the gun laws of previous governments. Gun registration and licensing for all guns, hand as well as long guns, were legislated five years before the Nazis took office. While Jews, Gypsies, "vagabonds" and those with mental and criminal records were excluded, Eric Butler reports that a study of the 1938 Nazi regulations "reveals that it is completely false to say that Hitler disarmed the German people.
In many ways, it appears that the Hitler
laws were more lenient than those of their predecessors. They
specifically provided for the ownership and carrying of firearms,
including handguns, by all law abiding citizens. A permit
was required to buy, but not a long gun, and a separate licence,
good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in
public. The German Weapons Law fills 12 pages, much of this
legalese. I select but a few of the provisions:
Of interest is the provision that firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, were not to be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. Australian game shooters will be interested to know that weapons for spotlighting were banned, this being regarded as unsporting! The manufacturing of certain weapons was banned, such as 'trick' firearms, designed to conceal their function. Silencers were not permitted. Cartridges were a .22 calibre hollow point. Most of the other provisions of the law related to the manufacturing and importing of firearms. There was also provision for tourists bringing firearms into Germany. Clearly the German regulations were strict. But it is not true that the Hitler government disarmed the Germans."
COMPARE OURS WITH THEIRSfrom The Australian (10/7/96)
"It seems that many people are quick to criticise Australian immigration policies; I suspect it makes no difference whether they are Coalition or A.L.P. policies. However, in the case of the 'insulted' Michelle Ford (Letters, 8/7), this attitude is perhaps a bit more than hypocritical. "Ms. Ford says her Indonesian husband is living in Australia and has been apparently for some considerable time. By her own admission he can look forward to residency in due time. "What she fails to say is that the situation is totally the reverse in Indonesia. I have an Indonesian wife, but I and many others like me can only get short-term visas for two months, no matter what our qualifications are. "An Indonesian KIMS temporary visa is available at a very substantial cost and, although valid for a maximum of one year, requires renewing at six months, with additional fees being charged. "As Ms. Ford feels that 'Australia is a less than desirable place for mixed couples to settle', perhaps she would like to prove me wrong and request residency in enlightened, fair-minded Indonesia?"
C. Simpson, Perth.
TIME FOR A UNITED APPROACH
from Herald-Sun (4/7/96)
YANNER-SPEAK from The Australian
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|