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 February 1995. Thought for the Week: "There is essentially no difference between the principles of modern government and those of the most oppressive of the tyrannies of history. The mechanism is different, the results on the whole may be considerably more satisfactory, but in each case the essential consists of an infringement upon personal liberty."
C.H. Douglas in The Monopoly of Credit


by Eric D. Butler
Early in the history of the Social Credit movement, one observer of the state of the world commented that events appeared to be in the pay of the genius responsible for the Social Credit Revelation, C.H. Douglas. The state of the world is much more convulsed than when Douglas first predicted that growing convulsion was inevitable if governments insisted upon adhering to a philosophy, which elevated the debt system of finance into a type of religion, which must be blindly followed.

A quick glance at current media headlines shows that a major factor in international politics is the growing drive by all developed nations to attempt to solve their internal problems through increased exports. One headline in the Australian media informs Australians that there is a continuing "trade war" and that Australia's ties with the U.S.A. are "under review" because of this "war", one feature of this being a new attempt by the U.S.A. to export more of its food surpluses into markets which Australian producers claim are traditionally theirs.

In a sane world one might ask the question, "Why don't the Americans simply eat the dairy products they are now attempting to export into Asia with the aid of subsidies?" If it is argued that even if all the American poor were provided with increased purchasing power, American dairy production is far in excess of what Americans could consume, then surely the Americans could modify their internal financial rules to make it possible for their farmers to reduce their efforts without financial loss.

The basic feature of the world's economy is that primarily as a result of applied technology and solar energy, all developed nations are engaged in an orgy of production far in excess of consumption. This leads to growing "trade wars" and grandiose plans for growing super-common markets. But as Douglas pointed out over 60 years ago, in The Monopoly of Credit, "At first sight, this situation seems to lend powerful support to a policy of what in fact promises to be a world dictatorship. To those who have practical experience of large organisations, which is in essence the position of bankers, there is an attractive logic about a world planned and controlled like a machine. But, in fact, society does not work like a machine, but like a living organism."

Biologists point out that all living organisms discriminate in favour of themselves. It is axiomatic that every attempt to solve finance economic problems by driving mankind into ever bigger and more centrally controlled groups will result in greater friction. The state of the world provides increasing evidence of this with every day that passes.

A multitude of problems, most of these effects, not causes, tends to misdirect people's energies away from dealing with causes. Douglas commented that "The decay of doctrinal religion has to a large extent deprived humanity of any clear objective, attainable or otherwise", suggesting that the solution to man's problems would only come from indirect progress resulting from the pressure of events.

Those who have disciplined themselves sufficiently to undertake the course of orderly study provided by the League's Social Dynamics training programme, are equipped to show their fellows that a nation like Australia can survive if it adopts a long term policy which aims at ensuring that the nation is genuinely independent. One of the first essentials is to seek to develop harmonious relations with other nations, not by generating friction through "trade wars", or by trying to base foreign policy on unrealistic international programmes.

The basic Christian teaching, put so clearly by Shakespeare in his advice, "To thine own self be true" and thereby not false to any man, should become the foundation of a national survival programme. An economically weak individual can do little to help his fellows. An economically strong and independent Australia could provide a constructive example for other nations. Such a programme would also build up the nation's military defences, not for the purpose of aggression, but for defence against those who seek to destroy genuine independence.

The task ahead may appear daunting, but it is possible of attainment. The key to survival and growth is a dedicated and informed minority. The role of the League of Rights will be decisive in the years ahead.


by David Thompson
What are we to make of Dr. Brendan Nelson, President of the Australian Medical Association, member of the Labor Party for 20 years, and possible pre-selection contender for one of the safest Liberal Party seats in Australia? There is certainly the sniff of political opportunism about him. We are reminded that the Liberal Party is much different today from Sir Robert Menzies' genuinely conservative party, by comments such as those by former N.S.W. Premier, Mr. Nick Greiner. Greiner's view is that there should be one obsession within the Party: winning! Others within the Party reflect the same view - that the Liberal objective is "to beat Keating". But having beaten Keating, what then?

Dr. Nelson seems to be prepared to capitalise on the Liberal obsession with "winning" as an end in itself rather than a means to providing better representation to the voter and taxpayer. Nelson comes from a 'political' family, with a grandfather who was a member of the Communist Party, and father a union steward and staunch Labor man. Why would Dr. Nelson, who only resigned from the A.L.P. in 1992, choose a political career with the Liberals? Perhaps the Parties themselves provide part of the answer. Perhaps there is so little difference between them, that any good identikit politician could find a comfortable niche in either A.L.P. or Liberal Party?

Dr. Nelson says that he has "probably always been a Liberal without realising it". If it was the perception that the Liberals are so desperate to "win" that anyone who can help them do it is welcome, then Dr. Nelson is philosophically shallow, and the Liberals a spent force. We note with interest one of Dr. Nelson's comments: "I'll speak to anybody except the League of Rights...." We need hardly point out that Dr. Nelson has not been invited to speak on a League platform.


Just weeks before the financial crash of October 1987, Sir James Goldsmith sold everything, and in the succeeding financial turmoil, increased his fortune substantially. In 1990 he retired from active business participation, in the pursuit of social and political issues. He campaigned heavily against the Maastricht Treaty, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). He helped found a new political movement, L'Autre Europe, and was elected one of France's M.E.P's., and leads the new parliamentary group in the European Parliament.

Goldsmith is scathing about GATT and describes global free trade as "a sacred principle of modern economic theory, a sort of generally accepted moral dogma". He recently produced a book, "The Trap", in which he blasts the free trade dogma, and highlights the effects it will have on nations. The World Trade Organisation, which began operating last month, is designed to enforce the terms of the GATT agreement and lead to global economic integration.

Goldsmith's view: "It is yet another international bureaucracy whose functionaries will be largely autonomous. They report to 120 nations, and therefore, in practice, to nobody. Each nation will have one vote out of 120. Thus America and every European nation will be handing over ultimate control of its economy to an unelected, uncontrolled group of international bureaucrats..."

While terms like "the global market" rolls sweetly off the tongue of messianic politicians like Mr. Keating, the reality is usually unanticipated. Just what is Keating and Co. leading us into?

Goldsmith: "How can we accept a system which increases unemployment from 420,000 to 5.1 million (in Europe) people during a period in which the economy has grown by 80 percent? You must understand that we are not talking about normal competition between nations. The 4 billion people who are joining the world economy have been part of a wholly different society, indeed a different world. It is absurd to believe that suddenly we can create a global free trade area, a common market with, for example, China, without massive changes leading to consequences we cannot anticipate..."

Goldsmith himself is an enigma. What are his motives? Why does one of the richest men in the world campaign against the global hegemony? We can only study his views, and weigh their merit. We anticipate having stocks of the Goldsmith book in March.


In order to make himself acceptable as the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. John Howard felt it necessary to repudiate his 1988 comments concerning the rate of Asian migration to Australia. Howard had commented that if Australians believed that the rate of Asian migration to Australia threatened social cohesion, then it should be slowed down. Only four years earlier Professor Geoffrey Blainey had addressed the Warrnambool Rotary Club, saying that the rate of Asian migration could be too high, and should be addressed.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, the number of Asian-born Australians has trebled in 18 years, and is approaching one million. In 1981, 267,000 Australian residents had been born in Asia. By 1994, 826,200 Australian residents were born in Asia. Together with children who were born of Asian-born parents, Asian Australians make up about a third of the nation's population growth. In 1991 people born in Asia (excluding areas west of Pakistan) made up 1.85 percent of Australia's population. By 1994, they comprised 4.6 percent.

The trend of accepting predominantly European migrants is now being reversed, with, for example, migrants from China and Hong Kong now far outnumbering Greek Australians. There is further evidence of a speedy decline in European migration, with the number of British and Irish migrants declining by 28,200, even though they remain by far the largest group. The only European migrant group that is coming to Australia in increasing numbers is that of Yugoslavia.

The trends for the future are clear from these statistics. Since just 1980 the number of residents here who were born in China or Hong Kong has quadrupled, and those born in Vietnam trebled. Philippines have increased almost six-fold, with women outnumbering men two-to-one. If Australians are disturbed by such statistics, then they have every right to transmit such concerns to their representatives, and attempt to translate such concerns into legitimate policy changes to migration trends. Mr. John Howard should be apprised of any such sentiments, along with his Coalition colleagues.


The dreadful mishandling of the woodchip export licences by Mr. Beddall, and then by Mr. Keating, demonstrates that the more power is centralised, the less reality is permitted to intrude upon the decision making process. How on earth would Mr. Beddall, let alone Mr. Keating, know about forests in Tasmania, Queensland or the south-west of W.A.? It was always inevitable that when the true nature of some of the "environmentally sensitive, old growth forests" emerged, the banning of logging would be seen to be for political rather than conservation purposes.

The most deflating moment for the Prime Minister must have been when Premier Groom, from Tasmania, called upon him, with photographs of some of these environmentally sensitive forests; some having been logged once, twice or even three times in the last hundred years, some clear felled before Christmas, some with roads running through them, and one even with an abandoned airstrip in it! This debacle simply underlines the wisdom of the founders of the Constitution - which the Commonwealth should enjoy only a specific list of powers given by the States, and no more. Forestry is a State concern, and can be more efficiently administered by the States.


We note from our (regular) copy of The Australian Jewish News that Mr. Mark Liebler has made a call on John Howard, now the Leader of the Opposition. It would not surprise us at all if the Racial Hatred Bill came up, and Mr. Howard found himself under some pressure to have the Liberal Party support its passage in the Senate, very shortly.

A SYDNEY ACTIONIST has sent us a quotation from a reply to her enquiry on the Racial Hatred Bill. The Hon. Duncan Kerr (Acting Attorney-General, assisting Michael Lavarch) writes:
"An important aspect of legislation such as the Racial Hatred Bill is its educative function. The presence of the Bill will reinforce the notion that racial hatred is not acceptable, and will raise the awareness of the issue in the community. 'Like most of our human rights legislation, the greatest value of the Bill will be underpinning the efforts of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to promote greater tolerance by making a clear statement in the law that some conduct is incompatible with the kind of community we all want to live in. Funds have been earmarked for the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission to conduct a community campaign once the Bill has been enacted"...

Our Comment
So the Keating Government Cabinet Ministers are confident that the Racial Hatred Bill will be enacted. This "clear statement in law" may not be acceptable, at all, to the Australian people. Duncan Kerr and his colleagues are forcing their own opinion on the Australian people. Only a referendum, after clear arguments for and against were provided to the Australian electorate, should decide the issue. The Australian print media appear to be overwhelmingly against racial vilification/hatred bills, as this type of legislation stifles free speech. We, ourselves, agree with this.

The time could well come when the High Court of Australia rules that the Commonwealth has no power to legislate on the basis of the Foreign Affairs power of the Australian Constitution - and that all legislation which has already flowed from that power is henceforth negated. This could well happen. Indeed, we feel that this will happen in due course. Then there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of bureaucrats - benefiting from the human rights industry, studying the positions vacant columns of the dailies.

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