2 February 1979. Thought for the Week: "No abstract doctrine is more false and mischievous than that of the natural equality of man."
Sir James Frazer in "The Origin and Scope of Social Anthropology."
THE SILENCE OF AL GRASSBY
"The Age", Melbourne, of January 16th,
carried the headline, "RACIST LEAFLET HIT", with the sub-heading, "League
of Rights probed over claims on refugees." The story was written by
Tony Blackie, "Community Affairs Reporter" and quotes accurately parts
of the brochure on immigration being made available by the League to
Australians concerned about the programme to break down Australia's
traditional immigration policy.
The League, of course, is not conducting an
"anti-migrant" campaign. Many of its best supporters are migrants, but
migrants of European and Christian backgrounds. Mr. Grassby threatens
that "if it was found that the pamphlets infringed on the rights of
Australians then action could be taken under the racial discrimination
act." But Mr. Grassby's shallow bluff has been called in the following
letter published in "The Age" of January 20th by the League's
National Director, Mr. Eric Butler, "In response to Mr. Al Grassby's
reported comments on the League of Right's campaign concerning the immigration
issue (16/1), I invite the Commissioner for Community Relations to answer
The response from Mr. Grassby has been a deafening silence, indicating clearly that the well paid ($36,000 plus a year) Commissioner for Community Relations wants to change radically the structure of the traditional Australian society without the electors having an effective say. We have said it before, and now repeat: The Fraser Government should abolish Mr. Grassby's bureaucracy and pay Mr. Grassby off. The League of Rights' campaign on the immigration issue is to be intensified.
MR. B.A. SANTAMARIA'S BLIND SPOT
Mr. B.A. Santamaria of the National Civic Council makes so many commonsense comments on national and international affairs, and is such an outstanding exponent of traditional Christian values, that we dislike offering any critical comment on Mr. Santarmaria s observations. But the truth is that like many other outstanding anti-Communists, Mr. Santamaria has a type of "blind spot" concerning the realities of finance economics and their relationship to the use of political power.
In a survey of world affairs in "News Weekly" of January 3rd, Mr. Santamaria writes that Western Europe, fearful of American abdication in Europe, "has no hopeful option rather than to establish a federal community of 250 million people, which demands first of all a tight customs union. The fearful alternative to giving Germany a secure role in a secure continent is the risk that Germany may fall for the temptation of an accommodation with the Soviet Union, as it did during the Weimar period."
The false assumption underlying the above comment is that a Federal Union in Western Europe, a concept advanced originally by the Communist Leader Leon Trotsky, offers greater strength in resisting the Soviet Union than an association of independent States. Under present debt and inflationary finance economic policies, the problems of the nations of Western Europe are just as great as the problems of the United States of America. The promoters of the European Economic Community, including the international financial groups responsible for so much of the finance necessary to brainwash sufficient of the British people, have made it clear that they saw the EEC as a major first step towards establishing a World Government in which Communist nations would participate.
It is impossible to assure any Western nation
of a secure future in a secure continent under present financial policies.
Those policies are responsible, not only for the EEC adopting highly
protective policies but also for aggressive exporting policies which
are producing increasing friction with other exporters. These policies
are also resulting in EEC countries striving to send more economic aid
to the Soviet Union, the Germans being as guilty of this as all other
It is perhaps significant that such a generally perceptive observer as Mr. Santamaria has apparently not seen through a hoax now so thoroughly discredited by the scholarship of Dr. Butz (viz "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" $5.60 posted) and others. Perhaps this is another unfortunate blind spot?
And then there is the description of Prime Minister Fraser as a man "possessed of considerable intellectual calibre.... He is a man of what is sometimes called conservative philosophy." Mr. Santamaria's thesis is that even though Mr. Fraser personally accepts the view that Australia faces great dangers, that "we have a political situation of total and undisputed control, in the hands of a person who believes thoroughly in the philosophy of Australian defence", he has allowed defences to decline because of the dead hand of bureaucracy, aided and abetted by what Mr. Santarmaria describes as the "corporate state".
While we are totally in agreement about government by bureaucracy and non-elected power groups, the fact remains that, as the Minister for Defence, D.J. Killen has said, defence spending has been reduced disastrously primarily because the "fight" against inflation has first priority. Mr. Santamaria has offered nothing realistic concerning how inflation can be constructively reversed.
If Prime Minister Fraser genuinely wishes to
start upgrading Australia's defences, and is being thwarted by a non-elected
bureaucracy and power groups, then it is his duty to tell the Australian
people the truth with a view to rally them behind a survival programme.
But in fact the real Mr. Fraser is not the Mr. Fraser described by Mr.
Generally unreported is the relationship between
Mr. David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and the revolution in Iran.
The London "Sunday Telegraph" of December 24th, 1978 reported:
"In a series of super secret polls, Chase Manhattan Bank has asked its
partners in a $l00m loan to an Iranian State controlled bank whether
the loan should be declared in default. The implications of the Chase's
actions are far wider than the money involved. Much of the Shah's heavy
burden of debt to Western Banks includes 'cross default' clauses which
means that if one loan goes under it is legal grounds for other banks
to call in their loans."
The Fraser Government's decision to suspend Australian aid for Vietnam because of Hanoi's assault upon fellow Communist criminals in Kampuchea (Cambodia) has nothing to do with principles. It is part of the Government's kowtow to Communist China. Vietnam is backed by the Soviet. If Vietnam had not overthrown their fellow Marxists in Kampuchea, aid from the Fraser Government would have continued.
The initial reaction by President Ching-kuo to the Carter betrayal of Taiwan was encouraging for genuine anti-Communists everywhere. The President said: "The Republic of China will never negotiate with Peiping or any other Red nation."
"On Target" is published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.