|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
9 April 1971. Thought for the Week: "HE IS RISEN" (Matthew 28:6)
ANTI-SOUTH AFRICAN WAR HOTS UP
"Ambassador to the U.N. (Sir James Plimsoll) has told a special Indian Ocean conference here that Australia did not intend to have any defence alliance with South Africa". - The Age, Melbourne March 20.
Throughout the Australian press there is a rash of anti-South African propaganda. As that important international agency of international Communism, the United Nations, has declared 1971 as the year to combat racism the faithful have picked up the message and prodded by the hard core the thousands of brainwashed minions have taken up the theme. Press, Church and Education institutions have opened the floodgates to those whose thinking stops neatly short of examining inconsistencies in other parts of Africa, while an almost blanket terminology warfare is used utilising trigger words like "racist" to mask the tenuous basis on which the war against South Africa is being fought.
It should never be forgotten that the basic issue in the campaign to isolate South Africa is her refusal to compromise with communist "co-existence" policies. The race question, which is the main weapon used against South Africa, was the means by which the South Africans were alerted to the real designs of Communism. The Rivonia trial and the activities of men like Brain Fischer were significant landmarks in the use of the race question by the Communists in the endeavour to destroy South Africa by internal revolution.
It is a great pity the realities are not recognised by the Australian Government. Only a day or two before making the above statement on behalf of the Government, Dr. T.B. Millar, the noted defence expert was reported from U.S.A. where he said that South Africa and Australia would be the "springboards" for counter-offensive action in any east-west confrontation over the Indian Ocean. While he discounted the likelihood of such a confrontation, as any defence expert should, he pointed to the threat.
Professor Millar suggested that Soviet and Chinese naval forces in the Indian Ocean were being used to support African liberation movements. If this is true, and we might ask, how else do the terrorists get their equipment, then the confrontation is a reality now. Mr. McMahon as Prime Minister of Australia does not recognise the threat to us. As Foreign Affairs Minister under Mr. Gorton he must have briefed Sir James Plimsoll to dogmatically state the policy of refusing a defence alliance with South Africa. Then, as Prime Minister, almost his first action was to make a grant of $12,500 to organisations within Australia working to combat "racism ". It will be interesting to see which organisations are so blessed with our taxpayer's money. Whether communist fronts or not, they will be forwarding communist policy in the present tense atmosphere.
For a man who declared his intention of being "very anti-Communist, and very anti-socialist", Mr. McMahon has shown he is quite blind to one of the most important international issues, and from Australia's point of view, one of the most critically vital.
Progress Dependent Upon Financial Support
League activity is running at a higher
level than ever before. Emerging from the ranks of supporters
are those individuals equipped to play an increasingly significant
role to maintain growth and continued expansion. Mr. Keith
Oldfield recently conducted meetings and Social Dynamic Schools
in South Australia. Mr. Don Auchterlonie in Gippsland supported
by Mr. Perce Lawrence has done the same.
Mr. Jeremy Lee in Queensland-Northern
N.S.W. has just opened up an important part of the middle
west of N.S.W. hitherto untouched by League organisation.
THE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
"It is to be hoped that one of the items to be reviewed by the new Federal Government will be the operation of the Australian Industry Development Corporation". - The Commerce News, March 1971.
The item in the official journal of the
Melbourne Chamber of Commerce reflects the unease many people
feel about the A.I.D.C. There is no doubt it constitutes a
duplication of present banking institutions and is another
attempt to mask the deficiencies of present financial policies
A glaring example of irresponsible spending of taxpayer's
funds, the A.I.D.C. is reported to be offering the most attractive
salary range to prospective employees. In perks it tops attractive
offers made by rival departments with access to taxpayers
funds. For example, those joining A.I.D.C. who wish to build
homes are offered 95% of the capital cost and the remainder
at 4% interest. Long term low interest rates for bloated bureaucrats
is the order of the day; however, it is the purpose of the
A.I.D.C., which is most dangerous. It is founded upon the
myth of the need for capital inflow to develop Australian
Realising there is public uneasiness about selling out our heritage, the argument has been advanced that A.I.D.C. will channel the flow of finance capital into Australia and see that it goes to those industries which need it most. No wonder Dr. Cairns eulogised and congratulated the Government under Mr. Gorton for establishing the A.I.D.C. And no wonder the man who has tied the Australian rural community to the chains of international price fixers, Sir John McEwen, has seen to it that he has been appointed to the chief position at the top of the structure.
Given full reign under the growing policy of destroying national financial sovereignty and replacing it with international control, the A.I.D.C. in the hands of Messrs. Cairns-Whitlam and Co. will be a formidable weapon indeed to decide the fate of Australian industry, and the type of development which takes place.
PAY UP - OR YOU WON'T LAST
April 5, - Sir Henry Bolte, Victorian Premier, reported in the Melbourne Herald offering advice to Mr. McMahon on new negotiations with the Premiers to reconcile Commonwealth-State financial relations. Sir Henry put the view that Commonwealth-State relations were an issue of the greatest significance in Australian politics now. The issue ten years previously did not gain the attention it does today. If this is the case the Liberal Party cannot be thanked because it has continuously acquiesced in accepting growing control from Canberra.
The hard spadework has been done by organisations like The Australian League of Rights with continual publicity and pressure on the politicians to rectify the situation. During Federal elections when it should have been the issue of the day, the State politicians, including Sir Henry, have closed their ranks with their Federal Colleagues to keep the issue out of public discussion as much as possible. Publications such as The Liberal Socialist Road to Serfdom (15 cents posted) have embarrassed the Federal Government all over Australia. It has demonstrated that politics can only be fought and won when the issues are brought out into the open. It must be agreed with Sir Henry; Mr. McMahon is under pressure on this important issue. His approach to an equitable solution could well decide whether he will survive.
OUR LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTERPeople all over Australia are waiting on the reply from Mr. McMahon to the letter sent to him and published in "On Target", March 19, and the April edition of Intelligence Survey. A note has been received from Mr. McMahon's private secretary as follows, "The Prime Minister has received your letter of 15 March, 1971 concerning Commonwealth/ State relations and other matters. Mr. McMahon has asked me to inform you that a reply will be sent to you as soon as possible." Yours sincerely, (C.R. Jones) Private Secretary.
We will publish Mr. McMahon's reply as soon as it comes to hand.
COMMUNIST AGGRESSION IN LAOSIn answer to a question from Dr. Mackay in Parliament on March 9, 1971, Mr. McMahon made the following statement. "The Chinese are building without the approval of the Laotian Government, a highway leading from Yunnan Province down to a place called Pak Beng close to the Meking River. They are also building another complex running through Phong Saly in the north of Laos, joining that road and again moving towards Pak Beng. It is a roadway of considerable quality capable of carrying heavy traffic of high density. The road is being built by Chinese and is being manned by Chinese military personnel. The reasons for this are not clear, but it is thought either that it is needed because the Chinese wish to support the Communist insurgents in north-east Thailand, or probably in the long run they wish to establish their political hegemony over those parts of Thailand".
THE AUSTRALIAN AMBASSADORInternational relations at first hand. This is the title of a book, just published, by Walter Russell Crocker, former Australian ambassador in eleven countries : now retired. He is a mixed bag; he has very sound ties, and he is way off the beam on certain vital issues. He is anti-Vietnam, in favour of recognition of Peking. He had hoped to be the first Australian Ambassador to Peking. He has the naive notion that he, and a few others of his persuasion, could have influenced the Red Chinese leadership. He severely criticises the late Harold Holt for his recognition (diplomatic) of Taiwan. However, he is most realistic concerning relations between countries. He says "In foreign relations, countries have interests rather than friends". He is scathing of the influence of the mass media "The sensationalism of the mass-media is a bigger peril and a worse betrayer than Communist enemies, imagined or real". He is anti-Zionist, and a severe critic of the United Nations. He estimates that 100,000 people are now living tax-free out of it and its agencies. It is an international bureaucracy; the same empire building goes on, on a larger scale, than even at Canberra. More and more programmes and conferences...."To justify present staff and demands for more staff:' He says that Australia pays SIX PER CENT, a wildly disproportionate share of the swelling costs of the U.N. He was originally opposed to the White Australia Policy. Drawing upon his experiences in Britain, America, India and Africa he has... "little doubt that this policy (White Australia) is the right one for Australia for the time being". His opinion of our present immigration policy warrants much consideration..."Australia has the most expensive system of immigration ever evolved sheer numbers, almost at any cost The risk to quality in such a pressure for quantity is obvious".
AMERICAN BANKER ENDORSES "GET BIG OR GET OUT" POLICY
"Multi-millionaire U.S. banker and financier, Mr. David Rockefeller, yesterday criticised Australia's long-term wheat deals with China' - The Age, Melbourne, 26th March.
Reading Mr. Rockefeller's remarks makes
it obvious that his whole training and background render him
unable to think of anything but in terms of finance. He does
not criticise trade with China, he is all for it. He says
that we should not finance wheat deals with China on a five-year
repayment basis, but on a 90-day basis
"If the Communists
want the money for five years they are obviously putting it
to better use than buying wheat". This is right enough however,
as the Wheat Industry is desperate for markets for surplus
wheat, then under the financial rules which we follow, we
take what we can get.
The real answer : change the
rules, e.g. the introduction of consumer subsidies financed
directly by Central Bank credit outside the taxation
system would be a big step in the right direction. These subsidies
were employed in British countries during the Second World
War. Mr. Rockefeller has no interest at all in the land, otherwise
he would be on it; he thinks of the land as merely a factor
in financial investment, which investment he does hold in
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|