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

10 August 1990. Thought for the Week: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear..."
George Orwell


Shortly following the news that the first Australian of ethnic background to be charged with war crimes had been found shot, than the ABC carried a news item, at least on two occasions, with verbal statement by a representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in the USA to the effect that if the accused had attempted to commit suicide, this was evidence that he was guilty. Some of the media comment concerning the trial appears to be in contempt of court. Films have been shown from the Soviet Union of mass graves being dug up, with the man mainly responsible for selecting those to be tried under the War Crimes Legislation, Mr. Robert Greenwood, QC, making highly emotional comments.

What way has any Australian in 1990 of assessing what he is being shown? Who are the victims of wartime destruction and mass burials? And what have they to do with the trial of the South Australian accused, 74-year-old Ivan Polyukhovic?

Former Victorian Liberal Senator, Mr. David Hamer, debating the War Crimes issue with a Labor Senator on the ABC TV 7.30 Report (Victorian edition) made the point that because of the long period of time since the alleged crimes took place, it was extremely unlikely that any Australian jury was going to find the charges made proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Senator Hamer suggested that the real purpose of the trials was publicity.

The Labor Senator made the astonishing claim that the decision by the Federal Parliament was a reflection of the will of the Australian electors, echoing a similar view expressed by the Zionist paper, The Australian Jewish News in its editorial of August 3rd, which claimed that Parliament passed the legislation "only after one of the most exhaustive parliamentary debates on any issue in recent years, which, in turn, had been preceded by an open public debate and a wide and thorough going media coverage". This is untrue.
There had been no reference to the necessity for war crimes trials, not even against the Japanese, for at least a quarter of a century. Not even that ardent pro-Zionist, Prime Minister Hawke, had ever raised the question of pro-war crimes trials until a campaign was triggered by the notorious ABC allegations by Mr. Mark Aarons. It was then that the Zionist Lobby started to campaign, bringing intense pressure upon all Members of the Federal Parliament.

Zionist leader Isi Leibler is on record as saying it did not matter how many millions of dollars the trials cost the Australian taxpayer. What Leibler is saying is that the Australian taxpayer should finance a pro-Zionist propaganda campaign. This is going to include bringing to Australia so-called "expert witnesses" like Dr. Hilberg, who was so badly exposed by Canadian barrister Doug Christie in the first Zundel trial in Canada in 1985, that he refused to return to the second trial. Anyone who wants to have a background of the Zionist tactics should read Michael Hoffman's coverage of The Great Holocaust Trial, $9.00 posted from all League bookshops. They will be better able to assess the reliability of the Hilbergs if the Australian war crimes trials go ahead.

The unreliability of eyewitnesses, after nearly 50 years, was graphically demonstrated by the trial in the USA of alleged Nazi war criminal Frank Walus. Eleven witnesses were flown in from Israel, at the expense of the American taxpayers, and all solemnly declared that they recognised Walus as the man who had murdered their friends and relatives. Walus was saved by the provision of irrefutable evidence that at the time he was supposed to have been a Nazi General, he was in fact doing forced labor in a German prisoner-of-war camp. No action was taken against those who testified in court that they recognised Walus.

If the war crimes trials are permitted to go ahead, they will do great damage to the Australian community, helping to stir ethnic strife, a point made by Dr. Frank Knopfelmacher, a non-Zionist Jew originally from Czechoslovakia. He believes that many of his relatives perished as a result of the alleged Holocaust. But he bluntly says that he objects to Wiesenthal and similar people trying to "make a buck" out of his dead grandmother.

The Australian of August 4th quotes Dr. Knopfelmacher as saying that his view was that because of its problems the Israeli Government made an agreement with the Soviet Union that in return for allowing Jews to emigrate from the Soviet Union, some Jewish organisations "in return, offered to hound former residents of the Soviet Union who had refused to return after the war". Dr. Knopfelmacher has expressed the view that no representative of the Wiesenthal Centre should be permitted to operate in Australia.

But not only do sections of the media continue to run stories and items which make fair war-crime trials extremely difficult, but there is a never ending flood of films which are blatantly anti-German, while there was the recent film depicting the alleged life of "Nazi-hunter" Simon Wiesenthal, the man charged by the Jewish Chancellor of Austria, Mr. Bruno Kreisky, who recently died, as having collaborated with the Hitler Government during the War.

Wiesenthal's real background is documented in a major article in the July issue of The Intelligence Survey, along with other background material against which the war-crimes trials should be assessed: $2.00 posted from all League addresses.

We recommend that as many people as possible should write to their Federal Members of Parliament, protesting against the continuation of the war crimes trials (Greenwood, QC, says he has listed 12 more cases). And while writing they should ask why, if there are to be new war crimes trials, such trials are not to be conducted against those Japanese responsible for the savage treatment of Australian prisoners of war. We hasten to add that we do not support any such trials, but we feel that those who claim to represent the Australian people are too selective on the issue.


The latest explosion in the Middle East, with Iraq invading Kuwait and bringing halt the known oil reserves of the world's oil under its control, confirms our view that so far from the changed situation in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union being the harbinger of a more peaceful and stable world, the truth is the opposite. One of the major beneficiaries of the higher oil prices, now inevitable, with serious implications for Western economies, will be the Soviet Union, the second biggest oil producer in the world. The roots of the Iraq-Kuwait issue are a legacy of the First World War. British influence throughout the Arab world started to decline with the establishment of Zionist Israel in 1948. The Middle East situation reinforces our view that Australia should be making every endeavour to be as economically self reliant as possible.

We are informed by Civil Liberties leader John Bennett that he has formally responded to the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW concerning the complaint against Your Rights by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and we will report on the developments in a case causing nationwide interest and concern. We are informed that the West Australian legislation, much harsher than that being used against John Bennett, will be re-introduced in the WA Parliament on August 21st and almost certain to become law unless it meets last minute resistance in the Legislative Council, where the non-Labor parties have a majority. While Victorian Attorney General Mr. Jim Kennan has not expressed enthusiasm for similar legislation in Victoria; we know that tremendous pressure is being exerted in an attempt to bring Victorian into line with NSW and Western Australia. We strongly recommend that Victorian actionists write to Kennan, care of Parliament House, Melbourne, requesting that he convey to the committee he has set up to "advise" on the matter, the view that such legislation is not only unnecessary, but threatens the right of people to speak freely on all subjects without fear of being prosecuted.

Big Brother is alive and well, always seeking ways and means to increase control over the individual - generally by regulations. The Federal Government's Therapeutic Goods Act threatens all those who make use of what is often described as "alternative medicine". Although the Act was passed by Parliament late last year, it has awaited the passing of regulations to make it law. Our understanding is that these will be introduced shortly in the budget session of parliament. The basic issue is simple: Freedom of choice. Those who support this principle should contact their nearest Health Store and learn what can be done.

Up until Wednesday of last week, Treasurer Paul Keating and Reserve Bank Governor Bernie Fraser were in agreement that there could be no easing of interest rates until inflation and the current account deficit improved. But by Thursday there was a change as it was becoming clear that recession conditions were developing right across the nation. There was an about turn with a slight easing of interest rates, far too late and too little to halt the growing economic crisis. We trust that it has been widely noted that interest rates are not controlled by "the market", as Treasurer Keating and others keep repeating, but by decisions through the Reserve Bank. Only the fear of political retribution has moved Keating even a little on interest rates.

The Federal Liberal Party continues, as usual, to follow Labor down the centralist road. It has moved towards the unprecedented step of empowering the Federal Executive to intervene in State divisions where it is felt that the Party's national interests are threatened. So much for the Liberal Party claiming to be a genuine Federal Party, with State autonomy.

from The Advertiser (Adelaide), 29/6
"Picture the scenario in a suburban household at the end of the day. "Dad returns home from work, goes into the kitchen, gives mum a hug and a kiss and sees what's cooking for dinner. "The children wait their turn, grinning and smirking at mum and dad, but secure in the love and stability of the traditional family. "Old fashioned? A vanishing dream? Maybe so but still the foundation of a stable society. "Feminism, which teaches that men and women are equal and the same, is lethal to the survival of society because it attacks the basic bonds that hold society together - bonds between men and women, and between women and their children. "It teaches that men are the enemy and that children oppress and disadvantage women. "In doing so, feminism tears the head and heart out of the family. Children and the next generation are the final losers. "Women Who Want to be Women are among the growing numbers of women who actively oppose feminism. "We believe men and women are equal but different and vive la difference. "In face of the crippling economic and social change, we encourage women in our uniquely feminine roles. We are proud to be feminine, to be mothers, wives and homemakers and assert that these unpaid careers are equal in dignity and worth to those in the paid workforce. "This should be recognised in the fiscal and economic policies of the Government towards the family." (Mrs. Dorothy Price, State Coordinator, Women Who Want to be Women, Rostrevor, S.A.)

from The Australian, 1/8
"The Liberal Party leadership, in advocating the introduction of a consumption tax, is demonstrating yet again how out of touch it is with the Australian people. "A consumption tax might look very good on a computer generated economic model. However, to average Australian families it just looks like tax driven inflation. It represents a significant price rise in every basic commodity and service. "To families, a consumption tax means dearer bread, school fees, hair cuts, school shoes, doctors' bills, take away meals, dry cleaning, holidays, bus fares, and electricity. On most current projections, it represents a 14% rise in all of these commodities. "Consider a family with an after tax income of $500 per week, which like most family incomes, is fully expended each week. If a 14% consumption tax is introduced, that family will need to find $70 extra a week, just to pay their consumption tax (that is 14% extra on top of the $500 per week they spend on consumption). "Where is the extra $70 a week to come from? Personal tax cuts, cuts in sales tax? Families may be politically naive but they are not that gullible. "If the Liberal Party wishes to consign itself permanently to the wasteland of the Opposition benches, and to alienate forever the family vote, then adoption of a pro-consumption tax policy is a good way to go about it." (Susan Bastick, State Secretary, The Australian Family Association, N.S.W.)

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