EXPLOITING THE TRAGEDY OF PRINCESS DIANA

by Eric D. Butler
There is an old Latin tag which in essence says that no one should speak ill of the dead, but it needs to be said that the unprecedented outpouring of emotions concerning the tragic death of the Princess of Wales, and the attempt to manipulate that emotion as part of an ongoing campaign to destroy the institution of Constitutional Monarchy and a British culture which is directly linked with that concept of Monarchy, requires a strong dose of realism at the present time. Such realism will not be found in the mass media, which during the week following the tragedy indicated the type of poison that is going to be used against the Royal Family in general, and against Prince Charles in particular.

The tragedy must bear heaviest upon Prince Charles, whom some vulgar commentators have suggested that he was responsible for driving his wife out of the Royal Family and, therefore, indirectly to her death. Such illogical rubbish is a reflection of the intellectual rot of our times. But, before attempting to apportion blame, the tragedy of the life and death of the Princess must be seen in perspective. The tragedy has all the makings of a classical Greek tragedy, and for that reason alone has gripped the imagination of millions around the world. The defenders of the Princess have constantly referred to her as a "modern" woman. Unfortunately she lived her life during a period when what is termed the modern world was progressively freeing itself from the roots of the past.

As a young girl she felt the pain of a broken home. There was a constant feeling of insecurity. At the relatively young age of 19 she was being married to the man who was trained to be a King. Overnight she was being propelled towards international stardom. Clearly there were going to be stresses and strains, with no one close enough to the Princess to provide the type of advice a young married girl required. She and Prince Charles shared few basic common interests.

Like many a young married bride, Princess Diana felt that with time she could change her husband. But by training and temperament Prince Charles is a traditionalist. Princess Diana was not, through no fault of her own.
All married couples are aware of the early adjustment problems in marriage. Princess Diana's eating problem merely accentuated the difficulties. Only those who have had to try to cope with anyone suffering from this type of illness can understand what it means. Prince Charles found himself in a situation with which he did not understand and could not cope with while still fulfilling his public duties.

The seeds of tragedy were growing out of control. The anti-Royalist media scented blood. With no one of real substance to whom she could turn, an unhappy young woman was vulnerable to the worst possible type of advice. An assortment of gurus were being consulted. Her five-year adulterous affair with the unspeakable Hewitt and other liaisons were evidence of a deeply unhappy woman.

A girl with a unique capacity to relate to people, Princess Diana's feverish energies found an outlet in her numerous charity works. She was a phenomenon. But it was her restlessness, which made her vulnerable. The very mass media, which helped to build her up as a type of movie star, has skillfully dripped in a deadly Republican poison.

In her famous BBC interview, in which she described the Royal Family as "the enemy" and expressed the view that Prince Charles was not fit to be King, Princess Diana unfortunately added more grist to the Republican mill, obviously without understanding the far reaching implications of what she was saying. Further grist to the Republican mill has been provided by Earl Spencer at Princess Diana's funeral service, with his attack on a Royal Family which had already broken with convention in order to demonstrate that, contrary to what the mass media was saying, they were also grieving for Princess Diana. While it is understandable how Princess Diana's brother felt about the death of his sister, his speech will be seen in retrospect as a manifestation of bad taste to tell Prince Charles to his face that in effect he was not capable of bringing up his own sons.

Whether the restless Princess Diana would have found genuine love with the billionaire playboy who died with her in a fatal car crash, for which he was much more responsible than the unfortunate Prince Charles, can only be speculated upon. Irrespective of whether the driver was drunk or not, it was an act of criminal folly to drive a car at such a high speed. Did no one in the car order the driver to slow down, or to stop? It was a tragic end to a tragic life, one that at one time appeared to offer so much.

It is certain that the Princess Diana tragedy, which is the stuff of which novels are written and films made, will result in the "reappraisal" of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy. But there are already signs that the mass media will be used to foster a Princess Diana cult as part of a sinister campaign to completely abolish the concept of the Monarchical form of government. Even the Queen herself is being indirectly attacked, as one of the "enemy" which drove Princess Diana to act as she did. But the major target is Prince Charles who, with all the imperfections to which all human beings err (except, of course, the self appointed intellectuals) has indicated that he has some understanding of the importance of traditions in sustaining a nation.

What is required at the present time is some real intellectual meat in defence of the system of Constitutional Monarchy. What is the basic role of the Monarchy? Can that role be fulfilled if the Monarchy is expected to perform like some type of a Soap Opera? Should Princess Diana be remembered only as a beautiful young woman, tragically cut down in the prime of life because of her controversies with other members of the Royal Family, or should it not be stressed that her greatest legacy was that of life itself, the life of her two sons who represent the continuity of a nation?

In his speeches and writings, Prince Charles makes it clear that he understands the vital role of tradition in history. He understands that unless a nation constantly returns to its roots, continuing stable life is impossible. The emerging campaign to bring Prince William to the Throne prematurely is not for the sake of the young man, but to try and ensure that he is cut off from that wisdom and understanding which his father can help to provide. At the end of the day, the basic question to be asked about what type of government do people want, is it one where there are no checks on the natural will-to-power of all governments? Or one where there is an "umpire" who is born and trained to ensure that there is fair play for all?

If this and similar questions are asked during any "re-appraisal" of Constitutional Monarchy, then the death of Princess Diana may result in increasing numbers of people opening their eyes to a reality they had not previously seen.

FISCHER IN CLEFT STICK ON TRADE PROTECTION

by David Thompson
It is clear that Deputy Prime Minister Fischer is now forced to acknowledge the electoral backlash against the elimination of all tariff and other protective measures as a matter of ideological faith. The photographs of mountains of oranges being dumped, and orange groves being bulldozed because we now import Brazilian orange concentrate instead of eating our own, has had a deep impact, even in the cities. It is clear that we are in the grip of a form of insanity to be destroying perfectly good food while others in our own cities (and the world) go hungry. And all because of "economic rationalism". What a mad, incomprehensible god to worship.

Once the reality of such insane policies begins to penetrate the national consciousness, there is an increasing and potent backlash. It is because of this backlash that National Party backbenchers will be able to cross the floor of the Parliament and vote with the Opposition on such issues as industrial protection, and get away with it. There may be anger among National Party leadership about Bob Katter crossing the floor on the question of sugar tariffs last week, breaking party "solidarity". But Katter will survive it, because he is reflecting the anger in his electorate that politicians, insulated from the realities of farming, should sacrifice cane growers for an insane form of ideological purity.

But Mr. Fischer's squirming about the fact that the new "level playing field" rules will force Australia to accept cooked chicken from Asian producers will evoke little sympathy for him. After all, Tim Fischer helped to make those rules whilst lobbying in his role of Australia's Minister for Trade. Fischer is hoist upon his own petard.

The truth of the matter is that, as Australians realise the depth of the betrayal that has been perpetrated on the altar of "the global market", "level playing field", and "free trade", increasing pressure is being applied to find ways of protecting domestic industries. The key question is what will Fischer, Howard, and others do about their agreement with the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.)?
It is no longer up to our politicians what trade regulations we will enforce. It is increasingly a matter for the international trade bureaucracy - the W.T.O. Fischer, Howard and Co. willingly continued on the path begun by Keating, Evans and the rest towards "free trade".

It is going to be extremely difficult to retreat along that same path. The Prime Minister has managed one organised retreat in the face of the possible devastation of the Australian motor industry without some form of protection. As the consequences of the elimination of tariffs on textile, clothing and footwear become evident, another retreat will have to be organised. Such retreats need to become a rout if Australian industry is to survive. What will Mr. Howard do about the W.T.O. agreements?

NATIONALS REFUSE TO PLACE HANSON LAST

Last week's news that the National Party in Queensland may refuse to place One Nation Party candidates last on election ballot papers may serve to destroy the proposed "united front" between the A.L.P. and the Coalition on what is to be done about Pauline Hanson. As the National Party Member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, has pointed out, the National Party constituency could be expected to overlap substantially with the One Nation constituency, and to put One Nation last would be an act of political suicide.

There are, however, a number of unanswered questions as yet. What will Senator Boswell's response be to the suggestion that National Party preferences should flow towards One Nation? It was Boswell who was "used" to tip the proverbial bucket on Hanson and One Nation in the Senate, accusing Hanson of "extremism", racism, bigotry, etc. The political elites lauded the Boswell nonsense as a "courageous" speech, showing integrity. But the truth is that the Queensland Nationals, as elsewhere in the Party, have been alarmed at the way their own members have deserted them to support One Nation.

Deputy Prime Minister Fischer is not regarded with great sympathy by Queensland Nationals, and neither is his colleague John Anderson, Minister for Agriculture. A big majority of firearms owners in Queensland had National Party sympathies until Borbidge and Fischer betrayed their interests by surrendering to Mr. Howard's ill-informed demands on guns. This has certainly not been forgotten in Queensland.

It would appear that National Party rules do not permit Mr. Fischer and Mr. Anderson to impose their Federal Executive's wishes upon the Queensland branch in respect of voting preferences. If the Queensland Nationals refuse to put One Nation last as a matter of principle, this sends a powerful message to the rest of Australia - a message that must have a profound effect throughout the nation. It is also a message that anti-Hanson forces fear, because it signals a grassroots rebellion is being heard and heeded.

It is a much-needed blast of defiance at those who seek to push ordinary Australians away from the political decision making process. But most of all, it is another sign of health from one of the most decentralised parts of Australia.

INTEREST RATES FOR BIG BUSINESS

The B.H.P. Report to Shareholders for 1997 reveals that "the Big Australian" carries approximately $10.5 billion in debts as of May 31st, 1997. The report also lists "B.H.P's. 1997 Contribution to Wealth Creation", in which interest on borrowed funds of $606 million is listed. This is a most interesting statistic, as simple calculations reveal that the effective interest rate for B.H.P. is about 5.7%. How many small businesses in Australia enjoy such an interest rate on their operating debt?

The truth is that the banks obviously prefer their "big" customers rather than hundreds (or thousands) of "small" customers. The banking industry is deliberately cutting its links with the "bottom" end of the finance "market", by increasing fees, and reducing the number of branches. As one report noted, this means that building societies, credit unions and even pawnbrokers are moving into the lower levels of the "finance industry".

The preference shown to the "big" customers takes place in a variety of perks unavailable to small business. And B.H.P. of course, far from being a small business, is no longer even an "Australian" business really. It is a multinational, with global interests that may not always coincide with Australian interests.

Another "big" business favoured by the banks is the "Eurotunnel" under the Channel between France and Britain. This debt-ridden venture regularly requires refinancing, and if it had been a private business or small manufacturer, the bankers would have foreclosed long ago. Instead the banks are claiming a 45.5% stake in the Eurotunnel in return for a new debt package.

IN MR. ALEXANDER DOWNER'S MAIL BOX

Dear Mr. Downer, I hear and see statements from you that "racial discrimination is morally repugnant" and that it is unacceptable to the Australian people. I have before me a copy of The Straits Times, page 15/16 of April 15th, 1997. This is a page from their real estate classifieds section on which apartments are for sale. The expression "all races" is frequently encountered. Also seen is "Malay eligible", "only Chinese eligible", and "Chinese not eligible". I find it totally mystifying, given that the above has to be the merest tip of the iceberg, that your information is different in this respect.

This is a newspaper that has each issue, before it hits the street, checked by a government censor - as you would know. So this is their government's policy, before which you place on the sacrificially politically correct altar, the Australian people, in an act of monumental reverse hypocritical rejection of the very social policy that we could have (if we are to become Asians), but which they already have entrenched.
I don't believe that you do not know of this. So, why do you do this to the citizens of this country, making us white people who do not know of this feel bad inside? The Asian residents here undoubtedly know of this, but are not going to tell us. Gives them a dishonest moral ascendancy aided and abetted by yourself and the rest of the political establishment.

Why are we cursed with palpable traitors masquerading as people's representatives in Australia's seat of government? We have any number of assorted flunkeys - political, commercial, media - groveling before Asians, seeking to find their response to the domestic phenomenon being the Member for Oxley, and trying to elicit from them a negative comment with regard to the effect she allegedly has on trade, investment, Asian migration, education entitlements and tourism.

For Asians to say that Ms. Hanson has had a negative influence on their perception of Australia is the rankest of hypocrisy, only surpassed by your government's treasonous act of mea culpa in respect of something that we are very unjustly accused of, but which is both institutional and natural over there. "Our" political establishment deserves their most profound contempt - and ours.
Yours sincerely, MICHAEL MAZUR, Brunswick.

HANSON BLASTS THE 'TREACHERY'

The following are brief extracts from a speech delivered by the Independent Member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, in Parliament on Wednesday, September 3rd.

"Australia was once a proud, strong manufacturing nation. We were in many ways independent and self-reliant - a product perhaps of our relative isolation and need. "The second world war caused us to industrialise on a scale not previously imagined for a country of our population, because of that isolation, and the imminent threat of invasion.

"Today Australians face a new threat, not so much from invasion from outside, but defeat from within. Australians face the threat of the policies of their own government. A government that for many years has worked against the interests of the majority of the population. A government seemingly prepared to scrap its own people for reasons that are unclear - though there are many theories...

"The government's policies have the effect of cold and flu tablets; you feel a little more comfortable, but you are still sick. We have been sold out by our elected representatives to multinationals with trade agreements of no benefit to ordinary Australians...

"On the 1st of July, 1997, our government once again exposed an agenda lacking clear explanation or understanding. They dropped tariff protection on raw sugar and certain by-products, while other countries maintained high levels of protection. Thailand, perhaps our biggest competitor in this industry, maintains a tariff of 104%. The United States, where the standard of living is much higher than that of Thailand, but not as high as our own, maintains a tariff of 170% ... "Is our government stupid, simply the pawn of big business and international power brokers, or is their involvement an undisclosed act of treachery?...

"When governments cease to serve the people, they no longer have the right to exist. You are here only with the consent of the Australian people, so don't get too comfortable - a time of change is about to arrive.

"The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, is bending over backwards to push us into globalisation just as his predecessor Gareth Evans did, as did every foreign minister and member of government over the last 25 years. They want us to become part of Asia, and they will happily lower our standard of living in the process.

"There are still many true Australians - certainly enough to foil the self-seeking plans to discard our identity and our history; indeed to relinquish our sovereignty. Most politicians are only concerned for themselves. Their wages and standard of living has continued to rise while their senseless and disastrous decisions have reduced many Australians to a breadline without hope....

"In coming years countless thousands of jobs will be lost unless ordinary Australians teach the politicians the only lesson they understand, by voting for someone else. It is time our government was made up of patriots not pawns, real Australians doing a job for Australia, not career politicians working for themselves. If possible I would gladly remove tariffs on our current crop of politicians to see how they survive when unprotected.

"This government like so many before it has pandered to the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation and dismally failed their primary duty - the welfare of the Australian people... "It is only as you sense your own necks may soon be on the block that a few of you whimper with some concern - not concern for Australia but merely for your own miserable careers. The Australian people will not forget 25 years of selling out their country, nor will they forgive you for what you have done. They will always remember the price you made them pay."