THE MEDIA CRUCIFIXION OF PRINCE CHARLES

by Eric D. Butler
(The following reflections are based upon notes compiled during my recent six week tour of Canada and the United Kingdom)

History records that mass hysteria, manipulated by the media and demagogues, is not the most reliable basis for realistic policy making. It would be instructive to hear from any of those who broke into unprecedented applause following the incredible funeral address by Princess Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, now that the sordid aspects of his treatment of the wife who bore him four children have been publicised. The good Earl suggested in his Diana funeral address that he would be a suitable person to have some say in the bringing up of Prince William and Prince Harry. There is no record of what the Princes' father, and heir to the throne, Prince Charles, thought of this veiled insult.

The truth is that Prince Charles has been on the receiving end of a mass media inspired campaign, which has as its ultimate objective the destruction of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy. And, as the saga of Princess Diana becomes more objectively assessed, it becomes clear that unwittingly she became a victim of that campaign. Basically a simple country girl from Northumberland, growing up in a broken and unhappy family environment, Diana was the product of what one writer has described as a "de-Christianed" generation, cut from its traditional roots and grasping at the symbols of artificially created pop stars.

The mass media turned Princess Diana into a type of pop star. This made it easier to criticise Prince Charles who, instead of being rushing around hugging politically correct causes like the AIDS victims of homosexual activities, was quietly going about his many public duties, including support for dozens of little-known charities, and occasionally trying to encourage higher educational and cultural standards.

Both in Canada and the USA I noted with interest the more objective comments on the Princess Diana saga, including those in the conservative Roman Catholic paper, The Wanderer, by well-known columnist Sobran. His views were echoed by Ted Byfield, prominent Western Canadian Anglo-Catholic associated with two Western Canadian high quality journals. Byfield writes of his attempt to discover what produced the Princess Diana saga.

Answering the question of did Diana deserve to be idolised, Byfield points out that the Pope had hugged AIDS victims long before Diana appeared. Byfield comments, after listing what she did, that "lending your name to various politically correct causes and being photographed in support of them does not really make you into a Joan of Arc. Dying in a booze-caused car wreck after dining at the Ritz with an international playboy lover does not quite equate with being burned at the stake. . . There must be better explanations for the idolisation of Diana".

Byfield makes a comment which echoes that of other perceptive Christian-oriented commentators
"People need heroes and the 'me' generation isn't very good at producing them. So they have to settle for celebrities instead, a very different phenomenon. Diana is not another Madam Curie or an Edith Cavell: she is another Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe, revered not for what they actually did but for what they stood for, chiefly defiance of convention and moral authority."

The real tragedy of Princess Diana was further highlighted with the revelation by Andrew Mortimer, author of the first book which allegedly revealed the shocking way in which Diana was being treated by her husband, that it was Diana herself who provided the material for the book through a go-between. Mortimer, typical of his kind, made a fortune out of the book, which was then sensationally serialised through Rupert Murdoch's anti-Monarchy media. This was meat and drink to the Republican revolutionaries everywhere.

A few of the more responsible journalists have now come forward to reveal that Princess Diana, clearly advised by those with a grudge against Prince Charles, had been secretly attempting to manipulate the media. Princess Diana foolishly allowed herself to be used to foster the view that Prince Charles was not fit to be King.

Through all this an occasional ray of sanity emerged. Probably the most objective and responsible piece of journalism came from Australian Clive James, who knows Prince Charles personally. James, a most perceptive commentator, was also kind to Princess Diana, admitting, like many others, that he "loved" her - but clearly with reservations.

The writer cannot claim to have met Prince Charles, but he is privileged to have met several who have worked with the Prince, one being engaged with Prince Charles in the field of architecture. "You get what you see with the Prince," he said. He shared the Prince's horror of the vulgarity of much of modern architecture.

A most realistic assessment of Prince Charles is provided by one of Australia's most distinguished Ambassadors, Sir Walter Crocker, in his introduction to The People's Prince, a selection of some of the wide-ranging number of addresses Prince Charles has given over the years.

It is depressing to find well meaning people who have never actually read what Charles has said, and who repeat absurd nonsense about the man. He has managed to turn the tide against him, particularly in the more responsible British media, with his recent visit to South Africa, where he delivered a brilliant address in Swaziland on the value of heritage and tradition. This address was, naturally enough, warmly welcomed in an African nation, which remains a Monarchy. Not without significance, Swaziland remains one of the most stable nations in "liberated" Africa.

Prince Charles stressed that respect for heritage and tradition did not mean opposition to change. This is a balanced view. Demonstrating that he is basically a civilised and decent man, Prince Charles while in South Africa paid a tribute to the "good works" of Princess Diana. So far from lacking in leadership qualities, Prince Charles played a major role in the crisis precipitated by Diana's death. It has been revealed that he graded the importance of bending protocol to meet what was obviously a critical and dangerous situation. He also showed great moral courage in a situation, which, under the pressure of a mass hysteria generated by sections of the media, could have exploded. It was Prince Charles who insisted in face of opposition from Buckingham Palace, that the flag at the Palace should be lowered to half-mast.

There is growing evidence that in many fields, including that of alternative medicine, organic farming, and the recycling of human wastes, that it is being conceded that Prince Charles is being proved a man ahead of his time. One headline from the British press reads, CHARLES' SUPPORT PUTS HOMEOPATHY IN MAINSTREAM.

He has been criticised for devoting time to trying to bring ethnic minorities into the mainstream of British life. But it was the politicians who in the past have created the problem. The heir to the throne clearly is trying to ascertain how he can preside over a multicultural society he did not create. His constructive approach to the best elements in the world of Islam is one of statesmanship in the dangerous world of today.

As the world moves further away from the Princess Diana saga, it is important that the right questions are asked about how such a disaster happened. The short answer is, of course, that Princess Diana was a victim of a world which has turned its back on a traditional value system which in the past provided some stability and hope for the future. Diana was swept away by those forces, which saw her youthful beauty primarily as something to be exploited in the interests of purposes she could not be expected to understand.

Perhaps it was symbolic of the reality of the situation that at her funeral the media attempted to feature the central role of the well known sodomite Elton John, who attended with his "companion", to offer a revamped version of a song he wrote for actress Marilyn Monroe, a physically beautiful but tragic figure who was also turned into a cult figure before taking her own life. Marilyn Monroe had been unscrupulously used by rich and powerful people, including President John Kennedy, before being driven to her tragic end.

If the real lessons of the Princess Diana saga are heeded, then the woman who gave birth to the next heir to the throne has not died in vain. Those who wish to support the Constitutional Monarchy should heed the real lessons of Princess Diana's life in order that they can more ably combat those evil forces, which seek to bring a great heritage to an end.

FUSE CONTINUES TO SMOULDER

by David Thompson
In the Aussie vernacular, Prime Minister Howard is "on a hiding to nothing" with his native title amendments, known as the Wik Bill. The confluence of trendy social figures, city-dominated press monopolies, and opportunistic "aboriginal" interests ensure that Howard will be forced to bear a heavy electoral burden whether the Bill passes the Parliament or not. Perhaps the main reason Howard just can't win on aboriginal issues has yet to be spelt out. There is no way of knowing whether Howard himself is even aware of it.

In his address to the nation last Sunday, the Prime Minister earnestly declared that he and his colleagues in government were committed to "full reconciliation" by the centenary of federation, and implied that nothing less will do. But what does "full reconciliation" actually mean?

The former federal Member for Griffith, the late Arthur Chresby, an analyst in constitutional law and Social Crediter, wrote extensively on political strategy, tactics and organisation. In an address he gave in January 1996, titled "How to Get What You Want", Chresby dealt with three scientific principles of making a demand. In this case, Chresby was applying the principles to making a demand on electoral representatives in Parliament, but the demands of the aboriginal industry, being served upon the Parliament, work on the same principle.

Chresby's three scientific principles that must be embodied in any successful demand upon the Parliament are:
1. Is the demand something, which everybody really wants?
2. Not only is it something, which everybody really wants, but is it something that everybody is quite determined to get?
3. Is it something that, when they have got it, they will be able to recognise whether or not they have got it, without having to ask anybody else to interpret the result for them?

The latter principle is the reason that "aboriginal reconciliation" is such an immense problem for Mr. Howard. Who is to say what "reconciliation" actually is, and even more important, when it has finally been achieved? Because of the bleeding heart morality of the aboriginal issue, it is almost certain that so long as there is a single "aboriginal" voice of significant volume continuing to make demands, then "reconciliation" has not been achieved. What an open-ended treasure chest for those with the determination (and some vague claim to aboriginality) to exploit it!

In the same way that the arbiters of what is "anti-Semitic" and what is not are exclusively Jewish, so the sole arbiters of what constitutes "reconciliation" are the aboriginal activists who have successfully positioned themselves at the centre of the debate. The fact that the "aboriginal" voices are generally strident, and the demands high, is a function of the press. On the principle that controversy sells papers or airtime, the press prefers the dramatic.

One of Howard's problems is that where reconciliation is concerned, the goalposts keep shifting. The coterie of part-aboriginal activists who monopolise the sympathy of urban Australians will not define what "reconciliation" eventually is for two reasons. The first is that Australians really are extraordinarily tolerant. Over time, circumstance and fortune could deliver vast advantages to "indigenous" interests, so the activists refrain from identifying modest, reasonable objectives for fear that they might limit their opportunities for future power, money and influence unnecessarily.

The second reason that reconciliation has never been defined is that the activists know very well that if they ask for everything they want in the long term (sovereign ownership status, compensation for historical affronts, a separate black state, etc) it would produce such a violent backlash that even modest gains would be much harder to achieve. Much better to continue with a new demand after the previous one has been met for as long as tolerance will permit. When the limits to tolerance have been tested, shout, as loudly as possible that Australians are intolerant and "racist", until the process of gradualism can resume.

THE FREEHOLD TITLE ISSUE

Howard's Ministers have been vigorously accused of "scare-mongering" having called into question the status of freehold title in the context of the High Court's Wik decision. But given the unpredictable decisions coming from the High Court, it is quite valid to raise this issue. We should not forget that most of Keating's Ministers (if not all) fully believed that leasehold title extinguished native title, and were given a rude shock by the Court in its Wik ruling.

It should be noted that Howard's colleagues are not claiming that freehold title is vulnerable to a successful native title claim. But they are saying that native title over freehold has never been tested in the High Court. Everyone believes freehold to be secure, but until it is tested, this is not certain.

One journalist who covers High Court issues competently for The Australian, Bernard Lane, points out that Chief Justice Brennan offers some comfort to the view that the security of freehold title is no longer clear. Brennan was a minority dissenter in the Wik case, because he believed that the Wik decision contradicted the Mabo decision. His view is that if the Wik argument that pastoral leases don't extinguish native title, then why should this not be extended to freehold?

Lane writes: "Under a tradition of land law going back to feudal England, the issue of a lease by the Crown has effects that leave no room for any native title. But the majority judges agreed it was Queensland land statute - not the old English common-law tradition - that revealed the effect of these Queensland pastoral "leases". And the issue of these "bundles of statutory rights" over vast, remote country left room for native title, they held. "Criticising this dismissal of what he regards as true leases, Brennan says "it would be equally correct to treat a 'grant of fee simple' not as the grant of a freehold estate held of the Crown, but merely as a larger bundle of statutory rights". "Brennan's point is not to suggest native title can also survive freehold but to show the Wik argument against pastoral leases cannot be right." (The Weekend Australian, 29/11/97).

All of which illustrates the difficulties facing Howard. The complexities being so difficult to explain, it is a simple matter for the professional activists to reduce the argument to a matter of grubby "racism" on Howard's part.

Recommended reading: "How to Get What You Want" by Arthur A. Chresby. Elements of organisation, strategy and tactics as applied to grass-roots political action to break the strangle hold of party politics. $5.00, or $6.00 posted.

WHAT TO DO WITH MAHATHIR?

The dominant fear in financial markets now centres on what might happen in Japan if financial institutions begin to unravel. There appears to be every possibility of at least one more major bank collapsing, which would begin to send shock waves around the globe. One of the few national leaders with any commonsense observations concerning the market volatility is Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir. At the APEC forum Mahathir continued to state his demand for currency trading regulations, warning that the unchecked market forces would result in impoverishment and slavery of entire peoples. This could already be taking place in poorer Asian countries.
Already reports are leaking out of the Philippines, not carried by the major press, that since the peso collapsed, businesses are closing, food distribution systems are breaking down, and desperate people unable to provide for themselves.

Mahathir's views run right against the policies adopted by most other regional nations, and are certainly rejected by Australia's government. Likening the powers of the free market to the evils of communist economies, he points out that currency traders in charge of almost unlimited funds can bludgeon countries like Malaysia into submission. "Two decades of growth was wiped out in two weeks. For four of these (East Asian) countries, the loss in purchasing power totals almost $300 billion. Vibrant economies have been reduced to begging for aid from the IMF."

Power corrupts. As much as government can become corrupt when invested with absolute power, markets also can become corrupt when equally absolutely powerful. We are seeing the effect of that absolute power today, the impoverishment and misery of millions of people and their eventual slavery.

Mahathir pointed out that international trading was regulated in all sorts of ways, but for some reason "currency trading is regarded as beyond regulation", with the volume of currency traded each year being 20 times greater than trade in goods and services.

While other APEC leaders at Vancouver distanced themselves from Mahathir's comments on currency trading, it is clear that they have no answer to the problem, except more of the same medicine - even fewer trading barriers of any sort. This is the IMF policy, and it is the IMF - the treasury of the emerging world government - that is imposing such measures on problem economies.

Mahathir has much sympathy among regional leaders in private, and at the grass-roots of Asian countries, but the power to act is now with the IMF.

Recommended reading: "Economic Rationalism - a Disaster for Australia", by Graham Strachan. $12.00 from all League bookservices.

WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH ONE NATION?

by David Thompson
For some time we have received requests for advice concerning Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. Some of those who support Independent M.P. Pauline Hanson and what she stands for complain that the party's Sydney administration is obstructive and autocratic. Some who have paid to become members of One Nation find that they are not members of the party after all, but members of the One Nation Support Movement. Others who have been invited to stand as One Nation candidates for election also ask our advice. And now a deep division within the party about administrative matters threatens to destroy One Nation.

Having observed the Hanson phenomenon closely from the time Pauline Hanson was dis-endorsed by the Liberal Party before the last federal election, we have concluded that what she has done is unmatched in Australian political history. A very large cross-section of Australians identify closely with her comments on issues such as immigration, foreign investment, multiculturalism, etc. She has acted as a catalyst in politics to the benefit of traditional Australia, and has shown extraordinary courage.

The League has supported her by encouraging the distribution of her material, her maiden Parliamentary address in particular. We have nothing but admiration for what she has done, irrespective of the inevitable mistakes. However, we have warned previously that Pauline Hanson is being undermined by poor advice from within her structure. This appears to be a particular problem within the administration of One Nation.

The League made a careful assessment of a book that was produced by the Hanson Support Movement in South Australia, "Pauline Hanson - The Truth", concluding that this made a powerful, although politically incorrect, contribution to the political debate. The book was viciously condemned by the mainstream press, as well as the Communist press. Having obtained stocks of the book, the League promoted it heavily, and distributed many hundreds of copies. We were then staggered to learn that the key administrator of One Nation, Mr. David Ettridge, contemplated taking legal action to prevent the League distributing the book. We know that great pressure was placed upon the publisher by One Nation not to publish a second edition of what was supposed to be Pauline Hanson's own book. Why would this be? No satisfactory explanation was ever offered, but no writ was ever received by the League.

There is obviously much common policy ground between One Nation and Graeme Campbell's Australia First. It is common knowledge that Campbell supported Hanson from the time of her election, both in terms of practical help and moral support in the face of the vituperation of other Members of the Parliament. Many of those who showed an interest in Australia First subsequently supported Pauline Hanson, and joined One Nation. We know that some are members of both groups, and many express disappointment that Hanson and Campbell could not have combined their efforts in one party.

We now know that, far from working together, the One Nation administration has issued written instructions to all branches not to support Australia First in any way. When Australia First decided to test the political water by standing upper house candidates in the South Australian election, Hanson agreed to One Nation supporting the Australia First effort, since One Nation were not standing candidates. No support was forthcoming. Writing on October 8th to all branches of One Nation, David Ettridge accused Australia First of sabotaging One Nation development "We keep hearing reports about Australia First, and they are one of the rumour mongers trying to damage our development. They do not want us to succeed, because they are competing with us for votes and growth. Please DO NOT help them in any way. I can't believe reports I hear where Australia First ask our branches to help them. Even Graeme Campbell in one case asked a branch to help…." wrote Ettridge.

If there was ever a time for patriots to work together, this is it. Obviously in the party political power game, competition for power, votes, members, etc, is a fact of life. But it is essential that the vision is higher than mere votes or money; with patriotic groups uniting where possible to cooperate on essential matters. We have no doubt of Pauline Hanson's agenda. She has "nailed her colours to the mast" and suffered for it. But what is the agenda of her administrators?

Mr. Ettridge also warns branches of the influence of former LaRouche member John Seale, who attempts to solicit names and addresses through which to promote the very expensive courses of his David Syme College. "We do not necessarily accept or endorse his opinions on anything and you should not allow him to waste your time while he sidetracks you to his agenda", wrote Ettridge. Seale is described as a "white ant".

We would agree completely with One Nation reservations about the LaRouche group. Yet we know that earlier in the year the book "Hansonism: Trick or Treat?" by Don Vietch was promoted and distributed through One Nation branches. This book is a very poorly researched and highly inaccurate assessment of Pauline Hanson and what might be termed "right-wing" politics in Australia. Seale attempts to deal with the League, Australia First, and other groups, but the work is marred by so many glaring errors of fact and construction that it is almost worthless. For example, it mentions Graeme Campbell's father under two quite different names.

It is certainly an embarrassment to Seale, and we believe to One Nation. Seale completely misrepresents the role of the League, and others, like Jeremy Lee. But why was Ettridge promoting the book through One Nation? We know that he confidently predicted in private that this book would finally reveal the ugly truth about the League of Rights. In this case, never was judgment so poorly directed.

Pauline Hanson's cause, and the interests of patriotic Australians are being damaged by poor advice from One Nation. The recording and subsequent broadcasting of portions of a video "last will and testament" by Channel 7 is a primary example of such poor advice. If Pauline Hanson can survive her own advisers, she must still survive her political opponents in order to retain the seat of Oxley. We are beginning to doubt that she can retain Oxley if she retains her present advisers.

We are not in a position to claim that Pauline Hanson's One Nation programme is being deliberately sabotaged from within, as others claim. We do not know this. We do not know what the agenda of her One Nation administrators might be, and are forced to the conclusion that the friction within the party is a result of well-intentioned amateurs suffering from incompetence and poor communication.

The League's assessment is that, unless steps are taken to ensure that One Nation is more sensibly administered, it is doomed to collapse under the weight of internal friction and dissent. This would be a pity, especially if it jeopardises Pauline Hanson's own contribution to Australian politics. We warn those intending to become involved to exercise caution, and await the result of the present friction.

FROM THE PRESS

Mabo meant for Islanders - Daily Telegraph, 28/11/97
"Contrary to current opinion many Australians, including members of the clergy, consider the original High Court Mabo decision Native Title was flawed in certain respects. "The High Court found in favour of continuous occupation by indigenous people over part of the Murray Islands situated off the Australian coast.
"The present confusion and, indeed, chaos arises from the High Court applying the Murray Islands' judgment as a universal principle governing the whole Australian continent despite important differences. "Islander people and Australian Aborigines are not identical. "Recent comments by former Prime Minister Sir John Gorton concerning Aboriginal ideas of land ownership are pertinent.
"Before studying for the priesthood I was a staff member of the then N.S.W. Lands Department, mainly in the branch dealing with all kinds of Crown Leases. "I have just visited extensive pastoral areas from northern N.S.W. to central and far north Queensland. "Natural justice demands that holders of pastoral leases must have security of tenure. Do not underestimate the danger to Australia's welfare if this is not done. "The Wik Legislation is at least an attempt to deal with a dilemma that should never have arisen in the first place. "Governments, not judges, are the legislators. The primary needs of Aboriginal people are education, housing and employment."
FR. TERENCE PURCELL, Broadway.

From Weekend Australian, 29/11/97
"Enough of the propaganda, misinformation and bias in favour of Aboriginal activists and their supporters. It's time for the truth to be told about: "Where the money goes. Which people, legal firms and organisations have received the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds expended over the past 10 years. " How much of Australia is already owned by Aboriginal groups. "The demographic details of Aborigines.
Most activists are of mixed blood but why do they appear to deny their non-Aboriginal heritage? Why Aboriginal health has not improved over recent years in spite of government funding. "Wik is all about money, power and greed. Unless the media display objectivity on this matter then this great country will end up being dominated by a tiny minority of Aboriginal activists."
EWAN McLEAN, Castle Hill, N.S.W.

From The Australian, 27/11/97
"Multiculturalism, when first mooted about 20 years ago, was warmly embraced by Australians of all sizes, shapes and orientations. Of course they had no idea what it meant. Now that they do know what it means (or at least, what its proponents claim it means) they are mostly terrified, especially as it is evident to them they are going to have it shoved down their throats whether they want any part of it or not. So much for reactionary backlash."
DAVID CALL, Ipswich, Qld.

The importance of the family in society - The Australian, 28/11/97
'Michael Duffy's excellent article on the importance of two-parent families ('Suffer the family', The Weekend Australian, 22-23/11) draw some expected criticisms in the letters page. "However, he has simply confirmed what a growing mountain of evidence - and commonsense - already tells us: children do best in households where there are two parents, of opposite sex, preferably cemented by marriage.
"To say this is not to denigrate those who find themselves in other arrangements, but it is to say that government policies ought to promote what is now known to be the best anti-crime and anti-poverty measure around: the two-parent family."
BILL MUEHLENBERG, Clayton, Vic.