14 May 1982. Thought for the Week: "There is not much difference between the basic economic techniques of Socialism and Nazism."
Chief speaker at the Fabian International Bureau's Conference on March 15, 1942.
FALKLAND ISLANDS REALITIES
By Eric D. Butler
It must be considered against the background of a long conspiracy to break the back of British influence as a major preliminary for the creation of the World State. The British have been reduced to their present plight by treachery from within. It was this treachery, which paved the way for the present conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
Typical of the poisonous nonsense appearing in the media around the world, is a comment by John Laws in the "Sunday Telegraph" of May 9th. Mr. Laws is described as "Australia's most famous radio personality". Writing under the heading "Is this barren place worth dying for?" Laws says: "When they talk about the Falklands being barren and desolate, they are not kidding. There are no trees; vegetation consists of low, scrubby bushes. There are no land mammals indigenous to the islands. The landscape is austere, consisting largely of moorland scattered with outcrops of rocks and clusters of quartite boulders. And the climate is dominated by strong westerly winds. And yet people are dying for it. Is that what war is about?"
Apart from the fact that the Law's description of the Falklands could be applied to a number of islands, which remain part of the British world, Mr. Laws does not appear to know, or care, about the strategic importance of the Falklands. Soviet strategists do understand the far-reaching implications of what is involved. Soviet abstention in the Security Council of the United Nations enabled the UN to condemn Argentine aggression, encouraging even some of the Socialists in the United Kingdom to support the belated military action by the Thatcher Government. The Soviet people have not been told of the Soviet's attitude at the UN, only that the British are still attempting to pursue "imperialist" aims in defiance of the UN. It is not without significance that a Soviet trade delegation, including military and intelligence experts, was in Argentina when the invasion of the Falklands took place.
The conditions on the Falklands have
not been sufficiently bleak to prevent people of British stock
from living there for 150 years. These people have made it
clear on many occasions that they do not wish to be anything
other than British subjects. But the same British Foreign
Office, which has a long list of betrayals behind it, the
last being the handing of Rhodesia to the Marxist Mugabe,
has long been planning to betray the Falkland Islanders.
All the evidence reveals that for the last ten years at least, while the British people on the Falklands, as much entitled to the protection of the British Government as the Channel Islands or the Hebrides, have been striving to have their future as British subjects assured, the treacherous Foreign Office has been planning to betray them. Negotiations between the Foreign Office and the Argentines have been taking place for years, leading to a situation where the Argentina Government was led to believe that there would be no real British objection to a takeover.
It is logical to believe that if the Argentines had thought that the British would react as they have, with large losses of life, the British would have established some type of deterrent. But the British removed every semblance of a British presence. The whole affair has all the hallmarks of a "setup", the major target being what remains of British prestige and influence.
The first breath of British realism came from Enoch Powell, who observed that the Argentina government had taken military action against a British possession and British people, and that a state of war existed. The object of war is to impose one's will on one's opponent. But what is the British Government's objective? If it is merely to use military force to deprive Argentina of military control of the Falklands as a prelude to further negotiations, then why use military force? If there is no question about British sovereignty, then why talk of negotiations? It was the negotiations, which led to the present disaster. Did the treacherous Lord Carrington resign in an attempted cover up? Only time will tell.
But if Mrs. Thatcher's Government fails to carry through what has been started, and ends in any type of negotiation which surrenders the sovereignty of the Falklands, sacrificing its people, then her Government could fall with a realisation that once again British lives have been sacrificed for anti-British purposes. But it is just conceivable that Margaret Thatcher has obtained a glimpse of what the Big Idea is all about, and is determined at long last to put genuine British interests ahead of all others. If so, the Falklands affair could yet prove a ray of light in a gloomy situation.
Prime Minister Fraser's long awaited Cabinet changes proved that in fact nothing has changed. The same faces will mouth the same tired old clichés. Rather than risk another disastrous by- election, Mr. Fraser created a special Cabinet position for former Defence Minister D. J. Killen. Mr. John Howard continues as public relations officer for the Treasury and other "experts". Business organisations have at last conceded that the economic depression is deepening, just as we predicted. The latest warning comes from the Housing Industry Association, which is forecasting a "disastrous year" for the industry unless the Fraser government changes its policies. This is not likely until a much greater volume of public opinion is directed against individual Government Members. One group of backbenchers is attempting to create the impression that they are campaigning for lower taxation. But in fact all they propose is to shift the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation. Any increase in indirect taxation is mathematically certain to fuel the inflation rate. What is required is a reduction in TOTAL TAXATION. This could be achieved by the issue of some credits instead of interest bearing debts.
American evangelist Billy Graham has added further to the concern of those evangelical Christians who have in recent years been increasingly concerned with the manner in which Graham has been prepared to ignore the Communist challenge to Christianity. Billy Graham would not have been permitted to preach in the Soviet Union unless the Soviet authorities considered that the American would be of use to their cause. The Kremlin must have been delighted with Billy Graham's advice on May 9th in Moscow, telling the members of his congregation to be loyal to the State. The Christian view of the State is that it exists to serve the individual, who possesses inviolable rights derived from God. If Billy Graham started preaching this type of message, he would not be welcomed back to the Soviet Union.
As President Reagan's Administration forces the inflation rate down fractionally, the economic depression deepens and the unemployment figures grow. The unemployment rate is now 9.4 per cent, the highest for 41 years. On present indications, the unemployment rate will reach 10 percent by the date of the Congressional elections, Nov. 4th. The political result will be a massive electoral backlash against the Reagan Administration. Only America's entry into the Second World War solved the unemployment problem of 41 years ago. In the absence of a major military conflict, the U.S.A. is poised to enter an increasingly explosive period.
The problem of youth violence and vandalism in the Melbourne suburb of Broadmeadows has focused attention upon the question of growing youth unemployment linked with "progressive education". The result is a volatile mixture. A Federal government, which no longer even pays much lip service to the necessity of doing something constructive about youth unemployment, is guilty of fostering the development of a social time bomb. If a society can produce all its requirements with only a fraction of its members employed in the production system, it is elementary that the retiring age should be reduced, with those retiring receiving adequate pensions, so that the younger members of the community can find a place for constructive effort. Unless youth experience the discipline of meaningful effort, mental or physical, they become ready raw material for revolutionaries.
A Dianella (W.A.) actionist replied to
a reply from a Federal politician on the issue of taxation.
From this actionist's reply, we quote:
"On Target" is published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.