|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
25 October 1996. Thought for the Week: "Prejudice is often but the wisdom of the unlettered man."
HYPOCRISY AND MADNESS CONCERNING RACE
by Eric D. Butler
Followed by Paul Keating, Bob Hawke was prominent in the campaign to persuade Australians that their "destiny" was in Asia. All the major political parties have followed baaing like a flock of sheep. It is hard to find suitable language to adequately describe the hypocrisy and sheer madness of party politicians attempting to further a programme of national suicide.
While the party politicians of Australia
are competing one with another to assure the Asians that Australians
will not tolerate any type of immigration policy, which discriminates
in terms of race, this is exactly what every Asian nation
does. The Asians are pleased to draw upon Western technology,
but they have made it clear that they intend to preserve their
own homogeneous societies and their culture. They have every
right to do so.
At the end of the Second World War, as
part of their general policy of decolonisation, the British
granted independence to the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore
was part of that Federation, but led by Lee Quang Yew, the
predominantly Chinese population of Singapore campaigned to
separate themselves from a political structure in which they
feared that the Chinese would be dominated by the Malays.
The Chinese leader of Singapore rejected the concept of a
multicultural nation. Those Malays living in Singapore were
encouraged to migrate to Malaya, while the Chinese living
in Malaya were encouraged to move to Singapore.
If Australia is to survive as a harmonious nation rooted in its Western European heritage, the Australian people must unite to insist that they have the same natural right as the Thais, the Singaporeans, the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese, to preserve their own homogeneous society and traditional value system. A nation which does not have the right to openly discuss and decide who can join the nation, and under what conditions, is doomed.
Before the science of anthropology was penetrated by the Marxist and collectivist virus, eminent anthropologists like the famous Scot Sir Arthur Keith, stressed that discrimination was a natural factor in the development of civilisation. Every form of life, no matter how primitive, discriminates in favour of itself. If it doesn't, it dies. Sir Arthur Keith, in one of his famous lectures, stressed that prejudice was a major factor in the development of civilisation.
Those joining in the chorus of abuse of Pauline Hanson, who is changed with being a bigot and prejudiced, are merely demonstrating their own colossal ignorance of natural laws. The same politicians who parrot the theme that all individuals and races are "equal", will be amongst those attending the current Spring horse racing season in Melbourne: No sane punter believes that all horses are equal, and that a draught horse is likely to produce a Melbourne cup winner. Those engaged in the horse racing business are keen students of the hereditary factor.
Prejudice is certainly playing a major part in the fashioning of the immigration policy of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. Peters is a classic example of how large numbers of the Maori people who mixed with the European and absorbed European culture. But New Zealanders of part European and part Maori backgrounds are united in their fear that they will be swamped by large-scale Indian immigration. It is very difficult to try to smear Peters by calling him a "racist". What he and those who think like him are demonstrating that they are determined to preserve what they have evolved and find it suits them.
History is full of examples of the truths enunciated by Sir Arthur Keith and others. Greece at the height of its great civilisation was a relatively small community of homogeneous people with the same basic culture. Elizabethan England was a relatively small nation of several million. And what a galaxy of "stars" it produced, perhaps the brightest being William Shakespeare, described by Ben Johnson as being "not of an age but for all time". There was Bacon, described as the father of modern science, with its stress on the inductive method. It was the English who were the flower of constitutionalism, which reflected the Christian value system.
Different explanations have been for the unique contribution of the English to Western civilisation, but whatever the truth, Elizabethan England was certainly not the product of multiculturalism. It was monoculture. The decision to expel the Jews was still to be reversed, awaiting the arrival of Cromwell.
It is not without significance that Jewish leaders, prominent in the campaign to foster multiculturalism, are strong advocates of mono-culturalism as essential for maintaining cohesion and a sense of nationality among the Jewish people. Their main current concern is what they see as the threat of assimilation. Australians who wish to maintain their own identity and their traditional culture might well consider following the Jewish lead and that of Asian leaders like Lee Quang Yew.
GAGGING PAULINE HANSON
by David Thompson
A classic example of such press irresponsibility is the way Pauline Hanson's interview with The Sun Herald on October 13th was reported. In the interview with Fla Cumming, Pauline Hanson had actually called for policies to promote unity in Australia, rather than increasing division. Cumming later confirmed that the headlines published by the Sunday tabloid, "An Aussie Bloodbath" and in a later edition "Aussie Civil War" in a manner that implied that they were quoting Hanson's views, were never uttered by Hanson.
Later in the week Pauline Hanson made a personal explanation to the Parliament to place her position, in which she said, "Mr. Speaker, those dramatic, sensational and totally invented headlines were based on an interview I did with a journalist Fla Cumming. These headlines were 'blatant misrepresentations, and I will be taking this matter further with the journalist involved and her employers." It appears, however, that journalist Fla Cumming was not responsible for the offending headlines, but a biased (or bored) sub-editor who had no idea what Hanson actually said, and probably didn't care. Anything to sell some papers.
WHAT PAULINE HANSON DISCOVERED
Pauline Hanson did not make her maiden speech in Parliament until September 10th, six months after being elected. On June 14th she issued a press statement releasing her research into the benefits available to Aborigines compared with those for others who may be disadvantaged. The differences are staggering, and there is little wonder that the Independent Member for Oxley drew the conclusions that she did.
She has been thoroughly abused for saying that she thought Aborigines enjoyed many privileges not available to others, but the press has never published Ms. Hanson's research. The Australian electorate has been systematically denied the evidence upon which Hanson's views are based. Why is this? The only possible answer is that every effort is being made to isolate Hanson as a person driven by prejudice, bigotry and hatred. The message is that we should be ashamed of such views if we agree with her, and that she is not worthy of support. But the basis for her views is never published.
What does that research say? Accompanying Pauline Hanson's June 14th media release was a 24-page booklet, which laid out the statistics on what is available to Aborigines. Alongside this information, was statistical information on what was available to non-Aborigines in the same circumstances. The sources of the information are meticulously quoted, and for the most part are official reports, Government Departments, and official publications. In only three cases was a press report quoted.
In her introductory press release, Hanson asked a number of questions: "Why should Aboriginal students get more than non-Aboriginal students? Why should Aboriginals in goal be allowed to continue receiving Abstudy when non-Aboriginals are automatically disqualified from Austudy? Why should non-Aboriginals be means tested for legal aid when Aboriginals cannot? Why can't ordinary Australians get 3% and 5% housing loans?" There may be logical answers for such questions. If so, let us hear them, and debate them!
The research published by Hanson covers only Federally funded benefits. Those available from the States are a matter for further research. The question asked by Hanson, which no one is prepared to attempt to answer, is do we allocate benefits on the basis of skin colour or not? If the answer to this is "Yes", then what is the purpose of Lionel Murphy's Racial Discrimination Act 1975? Is it acceptable to discriminate in favour of one group and not others? On that basis is such a judgment made?
These are the questions, which should be debated, but are being carefully covered up by a refusal to publish Hanson's research, and address the issue.
THE LEGACY OF LIONEL MURPHY
The late Lionel Murphy, Labor Senator and High Court judge, died 10 years ago last week. The experts say it is still "too early" to judge the influence Murphy had, for better or for worse, or Australian politics and law. We dispute this assessment. It is quite early enough to make such a judgment, and the judgment must be that Murphy was an unmitigated disaster for the free society.
As time passes, Murphy's activities are gradually forgotten, oven though the effects of Murphy's legislation (and High Court decisions) continue to linger. While Murphy's actions hide from memory, however, the results of those actions loom ever larger as a poison gradually killing the free society. The left-wing historian Manning-Clark, who knew Murphy well, provided perhaps the most accurate and striking eulogy of Lionel Murphy.
It is in the light of Clark's revealing eulogy that Murphy's career not be judged. Clark said of Murphy that he had "believed passionately that the morality of Judeo-Christianity had ceased to be relevant.... Mr. Lionel Murphy as a man who in that context strove to end the domination by God over human beings.... Murphy's policies were a classical out-working of his anti-Christian philosophy. As Whitlam's Attorney General, it was Murphy who introduced the Family Law Act (1975), which established the principle of the no-fault divorce. The effects of such a philosophy have devastated the Christian institution of marriage.
It is now widely recognised that marriages
fail largely because it is not necessary to make permanent
commitments, the law does not reward responsible marriage
partners, and repeatedly rewards irresponsible marriage partners.
In many cases, women who move to dissolve marriages do so
in the knowledge that the Family Court is very likely to award
them not only custody of children and a regular child support
payment, but also half the couple's property quite irrespective
of the circumstances. One immediate statistical result of
the Murphy Family Law Act was a record divorce level in 1976-
Murphy was also, directly responsible for the Racial Discrimination Act (1975), which laid the basis for much of the "rights" based legislation that was to follow. It is likely that Murphy was also instrumental in the later Mabo case, since he was questioning the doctrine of "terra nullius" many years previously.
Perhaps one of the most damaging cases in which Murphy was involved on the High Court was the Tasmanian Dams case of 1984. It was this case that established the principle that the "external affairs" power of the constitution meant that, provided the Commonwealth could produce a treaty with a "foreign power", it had the power to impose the terms of that treaty on the States, irrespective of whether this breached other Constitutional powers belonging to the States. The result was massive centralisation of power, which continues to this day.
Murphy was a disaster for the free society, but given his objectives of undermining Christianity and pursuing Fabian policy, he was an outstanding success. The fact that he was successful is a serious judgment on Coalition politicians who claimed to stand for something quite different.
GET THE FACTS FROM HANSON
Independent Member for Oxley Pauline
Hanson, has been criticised as racist, prejudiced, almost
demonic, for her remarks concerning Aborigines. But what are
the facts about welfare and other advantages that disadvantaged
Aborigines enjoy over other disadvantaged Australians? In
a press statement, Hanson wrote, "Since my election, my office
has been researching the issue, and I can now publish the
results of that research..."
For a copy of the Hanson research, write to Pauline Hanson (care of Parliament House, Canberra) or telephone her ( 277 2044) for a copy of her research. It comes in the form of a 24-page booklet, with the statistics of what is available in welfare and other benefits for Aborigines compared with others. It is most illuminating, as the On Target article in this edition illustrates.
CENSORING DAVID IRVING
Not only is Irving excluded personally from Australia to put his views, but any attempt to correct the media mythology concerning David Irving or his views (see Intelligence Survey for October) has been stoutly resisted by the press. No one is prepared to admit that perhaps they have been retelling lies about Irving. Why? Because they must then reveal where the lies have come from.
What "usually reliable sources" have been used to slander David Irving? The following letter, by Nigel Jackson, is published as an example of the type of letter that is being routinely ignored by the press. Jackson, of course, is the author of the authoritative The Case for David Irving ($23.00 posted), which has also been methodically ignored by the press, because it contains the facts concerning Irving, and is embarrassingly difficult to refute. The following letter by Jackson was addressed to The Sunday Age on October 13th, and as we go to press, remains unpublished.
"Concerning David Irving, your editorial
comment (13/10) that his latest visa application has led to
'a no-win situation for the Government whatever it decides'
is incorrect. "A decision to allow Irving in will show that
the Coalition Government really does intend to restore our
British heritage of intellectual freedom. The next election
can be won on that issue alone.
THE N.S.W. BY-ELECTION
The electors of the Blue Mountains seat of Lindsay returned the Liberal Party member by a comfortable margin last weekend. Such was the margin, in fact, that preferences were not required to decide the result. What has been generally ignored in the press is the fact that the Australians Against Further Immigration candidate polled very creditably, with over 4,000 primary votes. Because preferences were not counted, it is not certain how heavily preferences ran to the A.A.F.I. The Labor Party strategists now acknowledge that it was a mistake to force this by-election.
Having been heavily defeated, they now face the predictable nonsense from the Coalition, claiming that the result vindicates the Costello budget, the sale of Telstra, etc., etc. The truth is that the anti-Keating psychology has been so deeply ingrained that even yet few can bring themselves to consider voting for the party that gave him sufficient sustenance to survive and persecute us for as long as he did. To this day, however, the Coalition makes the mistake of believing that large numbers of Australians actually chose the Coalition on March 3rd.
Mr. Howard told the Liberal Federal Council Meeting in Hobart that the Party should not feel complacent about the "battlers" having elected them in, in March. Federal Director Andrew Robb suggested, "by staying true to the priorities the Coalition brought to this election, we can hold their trust...." The Liberals in particular are guilty of believing their own propaganda.
A REPUBLIC TO MAKE US 'RELEVANT'
Richard Woolcott, former career diplomat who served in a number of Asian countries, was the guest speaker at this year's annual dinner of the Republican Movement. In an amazing address, Woolcott had the effrontery to "confess that I have always felt some embarrassment when toasting the Queen on official Australian occasions". Woolcott could have had the decency (and the honesty) to have removed himself from such uncomfortable circumstances by resigning long ago. He makes the outlandish statement that becoming a republic would make Australia "relevant".
In the ultimate of an Australian cultural cringe, Woolcott spent most of his address attempting to second-guess what other countries think of us for sharing a Head of State with Great Britain. Lamenting the fact that the republican fervour has waned (certainly since the departure of Keating) Woolcott also advances the view that it would be easier for a Coalition Government to introduce the republic than it would have been for the A.L.P. This is a serious issue that conservatives need to properly address.
As Woolcott noted, it was possible for the Republicans Nixon and Kissinger ("conservative anti-communists") to achieve what the Democrats could not have done - recognise Communist China. He might also have noted that Howard and the Coalition have achieved (so far) what no A.L.P. Government in Australia could hope to achieve on gun controls. It is entirely possible that further betrayals on fundamental issues like the republic might readily be contemplated by the Coalition.
Woolcott is also factually incorrect in some of his assertions. For example, he makes the ridiculous suggestion that the Australian Head of State is automatically the same person as the British Head of State, and that, therefore, if Britain were to become a republic, the British "president" would automatically become the Australian Head of State. The fact is that the Queen is Queen of Australia, irrespective of what happens in Britain. Only the Queen's death or abdication can alter this, unless Australians themselves decide to alter their Constitution.
THE COALITION 'CODE OF CONDUCT' FIASCO
Perhaps it is the product of the legalistic, puritanical mind, or simply a new form of soap opera, but the suggestion that Federal Ministers were committing some kind of crime by owning shares in Australian companies becomes increasingly bizarre. While Kim Beazley and Simon Crean continue to pursue Ministers for this "crime", they might care to recall that only a few months ago, the A.L.P. Government under Keating was urging Australians to buy shares in the float of the Commonwealth Bank, and a few months before this was Qantas.
Even if it is possible that, say, Tim Fischer might benefit personally by promoting the interests of companies like BHP in Asia, does not Australia benefit universally, under conventional economic rules? After all, if Fischer sells his shares at a profit, the treasury benefits by collecting a healthy capital gains tax. At the highest marginal rate this is nearly 50%, and there are few loopholes through which to escape a capital gains tax.
It is clear that in most cases ministers with shareholdings operated within the code of conduct. The A.L.P. argument is almost entirely based upon an exaggerated form of envy and sense of "class." That is, only the wealthy Coalition politicians could afford to own shares, not the working-class A.L.P. stalwarts with whom Beazley would once again like to be able to identify.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|