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

22 October 1993. Thought for the Week: "As a staunch believer in our country's system of government as a constitutional monarchy, I yield to no republican in my commitment and my loyalty to Australia and in my belief in our national identity as a free and sovereign people. I am proud of, and grateful for, the British institutions we have inherited - parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, freedom of the individual, our language and our culture ... We have every reason and every right to be proud of the origins of our Australian heritage, and mere ideological prejudices provide no justification for change, particularly as we are being asked to adopt a system of government which, in worldwide terms, has produced more failures than successes, at least for the ordinary people, if not for those in power over them, for the simple truth is that most of the world's monarchies are free and democratic societies and most of the world's republics are not."
Sir David Smith


C.H. Douglas observed that the control of news and finance was concentric. Media magnate Rupert Murdoch is, with the establishment of his global media enterprise, dramatically demonstrating the truth of the Douglas comment. Writing in the Herald Sun of October 18th, well known finance commentator Terry McCran provides the following "puff" for Murdoch:

"By any measure Rupert Murdoch is a remarkable man who has led, and continues to lead, a truly extraordinary life. He ranks among the outstanding business figures of all time on the global stage. Starting with one small afternoon newspaper in Adelaide, over 40 years he has built one of the biggest media groups in the world, which is now valued on the stock market at $20,000 million. And it stands on the threshold of an even more dramatic future in the great media revolution sweeping the world."

McCran's euology set the stage for the much publicised media interview last week during which there was no mention of how the Murdoch empire was financed by the international bankers, of how only a short time ago the same bankers had to rescue the empire from threatened collapse. A study of Murdoch's strategy reveals that he both caters for all tastes while at the same time he helps to create those tastes. His mass circulation tabloids often border on the pornographic, while there are the high quality papers like The Australian.

But through this vast media what is termed news is carefully subjected to a programme of filtering. When the Manchester Guardian was regarded as one of the world's leading liberal newspapers, it carried the boast, "What Manchester thinks today, the world thinks tomorrow". The late Malcolm Muggeridge provides some fascinating stories of what took place when he was a young Guardian writer, still influenced by the Fabianism of his relatives. Occasionally, of course, a rare newspaper editor of the twenties did show some independence and deal with subjects which have long since become verboten. But such independence has been progressively killed with the increasing centralisation of media control.

What type of "news" will the world receive from Rupert Murdoch's global media empire? It is instructive to recall how having paid a big sum for the fraudulent Hitler Diaries, Murdoch personally insisted on his papers serialising the diaries even after it was shown that they were fraudulent. Murdoch is an internationalist who promotes the New World Order concept. We have no doubt that Murdoch is a man of considerable talent and energy. But his financial backers would not be supporting him if his media started to criticise the "grand design" for attempting to shape the future of mankind.

While it would appear that mankind is faced with a growing threat by a global media monopoly, made possible by modern technology, that same technology is making it possible to decentralise communications. The video film is proving a most powerful tool for both teaching truth and communicating it to a wide audience. All centralisation contains the seeds of its own destruction. The Murdoch media empire provides both a threat and a challenge to those who believe in freedom.


Since 1989 there have been 14 "peace keeping" missions run ostensibly as United Nations operations, but many of which have been principally American imperialist adventures designed as much to bolster the domestic fortunes of U.S. Presidents as to right intolerable wrongs in other countries. Few such ventures can be marked down as "successful". Even the apparent initial success of the Gulf War has left a legacy of anti-Western bitterness throughout the Middle East and, in particular, a strong anti-American bitterness.

While the Cambodian operation, in which Australia's Foreign Minister, Mr. Gareth Evans, played a prominent part, has produced elections and a new constitution re-introducing the monarchy, there remain many fundamental problems without solutions.
The Somali debacle presently dominates the news, with the pall of disaster hanging over it as well. This United Nations effort has been racked by in fighting between the nations involved, and serious allegations of human rights violations against Somali citizens by the "peace keeping" troops.

Italy has announced that it will withdraw all participation, virtually in protest at the way the United States has handled the "U.N." effort. This is significant, because as a former colonial power in Somalia, the Italians have some genuine understanding of the Somali people.


In a report from Britain's Sunday Times, a senior British political adviser, Mr. John Drysdale, resigned as an adviser to the U.N. in disgust at what he called incompetence, infighting and undeclared war. Drysdale commanded Somali forces in Burma during World War II against the Japanese, worked as a British diplomat in Somalia after the war, and then became an adviser to several Somali leaders after Somali independence in 1960. General Aideed invited Drysdale to stay with him for nine days last year, also to seek his advice.

The following is from the Sunday Times report: "As the only expatriate in the (U.N.) mission to speak Somali and know General Aideed personally, Drysdale said he was able to offer unique insights and advice to Admiral Howe (in charge of the U.N. operation) and other senior U.N. officials. His opinions were largely ignored. His advice included a warning in June, shortly after the U.N. decided to arrest General Aideed after the killing of at least 23 Pakistani soldiers by the general's militia, that any attempt to capture him would backfire. A memorandum he sent to Admiral Howe on June 7th reads: 'The history of colonialism has shown time and time again that Somalis coalesce in times of perceived acts of gumeyer - foreign oppression. The resulting widespread guerilla war in Mogadishu would render the continued presence of UNOSM in this city untenable.'"

It appears that Drysdale's advice was ignored because the United States had already decided that General Aideed, who emerged as the likely leader of Somalia, was "too independent", was not regarded as an ally, and was not acceptable to the U.S. as Somali president. As other crisis spots develop around the globe, Australia's part in "peace keeping" forces should be reviewed.

If South Africa does degenerate into open civil war, will Australians be sent as part of another United Nations/United States "peace-keeping" adventure? When the "international community" decides to step into Australia to keep the peace in any alleged conflict with "Aborigines", we shall have direct experience with the benefits of the U.N./U.S. international police force in its protection of a new world order.


The authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank has again been challenged by Belgian revisionist, Siegfried Verbeke, in a new book, "The Anne Frank Diary: A Critical Approach". The Anne Frank Foundation is preparing legal action against the author, whose book has been circulated in Holland since the beginning of the year. Verbeke is reported to be a representative of a Dutch based group For Free Historical Research. This group has already been sued by the Anne Frank Foundation, for the distribution of pamphlets that cast doubt upon circumstances surrounding the holocaust. The pamphlet was banned by a Dutch court, and the publishers face a fine of $A8,300 if they persist in disseminating their ideas.

British historian David Irving has attempted to establish the authenticity or otherwise of Anne Frank's Diary. Having met Anne Frank's father to discuss the question, Irving issued a formal request that the documents known as "the Diary" be submitted to a British forensic laboratory in which Irving expressed confidence, which was bluntly refused. Subsequently, the Dutch Government is reported to have carried out its own "tests", aimed at eliminating doubts of authenticity. The Dutch Government has a direct interest in the matter, as the former Frank home has become something of a shrine and international tourist attraction. The Anne Frank Diary is alleged to have been partly written in ballpoint pen, not in widespread use until after World War II.


Following Governor General Hayden's comment in a television interview with Bob Hawke that if present restraints upon the Head of State were changed under a republic, we "could go through periods - intense periods sometimes, of quite unstable government", the republican cause had visibly suffered. Events in other republics have done nothing to weaken Mr. Hayden's views. In particular, events in Russia should be noted. President Yeltsin's conflict with the Russian Parliament make Charles I conflict with the British Parliament, which led to his execution, seem mild by comparison. The bloody resolution of the Russian conflict is not a unique product of Russian circumstances, and could be duplicated in any other region. But the truth is, as Mr. Hayden commented, in Australia "the present system works well". This is the best argument for keeping it!


from LIFE (Language Foundation of Australia) - Literacy is for Everyone....(Number 22: September 1993)

As a result of several decades of 'progressive education' in the English-speaking world, educational policy has established a pattern, contrary to that of traditional education, of teaching from the general to the particular. This may be the result of a number of factors, social as well as education, such as the need to attract teachers with a lower level of academic achievement. But it is also due to experimentation based on ideological elements of educational psychology.

"While progress demands some change, we cannot afford to experiment with all children for indefinite lengths of time, with results that indicate that one in four children in some English speaking countries suffer from some kind of learning deficiency. Experimentation must be limited and controlled so that it does not affect the overall outcome of any individual's achievement.

"Teaching from the general to the particular operates in two main areas of language teaching. The first is through Whole Language by which children are taught to recognise whole words by memory using the visual, intuitive brain hemisphere, instead of employing the logical synthesising brain functions of the left hemisphere to code and decode words accurately and apply language knowledge. Students are required to write whole 'creative' sentences before they have been trained in sentence form. The result is that memory is overtaxed at the expense of logical reasoning and knowledge application. Lack of training in the latter areas is responsible for current low literacy standards and a tendency to relate to generalities, to the detriment of accuracy and detail.

"Long experience has shown that Grammar even as a separate subject can be taught in an imaginative, contemporary and practical way which delights the student by its clarity and logic. The ancient Greeks taught Grammar as a fundamental skill for manipulating language but also for training logical thought. Sadly, the myth that both phonics and Grammar are boring and unacceptable to contemporary students emanates from the teachers and teacher training colleges who no longer require a mastery of them. The majority of teachers, even in High Schools, are ill equipped to teach either, and therefore blindly accept the generalistic approach.

"If we are to produce students proficient in the use of language, logical reasoning and attention to specifics, we must begin by training them at Primary School. The argument for specialist teachers of language is unassailable…" (Barbara Dykes)


In an interesting article in the Financial Review, 14/10, Professor Judith Sloan, of Flinders University, South Australia, casts doubts on the Labor Government's capacity to deal with labour market reform. She specifically criticises the Keating Government's use of the Foreign Affairs Power to ram through certain provisions of labour market reform, and argues that it will jeopardise the dovetailing of Commonwealth and State relevant legislation.

It would appear, plainly, that the Commonwealth (Keating et al) is not interested in any harmonisation of legislation with the States, but only with wielding the big stick to bludgeon the States into submission. Of course. What else? These political centralists at Canberra don't like States. They don't want States. They don't believe in the decentralisation of political and economic power. All can be made good by the passing of laws, and forcing individuals to comply with them. It's the socialist immaturity of mind again: the belief that attitudes can be changed by passing a law. The Law becomes the Truth; the attitude of the individual is unreal, and must be abolished. It will all fail in the goodness of time, but much anger and hostility will build up, and explode, first.

Professor Sloan's comment on the use of the Foreign Affairs power is quite penetrating, viz.: The use of Foreign Affairs power is also quite contrary to the intention of the Constitution as expressed in Section 51 (XXXV), which states that the power to make industrial relations law will vest with the States, apart from laws designed to prevent and settle industrial disputes extending beyond the boundaries of any one State." (end of quote)

The Foreign Affairs power abuse to weaken State powers will have to be faced sooner or later. There is no doubt in our minds that the issue is a slick constitutional trick, which is invalid on moral grounds. These major issues, which have been imposed on Australians by the Foreign Affairs power, are those, which most certainly should have been put to referendum. Did we want the Racial Discrimination Act? Did we want the Sexual Discrimination Act? Did we want National Heritage legislation? Are these Acts making Australia a better place to live, or not? Is Australian society better or worse because of them? The Australian people were not given any choice: these "heavy" Acts were forced on them. The socialist, centralist chickens will come home to roost: and we'll all suffer.

We don't believe that any politicians will ever have the courage to repeal them (politicians tremble in a white funk at the very thought of opposing the United Nations). As we can see things now, it would have to be done via the Citizens' Initiated Referendum, which does not even need to be introduced via referendum. The trembling politicians could be allowed to "hide" behind that and bleat to the United Nations that they "had" to do it (repeal of U.N. based legislation in Australia). What would it matter: We would have won some of our freedoms back.


from The Age (Melbourne), October 18th
Senator Evans's claims (The Age, 11/10) that the Mabo dispute would not end up at the United Nations, is, to use his own expression, manifestly silly'. "The A.L.P. Government overturned the philosophy of the Australia Act when, in 1991, it opened the way to Australians to take complaints to a member of a U.N. human rights committee. "A number of clauses under the U.N. Human Rights Conventions seem likely to provide a basis for Aborigines to complain to the U.N. over the Mabo dispute. "For example, Australians can take complaints to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and it is possible a complaint may be made on Mabo that there has been a breach of that U.N. Convention.

"Senator Evans and his Government have compromised the independence of our legal system allowing the involvement of the U.N. in domestic disputes. They can hardly be surprised if individuals and groups make use of the opportunities they have created. "Those truly concerned about Australia's independence should focus on the involvement of the U.N. in our legal system, rather than the trumped up issue of republicanism." (Rod Kemp, Senator for Victoria (Lib.)

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