AUSTRALIA AT THE CROSS ROADS

As Australia moves towards its bicentenary, the stage is being set for the most decisive events in Australian history. Events will decide whether Australia, damaged as it has been, economically, politically and culturally, will continue to grow as it has for nearly 200 years, rooted in a stream of history which flowed out of that part of Western Europe known as the United Kingdom, or whether it will be diverted into a new and alien mould. The subversion of Australia's traditional immigration policy, the multicultural fad, the progressive surrender of Australia's economic independence, the imposition of "progressive education", and the attack on the Federal Constitution are some of the major features of what is in essence an assault on 'traditional Australia.

The plight of the labor party itself is a manifestation of the deep rot afflicting the nation. A party which once prided itself on its fierce nationalism is now in the forefront of the movement to subordinate Australia's independence to international control, as witnessed by the introduction of international banks and the blatant threat to surrender more of Australia to the World Heritage Commission in order to stop any form of economic activity of which it does not approve.

The changed composition of the High Court makes it almost certain that more Franklin River type decisions can be expected. Fabian Prime Minister Hawke has made it clear what he and his colleagues propose for Australia in the future. They want to tear the nation from its roots to fit it into the proposed international new order. But they must stay in office to do this, and a certain amount of pragmatism has been essential. Hawke and colleagues will have no scruples about swallowing their own promises and staging an early election, if they feel they can win at a time when clearly the Opposition is in disarray. In the meantime the assault on the nation's constitution continues under the guise of an expensive Constitutional Commission investigating what type of new constitution would be the best for Australia as it moves into the third century of its history.

The various Advisory Committees, stacked with Fabians and similar people, have been moving around Australia in what is an attempted brainwashing programme. The shape of things envisaged is clearly indicated by the Advisory Committee on executive government, which is undertaking enquiries into such matters as whether Australia should be a Republic or a Monarchy and "What powers should the Government have independent of the Parliament?" Here is a breath taking and revolutionary proposal. But Australia is in the middle of a revolution, which we have consistently warned about.

Can this revolution be halted? And how? Let us say immediately that it will not be halted merely by changing one set of politicians for another. The present Opposition parties, including some of its prominent members, have contributed to the present critical situation. Those who think like Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen are right when they warn that the future of Australia cannot be left in the hands of Opposition politicians who have failed in the past. While we feel that the Queensland Premier is being politically unrealistic if he really believes that it is possible to elect some type of a Federal National Party government representing his own thinking, he may make a valuable contribution towards national survival by helping to increase the development of a grass roots movement which demands better representatives and more realistic policies at Canberra.

We remain convinced that only a genuinely grassroots movement, adequately informed and effectively led, can slow down and then reverse the revolution threatening Australia's future. If only sufficient representatives of that grass roots movement can be elected in the Senate, to hold the balance of power, then the tide can be turned. The League of Rights will continue, as it has to provide the unique service and leadership, which it has consistently and effectively provided for 40 years.

BRUCE RUXTON VERSUS TUTU

The Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr. Penman, will find that while he has made the headlines with his call for the Returned Services League to take action against Victorian RSL president Bruce Ruxton, because of Mr. Ruxton' s criticism of visiting Archbishop Desmond Tutu from South Africa, he has unfortunately confirmed in the minds of large numbers of people that Church leaders are often extremely naive. Mr. Ruxton is, in Shakespeare's words, a "plain blunt man" who says what he feels. But, contrary to what Dr. Penman says, Bruce Ruxton is not a "cruel and vindictive man". Those who know him best can testify to his great compassion for his fellow man. But he sees Archbishop Tutu as an evil man, "a Witchdoctor … breathing hatred".. But so do large numbers of Christians, both black and white in South Africa. That is why large numbers are leaving the Anglican Church in South Africa.

Archbishop Penman says that Archbishop Tutu is a "gentle man of peace and prayer" and that he knew better than his critics the facts about South Africa. The most charitable comment that can be made about Tutu is that he is one of Lenin's useful idiots. He claims that convicted Communist leader, Mandela, a man found guilty of plotting revolution in South Africa, is his "leader". Tutu is on record as saying that he was thankful for the victory of Marxist Robert Mugabe in the country once known as Rhodesia.

In praising this Communist with a long terrorist record, including the butchering of Christian missionaries, Tutu had the effrontery to praise Mugabe for "his magnanimity in working for reconciliation and national unity." Mugabe is the man who used his notorious North Korean trained Fifth column to massacre large numbers in Matabeleland. Mugabe was the man responsible for having all mention of God removed from the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

There is no record of Tutu protesting against the persecution of Christians in. Zimbabwe. Tutu has said on a number of occasions that he is a socialist. Speaking in Vancouver in 1983, Tutu said, "I find capitalism quite horrendous and unacceptable. I am a socialist ..." A master of doubletalk, Tutu disclaims that he is a Marxist. During Senator Edward's visit to South Africa in 1985, Tutu, recently appointed Bishop of Johannesburg, openly allied himself with a man whose shady and sordid political and moral record was well known.

The truth about Tutu is that he is being used by the promoters of the worldwide revolutionary movement against South Africa. The success of this worldwide revolutionary movement may be judged by the spectacle of the Sydney City Council granting freedom of the city to Communist leader Mandela. Press reports state that during Deputy Lord Mayor Harrup's speech praising Mandela and the African National Congress there was loud applause "from many Africans who had crammed into the vestibule and a chant resembling a Red Indian war dance from a woman dressed in the yellow, red and green colours of the ANC." This and similar reports raises the question of how many black "refugees" from South Africa are there now in Australia.

Bruce Ruxton is being criticised for upholding the formal policy of the RSL concerning a pro-European immigration policy. And he is correct when he says that he is supported, not only by the majority of RSL members, but by the Australian people. By his courageous up front stand, Bruce Ruxton could be preparing the way to make immigration a major issue at the next Federal Elections.

BRIEF COMMENTS

A station owner in Queensland has discovered what most Australians will find unbelievable: He was not permitted to advertise for a married overseer. On contacting the newspaper, which deleted the term "married" from his advertisement, he was told that his advertisement contravened some Federal legislation. He could, however advertise for a "young overseer and friend". In other words, while Australians cannot legally advertise for married people, they can, for example, advertise for gay mates, partners, or whatever. This is another example of the madness being imposed upon Australians by the misfits and other strange people who have managed to get themselves into positions of influence.

Deficit budgets had their origin with British economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics were applauded by the more farsighted Marxists as a means of progressively destabilising free societies. Back in 1982 the "conservative" U.S.A. President Ronald Reagan persuaded Congress to cut taxes without cutting expenditure. Under "Reagonomics" the tax cuts would stimulate the economy and thus provide greater tax revenue. But the promised economic boom never eventuated and the budget deficit trebled to $A332 billion in 1986. The theorists advising the Reagan Administration hope to do better this year. But the continuing state of the American economy proves that this is not going to happen. Thus the growing American crisis. A post Great Depression record of 138 American financial institutions failed last year.

DANGERS OF NAZI WITCH HUNT

Following an article by Zionist leader Isi Leibler in The Weekend Australian late last year, the following thought provoking letter by Mr. Nigel Jackson appeared in The Australian of January 5th. We publish it in full.

"It is possible to take issue with Mr. Isi Leibler on certain matters of principle raised in his article, 'Why the Jews want to hunt the Nazis' (20-21/12/86). "First it should be noted that Mr. Andrew Menzies's 'fundamental statement' (as Mr. Leibler calls it) that 'in the Australian system of justice, lapse of time has never been regarded as justification for withholding prosecution action for the most serious crimes such as murder can surely have legal validity only in relation to crimes already proclaimed before the acts constituting the crime were committed.
"I do not see how the principle can be applied to 'those who slaughtered hundreds and in some cases thousands of civilian noncombatants as a matter of deliberate policy' (to use Mr. Leibler's words) if these actions were taken by those not Australian citizens at the time and in nations other than Australia. "Or can some legal authorities refer me to legislation in existence in Australia between 1939 and 1945 under which lawfully and legally the present Australian government can now proceed against the alleged Nazi war criminals in our midst?
"Second, I suggest that the charge of "crimes against humanity" had no legal validity in Australian law at the time these alleged crimes were committed. "Indeed, did it have legal validity anywhere in the world before the end of World War II? "If not, it seems to me to be quite unlawful to try any current Australian citizen on any charge of a 'crime against humanity' concerning an act committed between 1939 and 1945. "My contention is that it simply is not possible to 'bring to justice' any authentic Nazi war criminal in Australia in the way envisaged by the Menzies Report without destroying certain fundamental judicial principles on which our traditional freedoms depend.
"If the Australian Government proceeds to institute prosecutions as Mr. Menzies recommended then this will signal that in the future an Australian Government may retrospectively declare a certain act 'a crime' and then try citizens on that basis. "The totalitarian implications of this are horrific."