|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
8 August 1997. Thought for the Week: " nations need new blood and new ideas. But they can only absorb a limited amount at a time. They cannot allow themselves to be overwhelmed by immigration otherwise they will lose their identity and cease to be nations. Newcomers who are welcomed into a nation should want to honour and respect the customs of their new home. They must not step on shore or over the border and reject the national culture. If they do, the inevitable results are hostility, intolerance and conflict."
Sir James Goldsmith in The Trap
GERARD HENDERSON VERSUS B.A. SANTAMARIA
by Eric D. Butler
Similar policies are not recommended for Zionist Israel. When Helen Demidenko wrote her famous novel, The Hand That Signed The Paper, which indirectly drew attention to enormous Jewish influence in the Bolshevik movement, Gerard Henderson led a bitter campaign against the young writer. On an A.B.C. programme he went so far as to charge the girl with being a front for Eric Butler and the Australian League of Rights. Henderson has penned bitter attacks on Graeme Campbell and Pauline Hanson. Every critic of multiculturalism is labeled a "racist". The League of Rights and Eric Butler sometimes receive honourable mention.
Henderson writes and talks like a bitter man. In The Age of July 29th turns his attention to the well-known writer and political commentator B.A. Santamaria, who has been a controversial figure on the Australian political scene for many years. I have no special brief for Santamaria, but have over many years observed his comments with respect, even if not always agreeing with them.
He is beyond doubt the most outstanding conceptual writer in Australia today. Initially Gerard Henderson was associated with the National Civic Council, in which Santamaria has been the driving force. But, for some unexplained reason, Gerard Henderson has appeared to wage some type of personal vendetta against Santamaria. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Santamaria adopted attitudes on some issues, which were contrary to those of the Zionist Jews.
Initially Santamaria strongly supported Zionist Israel, reflecting the fashionable anti-Communist view that Zionist Israel was a barrier to Soviet expansion in the Middle East. Santamaria's journal, essential reading for all serious students in Australian politics, created the impression that it would not tolerate the slightest whiff of the dreaded "anti-semitic" smear.
Back at the time when the Federal politicians of all parties were being manipulated to call for some type of official investigation into the League, News Weekly made the most outrageous allegations concerning the League. I can only guess at the motives of this editorial, which reflected seriously on the integrity of whoever wrote the editorial. I attempted, in private letters not for publication, to challenge the editor to produce some factual evidence in support of the outrageous allegations concerning the activities of the League. There was no response.
It was when Santamaria, with great courage, opposed the holding of War Crime Trials that there was a marked cooling of any previous friendship from the Zionist Jewish lobby. But now that Santamaria has, in recent times, openly challenged internationalism clearly Gerard Henderson sees him as a positive menace. Santamaria is charged with adopting an "insular" attitude concerning Australia's future. Henderson laments the fact that while the Democratic Labor Party had been the first to condemn the "White Australia" policy, now News Weekly was giving some comfort to the views of Pauline Hanson. This, writes Henderson, "can only be interpreted as giving succour to the new intolerance".
As yet Gerard Henderson has yet to write about the intolerance of those who abuse Pauline Hanson and threaten her and her supporters with violence. There has been no mention of the role of Zionist Jewish activists in the anti-Hanson demonstrations. But perhaps the most revealing comment by Henderson in his criticism of the current nationalism of the N.C.C. is that when they call for Australia to regain its sovereignty and criticise foreign investment, they are echoing the very same views, which their Communist opponents put forward. If Henderson means what he says, he reveals an appalling ignorance both about Communism and how it was sustained by power international financial interests.
The truth is that some of Santamaria's recent articles touch raw nerves concerning the realities behind the state of the world. Santamaria must be given full marks for doing this. He also appears to have overcome what originally appeared to be a blind spot concerning banking and credit money creation. He has quoted material about credit and banking which has appeared in League journals for years. No doubt this all appears as a most dangerous development to Gerard Henderson and his financial supporters.
Students of monetary history are well aware that British economist John Maynard Keynes, who knew how the banking system created money, was promoted in the thirties to offset the teaching of C.H. Douglas, author of Social Credit. Keynes correctly admitted that Douglas was right concerning a deficiency of purchasing power. But his solution was deficit budgets and "pump priming" by government promoted capital work. Keynes conceded that this programme, while providing short-term relief in a depressed economy, must also generate inflation. Keynes said that this would have to be "controlled".
Probably influenced by the late Dr. Colin Clarke, who was an ardent supporter of Keynes, Santamaria is emerging as a modern day Keynesian. But much more than this is required to save Australia. Any relief for a desperate population is to be commended. But ultimately Santamaria will be faced with the inflation issue. Perhaps at this stage he will grasp that new credits for consumption is just as essential as new credits for production. If he ever moves that far, it can be predicted that Gerard Henderson will be waiting and ready to pour vitriol over Santamaria. Heaven knows what he would say. Perhaps even suggest he was showing signs of "anti-Semitism", or was becoming a front for the League of Rights!
It will be instructive to watch Gerard Henderson if Australia starts to renounce internationalism in favour of genuine nationalism. Probably this will be described as a manifestation of Fascism.
MULTICULTURALISM AND THE CASINO
by David Thompson
In Sydney, the Asian influence has become an increasing problem, and contributing to a significant increase in crime. The Darling Harbour casino has become the centre for a number of Korean gangs and loan sharks, which have been associated with several murders. In investigating the murders, the extent of Korean criminal influence has staggered even police.
The Sydney Morning Herald (28/7/97) reported: "What has been revealed in the committal hearing, and made public for the first time, is disturbing evidence about the operation of Korean gangs in Sydney, including their recruitment of gangsters from Korea to stand over Sydney tourist operators, oversee loan sharking and the Sydney Harbour Casino and organise frauds and bashings... "Into this scene arrived a mix of freelancers, young Korean gangsters flown into Australia by businessmen to complete specific tasks and who then continued to work for whoever would pay most for their services. The results have been vicious..."
One of the murder suspects, Sang Hyun
Bae, revealed that the main gangs started to operate in Sydney
when the casino opened..." A senior police officer is reported
to have told the Herald that "the Korean gangs basically
exist because of the casino
One question that does not appear to have been asked is how Asian "gangsters" manage to acquire entry to Australia. Are Australian visa regulations so slack that virtually anyone from any part of the world can enter, provided they have the promise of "a job"? The proponents of multiculturalism can offer few tangible advantages of the multicultural policy, except the introduction of new foods and restaurants. Even this is a mixed blessing, with numerous reports of food poisoning in a number of fast food outlets operated by Asians in Melbourne. And in Sydney, some of the Asian restaurants are central to the gang activities, including extortion, prostitution and drugs. It was in an Asian restaurant that the case of vicious gang killings in Sydney took place.
As the opponents of multiculturalism have repeatedly pointed out, this is not merely a case of "hatred towards Asians" or entrenched "racism", but the end result of a disastrous policy. The policy of forcing radically different cultures to exist side by side under considerable economic and financial pressure produces the most volatile conditions for serious crime and corruption.
Has anyone in authority yet begun to focus attention on what is likely to happen in Australia, as the bureaucracies are further dominated by Asian immigrants? It is apparent that the bureaucracies are a prime target for Asian migrants, which follows similar patterns overseas, in Britain for example. Wherever this has happened, strong resentments are quickly generated. But any attempt to warn about the explosive consequences in the long term are met by sneers of "racism" or "white supremacy".
THE FUTURE OF HANSON AND OXLEY
The question of the "money culture" dominating national affairs to the detriment of any stable social environment is a serious issue that has not yet been faced. It takes place not only in the dominance of "The Market" in economic affairs, but in the insistence of leading businessmen that all other policies should be bent to the service of "trade". The former C.R.A. chief executive, Sir Roderick Carnegie, is scathing in his assessment of the influence of the Independent Member for Oxley on Australian trade. Sir Rod has urged both major political parties to unite to "crush": the influence of Pauline Hanson, before any more "damage" is done to Australian trade.
Now that there has been time to study the proposed electoral boundary changes in Queensland, it seems evident that the political establishment has taken more subtle steps to rid itself of Ms Hanson. Although the Electoral Commission is expected to be quite impartial, the results of boundary changes often tend to favour the group who happen to command a majority in the Parliament. The result of the electoral redistribution in the old seat of Oxley has been to provide both the Liberals and the A.L.P. with a safe seat in the area. The new seat of Blair, reaching out to Kingaroy, is obviously a safe seat for the Coalition, while Oxley itself has been made safe for the A.L.P. by including areas such as Inala, with a heavy Aboriginal population.
While not accusing the Electoral Commission of corruption, it should be noted that there are a number of Asian migrants now working in this bureaucracy, and the Commission, after all, knows that it is the major parties who butter its bread. Ms. Hanson and her advisers have refused to indulge in much public speculation about whether she would attempt to enter the Senate, but in our view, the sooner she announces her position, and begins to work towards it, the better. She does not have the luxury of vacillating while others second-guess her chances.
It should be noted that Malcolm Mackerras, writing on the redistribution, said, "one can tell that Labor and Liberal analysts are delighted. The mapmakers had one (new) seat to give, the increase from 26 to 27 (in Queensland). They managed to give one seat to both sides of federal politics. Oxley to Labor and Blair to the Coalition..."
Mackerras points out that if Ms. Hanson moves to contest the Senate, she would easily win a seat in a double dissolution, in which all seats are contested. But in a more normal half Senate election, he gives heavy odds against her success. "So where is Hanson headed? Back to the fish and chip shop, I would say," wrote Mackerras (Australian, 29/7/97).
One consolation for Hanson supporters is that the somewhat arrogant Mackerras is often wrong.
U.N. SPOTLIGHT TURNS ONTO AUSTRALIA
Last week the international holy of holies, the United Nations, began to turn attention to the question of Aboriginal affairs in Australia. In the same week, a group claiming to represent Aborigines had called on the U.N. to condemn Australia for effectively halting the "land rights" bandwagon, and moving to extinguish native title over Australia. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights special rapporteur on indigenous people and human rights, Erica Irene Daes, reported to the U.N's. Working Group on Indigenous Populations that colonial biases in Australia damaged Aborigines. This is probably the same U.N. Committee that condemned Tasmania for continuing to maintain legislation regarding homosexuality as a crime. As a result of the U.N. condemnation, the Keating Government legislated to over-ride the Tasmanian law, which a court has now upheld.
In a report from Geneva, The Australian (31/7/97) made the following most significant comments: "Aboriginal leaders called it the first effort by the international community to call Australia to task over its policy. 'It's the beginning of the international community telling the Australian Government to answer the questions of whether it is meeting human rights,' said Tasmanian Aboriginal lawyer, Michael Mansell. "Mr. Mansell likened the U.N's move to the scrutiny that Australia and other countries had placed on apartheid-era South Africa, saying 'the boomerang has come back'. "Mr. Mansell called for U.N. rapporteur to make a special investigation of Australia."
The significance of the above report should not be underestimated. Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Senator Herron, attempted to appease the U.N. committee by referring to attempts to improve Aboriginal health and living conditions, as well as condemning Pauline Hanson's "racist, bigoted, divisive remarks", making the extraordinary claim that "93% of the population have rejected her views". Senator Herron and his colleagues should note that no amount of appeasement by politicians in South Africa or Rhodesia was sufficient to shake the internationalists off their backs.
THE PAULINE HANSON AFFAIR
Pauline Hanson and her advisers must soon make a firm decision concerning their future strategy. The re-alignment of electoral boundaries exposes Pauline Hanson to a type of pincer movement between the National Party and the Labor Party, which is attempting to bring former Queensland Labor Premier Goss on to the Federal stage via the Oxley Electorate. Lady Flo Bjelke Petersen has suggested that Pauline Hanson should consider moving to the Senate, thus avoiding a conflict with son John Bjelke Petersen who is expected to stand for the National Party in the new electorate of Blair.
As objective non-party observers, the League offers a cautionary note to Pauline Hanson enthusiasts, many of who are talking about the One Nation Party taking office after the next Federal Elections. Much of the Pauline Hanson phenomenon is the result of large numbers of middle class Australians, most of them previous Liberal or National Party supporters who turned against both Coalition Parties. Large numbers of these Australians will tend to become demoralised if their vision of immediate results is not realised.
Pauline Hanson supporters attending Eric Butler's meetings are being warned that they are faced with a long hard battle to shift Australia off its present disaster course. But this can be done if realistic political action is taken. Sharing the balance of power with similar people in the Senate appears to be an option, which Pauline Hanson should seriously consider.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHALLENGED
The following letter by Mr. Reg Watson of the Anglo-Saxon-Keltic Society is self-explanatory: Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, A.M.P. Society Building, 27 Elizabeth Street, HOBART, TASMANIA, 7000.
"To whom it may concern, "Your Canberra office has forwarded to us, at our request, three copies of the comic, 'Takin' a Stand'. We requested the copies for our inspection when the matter arose on a morning commercial television show. "Our initial concern was that it appeared to be anti Anglo Australian and in effect reverse racial discrimination and blatant racism on the part of the Human Rights Commission. Anglo bashing is a thing of the past and our organisation is a watchdog for this type of racism against our people. "We are having a meeting soon to discuss the comic. I am requesting several to take the material home, inspect it and report back to me for thorough comparison and study. "By reviewing the comic myself I am concerned that our fears have been justified, but a full complaint or explanation will be soon forthcoming. We are aware that the comic has already received criticism from the S.A. Education Department and Asian students themselves from Woodville High (Advertiser, 23rd June, 1997). "If we find the comic offensive to our people we will ask the Human Rights Commission to withdraw the material immediately and offer an apology. Refusing to do this we will undertake a political campaign, perhaps resulting in using existing legislation against racial discrimination to win our case; but let's wait for our report, which as I said will soon be forthcoming. "Yours sincerely, (signed) REG. A. WATSON, PRESIDENT, July 22, 1997."
FROM THE PRESS
Divided loyalties - The Australian,
New World Order - The Australian,
The Australian, 3 1/7/97
The Australian, 1/8/92
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|