|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
31 August 1973. Thought for the Week: "...They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that, in all monarchies, the people must themselves mediately or immediately possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could exist."
Edmund Burke, Speech on conciliation with America.
HEATH GOVERNMENT ROCKED BY MOUNTING STORMS
Mr. Eric Butler reports from the United Kingdom.
"The crisis threatening the Heath Government deepens with every day that passes. The latest public opinion polls reveal a massive increase in British opposition to the Common Market venture. Even before these polls had revealed the strength of the British electors' hostility, Mr. P. Jenkins, the Labor Member who played the decisive role in ensuring that Mr. Heath had just sufficient numbers to carry his Common Market policy in the House of Commons, had made the highly significant statement in a BBC TV programme that if the British people came to the conclusion that entry into the E.E.C. was a mistake, he had "never believed that...the Treaty of Brussels was totally irrevocable."
"Even that most artful politician, Mr. Harold Wilson, has been forced to state clearly in a letter to Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett (Patron of the British League of Rights) that if Labor won the next British elections, it would re-negotiate the terms of British continuation in the E.E.C. and that those terms would be submitted to the British electors at a referendum. The only qualification mentioned by Mr. Wilson is that "exceptional circumstances" might require the decision to be made at another General Election. It is true that Mr. Wilson is quite capable of creating "exceptional circumstances" which would enable him to try to trick the British electors in the same manner that Edward Heath tricked them. But with the British finance-economic situation deteriorating so quickly, the politicians are finding that British hostility to the Common Market is becoming explosive.
"When I met Mr. Enoch Powell last year, he made the observation that history showed how quite often an event not directly associated with a major political issue can have an explosive effect in a community. While it is true that most British opposition to the Common Market is directly related to rising food prices, there are other issues, such as the threat of European juggernauts rushing through English villages, which are rousing the anger of the British people. British treatment of animals is traditionally different to that of most Continental peoples. There have been storms of protest concerning the cruel treatment of animals now being exported from the United Kingdom to the Continent. One British woman dog-breeder told me that any E.E.C. attempt to "harmonise" dog breeding would result in the British Government having to deal with a large number of aroused British women! There is no doubt that large numbers of the Conservative Party's best workers, the women, are deserting Mr. Heath and are becoming his most determined opponents. Every new increase in prices sweeps the British towards a major national disaster.
"British retail prices are currently increasing at an annual rate of 8.4 per cent. Unless corrective action is taken, the rate will increase early next year. It is this prospect, which has resulted in Mr. Enoch Powell making another of his controversial addresses. This address highlights the core of the finance-economic problem, and the "blind -spots' of even a man like Powell. Mr. Powell is right when he says that the present policies of the Heath Government are doomed to increasing failure, and that inflation is not caused by the Trade Unions, by some goods and services becoming scarcer, or by what is happening in other countries.
"It is caused by our own government," says Mr. Powell, and he refers to the creation of extra new money to finance deficit budgets. But then Mr. Powell dismays large numbers by urging that the solution is to "cut down the growth of public expenditure, or increase taxation, or do both at the same time." 'Mr. Powell admits the "unpleasant side-effects" of his policy would "include a temporary increase in bankruptcies and unemployment".But the restrictive policies of the Heath Government, which resulted in large numbers of bankruptcies and over one million unemployed, did not halt inflation.
Mr. Heath has flatly rejected Mr. Powell's proposals, clearly indicating that it believes that it may survive with inflation and increased economic growth - growth for the sake of growth has become the new God - while it would have no chance of surviving with inflation and large-scale unemployment. But Mr. Powell is undoubtedly right when he says that if the Conservatives face the electors under a banner of "Dear Food and Government from Brussels", they are doomed already.
If Mr. Powell is to provide the leadership necessary as the British crisis deepens then he must come forward with a much more realistic policy than the one he is advocating. Mr. Powell dismisses subsidies, and yet it has been revealed that the subsidies financed out of taxation, which kept British food prices relatively low compared with those in the Common Market, cost the British taxpayers only half of the amount they are now paying in the Common Market to force prices higher.
"Until Mr. Powell and his conservative friends, whose instincts are undoubtedly sound, challenge the basic cause of inflation, which is the policy of issuing new credit in such a manner that it results in accelerating debt, they can only fight a series of rear-guard actions in the face of growing centralisation, revolutionary conditions and a continued Marxist advance. How the community's credit is to be created and used is the basic question, which conservatives everywhere must face if they are to halt the Socialist drive towards still greater Monopoly, ultimately leading to the World State.
One of the most critical periods in man's history is now upon us, and may well decide whether civilisation will collapse completely or whether out of the present storm man will emerge into the light. This could pave the way for a change of finance-economic policies of the greatest significance."
Australians who are basking under the illusion that the Constitution cannot be altered without a referendum, as defined in section 128, are in cloud-cuckoo land. The Labor Government is now on a well-planned course of constitutional sabotage, using many of a former socialist Attorney-General's concepts in the process. Senator Murphy's department is carrying on the socialist tradition. One of the ways in which the Australian Constitution can be circumvented by the Commonwealth Government is by the ratification of an international pact or charter or agreement, which entails that Australia as a participant must accept obligations requiring legislation, the power for which does not ordinarily exist in the Constitution.
In a confidential document prepared and circulated by Dr. Evatt in connection with the 14 powers referendum in 1944, it was stated that Australia's acceptance of the terms of I.L.O. (International Labor Organisation) would provide such an opportunity. Dr. Evatt advocated that Australia must sign. Evatt was a dangerous and ruthless socialist, concerned with destroying constitutional safeguards and centralising all power. A similar situation exists in the United States, and the Bricker Amendment, which sought to preserve constitutional safeguards, was narrowly defeated in the Senate, resulting in a situation where constitutional freedoms are at the mercy of international treaties and obligations, however tyrannical they might be.
The Australian Financial Review 28/8/1973 reports: "The Federal Government will implement a Bill of Rights in the next session of Parliament which will seek to expand the Commonwealth's power into the administration of criminal justice in Australia. The Attorney General's Department is drafting legislation, which is designed to give effect to the United Nations international covenants on civil and political rights. Australia became a signatory to the covenants on December 18th last year, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, has said that we will ratify the document on December 10th this year... The ratification will oblige the Federal Parliament to give effect to the covenants in a legislative sense. . .The Commonwealth will be basing their attempt to override some aspects of State criminal codes through the Bill of Rights legislation on the External Affairs power of the constitution... Only a handful of Australians would understand the implications of the Labor Government's plan.
Regrettably, the Federal Opposition appears to be numbered amongst the unenlightened. But the external powers aspect of the Constitution is only one of the irons, which the saboteurs have in the fire. The Commonwealth Grants Bill, aimed at destroying the States and Local Government, has already passed both Federal Houses, with the Opposition in both House of Representatives and Senate weakly acquiescing, like Pontius Pilate, to what they have subsequently pointed out is wrong. This sabotage is carefully camouflaged with high-sounding phrases. We are told that the Commonwealth Grants Bill is merely a means of increasing financial allocations to local government.
A Bill of Rights, we are led to believe, is a guarantee of personal freedoms. Sir Robert Menzies, who opposed a Bill of Rights, pointed out that legal definitions had a very definite tendency not to enlarge, but to restrict freedoms, and he stressed that the provision of precedent, or example, so much a feature of British constitutional development, is far less constricting than an attempt to pin the intangible subject of freedom onto paper. It is like attempting to write down rules for the painting of a masterpiece - obviously ridiculous. The quality of a Rembrandt, vivid and real though it is, is as impossible to define, as it is impossible for Senator Murphy to classify our freedoms by legal rote.
On top of this constitutional tampering,
the "McEwen-Cairns" financial juggernaut, the Australian Industry
Development Corporation (AIDC) is now set for a massive programme
of nationalisation. The Sun 28/8/1973 reported:
The AIDC will be flanked by two more socialist financial monoliths, a National Interest Division, which will direct Government investment, from both revenue and loan raisings into what are described as "key industries, regional developments, restructuring, nationally important industries and buy-back operations".
The other will be the National Investment Fund, a Government sponsored unit trust type organisation. through which individual investors can invest in nationalised projects. Such investments will be granted special tax concessions. The implications are catastrophic for free enterprise and private ownership, which will be cut off from investment sources by artificially created tax discrimination. Marx's famous ten points for communising a nation are rapidly being implemented in Australia by the dangerous and unprincipled bunch calling themselves the Commonwealth Government.
A TIME-BOMB BUDGET
It is hard to put into words the utter futility of the budget strategy - if that is an apt word. Unless increased inflation, big increases in transport costs, more industrial confrontation and a further increase in the incidence of poverty and hardship in Australia is what Mr. Crean was seeking to achieve, the "strategy" is doomed to failure.
Predictably, we could have described
what Mr. Crean's critics would say:
What a heartening change it would be if only one politician took the blinkers off for a brief moment, and looked for a genuine alternative.
SIR ROBERT ASKIN AND T.D.T.
During the past week, not only has Sir Robert Askin made some pointed remarks on the arrogance of reporters on the ABC programme This Day Tonight, but one T.D.T. interviewer was ordered out of Parliament House in Sydney by the speaker. Whether the NSW Premier wishes to grant an interview is considered of little moment by those who make the programme, and Sir Robert has been jostled and accosted at public functions, which he was attending in his official capacity. One of the terms used by Sir Robert in describing T.D.T. was "subversive". He was challenged by Mr. Bill Peach to make the same statement outside the parliament, so that action could be taken. Mr. Peach may not like to hear that a considerable and growing number of Australians strongly support Sir Robert's views.
There is not even a vague pretence of giving both sides on current issues. The socialist left line is enthusiastically propagandised with gay abandon, and to the slant has been added a thoroughly objectionable and arrogant set of manners, so that any subject whose views may differ from those of the interviewer is immediately subjected to a third-degree type grilling, rather than the objective interview one might expect. On any of the important current issues - Vietnam and Cambodia, China, Rhodesia, South Africa, Mozambique and Angola, Racism, Pornography, Trade Unionism and Capitalism, Women's Liberation, Homosexuality and many others - the line which current affairs programmes will take is now entirely predictable.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|