|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
20 September 1996. Thought for the Week: 'The ideal is the enemy of the real."
Dr. Oscar Levy, anti-Zionist Jewish philosopher
by Eric D. Butler
The modern history of Jugoslavia stems from the Versailles Peace Treaty at the conclusion of the First World War. A group of idealists from the victorious nations sat down to try to plan the future of the world. The old Ottoman Empire, administered by the Turks, was broken up, Turkey being on the losing side.
One of the results of this process, with lines being drawn on maps with little reference to realities, was the tragedy of the Kurdish people. Approximately 10 million of these people constitute a nation in the sense that they have their own language, culture and religion. But they were left fragmented, some under the control of the nation known today as Iraq. Iraq emerged primarily as a result of the planners drawing lines on maps. Some of the Kurds remained under the control of the Turks, others under Iran and Syria. Others were absorbed into the Soviet Union.
The basic problems of the Middle East
crisis, including the tragedy of the Palestinians, result
from international planners drawing lines on maps. Many of
the planners undoubtedly meant well. The tragedies of Africa,
now assuming horrendous proportions, with millions dying in
what are basically inter-tribal and cultural conflicts, stem
primarily from the fact that when the European Colonial powers
went into Africa, they drew lines on maps with no reference
to tribal and other realities.
Australians would do well to ponder on these realities as the debate concerning multiculturalism and immigration grows. The maiden speech in the Federal Parliament by Pauline Hanson has triggered off an open debate which has been smouldering beneath the blanket imposed by all the major political parties and the media, this dominated by the self-opinionated and self-styled academics. The late Professor Manning Clark was typical of these people.
Pauline Hanson's overwhelming election victory, followed by her historic maiden speech, has resulted in developments, which could prove a turning point in Australian history. It will be recalled that it was a Rotary Club address by historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who warned about the inevitable consequences of the present immigration policies, which forced some discussion on immigration and multiculturalism. The self-righteous ideologues brutally attacked Blainey and, to some extent, he was marginalised.
But the Pauline Hanson affair is different. This courageous woman has single handedly made the whole immigration and multicultural issue one of major political significance. And she is supported by the West Australian Independent Graeme Campbell, who potentially is the catalyst, which could see the emergence of a new force in Australian politics.
The widespread public support for Pauline Hanson has caused a note of hysteria in the ranks of the devotees of multiculturalism. Spokesmen for the Howard Government are attempting to adopt a low-key response, generally confining themselves to saying that Pauline Hanson's remarks were "unfortunate". But in attempting to distance themselves they are faced with political realities. Some of the attacks on Pauline Hanson are basically attacks on the growing number of Australians who support her.
As might be expected, one of the strongest editorial attacks on Pauline Hanson came from The Age, Melbourne. In its editorial of September 16th, entitled "The Battle For Tolerance", The Age attempts to come to grips with what it realises is the most formidable challenge yet made against multiculturalism. The Age's concept of tolerance is revealed in its first sentence, referring to the "latest poisonous outburst" from Pauline Hanson
. There is reference to her "myopic malevolence", but with the resultant admission that Pauline Hanson does represent "a constituency that the rest of Australia is going to have to take into consideration if it is to maintain its essential qualities: democracy, fairness and a unity that can only come from mutual trust". These mealy-mouthed words are typical of those who have consistently opposed any suggestion that the Australian people should have any real say concerning the type of people they want to join them in the nation they have built.
Pauline Hanson makes the telling point that just as she has every right to say who can enter her home, she has the right to express her preferences concerning the people she wants to welcome into her country. She also has the right to say that she is concerned if the traditional nation and its culture is to be swamped by any group, which does not readily assimilate. But The Age is forced to agree that the Pauline Hansons and Graeme Campbells must be taken seriously. It suggests education and debate.
The Age and those who endorse
its attack on Pauline Hanson should be challenged to point
to those parts of the world where multiculturalism has been
an outstanding success: Yugoslavia? Sri Lanka, where the Tamils
continue to insist upon being separate, with continuing terrorist
activities? The growing problems of Papua New Guinea, with
the continuing disaster concerning Bougainville, reflect the
realities which men like Sir Raphael Cilento drew attention
to in their warnings about tribal and cultural differences.
They warned about premature so-called nationhood when there
was no basis for such nationhood.
The suggestion that Australia can succeed with a multicultural policy, which has failed everywhere else is a sign of intellectual arrogance, not tolerance. And Pauline Hanson and those who support her should expose the blatant dishonesty of those who claim that Australia's immigration programme has been successful. It has only been successful because it was based on a programme of assimilation. Yes, let the debate begin and expose the dangerous idealism, which has driven Australian immigration and multicultural programmes for far too long.
THE 'UNISEX' ARMY IN A MOSLEM CULTURE
by David Thompson
The former Jugoslavia has been under the dictator's heel for over half a century, and few, if any, can remember pre-communist political structures. If the memory of pre-communist Yugoslavia exists at all, it would not be of a Western-style "democracy" in any case. Yugoslavia, despite dictator Tito's partially successful industrialisation programme, is today a wreck of competing ethnic and political factions struggling for dominance in an artificial "peace" imposed by the West.
The "peacekeeping" forces, mainly United States military forces, are all they have by which to judge Western democracy and how it "works". In the U.S. military barracks alcohol is officially banned, but acquired illicitly almost at will, including military patrols defying regulations and stocking up on alcohol before going off duty. Fraternisation with Bosnian women is forbidden, but again the rules are routinely circumvented with an ingenuity that is lacking in any military ventures. Although army stores do not sell condoms to troops, they are freely issued by the aid stations to anyone going on leave.
The forces' daily newspaper, Stars
and Stripes, is creating increasing disquiet among the
spouses of serving soldiers, since it began to publish letters
of the discontented troops. And the army itself; of course,
is now a "uni-sex" army, because it is no longer possible
to discriminate against women entering the U.S. forces. As
a result of boredom, low morale and the proximity of both
sexes in the same military units, the army medical corps have
so far sent home 70 United States women soldiers because of
BILL HAYDEN ON PAULINE HANSON
The grinding of teeth and wringing of hands that has greeted the maiden speech of Pauline Hanson, Independent Member for Oxley, is largely based upon the media's interpretation of what she said. The League, having obtained a complete transcript of the address to Parliament has no hesitation in welcoming this speech as a constructive contribution to the moribund political debate.
We publish the full text of Pauline Hanson's maiden speech in the September edition of Intelligence Survey ($20.00 per year subscription). However, many of the media hacks overlook the assessment of the former Governor General, Mr. Bill Hayden, of Pauline Hanson, who now holds his old seat - Oxley. Hayden has clearly spent some time in discussion with Hanson, as he revealed in his article on her in the last edition of the Independent magazine, before it ceased publication. Hayden hailed Hanson as "the little battler who slew the ugly Labor dragon" and commented "God bless her soul, she stands (as I do) by the monarchy. Hayden also noted: "Hanson is mentally tough. She is reading up on her topics well, albeit selectively, as much commentary from her showed when I spoke to her..."
Bill Hayden's comments on Hanson perhaps tell us as much about the former Governor General as they do about Hanson, particularly the remark about the monarchy. Coming as it does from a man who professed distinct republican tendencies while in the Parliament, this may be a further indication that Hayden has felt the weight of the office of Governor General, and the key role the crown plays in the stability of the nation. If not exactly a fully committed monarchist, Hayden is certainly no rabid republican.
It is clear that Hanson is, as Hayden notes, mentally tough. But she will need all the mental toughness, as well as much electoral support from around the nation as she can find, to keep some kind of sanity under the barrage of abuse directed at her by the politically correct press.
A.B.C. 'NOT BIASED' : CHAIRMAN McDONALD
The Free Speech in Australia conference in Sydney last week must have been an in-house talk fest for the chattering classes, because not even a titter of mirth, let alone cries of derision were raised when the new Chairman of the A.B.C., Mr. Donald McDonald, rejected any claims of bias by the national broadcaster. He used his speech to the conference as "an opportunity to rebut suggestions of deliberate political bias on the A.B.C's. part's.
Let the A.B.C. Chairman's comments go
on the record for future reference
Former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Anthony Mason, who presided over the High Court ruling that freedom of speech was "implied" in the Constitution, claimed that the A.B.C. played an important role in free speech and democracy. "I have no hesitation in saying that the A.B.C. has been instrumental in furthering the cause of deliberative democracy in Australia. Its current affairs programmes have played, and continue to play, a vital part in bringing to light and agitating unimportant public and policy issues, and in ensuring informed discussion of them."
Perhaps Sir Anthony's perspective is influenced by the well-remembered opportunity he was offered to further his small "1" liberal views in March 1995, on the A.B.C's. "Four Corners", in which he claimed that in areas of concern where Parliament "fails to act", the Court itself is obliged to act to protect "rights", as it did in the case of Eddie Mabo which led subsequently to the Native Title Act.
Groups like the League, of course, have a much different perspective of the A.B.C. Our experience has always been that the "Red Network" can be completely depended upon to distort, twist and misrepresent views that are regarded by its journalists and producers as "not politically correct". The keepers of political correctness can always be found in the A.B.C. If the Chief Justice of the High Court looks to the A.B.C. for "informed discussion", then this country is in more serious trouble than we thought.
THE PAULINE HANSON MIRACLE
Pauline Hanson, the woman who caused a major political upset by winning the Queensland electorate of Oxley as an Independent, having been disowned by the Liberal Party which was determined to demonstrate that it would not tolerate "racism", has sent further shock waves through Australian politics with her maiden speech at Canberra.
Nationwide reactions to this speech have confirmed that her massive electoral victory on March 2nd was the result of the fish and chip proprietor from Ipswich being much more in tune with the overwhelming majority of the Australian people than the timid party political manipulators.
It is already clear that Pauline Hanson is one of those unrehearsed events of history, which sometimes dramatically change the course of political events from what they otherwise would have been. Australian electors must now seize a rare moment in history to challenge the disastrous multicultural and associated policies which to date have been supported by all the major political parties. We understand that Pauline Hanson's address was all her own work. As fellow Independent Graeme Campbell commented, some of Pauline Hanson s comments could be described as slightly naive, but they came from the heart.
Graeme Campbell said that Australia needed more political representatives who spoke from the heart. There were several factual errors concerning Asian population figures, but of no real importance. However, these were seized upon by some of the self-opinionated media columnists, who find it hard to accept the fact that the great majority of Australians find themselves in sympathy with Pauline Hanson, who called for an end to multiculturalism. She called for a review of Australia's immigration policy and said she feared that the country was "in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettoes and do not assimilate".
Pauline Hanson also attacked the Family Law Act, stating that this was one of the legacies of "the disgraceful Senator Lionel Murphy". Pauline Hanson also wants Australia's membership of the United Nations reviewed, stating that the Government "should cease all foreign aid immediately and apply the savings to generating employment here at home She also wants the re-introduction of national service training for all Australians, male and female, over 18 years of age.
Veteran political observers agree that this is the most remarkable address heard in the Australian Parliament for over 50 years. All that the party politicians could say was that Pauline Hanson's views are "unacceptable", but are they acceptable to the majority of the Australian people? All the evidence indicates that they are.
Writing in the Herald-Sun of Saturday, September 14th, columnist Michael Harvey reports, "A poll of listeners to Sydney radio-commentator Alan Jones produced nearly 38,000 responses - and a staggering 98.4 percent approval for Ms. Hansons hard-line views". Similar support was displayed on other phone-in radio programmes. Letters to editors have also confirmed that Pauline Hanson is a type of national miracle. She has said what large numbers feel but have been afraid to express their views for fear of being smeared as "racists", or worse.
Michael Harvey writes that "Several Liberal M.P's. privately conceded that they shared some of Ms. Hanson's views but were terrified of defying party strictures and political correctness by speaking out". Harvey could also have reported that a number of National Party M.P's. also agree with Pauline Hanson.
ACTION ON HOMOSEXUAL "REFUGEE" STATUS
A dramatic shift in Australian refugee policy is the likely result of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision to overturn a previous decision rejecting a Polish man refugee status because he would suffer persecution in Roman Catholic Poland if sent back. According to press reports, the Tribunal has granted 11 people refugee status because of homosexuality in the last three years, and has rejected 13 appeals from homosexuals.
The power of the militant homosexual lobby is demonstrated here, when a comparison is made with the decision to reject Chinese women as "refugees" when they argued that they would be subjected to forced abortions or sterilisation if returned to China.
We suggest that readers contact the Minister for Immigration, Mr. Ruddock, and request that homosexuality not be accepted as the basis for legitimate refugee status. The Minister is Philip Ruddock, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T., 2600.
FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSH - MISSION 2000
A reader has sent us details of a highly constructive proposal to regenerate rural and outback Australia, known as "Foundation for the Bush "-Mission 2000. The Foundation describes itself as a national apolitical organisation developing a comprehensive Rural Policy and Strategy to revitalise rural Australia.
"The members of the Foundation strongly believe that the crisis which now confronts inland Australia has been brought about by lack of Government vision and leadership and needs to be addressed by a powerful grassroots movement....The consequences to all Australians of the loss of our rural communities and our 'heartland' as we know it, will be felt by current and future generations forever. Our unique identity, our heritage, our culture is directly related to 'the Bush' and it is decision time now....
The Foundation identifies certain key
issues, such as:
The Foundation specifies the following
aims and objectives:
· To maintain the heartland of Australia
for current and future generations.
A steering committee has been formed to facilitate the incorporation of the Foundation, and this consists of Anne and Bill Ballinger, Betsy Fysh, Heather Brown, Ernie Bridge, Chris Evans, Sue Gordon, Chrissie Higgins and Sr. Miriam McShane. There is little "hard policy" in the Foundation documents, and certainly no suggestions concerning financial policy, which, of course, is the key to the survival of the bush.
Other matters that will need to be addressed are "regionalism", local government, and the culture of "economic rationalism", under which social policies are disregarded in favour of the interests of that most irrational animal - The Market. The National Competition Policy (brainchild of the Hilmer Reforms) also militates against the interests of rural Australia in many respects.
In our view, this is a constructive attempt to address a desperate problem. We suggest that country readers (in particular, but not exclusively) who wish to make some contribution to the Foundation's programme make contact. The Foundation documents indicate that they welcome new members, and welcome suggestions. Membership is available for $10.00, and all enquiries should go to Sue Gordon, "Rockmount", M/S 172, Allora, Queensland, 4362.
SILVER LININGS TO COALITION CLOUDS
In the severe round of public service cuts being made to attempt to defy the budget deficit in two years, a number of budget cutbacks are producing long-awaited results. Some sacred cows are being given a well-deserved kick. One that richly deserves to be slaughtered completely is the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research, which was abolished last month.
Purporting to be a "research" bureau, this bureaucratic haven for the ethnic industry spent a significant amount of time (and masses of our money) promoting and justifying "multiculturalism", women immigrants, Asian immigrants, minority groups and the virtues of higher immigration. Their glossy monthly Bulletin was full of endless rounds of conferences championing politically correct causes, and re-enforcing the evils of "discrimination", academic "studies" and quasi-government programmes promoting minority issues and views.
As an indication of where the tax dollar goes, consider the following handful of the dozens of published academic studies now available for sale: "Gender Equity and Australian Immigration Policy", "Japanese Temporary Residents in the Cairns Tourism Industry", "Kurdish Immigration and Settlement in Australia", "The Melbourne Jewish Community: A Needs Assessment Study" Send your order to the Government Printer.
The demise of this Bureau will be a relief.
FROM THE PRESS
The following most interesting letter, published in The Weekend Australian (7/9/96) was written by the respected science reporter, Julian Cribb, who was previously very respected as an informed rural reporter
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|