ONE NATION STUMBLES INTO RECONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITY

by Q.B.
While the newspapers have been full of the de-registration of the One Nation Party in Queensland and its intention to re-apply for registration within a week or so, none are yet seeing it as an opportunity to reconstruct One Nation's bizarre constitution. Very early in the Party's history, lifetime control was effectively placed into the hands of David Oldfield and David Ettridge, provided that they supported each other. Even Pauline Hanson is powerless to remove either if he's supported by the other.

Pauline Hanson's reaction was reported in The Courier Mail (21/8/99) as follows: "It's all a conspiracy against One Nation, she says. She dismisses Terry Sharples, who instigated the Queensland Supreme Court action which resulted in Wednesday's finding by Justice Roslyn Atkinson that the Party's State registration was invalid because it was 'induced by fraud or misrepresentation', as just another disgruntled former member."

The cost to the party of its "Two David's Rule, Okay?" policy is that credible candidates declined to run for the party that nobody but nobody, could influence unless the two Davids permitted it. Candidates worthy of respect, tend to have too much self-respect to submit unashamedly to such narrow and undemocratic scrutiny. Why Pauline Hanson herself submitted in this arrangement is usually seen as either a character deficiency or a mystery. It has cost One Nation quality candidates everywhere.

The remaining One Nation State members in Queensland have a golden opportunity to place the Party on a different basis when it is re-registered. Will they take it? They have had the opportunity to put forward legislation that the people want (but the Parties don't), since being elected - but none is in evidence. Forcing the major parties to vote against a good CIR Bill would have been a propaganda victory. Bills to protect local industry would have been popular if well presented. Unfortunately, the quality is not there to handle it, apparently.

One Nation's contributions to Australian politics so far have been to
1. Eliminate all others attempting to represent the protest at the disastrous bi-partisan policies destroying Australia, and then,
2. Eliminate themselves - both from intelligent policy proposals, and from a credible existence.

Pauline Hanson identified a large number of people who were ready to support pro-Australian policies. Total submission to Messrs. Oldfleld and Ettridge is not the way to organise this. The bell has rung on the lost opportunity to get it right. If they don't, the Australian Nationalist movement will have to outlive some years of demoralisation.

FORMER FEDERAL CABINET MINISTER RECOMMENDS BOOK

A primary producer in NSW, Mr. Neil Allen of Barraba, has financed the mailing of Jeremy Lee's latest book "How Bright The Vision?" to every State and Federal Member of Parliament - some 900 representatives. With each copy was included a personal letter written by former Federal Cabinet Minister the Hon. Clyde Cameron, AO, reproduced with his permission.

It read: "Dear Mr. Lee - Many thanks for your latest book Australia 2000 - How Bright The Vision? which I have read with great interest. You put the position in proper perspective when you write that globalisation has, by an induced programme for 'international monopoly' divided the world, economy by economy, into super-rich and destitute, and that while a third of Australians live in poverty, wealth at the top end of town is staggering.

In Chapter Three you give a superb account of the way Chartered Trading Banks can 'create' additional money in the form of credit and that from December 1997 to December 1998 the aggregate amount of money in Australia increased by $25 billion and of this amount $23.5 billion was created by the private sector Trading Banks! This is not a one-off occurrence - it occurs every year, with the banks claiming ownership of the 'new' money on which they charge interest plus charges for handling the various accounts.

Regrettably, Labor's Parliamentary Party forgot, or lacked concern, for the intended role of the Commonwealth Bank when they decided to hand it over to the private banking cartel. However, as you correctly point out, there is nothing to stop the Commonwealth Government from directing the Reserve bank of Australia to establish trading bank branches throughout Australia, and by competition compel the 'gang-of four' to bite the dust.

It is incredible that Australia's five biggest banks were able to squeeze $10.324 billion from customers in fees and charges over 12 months, and lift non-interest income by more than 17 per cent, and can spend over $400,000 every 24 hours in advertising. I find it regrettable that you can record the fact that it was the Hawke-Keating 'Labor' Government that made it possible for foreigners to obtain ownership of Australian assets of $344.5 billion, and that the 'per-capita' average of foreign ownership at the end of 1996-97 was $27,000 or $108,000 for the average family of four. And that was allowed to happen in spite of Labor's Platform!

You are correct when you assert that there is no such thing as national sovereignty without national control of finance - something that is lost when nations are globalised. I share your concern about the future of those calling for Australia to become a Republic without addressing the need to amend Section 51 of our Constitution. It means that there will be nothing to prevent a repeat of the 1975 constitutional coup by a President or Governor General - whatever the case may be.

You are to be complimented for drawing attention to the fact that a Labor Prime Minister in the thirties allowed the representative of the privately-owned bank of England to bamboozle himself and the six State Premiers into plunging us into the Depression resulting from the Premiers' Plan to meet the cost of Australia's contribution to the First World War to save Britain's ruling caste from losing their wealth.

It is frightening to be reminded that our Current Account Deficit increased by over $8 billion in the last quarter of 1998, and was the highest in our history. I am glad you have exposed the current extent of political bribery called 'donations' to the major parties. We should be realistic and accept the fact the Corporate sector did not hand over $25,448,392 in donations to ALP and the Liberal Party if it didn't expect many times that amount in tax benefits etc. etc.

When Ben Chifley was Prime Minister, the corporate sector would not have wasted thirteen pence, much less $13 million, as the donation the Labor Party received from the corporate sector. Your criticism of Premier Olsen's move to privatise ETSA reminded me that Labor's NSW Premier was tarred with the same brush. It is incredible! I am glad you have dealt with the Multilateral Agreement on Investments.
Yours very sincerely Clyde R. Cameron.

(Jeremy Lee's booklet Australia 2000-How Bright The Vision? obtainable from all League bookshops, $12.00 posted).

MORE ILLEGAL BOATS

LIES AND MORE DAMN LIES

by Alfred King
In a leading page-one story this week, the Australian Financial Review (AFR), states that the Commonwealth Government debts will be eliminated within three years, followed by large surpluses, which will result in income tax cuts for all. Furthermore, that "the elimination of debt has been brought about by tight fiscal policy in recent years, stronger than expected economic growth and the proceeds from privatisations".

Huh? What are they telling us? I thought we were hopelessly in debt, a debt so huge that we can't even meet the interest payments. I am having deja vu as I remember Paul Keating, shortly before his demise as PM, looking straight into the TV camera and telling all Australians that there was no national debt, that Australia had net assets! Then, shortly after this, the Liberals were elected and found, oh! my! there is a huge debt. In fact, the black hole is far bigger than could have possibly been imagined beforehand - but don't worry, John Howard has just returned from worshipping at the altar of the IMF, and the gurus there have pointed us the way of salvation. We were all going to have to go without some more, but it's only for a short time, and then everything will be perfect. Well, it looks like the promised Utopia is upon us!

In the same article the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, is quoted favouring "income tax cuts as a way to deal with the huge budget surpluses after Commonwealth Government debt is eliminated within three years". It sounds like the current Liberal term has given us an Australia that is strong independent and tax-free. Who will hold Mr. Costello accountable in three years time for these promised budget surpluses and income tax cuts? A clue is given by the grinning Treasurer himself. The AFR quotes him as saying that he likens the task of running the government to that of a corporation. "When the financial position of a company is strong it rewards the shareholders through higher dividends. Australian taxpayers are shareholders in Australia and they will benefit through income tax cuts as government debt is eliminated."

Personally, I strongly disagree with the concept of our country being run as if it were a business. The lives of Australians cannot be measured merely in dollars and cents. The needs and physical capabilities of Australians should control the monetary system. It is a satanic, perverted system where the opposite happens. However, if Costello and his ilk are sincere about running things like a corporation then let's not be half-hearted. To start with, I want to know if Peter Costello or Jeremy Lee is telling the truth. Let's publish a full set of audited financial statements, at least bi-annually. This will show how much debt we do have, who we owe it to, how much of this country's total expenditure is made up of interest and dividend payments to overseas interests, and how this proportion has changed over time.
Actually the more you look into this, the more potential there is.

The shareholders should be able to review the Memorandum and Articles of Association to decide exactly what 'business' Australia is allowed to carry on. For example would it include UN military action overseas in issues that are not our concern'? This review would also decide the limits of the powers of the executive. Ultimately we would have the power to call an extraordinary meeting of shareholders at any time and dismiss any individual member of the executive who did not have our confidence. Would Mr. Costello be smiling so broadly then?
Authorised by B. Luks, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, 3000.

RE: THE PATH TO POWER - RISKS AND REWARDS OF GENETIC MANIPULATION

Sir: May I attempt to add to the information provided in this article? (OT Bulletin 13/8/99). The nucleus contains the chromosomes, but, the chromosomes are merely the blueprint, which, in combination with the nucleoli (tiny dots of nuclear material around the nucleus) are responsible for the specifications of your and my physical form (the nucleoli do this) and of the proteins of which we are made (the chromosomes are responsible for this).
Let us take the production of human insulin. The chromosomes, which are the blueprint for the manufacture of human insulin, have been discovered and can be used to manufacture insulin were it not for the unfortunate fact that the chromosomes in the nucleus are not automatically self-replicating.

Left to itself, genetic material is inert. To clone the sheep Dolly, the nucleus (only from a stem cell or an ovum is suitable) alone is replaced with the chromosomes of the desired adult. Only the extra nuclear material contains the mechanism, which can use the chromosomal blueprint for an whole sheep.

One criterion of life is that it grows and replicates continuously from generation to generation, otherwise it would die out. Therefore, to manufacture insulin, the responsible chromosomes have to be inserted into a cell, which is continually replicating. The cell used originally, was a human cancer cell from victims of a disease called multiple myeloma. The cause of the cancer is popularly considered to be due to the chromosomes, but, the unfortunate fact is, that it is the cancer cell which replicates autonomously, and the chromosomes are manufactured each time the cell divides. It is unwieldy using human cancer cells, because, having made your insulin, you may well have millions of immune reactions when you go to use your human-cell-produced insulin back on humans!
So, the modern system is to use bacteria, which, given adequate nourishment, grow continuously in exactly the same way and follow the same mathematical equations as does cancer, thus enabling insulin to be manufactured in bacteria!

The source of energy for the cancer cell and the bacteria to grow by division of one into two, two into four, etc., is not present in the nucleus. It is situated outside the nucleus and has been shown by Otto Warburg in the early part of this century, followed by Hopkins in 1929, Joseph Needham in the 1930's, and other biochemists, to be derived from glucose, which is converted without oxygen into lactic acid. This mechanism of energy production is not present in the nucleus.

No doubt the manufacturers of genetically programmed products are careful to separate the energy mechanism resulting from a bacterial and cancer cell reproduction, from the product itself. But, the danger is obviously two-fold. Were any part of the cancer cell or the bacteria responsible for autonomous growth, to contaminate the chromosomal product, then you may transmit cancer to the recipient of the chromosomal factor. This, of course, is how mad-cow disease became transmitted from the disease called scrapie in sheep (a known viral disease of the sheep's brain and spinal cord), when to earn bigger profits, the cattle were fed protein manufactured from scrapie-infected sheep.
Rather than rely upon the normal proteins in grass, you have made the cows and the pigs and the other animals cannibals!

Prince Charles is absolutely correct when he warns of the problems ahead. Apart from the possibility of developing cancer from every genetically modified product we take into us, we have the chance of developing mad-cow disease by a similar mechanism. In a totally different way however, by the peculiar proteins manufactured by "scientifically" introduced genetic blueprints for totally new proteins in the plant product, we may well poison ourselves.

In my opinion, the correct trial for genetically modified foods would be to insist that the international companies raise such products and for the first five years, the managing director, the entire boards, their wives, their children and all the employees, even down to the toilet cleaners, should be made to eat their genetically modified products so that we could see what happens. These are the people who gain from the profits of this type of genetic experiment and so they should be the first to prove to us that it is harmless. Yours sincerely, Dr. John Holt, West Perth, WA.

UNRELENTING MARGARET THATCHER

MODIFIED MILK OF HUMAN KINDNESS

IN BRIEF

The debt finance system grips all the major economies of the world. Wherever it reigns, it is mathematically certain that its effects must be the same. Three giant Japanese banks - Industrial Bank of Japan Ltd., Dai Ichi Kangyo Bank Ltd. and Fuji Bank Ltd. - are about to merge into the world's biggest banking group. Of course the Establishment approves. Share prices in the banks shot up.

We have been conditioned for some time now to believe Australia cannot isolate itself from the financial dealings of the rest of the world. This is used to explain why, when Wall Street sneezes, Australian workers lose their jobs. We have all experienced the harmful effects of the level playing field in the global economy. Can someone then please explain to me why short-term interest rates in Japan have been around half a percent for some years, but there has never been a lender in Australia who will fund my mortgage at anything close to that rate? [A.K.]

AN EXERCISE IN A 'SOCIALIST'S ENGINEERING'

by Betty Luks
President of the NSW Upper House. Dr. Meredith Burgmann, is planning an opening of Parliament in which tradition will play no part. She has refused to invite the defence forces to stage the traditional fly past and present the 21-gun salute, has snubbed diplomats from England, New Zealand and the USA and invited, in their place, ambassadors from Thailand and communists countries Cuba and Vietnam. (Daily Telegraph, 25/8/99).

The NSW Governor, Gordon Samuels, will be met at Parliament House by an elder of the Eora people who regard the land as aboriginal land. President Burgmann needs to be reminded that many a Labor voter's son and/or daughter would be in the defence forces and their loyalties are not to communist ideologues. With Council elections coming up in September, and the Lord Mayor's re-election hinging on ALP preferences, the snubs of this woman may still rankle the rank and file Labor voter. Premier Carr needs to be reminded of this.

THE CONCEPTS BEHIND THE SYMBOLS

by Betty Luks
"National Symbols need to be Renewed," claims Mr. Peter Costello, Liberal Party Treasurer (The Australian, 19/8/99) as he joins the republicans' push for a 'yes' vote at the coming referendum.

In arguing his case Mr. Costello writes: "And if there is discomfort with our head of state ...because the symbolism now needs to grow - you need to ask whether or not that symbolism is appropriate (and) still has the capacity to carry us forward and to nourish and personify the symbols that we hold dear."

What he has written is pure waffle. A symbol cannot grow - it is lifeless. A symbol cannot 'nourish and personify the symbols we hold dear'. Symbols represent something, someone, a concept, an idea, a truth. It is not the symbol that is appropriate - it may be an appropriate symbol - it is the underlying concept or idea that the symbol represents or seeks to convey. The symbol hasn't got any capacity to carry us forward.

I am sure one of our readers could soon design symbols that would signify in the minds of many Australians just what the political parties personify. We could call them Symbols for the Present Order According to the Dictates of Political Parties.

The following is a short list of that which we need personifying: Broken homes and families: with the accompanying pressures on the torn-apart families and the two-parent families: breakdown of relationships within communities, and the herding of people into the human ant-heaps called cities; shoddy imports; loss of industries, farming and our resources and assets swallowed up by multinational corporations and banks; grinding taxes and ever-increasing burdens of financial debts; loss of hope for the future by our young - followed by the ultimate act of hopelessness - suicide.

Compare Australia's present 'concept of government' with the concept of kingship James 1st of Scotland and England spoke of to the Parliament at his Accession in 1603AD: "I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and a usurping tyrant is in this: That whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant does think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king does by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of wealth and prosperity of his people, and his greatest and principal worldly felicity must consist in their prosperity. If you be rich I cannot be poor; if you be happy I cannot but be fortunate: and that your welfare shall ever be my greatest care and contentment: and that I am a servant it is most true... so if we take the whole people as one body and mass, then as the head is ordained for the body and not the body for the head; so must a righteous king know himself to be ordained for his people and not his people for him."

In other words, the well-being, the welfare, of his people, in families and communities and the nation as a whole, takes precedence over all systems and institutions - whether government, law, economics or finance.

The concept of a Kingdom is that of personal government. It is about relationships and an order of Life. The king is trained from childhood in statecraft, he hasn't had to claw his way to the top of a political party by way of a very slippery, ruthless and treacherous means. The basic assumption is that human life and the essential development of that life are both rooted in a freedom that defies expression in terms of all-governing LAW.
Australia has the appropriate symbols, what we have lost is the knowledge of what the symbols represent.

Mr. Costello continues, "The head of state is a symbol in much the same way as a national anthem is a symbol. It's a symbolic person that comes on occasions to represent the nation and my view is - as we look forward - in relation to this symbol, we have and should take the opportunity to renew the symbol in a way with which we will be much more comfortable in the future."

This is Peter Costello's idea of what the role of a future president would be - merely a symbol or 'rubber stamp' for whatever our political dictators in parliament decide. As for a national anthem it is a prayer, by the people to God, for guidance and wisdom for the king (under God). Mr. Costello may be 'much more comfortable in the future' with just such a symbolic, 'rubber-stamp head of state', but I doubt if the people of Australia would.
God save our gracious Queen.