5 May 1989. Thought for the Week: "What the future actually will hold we cannot know; but there is this to be said for the policy of apartheid: it is not irreversible. If experience shows that it is advisable to modify or discard it that could always be done. On the other hand, the policy of breeding out the white race is something that could never be undone, however unwise experience might prove it to be. An assertion constantly reiterated by the opponents of apartheid is that it will not work. Very well then why all the fuss? The impossibility these critics find of letting it alone betrays their fear that it will work. What they mean is that they have no intention of letting it work if by fair means or foul they can prevent it.
D. Watts, in The Dangerous Myth of Racial Equality
ANYONE FOR ANZUS?
"They walk all over us, they ignore us, and then they send their bloody Vice-President, who is about as useful as a hip pocket on a singlet to make us feel good." - Senator Janine Haines, quoted in The Sun-Herald, April 30
We can't be sure just what is motivating New Zealand's Prime Minister, David Lange, to virtually recite the Last Rites over his country's continuing participation in the ANZUS alliance. Knowing well that David Lange is an ideological Fabian, it could be mainly that - ideology. He has a few counterparts in Australia, in the various parliaments, and a handful of them are right off the planet, in our view. Maddened by fallacious ideology. Everyone seems to be wondering what the Dan Quayle trip was all about. It has come; it has gone. Fabian Brother Hawke, with all his beloved Logic, couldn't make any impression on Yankee Dan with respect to America's trade policies, at Australia's expense.
Senator Haines is, of course, quite right,
this time: "...history is littered with broken promises that
quite literally were not worth the paper on which they were
written" "The Yanks will assess the situation in their own
interest..." Indeed, they will. So the good-looking young
Vice-President, with his attractive, but very, very, ambitious
wife, have headed off to Indonesia, where his minders will
prompt him to mouth pleasant sounding, non-committal utterances.
He may play a hole or two of golf with the Indonesian President,
and/or the top General of the Indonesian Army. So what? Hardly
earth shattering stuff.
What about Indonesia? The United States has strong diplomatic links with Indonesia: what of a situation where Indonesia attacked Australia, militarily? Rather naughty to raise that issue with the American Vice-President: Mr. Beazley is "confident" the U.S. would come to Australia's assistance if threatened by an American "friend" such as Indonesia. There will be many who will not share Mr. Beazley's confidence. Senator Haines says that Australia is being foolish to hope that the disadvantages we are suffering (trade, for one), as a sort of insurance policy against the time when we, again, might need American military assistance, will ultimately be demonstrated as a policy of wisdom. Self-help is the best help. It seems obvious that Australia should not cast herself adrift from the American alliance: there could again come the time when America needs Australia, as in 1942. If General MacArthur had no Australia as his base in that period the result of the Pacific War may well have been different. There is a "but", and the "but" is that Australia should also reverse the run down in her Defence potential. Stay in the American alliance - but keep our own defence potential very strong.
VIETNAM AT WAR
"The publication of books in the United States analysing and assessing the Vietnam War seems 'likely to be as prolonged and remorseless as the War itself." - from a Review of Vietnam At War (author P.B. Davidson) in the Weekend Australian, April 29-30.
The Reviewer of this book is Peter Edwards, the official historian of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. He mentions that the author, Phillip Davidson, wrote the book to explain to himself how the U.S. managed to win every battle in Vietnam and yet lose the war. Davidson's conclusion is that the U.S. lost the war because she did not know how to fight the "new" type of revolutionary war, and this is part of the truth, in our view.
In May, 1968, twelve foremost U.S. ex-officers, including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former chief of naval operations, former head of Strategic Air Command, and former head of Vietnam air operations announced, (quote) .. "the war against North Vietnam can be irrevocably won in six weeks ... Communist intimidations and aggressions in the free areas of Asia can also be struck a paralysing blow in the same brief frame of time . . ." (Lloyd Malan, in Science and Mechanics, March 1968, reported in Human Events, March 23, 1968.
Furthermore (from The Moving Storm, Tidal Publications, l969, page 97): Having demonstrated that over half a million U.S. military personnel, equipped with the most modern arms and support, and backed by the most intensive bombing in history, cannot prevent the North Vietnamese virtually over running South Vietnam and wrecking the pacification programme, the U.S. Secretary for Defence has announced that it is now U.S. policy to hand over the major conduct of the War to the South Vietnamese.
Of course, as well as trading with the
U.S.S.R. and its East European satellites, who together supply
80% of North Vietnam's supplies (our emphasis .. O.T.) the
U.S. has built bases and harbour facilities which will come
in very useful to the Communists when the South Vietnamese
civilian Government collapses, which has clearly been the
objective of the Co-Communists in Washington since before
they connived in the murder of the Diems.
(Article continues): "Some sections of South Vietnamese cities, especially Saigon and Hue, have been reduced to rubble, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, thanks to American bombing (emphasis in original) " This article finishes with the ugly comment: "Perhaps, in due course, Australia will have its port facilities bombed out of existence to prevent Communist landing. After all, Australia is paying an insurance premium of a few hundred dead to ensure American 'protection'.
THE SLIPPERY SLIDE
"The economy has already begun its slippery slide, and the way it has so suddenly deteriorated suggests we'll be lucky if it is a hard, rather than a crash, landing." David Potts, in The Financial Australian, May 1
Australian factory production slumped significantly in March, according to figures prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. But that' s not all: no less than two-thirds (66%) of the 27 main industrial items produced in Australia recorded large falls. These A.B.S. figures, which we certainly expect to be continued into April, suggest that the economy is not "overheating" at all: it would be "overheating" if it were running behind demand, with the anticipated "inflationary expectations", according to the current finance economic jargon. The current "wisdom" is to "cool" the economy by reducing demand (credit squeeze). We don't yet have an actual credit squeeze (would the HawkKeating Complex come at a credit squeeze in an election mode? No way).
High interest rates are (hopefully) suppressing some of the supposed "demand", whilst attracting much overseas capital. Big Business, Big Industry can live with high interest rates as they attract concessions from the Tax Office, which many small businesses and individuals do not enjoy. It appears that stagflation is here again (economic stagnation, with accompanying inflation). David Potts suggests that the Australian money market is already trying to push interest rates down - there is less demand for credit in such a "money" environment. The coming wage rises will add to the worsening problems, Australian industry is insufficiently competitive now. The HawkKeating wage rise - tax cut oil won't mix with the stagflation water. Slippery Slide seems apt enough.
Family Research is a bi-monthly Newsletter of the Family Research Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. It is Christian based, and strongly pro-family (naturally!). There is an interesting quotation concerning the nature of homosexuality, which we have always known to be true. The Intelligence agencies of the various nations around the world all know that homosexuals are security risks. But why? We live in "enlightened" times. No one takes any notice now whether a person is "gay" or "straight". Indeed, we have "progressive" laws to prevent any social discrimination on the grounds of "sexual preference".
Family Research comments: " .What started out as 'toleration' of homosexual bars in the 1920s has devolved into discrimination against non-homosexuals. Gays demand to have their own places - if given the chance, homosexuals are the most discriminatory folk on earth " They will discriminate for other homosexuals and against non-homosexuals... because every other homosexual is a potential bed partner. Homosexuals are 'married' to all other homosexuals of their sex - a powerful bond indeed. The same observation was made by Maximilien Harden, publisher of "Die Zukunft" in 1906: "homosexuals form a comradeship which is stronger than that of the monastic order or of Freemasonry, which grips tighter and makes a link across the walls of creed, state, and class, which unites the most remote, the most foreign, in a fraternal league of offense and defence. Men of this breed are to be found everywhere, at courts, in high positions in armies and navies All rally together - against the common enemy.." Family Research observes the enemy is "us."
FROM HANSARD: REPRESENTATIVES(March 6th, 1989) - Mr. Peter McGauran (Nat.-Gippsland):
"That insidious organisation, the League of Rights, has attracted a great deal of comment both in and outside Parliament in recent months. Much of this comment was commenced by the very courageous National Party of Australia Senator for Queensland Ron Boswell, who sought to expose its operations and influences for what they really are - a grave threat to many of our institutions. A number of Australian Labor Party members hoped to jump on the bandwagon. Let me deal with two of those Labor members who, in the process, damaged wrongly and utterly unfairly the reputation of an individual and worthy organisation.
"The honourable member for Robertson (Mr. Barry Cohen), in an article he wrote in The Bulletin (Nov.29, 1988) headed, 'League of Wrongs', described the organisation 'Women Who Want To Be Women' as a 'front organisation' of the League of Rights. This is utterly false. 'Four Ws', which is now incorporated into the organisation, Endeavour Forum, has never had any contact with the League of Rights. The founding member and currently the national and overseas co-ordinator of '4 Ws', now Endeavour Forum, is a person for whom I have a great deal of respect. Mrs. Babette Francis is Indian by birth and, if anybody in our community knows about supposed multiculturalism or taunts of racism, I would suggest that she does. I understand that Mrs. Francis once accepted an invitation to speak at the annual conference of the League of Rights because it is the policy of the Endeavour Forum to accept all speaking engagements regardless of the views of the host organisation. When she spoke to the League she took the opportunity to condemn strongly its anti-Zionist philosophy, and she especially condemned their questioning of the numbers of Jewish victims of the Holocaust - so much so that Dr. Bill Rubinstein, of the editorial board of Australia/Israel Publications, wrote: 'Thanks for your remarks in our favour at the League of Rights do. This turned up in their magazine attached ... Many thanks for doing this - it showed great courage, I'm sure as all your activities do...'
"Moreover, 'Women Who Want To Be Women' was the only Australian Women's group in the non-government organisations forums at both the United Nations Mid-decade for Women Conference in Copenhagen in 1980 and the final Decade for Women Conference in Nairobi in 1985 who openly expressed support for the Israeli delegation and the right of Israel to exist as an independent nation with defensible frontiers. If the honourable member for Robertson needs any proof of that, I refer him to a report of those conferences in 'Quadrant' of December 1980 and December 1985. Interestingly, Mrs. Babette Francis herself made the point that no other kind of support was offered by the feminist groups funded by the Australian Government to attend those conferences
"Despite having been requested to do so, the honourable member (Barry Cohen) has never apologised to either Mrs. Francis or Endeavour Forum for his utterly inaccurate and offensive remarks. Similarly, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr. Keith Wright - A.L.P.) in a speech of some notoriety in this place late last year, also attacked the 'Four Ws', or Endeavour Forum, as being an apologist group for the League of Rights. Mrs. Babette Francis also wrote to the honourable member for Capricornia seeking an apology. Instead, I understand that the honourable member for Capricornia wrote back to her not offering any sort of apology but listing a whole set of questions relating to financial status and membership and organisational aspects of Endeavour Forum for answering. Endeavour Forum is a group of sincere individuals who are pro-life, pro-family, and anti-radical feminist organisations.. ... None of these people would have any contact with the League of Rights "
(March 3rd, 1989) - Senator Michael Baume
Senator Richard Alston (Lib. - Vic.):
Mr. John Howard (Leader of the Opposition)
- Representatives, March 6th - Namibia:
The Financial Australian, of April 25th, carries an item - "Banks Face An Embarrassment of Riches". A business analyst reported that the Big 3 private banks could declare profit increases of 75%, but will camouflage these. The main factors for the above are lower corporate tax rates (Keating is their Boy), and extra earnings from capital raisings - these more than offsetting pressure on the banks from rising interest rates. The banks are having a wonderful time under Fabian Socialism.
"On Target" is published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.