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

4 December 1992. Thought for the Week: "With the abandonment of this (Christian) religion and of this attitude by scientists, and the increasing pursuit of knowledge for the sake of power which it gives to control and to dominate other beings ... Science is plunging back into the morass of witchcraft and superstition, providing clever-clever techniques for outsmarting the common herd with meretricious goods and false explanations while deploying its brainpower to develop the techniques of control over humanity. These include how to ... control the mechanism of life and heredity so as to produce the insane ideal of the power manic, the test-tube baby, separated at last from its cultural inheritance and all natural influences."
Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs


by Eric D. Butler
As the gutter media "goes in for the kill" against the Monarchy, with new "revelations" nearly every day, it is an appropriate time to raise the question of how reliable is the media. And to what depths is it prepared to sink? Let us consider, for example, the recent Sunday night Royal Special: Charles: A Portrait promotion on TV 7. The viewers were told that they would be presented with the latest on the Royal drama, with references to the Prince's long standing friendship with Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles.

There have been all kinds of allegations in the tabloids, but Channel 7 had what appeared to be a major sensational scoop, with Prince Charles appearing to boast of his relationship with Mrs. Parker-Bowles. There he is stating quite clearly, "I keep coming back for more". Prince Charles certainly said this, but he said it four years ago in his brilliant address at the Bicentenary celebrations in Sydney. In his Sydney address Prince Charles said, "Part of my own education took place here in Australia. Quite frankly, it was by far the best part. While I was here, I had the Pommie bits knocked off me, like chips off an old block. The results are only too obvious. I keep coming back for more, and it's always a special pleasure." Channel 7 deliberately spliced a section of this statement into its promotion of Charles: A Portrait with viewers misled into believing that the Prince was candidly admitting what the tabloids were alleging. This disgraceful episode is, however, typical of what sections of the media do.

The late Malcolm Muggeridge said that television had reached such a low level that he had to consider whether it was moral to appear on it. Over a lifetime of being involved with the media, I have personally experienced what can be done. During the national controversy back in 1984 concerning Aboriginal land rights, I debated Dr. Ken Coghill, a Minister in the Victorian Cain Labor Government, in the St. Arnaud Town Hall, Victoria. The debate was covered by the ABC. In answer to a trick question by a member of the audience who for some strange reason the ABC cameras were not able to identify, I was given a major round of applause. But when presented by the ABC, the applause was given to the unidentified man who asked the trick question!

Listening to an ABC interview he had given, the late Sir Raphael Cilento was amazed to hear what he was saying; the taped interview had been spliced with the result that Sir Raphael's answers were not related to what he had been asked in the interview! When the Rhodesian Government declared independence in November 1965, a photo was shown on television all around the world, of Africans lying allegedly dead in what was known as Cecil Square. The caption had it that they had all been machine gunned down when they rose up in protest against the declaration of independence. One caption read, "The Rhodesians do not even bother to bury their dead." I arrived in Rhodesia shortly afterwards and noted that the Africans were still lying in Cecil Square, resting in the shade of the jacaranda trees, as they did every sunny day!

As the battle concerning the future of the Constitutional Monarchy increases, it is essential that the treacherous role of sections of the media is carefully analysed and exposed.


by D. Thompson
The proposal from the Queen that she submit herself to the payment of taxation can only be regarded as a further retreat for the Monarchy, and ultimately for those who look to the Crown as a source of stability and continuity. From a constitutional point of view, such a suggestion would appear to be strongly questionable. If this suggestion is accepted by the British Parliament it will mean that the Queen, along with all the rest of her subjects, must open her bank accounts to the Inland Revenue and the Treasury for scrutiny. This, of course, immediately demeans both the monarchy and monarch.

But from a constitutional point of view, where may this lead? If there is ever any dispute with taxation bureaucrats, which must be regarded as inevitable, this surely places the Queen in an impossible position. Such a dispute can only be resolved in the courts. The courts being a function of the Crown, it is plainly ridiculous to suggest that the Queen should submit herself to the judgments of her own courts!

In Lord Beaverbrook's book "The Abdication of King Edward VIII", his editor, the historian A.J.P. Taylor, confirms that the King (or Queen) cannot be called to his own court. This immunity applies only to the King (or Queen). Any other member of the Royal Family can be summoned. It is plainly ludicrous to place the Queen in such a position.


In his autobiography, "A King's Story", Edward VIII provided the history of the civil list, from which the income of the Queen and Royal Family is drawn: "The cost of this Establishment (Monarchy) is borne by moneys voted by Parliament under the Civil List Act... In early times the King's income was identical with the national revenues, except as regards defence: i.e. the King paid for the civil portion of the government as distinct from military expenditure. Hence the term Civil List.

These expenses were defrayed from the revenues from Crown Lands and other hereditary sources. "However, as the Government services increased with the growth of the population, the King's resources were subjected to an ever increasing strain; and the recurring deficits were covered by Parliamentary grants. Therefore, on the accession of George III in 1760, Parliament took a tighter grip than ever on the Royal purse. In return for a fixed Civil List of 800,000 pounds, the King surrendered his claim upon the revenues of Crown Lands in England and Wales, and later Ireland, while still holding the Crown Lands in Scotland. Finally, William IV had to part with most of the Scottish Crown Lands.

By Queen Victoria's time the Crown had divested itself of responsibility for all Government services, and Parliament had instituted the practice of supporting the Monarchy by means of a fixed annual payment under the Civil List Act. "In the constitutional sense the Civil List might be regarded as something of a bargain on Parliament's part in return for the relinquishment by the King of the hereditary revenues of Crown Lands. Indeed, one of my first acts after my succession in 1936 was to send a message to Parliament formally surrendering to the State these hereditary revenues, and placing myself, as the phrase goes, at the disposal of the House of Commons..."


It appears that the Queen feels obliged to further place herself at the disposal of the Parliament by submitting to tax. But if the income from the Crown Lands, which must now be considerable, is a hereditary right, what might be Charles' position were he to succeed? Presumably he could claim the hereditary rights, but a constitutional nightmare may result. Each additional impost on the independence of the Crown or Monarch is another hammer blow to the stability of constitutional monarchy, and should be stoutly resisted. It is clearly unjust that any consideration be given to taxing the Queen.


The recent High Court ruling upholds barrister George Turner's long stated assertions that a large number of politicians are sitting in Parliament illegally. The fact that he brought this matter to the attention of the Governor General and the Federal Police some years ago and their refusal to act has ramifications that can only be guessed.

"The decision by the High Court is binding, not subject to appeal, and the Federal politicians must abide by it. "Broadly speaking, most of the laws passed through the Parliament in the last few years could be found to be null and void. "Covenants entered into with the United Nations that have brought in World Heritage nonsense, as well as a mess of other obnoxious laws, could be thrown out. "This matter is the greatest opportunity the Freedom Movement has ever had to get sanity back into Australia. "Contact your local Federal M.P., or Senator, and ask for the '1975 Common Informers Parliamentary Disqualification Act'.

"This Act was rushed through during the Senator Webster affair. "If they stonewall you, and they will, be specific and quote the 'House of Representatives Hansard, 16th April 1975, pages 1661-1662'. "On page 10 of Weekend Australian 28th-29th November, 1992, Professor Blackshield says the public could use the 1975 law that allows them to sue people who sit in Parliament under false pretenses. "Concerned Australians have been eating crow from their politicians for a long time. "Point out these facts to your local Member, and demand to know what they personally are going to do about it - NOW.

"Time is very short. Hit them hard before they crawl away. "A detailed legal assessment will follow as soon as it can be prepared. "Spread this message far and wide. We can win this one."
Issued by Concerned Citizens of Inverell, N.S.W. Further information from George Turner, (067) 25 6486


from The Age (Melbourne), November 30th
The sections of the Constitution on which the High Court based its Wills by-election judgment have been described as anachronisms by, among others, a naturally disappointed candidate. The reality is that these provisions are much more relevant today in the 1990s than they were in the 1890s when the Constitution was being drafted.

"The provision preventing persons holding an office of profit under the Crown from being eligible to be a candidate for Parliament was designed specifically to preclude the military and the bureaucracy from dominating the Parliament. "Some of the more strident comments on the High Court decision and attacks on the Constitution have come from people who are very critical of some of our near neighbour governments for being dominated by the bureaucracy and the military. Yet the changes in the Australian Constitution, which the critics are demanding, would open up the way for exactly the same situation to arise in Australia. This may be an unintended consequence, but that is the reality.

"The other reality is that, as present overseas experience conclusively shows, once that change is made and the balance of legislative power moves to the military and bureaucracy, it is an irreversible step. These groups have a propensity to defend their power and privileges regardless of the cost to the nation.

"The second section on which the High Court made comment was that relating to persons holding foreign citizenship. It is asserted by the critics that the act of becoming an Australian citizen is conclusive proof of commitment by that person to this country. This is a naive view. The mere taking out of citizenship paying taxes and voting are not conclusive indications of loyalty. People, some prominent, have been known to go through these motions for business and other non-patriotic reasons.

"As recent experience in Australia shows, parliaments can be dictated to by even small minorities who hold the balance of power. Where, at some time in the future, the loyalties of such a small but powerful group were open to question the very essence of Australia's independence would be undermined. Hence, amendments to these sections of the Constitution must be vigorously opposed in both the national interest and in the interests of democracy." (Neville Miller, Wheelers Hill, Vic.)


from Economic Reform, Newsletter of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, published by Coiner Publications, 3284 Yonge Street, Suite 500, Toronto, Canada, M4N 3M7, and republished from The Social Crediter, November-December, 1992

The trouble with economists (one of the troubles anyway) is that most of us have AIDS. "We caught AIDS (Acquired Insight Deficiency Syndrome) from our teachers in an 'infinite regress'. There is no known cure. AIDS is inevitably fatal to original thought. "By the well understood ZEN principle, a full cup of tea can hold no more. Until one is willing to empty his/her cup no one can pour more into it. Until one is willing to admit that he/she does not know, he/ she cannot be taught.
By the time we have a Ph.D in economics, we are so full of untruths and half-truths that simple, obvious truths which our teachers did not know, or kept to themselves if they did know, cannot penetrate our defence mechanisms.

"The great Count Tolstoy explained AIDS - which causes the persistence of errors - as follows: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." (John H. Hotson)


from The Scotsman (U.K.), published late September, 1992
You are to be congratulated on publishing Alan Armstrong's letter (Points of View, September 26). It will help to dispel the popular myth that banks can only lend out their depositors' money. "One of the worst absurdities of the present system is that governments themselves are dependent on bank created credit. On that, the Economic Research Council, in its research report of 1981, had this to say: "'It is right that the banks should be fully recompensed for the valuable services they perform, but if we examine these more closely we should see that this is essentially book keeping. It is misleading to describe the banks' services in financing Government expenditure out of newly created credit as 'lending'". "The word should not have been used in this connection as it creates a false picture of what really happens. As a result, we have allowed private institutions to usurp the right to issue our money and to make very handsome profits thereby.

"As the banking system, in creating this money, is merely using the nation's credit by liquefying it, the right of the banks to treat such created credits as a loan and to receive payment of interest thereon is unjustifiable... they are not entitled to anything more than an agreed fee based on extra work...' "Interest on the national debt resulting from the present system costs taxpayers each year nearly as much as defence of the N.H.S. If that were largely eliminated, as it could be, what a boost to the flagging economy that would be!

"We had better get the money system reformed before it is consolidated into Jaques Delors's proposed European central bank, which threatens to be both all-powerful and wholly unaccountable. Or else we will be trapped forever in irredeemable debt." (Donald Neale)

Republished from The Social Crediter, November December 1992 (enquiries, 3 Beresford Drive, Samford, Qld., 4520)

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