MISLEADING ADVICE TO FARMERS

"No matter how efficient the operation of a small farmer, his survival will depend upon his attaining an increasing level of output in order to keep his apparent income increasing and his real income static." - The Age, June 17, from the column, Rural Scene

Mr. G. L. Curtis, a member of the general council of the Victorian Farmers' Union, was the writer quoted in the above column. Mr. Curtis is misleading his fellow farmers with his analysis and does not appear to have learned anything more since last year when he proposed that small farmers should amalgamate into "communes" in order to overcome the rising cost structure threatening their independence of ownership. Such a sequence is the logical result, which Communists and Socialists seek as a result of economic pressure on the individual, and it is distressing that a farmer in a responsible position should succumb to such pressures without analysing the basic cause against a background of economic freedom and self-sufficiency.

Surely this would be the first priority of those farmers' representatives who believe in maintaining their own independence and passing it on. Curtis accepts "controlled inflation" as necessary "in the interests of the nation as a whole". This is the basic flaw in his thinking, as he fails to reconcile increased efficiency and production as physical realities in both primary and secondary industries - "the nation as a whole" with financial policies which should pass on to all individuals the benefits of natural increase. Having dismissed "the little bloke " in primary industry as "the most hallowed of sacred cows", he called upon the Federal Government to supply "huge sums of money" to re-settle displaced farmers in industry.

Our comment is that neither uprooting the farmer nor the supply of "huge sums of money" to resettle him is necessary. What IS necessary is the application of that portion of credit now used to finance rising costs, to be supplied instead to finance consumption in the form of price subsidies, to be paid at the counter. The "small blokes" costs would then be kept down enabling him to stay on his farm, secure, and a social asset rather than becoming a disgruntled, insecure social misfit.

ANOTHER "BATTLE OF BRITAIN" OPENS

Mr. Eric Butler reports from Britain:

Immediately following the resignation of General de Gaulle as President of France, the campaign to bring the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community was intensified. All the evidence indicates that a substantial majority of the British people remain opposed to the drive to get the United Kingdom into the EEC, and that if it were not for the fact that the pro-Marketeers have an almost complete monopoly of propaganda through the news media, while all major political parties favour British entry into the EEC, the British people would be overwhelmingly opposed.

It is beyond dispute that if Britain joins the EEC, there would be an immediate big increase in the cost of living, and the destruction of British agriculture. Not only the smaller farmers, but also many of the smaller businesses would be liquidated. The underlying concept of the EEC is one of centralisation. It is not without significance that all the French candidates for the French Presidency have expressed support for British entry into the EEC. It is true that M. Georges Pompidou rather modified his earlier definite support for British entry but like de Gaulle he believes that the British should be accepted once they have completely capitulated to all demands, including the one that they should completely forget about the Commonwealth.

Those who know their history were not surprised when the Trotskyist candidate M. Krivine supported British entry into the EEC. It was the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky who advocated a "United States of Europe". In a speech in London on May 19, Herr Franz-Josef Strauss, West German Finance Minister, urged that immediate negotiations take place between Britain and the EEC and called for the creation of a Federated Europe. The German Finance Minister said that a "United Europe" was essential for the defence of Western Europe. But this is not a very convincing argument coming from the representative of a Government, which has been so extensively infiltrated by Soviet agents.

A Czechoslovakian secret service man who defected from Prague in August last year provided the West German Government with a list of Soviet agents inside the West German Ministries. These included the deputy head of West German Intelligence. Many suicides and defections took place, leaving the German Intelligence Service in a state of shock. Some authorities are satisfied that East German agents are still in many "key" positions in the West German administration.

Both France and Italy are experiencing growing internal problems. The one thing lacking in Western Europe at present is any real unity. The Communists and Socialists are satisfied that time is on their side. There was never a more inopportune time for the British to surrender their independence to any type of centralised structure in Europe. Those who have argued that no loss of British independence was involved, were answered by Sir Thomas Brimelow, a Deputy Under Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, speaking on behalf of Lord Challont, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at a German Chamber of Commerce on May 29. Sir Thomas is quoted as saying that "No single country of the size of the nation states of western Europe could hope to play on its own an effective part in world affairs. To insist on complete national independence would entail the progressive loss of freedom of choice in foreign policy."

The progressive surrender of national independence is a major feature of the progressive building of the World State. An independent Britain, completely master of its own foreign policy which would easily be possible in association with other Crown Commonwealth nations, Australia, New Zealand and Canada (and close ties with Rhodesia and South Africa), is a major essential if the threat of the World State is to be averted. The British people are now fighting the most important fight for national independence they have ever fought. To win that fight they have to find some way of dealing effectively with those of their politicians who favour surrendering British independence. Merely replacing Mr. Harold Wilson with Mr. Edward Heath will not assist, as Mr. Heath is a dedicated Marketeer. The most practical suggestion is that no candidate shall be supported at the next Elections who refuses to pledge support for a referendum on the EEC.

DEFICIENCY FUND

YOUTH FACING A BIG MORAL CHALLENGE

The Brisbane Courier Mail (June 13) carried a most thought-provoking article on modern pre-occupation with sex, by Lady Cilento. After pointing out that the human body is a marvel of beauty and symmetry, she pointed out that this should inspire a sense of joy and thankfulness that we are so wonderfully made, not a feeling of shocked disgust, which is a denial of God's handiwork. It is only when the body is used as a deliberate display of sexual characteristics to stimulate lust and seduce to uninhibited indulgence that it becomes obscene. She pointed out that the accent on pornography followed exactly published communist objectives on subverting youth. She concluded by reminding her readers that there were thousands of decent young Australians who hadn't been tainted by the flood of modern filth, and she urged parents to "let our image be inspiring without hypocrisy, and above reproach without intolerance."

The following day after this excellent article the Australian (June 14th) announced that a "campaign is being organised by 50 members of the professorial staff at the University (Brisbane) against recent action by the Queensland Government on censorship and obscenity." The campaign will start with a lecture with photographic slides and copies of allegedly obscene drawings by the artist Aubrey Beardsley, given by the head of the philosophy department, Professor V. Presley. Those who have seen Beardsley's drawings will have dismissed them as material peeked at by the more smutty-minded type of school-boy before he wakes up to himself, but apparently our academics find it suitable material for serious campaigning. No wonder our Universities are in such a mess!

U.N. CALLS FOR END OF SMITH GOVERNMENT

"A UN special committee last night called on Britain to take effective measures to end immediately Ian Smith's minority rule in Rhodesia. The committee said "effective" measures included the use of force." - Daily Telegraph (June 12th).

There are signs that intensified pressure will soon be applied to build up hostilities against both Rhodesia and South Africa. Protagonists of revolutionary Communism around the world, confidant that they are winning in Paris what the Vietcong could not achieve in Vietnam, are turning their eyes to the next prong of the tri-continental offensive, Africa.

The Australian branch of the South African Defence and Aid fund has been working consistently to bring distrust and ill-feeling to the field of sport. For example, The Rev. Ted Noffs was reported in the Telegraph (June 14th) as having handed a petition from a body known as CARIS (Campaign Against Racialism in Sport) to the Secretary of the Rugby union Association, protesting about the Wallabies forth-coming tour of South Africa. CARIS includes several members of the South African Defence and Aid Fund. The Rev. Ted Noffs incidentally, earlier this year gained fame or notoriety when he issued a statement in which he rejected any validity in the Atonement in the Christian faith, the cornerstone in the fact of salvation.

The matter of sport is a difficult one, as can be seen from a brief item in "Rhodesian Commentary" (June 2nd) in which it is reported that a European player-manager with an African soccer team was forced to resign his post because his players were using the services of a witch doctor to ensure victory on the field. While this has its funny side, those who have seen or experienced the effect of witch doctors and black magic in Africa will know that it is no laughing matter.

That revolutionary attention is being directed towards South Africa is also clear from a report in The Australian, (May 16th) in which the leader of the Revolutionary Socialist Alliance, Mr. Brian Laver, held a meeting on June 2nd to plan a campaign in support of the liberation front movements in South Africa. He made it clear that these were the same type of movements as the National Liberation Front in Vietnam. The slogan for the new move would be: GIVE A GUERILLA A GUN.

The Daily Telegraph (June 14th) reports that two South African journalists, at present on trial for allegedly publishing deliberately false information on conditions in South African goals, are already being lionised internationally. One of them, Lawrence Gandar, has been elected to the Executive Board of the International Press Institute. One would think that they would at least wait until the results of the trial, under one of the finest legal systems in the world, based as it is on the system of English common law, with an independent judiciary, had been declared. But obviously Gandar and his fellow journalist Benjamin Pogrund, have already been exonerated by the anti-South Africa lobby, and upon their published reports, whether true or false, the attacks on our friends in Africa will continue.