Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

25 May 1984. Thought for the Week: "Modern society is hypnotised by Socialism. It is prevented by Socialism from seeing the mortal danger it is in. And one of the greatest dangers of all is that you have lost all sense of danger, you cannot even see where it's coming from as it moves swiftly towards you"
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

TOWARDS THE AUSTRALIAN SOCIALIST REPUBLIC

A study of history shows that every Civilisation has been undergirded by some type of coherent religious system, and a set of values by which individuals govern their lives. Once belief in the religious system and when the values associated with it have been eroded, the Civilisation disintegrates. Comparatively few people as yet perceive the enormity of the Hawke Government's intention to downgrade Australia's traditional institutions and values as a necessary preliminary to creating a Socialist Republic.
Behind Prime Minister Hawke's carefully projected picture of himself as a moderate, a man of consensus, sensitive to the feelings of those who, for example, have a strong emotional attachment to the Australian Flag, is an iron determination to break Australia free from its historical roots. Mr. Hawke is a master Fabian.

The decision to change the National Anthem without consulting the Australian people was, along with the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance, but part of a comprehensive programme of erosion. Some shallow people argue that Australia must, in order to project its own identity, shed itself of all "foreign symbols". And so there is the silly comment that Australians should not have to swear allegiance to a "foreign monarch". The Queen is, of course, Queen of AUSTRALIA. The values, which she is pledged to uphold, are those of Western Christendom. The underlying concept of monarchy, as part of an orderly society, is as old as man. It is not specifically British, although British constitutional development gave it a new significance.

In spite of the influence of secular humanism, the great majority of Australians still believe in God. 80 percent still term themselves Christians. Less than 10 percent state they have no faith. 90 percent of Australians accept the traditional oath on the Bible. But of Mr. Hawke's inner Cabinet of 13 members, only 4 took the oath on the Bible. In the full Cabinet of 27 members, out of 30 Labor Senators, only 8 took the oath. Needless to say, Attorney General Gareth Evans is one of these.
In the House of Representatives, 47 members took the oath and 28 used the affirmation. Not surprisingly, there are moves to have the Lord's Prayer abolished from Parliament. The Federal Constitution is specifically Christian. Clearly those striving to create a Socialist Republic are uneasy about the acceptance of God as a higher authority, or people praying in the National Anthem to God to save them from knaves or fools. The smearing of the Queen is a major feature of Socialist strategy. Defence of Australia demands defence of the Queen and what she stands for.


MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS 'RACISTS'

The stock response to those questioning the violation of Australia's traditional immigration policy, designed to maintain a homogeneous people, has been to call them "racists" The latest Morgan Gallup Poll reveals that the overwhelming majority of Australians are "racists"! Previous unpublished polls have revealed that an even bigger majority has been opposed to any breakdown in the traditional immigration policy.

Primarily in an attempt to score votes, Opposition leader Andrew Peacock now makes much of the Hawke Government moving ahead of public opinion. This is exactly what the Fraser Government did. Echoing the Al Grassby line, a succession of Liberal Immigration Ministers advanced the dishonest argument that the great majority of Australians have supported the change in the traditional immigration because all political parties have supported the change, and because the overwhelming majority of electors have voted for these parties.
The electors have, of course, never been presented with an opportunity to vote on this basic issue, as the parties have had a type of secret agreement. The media has also engaged in a conspiracy of silence.

In a non-party referendum on the immigration issue, we have little doubt that the majority against the present policy of what Foreign Minister Mr. Bill Hayden termed "Asianisation", which he said was "inevitable", would be even greater than that reflected in the latest Morgan poll. It is not without significance that the poll showed the strongest opposition to the present rate of Asian migration in Queensland, 67 percent, and Tasmania, 70 percent. These States have the most homogeneous populations and are the least urbanised.

Those who are generally described as academics, and in the main afflicted with the egalitarian virus, have been in forefront of the programme to break down the nation's traditional immigration policy, as, of course, are their spiritual brothers, the declared Marxists, who have been consistent supporters of multiracialism.
When Professor Geoffrey Blainey, one of Australia's most respected historians, displayed both courage and integrity by publicly drawing attention to where the present immigration policy was taking Australia, he rendered a great national service.

Having grasped the fact that Professor Blainey spoke for most Australians, his fellow academics have decided to try to counter attack. In a letter to the press last week, the head and 17 members of Melbourne's University history department dissociated themselves from Professor Blainey, making the absurd statement that the Blainey statement could "incite feelings of racial hatred". This is the type of nonsense for which many academics are noted. These academics and some journalists brush aside the feelings of the majority of Australians by referring to their "deep seated prejudices". It was the great Edmund Burke who observed that prejudice is often the wisdom of the unlettered man.

Mr. Jeremy Long, Mr. Al Grassby's successor as Commissioner for Community Relations, revealed wishful thinking divorced from realities, by saying that all polls he had seen "indicated a tolerance of present levels of Asian migration". We challenge Mr. Long to produce any Morgan Gallup Poll, generally regarded as reasonably reliable, which has shown other than majority Opposition to non-European immigration since the start of the break down of the traditional immigration policy.

Perhaps the silliest comment of all has come from Mr. Frank Galbally, Chairman of the National Advisory Council of the Special Broadcasting Service, which runs ethnic television. Mr. Galbally said that he doubted the accuracy of any poll, but if the figures were accurate representation of attitudes, he was not surprised at the trend, stating "If you'd taken a poll before the war 40 years ago regarding the mass migration we were to experience in the forties and fifties the result would probably have shown 80 percent of Australians opposed to migration."

Those who keep talking about the mass migration programme under the direction of Mr. Arthur Calwell after the Second World War, conveniently overlook the fact that Mr. Calwell had strong support because he insisted that the migration programme was to be strictly pro-European. The majority of the migrants were British, who had the least difficulty in adapting to what was a predominantly British country. Refugees and others from Europe came to Australia understanding that they were welcome but were expected to accept Australian institutions. This was before the academics started the multicultural fad. Many of them have provided outstanding services to this country, some of them being most valued supporters of the Australian League of Rights.

Mr. Galbally says "It's not easy for people of English speaking background to accept the fact that we are a South East Asian country". This is one of those ridiculous comments, which must be challenged. If Mr. Galbally, and those who keep repeating that Australia is an Asian country, will take a map of the world they will find that there are European nations, which are as close, if not closer, to Asian nations than is Australia. We do not hear themselves described as Asian nations.

Nations live not merely in terms of geography, but much more important, in terms of time. Australia belongs to the European stream of history. If cut off from that stream it will become a completely different type nation. A look at the plight of the world proves beyond all argument - except to University academics and similar people living in ivory towers that there is a continuing discord in every multiracial nation in the world. Even in Italy, Northern Italians do not think particularly highly of their fellow Italians from the South.

Rather than face realities, the bureaucrats of the Australian Council for Social Service have called for the Federal Government to spend $10 million "to combat racism". Such outrageous waste of the taxpayers' money would not only result in some more bureaucratic Empire building by totalitarians, but would increase the mounting concern about the nations immigration policies. If Mr. Peacock and his colleagues are genuine converts to the anti multiracialism programme, it would be instructive to hear what they have to say about migrants from Abyssinia. And if they are looking for some of the finest European migrants of British background, we direct their attention to the white refugees from that little country once known as Rhodesia. What about a moral obligation towards those who are refugees primarily because of an imposed policy that the Fraser Government played a major role in shaping?

A Queensland "First & Laster" wrote to Mr. Bill Hayden, our Minister for Foreign Affairs, informing Mr. Hayden of her 'will'. Mr. Hayden replied: "I have received your letter telling me of your 'will' in relation to legislation that originated with the United Nations organisation. "Unfortunately my 'will' on these matters is just the opposite of yours and even more unfortunately, I have taken a vote to establish which of our two 'wills' will win out in this contest of 'wills'. It is my melancholy duty to advise you that you lose the vote.


FROM HANSARD

Sexual Discrimination Bill (2); Senate, November 29th, 83: Senator Ronald Boswell (Qld.-N.P.)
"...In the light of the legislation, it is timely to look at the origins of the movement towards a unisex society. I wish to quote where it started. In 1884 Freidrich Engels in "The Origin of the Family" wrote: "The emancipation of women will be possible only when they take part in production on a large scale. The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry. The core and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all the children alike, whether they are legitimate or not…"

Senator Donald Jessop (S.A.-Lib,) 6.12.83
. ."The massive volume of correspondence dealing with this Bill supports my concern. Anything that the United Nations recommends to Australia I treat with a lot of suspicion. I remember last year when Malcolm Fraser trotted into the Parliament a Bill on Human Rights. I looked at it and thought: 'this sounds great. I suppose that Australia will be able to preen itself on the international stage and to say that it is progressive'. But then I looked at those who were supporting it in the United Nations, the signatories of the Convention concerned, the first covenant of which happened to endorse the freedom of people to give expression to their political views. When I looked more carefully at the list of signatories, I found that 50 of them were military dictators. Would they give their citizens the right to disagree with their political philosophy?..."

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159