|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
3 November 1972. Thought for the Week: I always
tell my Opposition friends that the only difference between
us is that I am theoretically non-Socialist, yet an amazingly
practical Socialist, while they are theoretical Socialists.
People will take things from us they wouldn't take from
the Labor Party..."
"What Conservatives must emphasize...is that while everyone
is quaking at McGovern's mad-dog proposals, Mr. Nixon
is actually in the process of accomplishing what McGovern
is only talking about".
FEDERAL COALITION BLACKMAIL OF ELECTORS MUST BE CHALLENGED
A number of our readers, who are also members of the Federal Coalition parties, have mildly taken us to task for what they describe as "dangerous" criticism of the Federal Government during an election year. It has been suggested to us that it is "unthinkable" that Labor should win the Federal elections. Some frank and realistic comment is necessary.
After Mr. Eric Butler recently addressed a Victorian country meeting at which the local Country Party M.L.C. was present, it was suggested to Mr. Butler that his address had been full of criticisms of the Federal Liberal-Country Party Coalition, with very little reference to the A.L.P. Mr. Butler replied that while the Australian League of Rights was strongly opposed to the policies of the A.L.P., the very same policies had been promoted by the Liberal and Country parties. He could not very well blame the A.L.P. for the Liberal and Country parties violating their own principles over the past twenty-three years.
For far too long the Liberal and Country parties have virtually blackmailed their own supporters threatening them with the dreadful consequences of a Labor Government if they objected electorally to the broken promises of their own parties. Mr. Arthur Calwell, former A.L.P. leader, made a telling point last week when he exposed how a Liberal Party press advertisement had blatantly misrepresented him with the caption that he had said that the Government's 1972 Budget was a "wonderful budget". Mr. Calwell commented: "What I actually said was: "This is a wonderful Budget because anything that is good was pinched from the Labor Party's policy."
Mr. Calwell no doubt recalls most vividly
how during the 1961 Federal Elections he was barely kept from
the Prime Ministership by the Menzies campaign, which charged
that a Deficit Budget to overcome unemployment would be "disastrous"
and "wildly inflationary." One of the first post-election
acts of the shattered Liberal-Country Party Coalition was
to introduce an even bigger deficit than the one proposed
by Mr. Calwell! The inevitable result, under present financial
rules, was more inflation.
The regeneration of responsible Government must start with the regeneration of individuals who must be prepared to accept personal responsibility for their actions. Those who put "party loyalty" ahead of those truths they have grasped, are being disloyal to themselves. If after twenty-three years parties have violated most of their own principles, how can it be logically expected that they will do any better if given "one more chance?" Then there is the problem of those "good blokes" we also hear about from party supporters. There are a number of "good blokes" in all the political parties, but to date they have offered no real resistance to the accelerating growth of the totalitarian State.
We have heard that the Hon. R. Katter,
Minister for the Army, is regarded as one of the "good blokes"
by some of our Kennedy Electorate readers, Bob Katter is indeed
a quite pleasant fellow. He even made a strong criticism of
the 1971 Budget - as a backbench Member. Mr. Katter correctly
observed that the Budget was going to hurt the electors he
represented. But having delivered himself of strong words,
as politicians often do, how did Mr. Katter represent his
electors? He voted for the very measures he had verbally condemned!
He did not even abstain.
The implementation of the stated policies of the Federal Liberal and Country parties would start to take Australia away from the totalitarian threats now looming so menacingly. Surely Liberal and Country party candidates of integrity, who say that they are determined to attempt in the next three years what they have failed to do in the past, should have no objection to giving electors a signed contract concerning fundamental issues? Can any candidate be trusted who will not enter into a firm contract with those he is asking to employ him?
The best advice we can give to readers
who are also members of their respective parties, is for them
to say to their party candidate, "Unless you are prepared
to give me a firm written assurance that you are determined
to implement our own party's policy, how can you expect me
to work and to vote for you? As a responsible elector I must
accept responsibility for my actions. If you cannot give me
a firm written assurance on the policy issues I am raising
- inflation, death taxes, crippling debt, excessive interest
charges, high taxation and mounting rates - then I can neither
work nor vote for you."
One final point: It is a false argument that if party members are unable to obtain a signed contract with their party's candidate, they then have no alternative but to vote for candidates who may also have refused to sign a contract. It is compulsory if electors wish to avoid being fined, for electors to attend a polling booth and have this recorded. But they cannot be compelled to vote for anyone if no candidate meets their requirements. Those who vote for the "lesser of the evils" have in fact failed to act in a responsible manner. Until such time as sufficient electors, which need only be a minority, start to act and vote in a responsible manner, it is as certain as the sunrise that the problems besetting Australia must get rapidly worse - irrespective of the label of the politicians at Canberra.
LEAGUE OF RIGHTS DISCUSSED AT CANBERRA
"We on this side of the Senate and I am sure the public at large - have become confused as to the real attitude of the members of the coalition Government towards the fascist body known as the League of Rights." - Senator James McClelland (Labor, N.S. W.), speaking in the Senate on October 24th.
Such is the background of Senator James
McClelland that we regard any smear by him as high praise.
He is sometimes featured favorably in the Marxist press of
this country, and is consistently on the wrong side on all
basic issues. Speaking on the adjournment, Senator McClelland
set out to try to embarrass the Government by quoting Mr.
Anthony's "pro-Nazi" address in South Australia last year,
his subsequent partial retreat, and then the "more forthright"
Wesley Church (Melbourne) address of Deputy Country Party
leader Ian Sinclair on August 21st.
"You ask whether I have any evidence to dispute the statement made by Mr. Snedden, when Attorney-General, that there is no evidence to suggest that the Australian League of Rights is other than a reputable organisation. So far as I am aware the Australian League of Rights is not engaged in activities that are proscribed by law and in that context it is capable of being described as a "reputable organisation". However, repute is to be measured by the community acceptance of the views and policies of an organisation and its members and, as you appreciate, this is a subjective matter and can vary with changing community standards."
Senator Greenwood's last sentence is, of course, a blatant example of double-talk. Does he seriously suggest that if the Attorney General were asked about the Nazi Party or the Communist Party, he would reply that as they are permitted legally to operate, they are therefore "reputable organisations"! Senator Greenwood continued his verbal weaving, but eventually forced Senator McClelland, who claimed to speak for the Labor Party, that "We would not ban them (the League of Rights), but we would not speak in their favour." Senator Greenwood said that he was "not at all convinced that the Labor Party would not come down with a heavy hand on organisations like the League of Rights to which it objects."
On the following day October 25th, the
controversy concerning the League of Rights shifted to the
House of Representatives, when Labor leader Whitlam asked
Mr. Ralph Hunt, Minister for the Interior, had he been "correctly
reported as saying that he personally believed the League
was doing a good job? As the Minister with responsibilities
covering sensitive questions of race relations, is he willing
to dissociate himself from the views of this racist and anti-Semitic
association, as his Leader has described it?"
If Mr. Hunt wishes to deny what a group
of responsible men of character and integrity reported he
said after a West Australian meeting, that is his responsibility.
This group of men had no axe to grind by reporting what Mr.
Hunt had told them about the League doing a good job and that
Mr. Sinclair had made his charge about the Nazi Party and
the League being linked because he had been "brainwashed".
The case of Mr. Hunt is but another tragic example of a man of good background, of considerable ability, armed with more background knowledge than most when they enter Parliament, being trapped in the treacherous political atmosphere of Canberra and eventually finding himself in the embarrassing position where he felt he had to ally himself with his Deputy Leader, Mr. Sinclair, even though he knows that there is not one word of truth in the foul Sinclair allegation of the link between the Nazi Party and the League of Rights.
The final act in the Canberra discussion on the League of Rights came on October 26th when Senator Greenwood was apparently stung into action by Senator McClelland's suggestion on the previous day that because of his "reluctance to uncover right wing activities", he would allow Senator Little's question of September 14th to remain unanswered until the end of the session. Senator Little had asked if the Attorney-General's Department had any evidence to substantiate Mr. Sinclair's allegation that the Nazi Party and the League of Rights were "closely linked". A most embarrassing question, but the Senator once again showed his capacity for verbal sidestepping: "It is clear from the context in which the Minister made this statement. . .that he was talking about the policies and philosophies of the 2 groups. He was obviously not referring to organisational links between them. I have no evidence that there are any such links."
If Senator Greenwood actually read Mr.
Sinclair's address, he would know that he did not discuss
the League's support for the Christian philosophy of freedom,
nor did he even mention one League policy. As Senator Greenwood
is not an illiterate, he knows what "common English usage"
means, and that the Oxford Dictionary defines "link" as follows:
"Connect, join (together, to, with); clasp or intertwine (hands,
arms); be joined in or into a system, company."
ON TARGET BULLETIN
The Creation and Control of Money
The major feature of present day politics is the ever-increasing activities of the State with correspondingly greater increase in Government expenditure. This increased expenditure is more and more in the field of immense capital works which call for enormous capital expenditure. To finance these activities Central Banks create new credits against Government securities. Central Bank control of these credits, when they come in the possession of the Trading Banks ensures that the Trading Banks will be always limited in the amount of credit they can advance for non-governmental purposes.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|