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

27 March 1992. Thought for the Week: "At Nuremberg, as far as I know, no eye witness pointed out that for Western judges to sit side by side with Soviet ones, and convict Germany of using forced labour and partitioning Poland, was itself a monstrous crime against our civilisation, or, at any rate, a manifestation of its advanced stage of decay."
Malcolm Muggeridge: "The Eye-witness Fallacy"


by Eric D. Butler
Only an unforeseen miracle can now save South Africa from sliding into a state of mounting violence and growing racial conflict. Even the generally anti-South African media has had to report that hundreds of people were killed during the recent referendum, those killed being blacks killed by other blacks. The YES vote at the recent referendum will not alter the realities of the South African situation.

At a time when artificially created multicultural and multiracial structures like the Soviet Empire and the Federation known as Yugoslavia lie in ruins, with different ethnic and cultural groups insisting that they want "apartheid" - separate development, it is proclaimed that what has been a complete disaster elsewhere can be a success in South Africa. The suggestion that the biggest single ethnic group in South Africa, the Zulus, are likely to passively tolerate domination by the African Nationalist Congress with Nelson Mandela as its leader, is one of those flights from sanity which have been a feature of the most turbulent century in the recorded history of man.

It is a monstrous falsification of reality that the darling of the internationalists, including the International Money Power, Nelson Mandela, legitimately represents the will and the interests of South Africa's several black population groups. The tactic of a referendum was seized upon by President De Klerk following his government's electoral defeat in a by-election in one of the National Party's strongholds. The referendum was completely phony and placed electors in an impossible situation. Electors were asked, "Do you support continuation of the reform process which was started by the State President on February 2, 1990, and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?" The real, and hidden meaning of the referendum was to ask electors to give the National Party headed by De Klerk, carte blanche to advance a programme which will bring a Black majority government to power within a few years.

The campaign for a "YES" vote was unprecedented in South African political history, with an unholy alliance between Big Business as represented by Harry Oppenheimer, and an assortment of radical liberals. Massive sums of money were spent with electors being warned of the frightful consequences of what would happen if a NO vote were recorded. The threat that the South African cricket team, which had delighted sports loving South Africans by reaching the semi-finals of the World Cricket Cup, would have to be recalled if a NO vote were recorded, was an example of sophisticated psycho-political warfare. Business organisations warned their staffs that they could be dismissed if a YES vote was not carried. And there was the threat that South Africa would be isolated internationally, with foreign investments, if a NO vote were recorded.

In spite of all this and much more, approximately one third of the electors voted NO. Over one million whites are not going to go quietly away. And as the programme towards Black majority rule unfolds, and the inevitable results become clear, large numbers of those who reluctantly voted YES will realise how badly they have been betrayed.

White South Africans are experiencing the bitter fruits of a process of retreat over many years. Under the pressure of the International Money Power, it was the South African National Party, which played a major role in forcing the Rhodesians to capitulate to the demand that a policy of "power sharing" be implemented. The White Rhodesians were assured that a constitution would be drawn up which ensured that their rights would be safeguarded in what would become known as Zimbabwe. The end result was that Comrade Mugabe came to power with the blessing of the internationalists and progressively tore up the constitution imposed by the internationalists through their different lackeys.

Any constitution, which seeks to establish a unitary state in South Africa, will go the same way as the Constitution imposed upon the Rhodesians. However, unlike the former Rhodesia, there are enough white South Africans with the economic and military capacity to reverse a programme, which has proved completely disastrous in every other part of Africa.

It can be predicted with complete certainty that the DeKlerk referendum has solved nothing. because of their situation, the White South Africans are going to be forced into a situation where, if they wish to survive, they will have to make a stand, defying all the forces of internationalism. The road ahead in South Africa is going to be violent and bloody, but in a rapidly changing international situation, South African whites could, under bold and constructive leadership, provide an inspiring example to the rest of the world.

Australians and New Zealanders cannot afford to treat the South African crisis as one of detached academic interest; a defeat for European civilisation in South Africa would lead to an intensification of the internationalist campaign against Australia.


by David Thompson
The National Farmers Federation President, Mr. Graham Blight, last week signaled that the national farm lobby has conceded defeat to the thoroughly discredited "get-big-or-get-out" philosophy that has decimated rural Australia. Speaking at a N.S.W. Farmers Association meeting in Inverell last week, Mr. Blight was quoted by the Inverell Times (16/3/92) as saying that he felt it was "inevitable" that the bottom 10% of farmers would leave the industry in the next two to three years. "We should not be putting resources into saving these people when most are beyond the point of saving," he said. "If they have to leave, they should leave at a time when they have enough equity left to start a new life, and I am personally involved in seeing they are able to leave the industry with some equity, and certainly dignity."

These people are the very people who reached deep into threadbare pockets in the last rural crisis in 1984/86 to help establish a massive $12 million "Fighting Fund" when Mr. Ian McLachlan (now Federal Liberal Member for Barker) was N.F.F. President. Despite all the huffing and puffing, the N.F.F. has never vigorously "fought" for such people at all, apart from a few feeble token protests to party political hacks for whom the demands of constituents are an embarrassing inconvenience. The truth is that the N.F.F. took the money of struggling farmers under false pretences; they never intended to challenge the credit monopoly of a banking system now stripped of commercial credibility by such independent campaigners as former Senator Paul McLean. McLean has been courageously "blowing the whistle" on the banks as merely the administrators of the policy of centralisation of power, while the N.F.F. has turned its back in embarrassment. Is it because the N.F.F. is largely dominated by the National Party? McLean addressed a Bankwatch rally on the Eyre Peninsula of South Australia late last year, in which he forcefully and lucidly condemned those supporting a financial system that drives people from their properties. It is an address that should be heard by every N.F.F. "agri-politician" in the country. It might provide some ideas on how they could have "fought" for the farmer.

In the face of the N.F.F's. admitted inability to defend rural people, the Bankwatch committee of South Australia, in association with other grassroots rural groups are launching a new farmer representative group. At a meeting in Geranium in South Australia on March 8th, it was decided to establish the Union of Farmers to campaign for the long-term viability of all primary producers. The first policy of the new Union is based upon the necessity for long-term low-interest finance for primary producers, with special consideration for young farmers who wish to enter the industry. And the Union will demand that Australia recover sovereign control over the value of our currency, in order to begin to stabilise commodity prices. The Union of Farmers proposes to operate differently from the other farm lobby groups - it will be a low-budget, grassroots movement. Membership is to be fixed at a minimum of $100, which is refundable if members are not satisfied. The Union proposes to operate off the income of membership fees. It is envisaged that autonomous local branches could be formed by those accepting the objectives and basic policies of the new Union, which proposes to cooperate with other groups, which are committed to defending the traditional family farm. We are informed that the emphasis will be on self-help, not highly paid executive staff or impressive office buildings. It is essential to recapture the spirit that pioneered the Australian outback. Those who wish to associate themselves with the new Union, should address mail to: Union of Farmers, Streaky Bay, South Australia, 5680.


Although the N.F.F. and the Coalition spokesman on Trade, Mr. Alexander Downer, sneer at any suggestion that the "Lima Declaration" is in any way relevant to the decline of Australian industry, the proposals set out in this declaration conform remarkably closely to events. It is now confirmed that a decision by 17 Western Governments last year to forgive 50% of Egypt's world debt, has cost Australian wheat growers about $45 million. Australia is a member of the "Paris Club" of Western Nations, which reached this decision, and although Australia strongly opposed the measure, is (informally) bound to accept the decision. While the Federal Government through a national interest insurance scheme is responsible for about $400 million of the written off debt, wheat growers must forgo about $45million. That is, the Australian taxpayer will cover the first $400 million, and the wheat growers the rest.

While it is not strictly true that the "Lima Declaration" binds Australia to pay the Egyptian debt, the payment of Third World debt by the West is a specific proposal in the Lima Declaration. Mr. Peacock confirmed in 1978 that Australia has broadly accepted this Lima Declaration as the policy, which we follow. The Labor Government has never repudiated it.

TAPES: Mr. Paul McLean's address on the banks can be ordered from: The Mayo Tape Library, P.O. Box 6, Hahndorf, S.A., 5254 ("The Best of the Bankwatch Rally"), or M.E.A. Tape Library, P.O. Box 118, Numurkah, Victoria, 3636 ("The Hottest Issue in the Nation"). Price: $6 posted.


from The Australian, 17/3
It is little wonder that the Australian public opposes multiculturalism (Migration Demands a Complete Policy Mix, 9/3). "Multiculturalism is an absurd philosophy. Its basis is the belief that people are prisoners of their ethnic origins. A typical mutliculturalist statement goes like this: 'Australia is a multicultural society. X percent of our population was either born overseas or has at least one overseas born parent.' The assumption is that everybody is born via a sort of national sausage machine, which churns everybody out to a standard pattern, so that everybody is a cultural missionary of the land of his birth. "In fact, this is unlikely to happen, simply because a migrant, almost by definition, is someone who is discontented with his own country and believes he can find something better in some other country. "If he didn't believe that, then there wouldn't be any point in migrating. "Multiculturalists talk as though immigration was the sole cause of the social changes in Australian since World War II. "They completely ignore numerous other factors which were operating at the same time: the growth of urban areas, increasing levels of formal education, increased opportunities for travel and leisure, the decline of religion and the rise of permissiveness, to name a few. "The changes which occurred would have happened anyway, even if there had been no immigration. (Malcolm H. Brandon, Hawker, A.C.T.)


I am appalled at the comments made at the St. Patrick's Day breakfast in Melbourne by the Prime Minister about the Australian Flag and the need for it to be replaced so that we in Australia can achieve an identity. "Australians and particularly those who have served our country in the defence forces during World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam and the Gulf, as well as other places in the world both in and out of warlike operations, know and are proud of our Australian identity and our Flag. The Prime Minister denigrates all those Australian ex-servicemen and women who have fought for our country and our Flag.
"He will make no friends in the veteran and ex-service community with his attacks on our heritage, traditions, the Flag, the Constitution and our Constitutional monarchy associations. If he really believes the Flag should be replaced why do he and the party he leads use it as part of their party political representation? No doubt to gather votes and support.
"The Prime Minister should watch our lips and take note of the message. Get your mind and energy on what you are paid for - the economy and the other matters associated with prosperity and growth of Australia." Alf Garland, National President, R.S.L. of Australia
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159