'BIG BROTHER' GROWS BIGGER

Few will feel much sympathy with Citibank, the target for a recent highly sophisticated "raid" by 34 members of the Australian Taxation Department. But the event, which has produced strong reaction from Citibank, is an indication of "the shape of things to come". The raid at 1 Margaret Street, Sydney, was carried out with seven teams operating like a commando exercise. One report stated that "the tax force let it be known that it had all the necessary technological firepower, along with the legislative: the cellular phones, two-way radios, dictaphones, cameras and portable fax and copying machines. The taxation team even brought their own portable generator."

Enormous quantities of files were taken, raising the question of whether a raid conducted under section 263(1) of the Taxation Act, which grants the Taxation Department "full and free" access to anything concerning documents or buildings, is a violation of the secrecy of the bank's customers. But no one should be surprised by such activities, as step by step the totalitarian state is being erected.

The "Big Brother" threat has been progressively developed over most of this century. A former Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart, struck the first major warning with his classic, The New Despotism (1929). Lord Hewart charged that there was a carefully contrived programme to increase the power of the non-elected official at the expense of the individual. Hewart understood what Fabianism - "Sovietisation by stealth" - meant.

As stressed by top Marxists from the time of Marx, every step toward the centralisation of power results in problems, which then are used to justify still greater centralisation. Centralised control of debt finance is the most potent instrument available to the totalitarians. It appears "inevitable" that government bureaucracies, particularly taxation departments, should be permitted to exercise more and more irresponsible power while the basic tenets of financial orthodoxy remain unchallenged.

If it were true that taxation is a government's only means of raising revenue, then perhaps a case could be made for ensuring that everyone paid a fair share of required taxation. But it is not true that governments rely exclusively upon taxation for the financing of legitimate government activities. Directly and indirectly governments borrow from a banking system, which creates the nation's money supply in the form of financial credit (see The Money Trick, $7.00 posted from all League addresses). Part of taxation revenue is used to service interest charges on a growing debt.

Taxation generally is now used as a form of "social engineering", of a system of control. The taxation system employs tens of thousands of people in parasitic mode, which tend to sabotage those engaged in constructive activities. The natural resistance of people to such an oppressive taxation system is to resist in every possible way, the demands of the Taxation Monopoly. This is used as the justification for more infringements of the individual's rights under the guise of catching "tax cheats" conducting their business activities with cash. Thus the quiet introduction of the Cash Transaction Report Act which makes it mandatory for all financial institutions to report to yet another agency on all cash transactions in excess of $10,000.

After April 1st, 1989, everyone who is employed will be required to compile "A Tax Installment Declaration" along with their own "Tax File Number". Unless this is done bank accounts will be frozen and no funds can be withdrawn. Commercial organisations have for a long time been building up profiles on as many people as possible, thus enabling the individual to be given a "credit rating". The new tax file system will take this development much further. Opening new bank accounts will be impossible without the individual identifying himself in some way. This is already happening.

The "Big Brother" spirit is strong in the land. It is the result of an anti-Christian philosophy which in essence insists that the individual cannot be trusted with freedom and security; that he must be controlled. The basic issue confronting mankind is neither financial nor economic; it is philosophical. It is concerned with the nature and purpose of man. The answer was provided two thousand years ago: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. If fully adopted, instead of taxation and other officials trying to mind other people's business, they would be freed to look after their own, and let others do likewise.

ELECTORS' VETO NOT ENOUGH

Endorsing our view that the Electors' Veto of itself is inadequate for the electors to protect themselves against totalitarian policies, a correspondent comments "…I don't think we can afford to do without the initiative referendum because it seems to me so essential a tool in returning power to the people and thereby restoring real democracy. If only the electors' veto is brought in, and no power to initiate referenda, the government of the day will always be able to be in charge of the game, and keep virtual monopoly control of the political process, while the people will only be able to fight an expensive, time consuming and exhausting perpetual rear guard action. That must be the consequences if the only tool is the electors' veto. Essentially the result would be that the people would have the power to react but not to lead."

Our correspondent made a vital point. In a genuine democracy, power and initiative must reside with the electors. Every worthwhile reform in history has been initiated by, originally, a small group. If there is enough support for the reform, the objective is reached only if enough people join together to demand action of their elected representatives.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The distinguished mining leader, Mr. Hugh Morgan, noted for his scholarly exposition of his views on a number of national issues, is the latest conservative to upset the Zionists. In an address on May 27th, Mr. Morgan uses two of Shakespeare's plays, Othello and The Merchant of Venice, to support his opposition to Australia's present immigration policy. Mr. Morgan said, "Shylock lived by the law in Venice, but he wanted no part of the social or communal life of the Christian city in which he lived ... What is most important to him he cannot share with his neighbours. And when men do not agree about what is most important to them they cannot constitute a civil society. This is the political lesson of The Merchant of Venice". The Australian Jewish News of June 24th reprints an edited article by Australian columnist Greg Sheridan, who in an attempt to "rubbish" Hugh Morgan demonstrates a striking lack of understanding concerning realities. Sheridan argues that so long as people, irrespective of background, support a "liberal, democratic order (whatever that is) it does not matter if people are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, socialists or anything else."
History, and the contemporary world, teaches that stable, cohesive societies are only possible when the great majority of the people are of the same background and share the same basic value system.

Prime Minister Hawke's address to the American Congress was warmly applauded by the Congressmen. But the reality is that Mr. Hawke's appeal for the Americans to adopt a policy of free trade, while certainly gaining Mr. Hawke plenty of media coverage back in Australia, will not have the slightest effect on American politics. Irrespective of who wins the Presidential contest later this year - this will not help Australia. American Congressional candidates are well aware that they are dependent on American electors either to stay in office or to be elected. And American economic policies, including farm subsidies and heavily discounted exports, are governed by the same type of debt financial policies being imposed in Australia by the Hawke government.

A Toowoomba district Aborigine has slammed the Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission decision to persuade the Queensland Government to drop charges against those Aborigines involved in the 1987 Goondiwindi riots. Mr. Rod Rivers, an Aboriginal missionary and translator, rejects the "treaty" between Aborigines and white Australians. He spends much time in the Kimberleys, working with his fellow Aborigines. He points out that there is a "silent majority" of Aborigines who don't have a voice in the media. He asserts that the Michael Mansells and Neville Bonners speak only for a minority of Aborigines, and are in fact, traitors to the real Aborigines of the outback.
The H.R.E.O.C. is wrong to call for the dropping of charges: if people - any people - commit crimes they should be punished. This "treaty" is a form of Apartheid. We condemn South Africa over Apartheid, and yet are planning to introduce the same system here in Australia: the majority of real Aborigines would be against this unfairness. All the black Australians he encounters want to work with white Australians. In his experience the mixed bloods want to be classed as white Australians; but Land Rights brought a change, "Because of land grabs a lot of people turned black overnight". Mr. Rod Rivers believes that mixed race Aborigines, like himself, and Michael Mansell, should be able to choose to be black or white. "They are descendants of black women and white men. We should not forget that part of the Aboriginal race only came since the white man came to Australia". "They are not part of a race that is thousands of years old." Mr. Rivers speaks several Aboriginal languages.