THE FRANTIC PURSUIT OF 'PEACE' IN YUGOSLAVIA

"The European Community sent a second peace mission to Yugoslavia tonight after a ceasefire agreement between secessionists and the federal authorities fell apart within two days." - The Age (Melbourne), July 1st.

What is happening over large areas of Europe is a resurgence of nationalism as the tyrannous yoke of Communism is being lifted. An informative article on Yugoslavia, published in The Australian (July 1st), itself republished from The Times (U.K.), has its author, Norman Stone, writing "Nationalism does not usually solve problems - except maybe the problems of mediocrities looking for bogus bureaucratic jobs".

We take his point, but he is not right. He would be right if there were no finance economic alternatives known, which would "free" the various national states from imposed federations. We do not mean federations of the types of Australia, and the United States of America, where the populations are largely (but not exclusively), homogeneous, The Yugoslav federation is far different: different languages, different histories, different religions. Without attempting to go into really necessary, details, we shall assert that small independent states could well be viable under a realistic system of finance economics, and that, ultimately, probably well down the time track, this solution will be forced to emerge by unfolding events.

No, we are not trying to be mysterious, just making a point to mark our difference with the assertion (above) of Norman Stone. The latter is correct, of course, when he states that Yugoslavia is a Communist State - "in many ways a replica of the Soviet Union itself": and he adds, "what with its many peoples and its centralised ministries and its Monopoly money and its pollution and its subsidy from the West"…. Yes, right again; "Power in Belgrade (the Capital of Serbia) has fallen into the hands of a mainly Serb Communist clique"...

To understand the situation in Yugoslavia right now, one must have an adequate understanding of its histories. Why all the fuss about Yugoslavia anyway? Why can't the "international community" mind its own business, and let the states within Yugoslavia fight it out themselves? We'll give you the reason in three little words: NEW WORLD ORDER. That's what it's all about!

We heard President Bush, on radio, some days ago, being reported as expressing disapproval of the breakup of the Yugoslav federation, and stating that the U.S.A. would not recognise any state in that Federation which asserted sovereign independence. We presume the same would be the case with respect to the Soviet Union's various states. That is the central reason for "the West's" support for Mikhail Gorbachev, the self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist. Centralisation of all political and financial power is Holy Writ (Scripture) to a dedicated Marxist-Leninist.

The New World Order gang are not having things their own way. If Europe breaks up into independent, sovereign, states, then the cause of the New World Order (including World Government) could be put back a century or two. The "European Community" (meaning a virtual handful of politicians in Europe, in the European Parliament, dedicated in various ways to the N.W.O. and World Government) is bending over backwards to maintain the centralised, political status quo in Yugoslavia, as the Bush Administration in Washington is backing Gorbachev in his attempts to "save" the Soviet Union, and also attempting to get Boris Yeltsin on side. At present it looks as though Yeltsin is being "appeased" (Yeltsin is pro-decentralisation within the Soviet Union).

With nationalism resurgent in the Soviet Union, the New World Order brigade in the Halls of World Political Power (including the power of International Finance) are treading warily. Yugoslavia is scaring the wits out of them. No more aid from the European Community, or the U.S.A. if the political fragmentation continues. The Money Power at work, as usual.

"Is a "Republican" Australia Necessary For The New World Order?" Yes, it is. Why? A Republican Australia is necessary for the (coming) "new" alliances, which Australia must make for full incorporation into the New World Order. Vestigial links with Britain could possibly be "messy". It is likely that Britain is not "trusted" by the World Government plotters and planners: the anti-European ripples from London are not pleasing to them, and could be seen as a warning of things to come; things "going wrong".

World Government is impossible. We understand why C.H. Douglas made this observation, and are in no doubt that history will confirm it. But that won't stop the drive for it by its faithful. We have mentioned in these pages recently that David Irving has predicted the eventual breakup of the European Union (Common Market) as Germany "explodes" (via trade, particularly) into Eastern Europe (again, particularly Poland and the Soviet Union, which "must" be held together!). C.H. Douglas predicted the same, but much earlier in time.

Where does this leave Britain (not to mention the other Common Market members)? We can foresee a resurgent Britain, as the Common Market dissolves, and nationalism re-asserts itself in nations. And this is where Australia comes in. Unless we have been swamped, submerged under deliberate multiculturalism by that time (we think unlikely), the Anglo-Celtic majority of Australians will want to re-establish traditional links with kith and kin overseas. The Fabian Socialists now in power in Canberra think they have 10 years to brainwash the Australian electorate into acceptance of Republicanism. We don't like their chances.

Role of Monarchy
If nothing else, a powerful cohesive force to unify, especially, homogeneous peoples. A living symbol of the history and traditions of a homogeneous people (pride, self-respect). A model for social political standards for which to strive; if the Monarch honours the Coronation Oaths, as certainly our Queen Elizabeth II has. Have you noticed that the editorials of the metropolitan dailies in Australia are now coming out in favour of a Republican Australia? (Times have changed/many new Australians don't relate to a "distant Queen"/our geography in Asia propels us into new Asian relationships, etc., etc., ad nauseum). These editorials, which may have really surprised some supporters, represent the viewpoint of the Money Power (International Finance). Money is writing those editorials. Money is backing the New World Order.

Brief Comment
One of the principal advocates (if not the principal advocate) of a referendum to convert monarchical Australia to republican Australia is the Fabian, humanist, ideologue - John Dawkins. As Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr. Dawkins is desperately seeking to convert our education systems into vehicles for Socialist propaganda and humanist philosophy. Naturally he is meeting some resistance, notably from Professor Pennington, of the University of Melbourne. There are others. That the Fabians are right is beyond dispute, in their own eyes. We, the ill-informed public, have to be "educated" to their Truth. Not the Truth: their Truth. The current "line" is that the United Kingdom will be merged into Europe this decade, and accordingly her sovereignty will be surrendered. This situation then obtaining would make the "traditional" links (based on the Monarchy) between England and Australia tenuous indeed.
From the aspect of Truth, England should not be going into the European Union at all: the majority of citizens in the U.K. are opposed to such a union. Not that the Fabians care a fig about that: rather do they welcome it. Secondly, this union, even if it comes to pass, will not last; Germany will see to that. We agree with David Irving's prediction that Germany will expand eastwards into Russia, Poland, etc.; this time using the Deutschmark in lieu of the Panzers! Again, national sovereignty is becoming the order of the times: look at the break up of Yugoslavia, only held together this century by military force (Austria-Hungary under the Hapsburgs; then Communism under Tito). The Common Market has a most shaky future. It can't last. We predict the resurgence of the British world!

The telling of lies is quite O.K. in politics, and parliament: it can't always be avoided. Who says so? The Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe! An ordained clergyman, we understand (Uniting Church). We wonder what other theological "pearls" he has stored away in the recesses of his mind. But he does try to avoid lying to the people (how nice!). Quite quaint, really. This is "HoweSpeak": "In a sense, politics is always a matter of change, and one doesn't always say what is the latest reality" (Herald-Sun (Melbourne), June 10th, page 2). But this is 1991, and all the Humanist-controlled bureaucracy insists that we must not be "judgmental": that is very bad, you know. The "correct decisions / courses of action" are what are best for you at the time. There are no absolutes at all. All is secular humanism. And so the madness rolls on towards its certain obliteration in those Mills of God working away yesterday, today, and forever.

BRIEF COMMENT

INDEPENDENTS POLITICS' SAVING GRACE from The Australian, June 28th
Your editorial (The Weekend Australian, 22-23/6), concerning the Questions of Independents and Power tries to have it both ways. It argues simultaneously that independents have too much power and a vote for independents is a wasted vote. "The idea that independents have disproportionate voting power in Parliaments around Australia ignores three things. "First, any undue influence independents have is a function of other Members of Parliament abandoning their representative role and voting as a block, directed by party executives. "Second, independents are in the same position as any other member unless one of the parties agrees with the independents. "Third, the reason why Australia has now all Upper Houses and four Lower Houses not controlled by government is the economic social and environmental failure of our 'twin airline' antiquated, overblown political system with its inherent corruption, careerism, and nepotism as shown by the seemingly endless series of inquiries and royal commissions. "Your 'King Canute' editorialist fails to recognise the wider democratic participation which is deregulating monopolies around the world. He also ignores the fact every progressive idea in recorded history began as a minority movement." (Ted Mack, Federal Member for North Sydney)

POLITICIANS AND THE MONARCH - from The Australian, June 28th
The question facing Australians today is not if the monarchy is relevant, but whether our politicians are. "But it serves as a useful distraction from the mess the Hawke Government has made of running the country." (Ted Benbow, Katoomba, N.S.W.)

AN EDUCATION IN REPUBLICANISM from The Australian (July 1st)
"If the time comes when any future 'Labor' government promotes the necessary referendum of the Australian people seeking to exchange our Constitutional Monarchy for a republican presidency, I trust they will remember June 25, 1991. "They will remember this step was decided by a party torn by divisions, with deeply divided factions doing deals to buy power in an atmosphere of extreme hatred and dissension. It is to be hoped they see the similarity between what happened that day and the type of government structure proposed in a republic. "The struggle for power in a republic destroys relationships between people at a greater intensity than in a monarchy. That is the beauty of a hereditary system: power transfers smoothly and allows the process of government to do likewise. "Where power stakes are so high, as in a republic, there is a greater tendency towards degeneracy, corruption and violence. I, for one, welcome this issue coming to the forefront of public debate. It may constitute a turning point for Australia back to a saner understanding of what constitutes sound government." (Edward Rock, Greensborough,Vic.)

AN EDUCATION IN REPUBLICANISM from The Australian (July 1st)
So the 'comrades' (and that is what they call themselves) down in Hobart decided that the public need an 'education programme' to convince them that Labor Party policy of having Australia a republic by 2001 is what they, the public, want. "Allow me to write it in English. The Labor Party Conference has decided that a propaganda campaign is to be mounted (at taxpayers' expense) to brainwash the Australian electorate that they should accede to the wishes of a few hundred Labor Party members. "This is gross arrogance and a clear insult to all Australian citizens. We are quite able to make up our own minds on momentous events such as this - we do not need 'educating', all we need are hard-to- find facts upon which to make a valued judgment. "One remembers the 'education programmes' conducted by the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia and others in China where those who did not conform to the wishes of the commissars were uprooted from home and family and sent to camps until they were reformed. That will not happen in Australia, but the concept of the public needing 'educating' is not far removed. "I hope this resolution acts as a warning to all Australians as to how these comrades view their employers, the Australian electorate." (John K. Winslow, Normanhurst, N.S.W.)

FLAG HONOR INCONSISTENT from the Herald-Sun (Melbourne), July 1st
In my opinion the State Government has disgraced the office of the Governor. "While the Flag was lowered in reverence to the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Gandhi, it was not lowered in reverence to our former Governor, Sir Brian Murray, despite a full military honours service. "The Flag flew at half-mast for former Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, and rightly so, and should have for Sir Brian Murray." (Peter Mulheron, Loch Sport, Vic.)
Note: Sir Brian Murray was forced to resign the Office of Governor of Victoria, on what most supporters of the Monarchy saw as a technicality blown up out of all proportion. It was generally felt that the Socialist Premier of Victoria at the time, Mr. John Cain (whose own resignation from his Office as Premier of Victoria was forced by his incompetence) did not have amicable relations with the late Sir Brian Murray.

VOODOO VOTE A BLOW TO ALL ABORIGINES from the Sunday Telegraph (Sydney), June 23rd
(we can take excerpts only from this excellent article by Les Hollings, a former Editor of The Australian): "The sort of bizarre, voodoo-like politics involved in the Coronation Hill decision will not only starve this recession hot country of vital foreign capital from flabbergasted overseas mining investors, it will ruin hope of better white-Aboriginal relations. Mr. Hollings writes of the early attempts at extermination of Aborigines, slave-like conditions for them on pastoral stations, better times for them from mining royalties. This is now even under threat, based on spurious religious claims (Bula) not supported by all members of tribe involved. Jawoyn Aborigines in the 1950s watched Coronation Hill mined and mined and mined... Bula did nothing. The Hawke Cabinet has gone along with a weak, unsupportable case, said Mr. Hollings (we ask the question whether or not Mr. Hawke is appeasing Bula for the votes of the "Green" lobby?). Aboriginal conditions will deteriorate from lack of finance from the working of the mine. The Federal Government and the Opposition have joined to pass the legislation to establish the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. There is little chance of it having any good effect."