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

18 October 1996. Thought for the Week: "In an order where the end governs the means it is man as consumer who is in charge of all of the economy. And since every man is a consumer, it is every man who contributes to orienting the production and distribution of goods. It is for man, the consumer that every economic activity exists. Man, as a consumer, must therefore organise production himself. It is he the consumer, who must give his orders to the producers."
Louis Even, In This Age Of Plenty


by Eric D. Butler
It was the great Chinese sage and philosopher Confucius who warned that it was no use running harder if one were on the wrong road. Those running harder on the wrong road get to the wrong destination ahead of everyone else. Bigger is better and faster is defined as greater progress, according to the dominant philosophy in today's world.

Since the end of the Second World War there has been a tremendous acceleration in the centralisation of all power. Not surprisingly, the Soviet leaders supported the establishment of two of the major instruments for centralising power globally, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These two institutions are today presented by the financially orthodox as the holy of holies. They are the equivalent of what Mecca is to the devout Moslem.

Australians genuinely concerned about the future of their nation should take careful note of the fact that their Federal Treasurer, Mr. Peter Costello, has waxed eloquent about this reception by the I.M.F. and the World Bank. Writing in the business section of The Australian of October 11th, financial writer Ian Henderson provides the following information about how highly regarded is their Federal Treasurer in the Financial Mecca of the world.
"…Costello thoroughly enjoyed the reception he received at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington. The Treasurer has delighted in retelling the comment of the Managing Director Michel Camdessus, 'Mr. Costello, your economic programme is music to our ears.' The I.MF is the nerve centre of the worldwide push for fiscal consolidation policies and for labour market reform, and the Howard Government has built its Budget and its workplace relations legislation on those foundations."

Ian Henderson writes, "The IMF is just the place to brag about tough budgets and de-regulating the labour market. Such a programme was again endorsed at the I.M.F's. annual meeting as it urged member nations to implement 'complementary and mutually reinforcing....sound monetary, fiscal and structural policies' to attempt to prolong and strengthen the recent low-inflation global economic expansion".

Those who can submit themselves to the painful ordeal of reading the gobble-gook, which pours from the financial witchdoctors at the I.M.F. and World Bank, can readily see that these witchdoctors and their many devotees, including government treasurers like Peter Costello, are quite mad in the sense that they are divorced from reality.

It was the forerunners of today's financial witchdoctors who were responsible for the Great Depression of the thirties. "Sound monetary, fiscal and structural policies" had to be imposed to avert the threat of inflation. "Stronger" financial institutions had to be created, like Central banks, these to be linked to The Bank of International Settlements. The inflation rate was temporarily slowed, but the price was mass unemployment, the bankruptcy of tens of thousands of small businesses, social dislocation and the establishment of nakedly totalitarian Communist, Nazi and Fascist regimes, these fostering programmes which led to the Second World War, and all that followed.

All the high sounding rhetoric of today's financial witchdoctors, and programmes for creating New World Orders, cannot avert the breakdown of orderly societies everywhere as attempts are made to continue centralising power. The greater the attempts to make an unworkable debt ridden system work, the greater the disasters ahead.

If the true purpose of production was accepted as being consumption, then Australians would only undertake production programmes, which served their genuine requirements. One of those requirements is the ability to defend the country militarily if necessary. That requires an adequate manufacturing base. Australia has the natural resources to undertake such a programme. Most of Australia's young unemployed could be absorbed into such a programme, this in turn alleviating the growing social problems afflicting the nation.
Independent M.P. Graeme Campbell had provided a vision of the erosion of Australia's river systems being reversed by re-afforestation programmes. Effective national defence requires the upgrading of Australia's railway systems. There is adequate steel and other resources for the task.

It can be predicted with absolute certainty that the Howard-Costello programme, based on "economic rationalism" and designed to meet the requirements of the witchdoctors of the I.M.F. and the World Bank, is doomed to failure. Unemployment must remain high. Mickey-mouse gimmicks, including the "re-training" of the unemployed for constructive work, which cannot be undertaken under present financial policies, can have no bearing upon reality. Large numbers of young Australians have lost hope and surrendered to the various drug cults. Increasing numbers commit suicide in despair.

Unlike Camdessus of the I.M.F, large numbers of despairing Australians do not find the Costello programme like music in their ears. Peter Costello has made much of the fact that public opinion polls appeared to indicate that his first budget was well received by Australians. As is now generally accepted, even by many in the Labor Party, the election results of March 2nd were a dramatic expression of the deep-seated detestation of Paul Keating. There was no mandate for the Howard-Costello Government, merely a hope that it could not be as bad the Keating Government.

Truth and reality are the great disciplinarians in the human drama. It is only a matter of time before the Australian electors discover that once again they have been "conned". But unlike in the past the emergence of representatives like Graeme Campbell will provide a constructive outlet for their anger. The story of the Costello Howard programme being like music in the ears of international bankers will be recalled as a type of sick joke.


by David Thompson
The results of the New Zealand election, held last weekend, should be closely studied by both Prime Minister John Howard and Labor leader Mr. Kim Beazley. New Zealand went to the polls with a completely new electoral system, which has not only altered the mechanics of how New Zealanders vote, but has perhaps changed forever the traditional party loyalties.

In assisting in loosening the traditional party loyalties, the new system of voting (M.M.P.) also served as a pressure-release valve, which has propelled the leader of the New Zealand First Party, Mr. Winston Peters, to the very centre of N.Z. politics. Perhaps for the first time ever, New Zealanders felt constrained by neither party loyalties nor "politically correct" attitudes in the issues for which they voted.

The basis of the New Zealand First policy platform, as its name suggests, is to begin to eliminate foreign ownership of New Zealand assets, and dramatically cut down an immigration programme, which has begun to alter the racial demographics of the nation. Much as his political and ideological opponents shouted "racist" at him, the part-Maori Winston Peters' party won 17 crucial seats in the election, giving New Zealand First the balance of power in the new Parliament. This virtually makes Winston Peters the "king-maker" of New Zealand politics. He can decide who becomes Prime Minister, and which of the largest parties forms a government in coalition with him. Peters may be able to dictate policy terms on crucial issues, and even demand the Deputy Prime Ministership.

Winston Peters is in a unique position to direct the course of history in New Zealand. It is clear that the key elements in N.Z. First's success are not only the nationalist policies, but those of timing and opportunity. It is from this that Australian political leaders must learn. The ground has been prepared by Graeme Campbell, and brilliantly exploited by Pauline Hanson, to establish that not only are there alternatives to present "bi-partisan" policies on immigration, foreign ownership, multiculturalism, etc., but that it is now socially acceptable to choose them.

All that remains for such alternatives to explode onto the Australian political stage are the elements of opportunity and timing. Can John Howard be quite certain that the unpredictable business of politics will never provide the opportunity for Campbell or Hanson to be placed in a similar position in Australia to that of Winston Peters in New Zealand? John Howard's long experience as a politician should provide the answer to this, but is Howard listening?

Instead of attempting to blot out Pauline Hanson's views by the sheer force of his inadequate personality, Labor leader Kim Beazley should be acknowledging that the social problems of Australia have changed, and A.L.P. policies must change to provide the answers. Beazley does not even have to abandon the A.L.P. heritage, or the A.L.P's. core constituency.

It was Arthur Calwell, former A.L.P. leader and immigration spokesman, who Pauline Hanson quoted as saying: "Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti-one-another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no, and who speaks for 90% of Australians."

Beazley does not even need to revert to Calwell's language if he has not the stomach for it, because Hanson has shown that she has massive support for views articulated by Calwell, one of Beazley's more illustrious predecessors. But it is clear that Beazley or Howard (or both) need to give close attention to what might now occur over the Tasman, and consider how they too could easily be swept into the dustbin of history if they refuse to address the frustrations of large numbers of Australians, and represent their views.

As the New Zealand experience shows, those views will eventually find expression, and if John Howard, Kim Beazley or their successors wish to remain relevant to Australian politics, they need to begin to listen to what the big majority of Australians are saying, not dismiss such sentiments as offensive, immoral, or politically incorrect. To do so is to remain a victim of the disease of (small "1) liberalism.


The attention now given to the "stolen generation" inquiry ignores a number of basic questions concerning the Aboriginal children who were forcibly removed from their parents in the past. The fact that the enquiry is taking place at all gives rise to the first questions: does it continue to enforce the culture of "victim-hood" which has surrounded Aboriginal people of this present generation?

No one who knows Aboriginal people would deny that some Aborigines are disadvantaged Australians. But to continue to explain away such disadvantage as being the result of racial discrimination, deaths in custody, dispossessed of land, the erosion of culture, or having been separated from families, eventually begins to sound like the deliberate assumption of the permanent status of victim-hood.

The long-term effect of children being separated from their parents, for whatever the reason, should not be underestimated. But nor should it be overstated in order to preserve the cloak of victim-hood, which the Aboriginal industry might be tempted to do. The removal of children was not confined to Aborigines, as is often implied in the context of this enquiry. Ron Brunton, of the Indigenous Issues Unit at the Institute for Public Affairs, makes the following point (Weekend Australian, 12/10/96):
"Up until the 1960s there was a widespread belief that children from 'disadvantaged backgrounds' should be 'given a chance in life' by removing them from their families and placing them in what were thought to be more supportive environments. A great many working-class British children were shipped to Australia and other countries in the belief that others could do better for them than their rightful parents. The trauma that they and their families suffered is unlikely to have been any less than that suffered by Aborigines affected by separation. So why should the enquiry be confined to Aborigines? Why not invite the lost children of the Empire to recount their experiences? The same kind of ardent busy-bodying lay behind the misery of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children."

By describing as "Aboriginal" the children who were removed from their parents, one of the possible motives for this programme could be obscured. Were the removed children "Aboriginal", or were they mainly part Aboriginal? Could one of the reasons for their removal lie in the well-known contempt in which full-blooded Aborigines held the part-Aboriginal offspring of marriages or liaisons between Aborigines and others? This question is difficult to discuss. The fact that part-Aboriginal children were removed from their parents implies a "racist" attitude that European culture was "superior" to Aboriginal culture. It is much less acceptable to regard full-blooded Aborigines as "racist" for their contempt for part-Aboriginal offspring. And yet, the motive of removing part-Aboriginal children from this attitude of powerful contempt has never been discussed.

Will the enquiry recover Cabinet and other documents to re-examine the motive for removing children from parents? Is it a fact that an attempt at "assimilation" of Aborigines was the reason for removing children, or was it a genuine desire to benefit those who might have clearly been destined for a life of disadvantage?

As a form of social engineering, such a policy would be anathema today, but judging past policies on contemporary social standards achieves nothing. But as Brunton remarks, the fact that some Aborigines acknowledge that they benefited from being removed from their parents should not be dismissed out of hand.

Recommended reading: "Hasluck Versus Coombs", by Geoffrey Partington; $15.00 or $18.00 posted, from all League book services.


With the Howard Government being placed in the position where it must demonstrate on the David Irving question whether John Howard's professed support for free speech has any substance, it is instructive to notice the tactics of those opposing David Irving's entry into Australia.

One of the best known apologists for the Zionist Jewish totalitarians, Robert Manne, Editor of Quadrant, Australia's leading literary journal, has provided a masterly example of what might be best described as talmudic dialectics. The article is worthy of an in-depth analysis. Last weekend veteran Zionist hit man Gerard Henderson provided one of his typically mean, miserable and snide efforts. Henderson argues that Irving's views should be allowed to circulate, but that he should be kept out of Australia. The truth is, of course, that it is most difficult to prevent Irving's views from circulating. Henderson advances the incredible story that a psychiatrist, himself allegedly a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp, claimed that as a result of Irving's previous two visits to Australia, there had been a marked deterioration in the physical and mental health of a number of holocaust survivors. Anyone who can believe that story is capable of believing anything.

Both Manne and Henderson have blatantly misrepresented David Irving's videotape, The Search for Truth in History. In his scholarly and meticulously documented work, The Case For David Irving, Nigel Jackson thoroughly exposes the nature of the campaign against David Irving. Neither Manne nor Henderson, nor any other Zionist apologist, has ever attempted to answer Nigel Jackson. They have demonstrated that they are intellectual cowards, too frightened to take the field in honest open debate with Nigel Jackson. They pretend that he does not exist.

We feel that The Case For David Irving is compulsory reading at the present time, as the Howard Government anguishes over whether they really believe in freedom of speech.


Independent M.P. Pauline Hanson's observations concerning Aborigines re-opens many aspects of the indigenous debate. Her rejection of "disadvantaged" as a usual consequence of being Aboriginal again raises the issue of who is an Aborigine? In the past it has been a stain on the family to be known to be descended from convict stock in Australia, but now that social fashion has turned full circle, it is fashionable to claim convict descent even with the slimmest of evidence. As with convict descent, Aboriginal descent has previously been a matter for shame and denial, but in literary circles it is extremely fashionable (and perhaps increasingly lucrative) to be known to be of Aboriginal descent.

One celebrated "Aboriginal" writer, Colin Johnson (now known as Mudrooroo Nyoongah, or just Mudrooroo), author of "Us Mob" and "Wild Cat Falling" seems to have exaggerated his Aboriginal status. It is not politically correct for non-Aborigines to take part in such a debate for fear of the charge of "racism", but for all that, the debate within the Aboriginal community appears to be increasingly bitter.
Mudrooroo's sister, Betty Polglaze, was astonished to discover that her author brother claimed Aboriginal heritage; it was the first she knew of it.

An article in The Australian Magazine (2 0/7/96) by Victoria Laurie included the following excerpts:
"For years rumours have seeped through Perth University and literary circles that Mudrooroo's family members can find no Aboriginal credentials. When some Nyoongah Aborigines began asking questions earlier this year, rumour mongering reached fever pitch with odd - and isolated - consequences. In May, students at Murdoch University were surprised to hear their lecturer describe Mudrooroo, the author of their study text, 'Wild Cat Falling' as 'descended from black American ancestry.' It was a new description of the then head of Aboriginal Studies at their University.

The fires of speculation have been fanned, in part, by Mudrooroo himself. While some colleagues and admirers attack the rumours as malicious and a form of "ethnic cleansing", they admit his forceful attacks on other people's Aboriginality have made him a sitting target. For in a series of interviews recently which marked his winning the Ruth Adenay Koori Award, he turns his guns on author Sally Morgan. Her popular book, 'My Place' was, he stated, 'not really an Aboriginal book - it's coming from outside and exploring our Aboriginality, and that's where the problems lie.'

He repeated his view, first expressed in 'Writings from the Fringe' that: 'the time has arrived when you can be gifted, young and not very black and end up selling 400,000 copies'. Her book was a sanitised version' of Aboriginality - just because something is written by a person who identifies as an Aborigine doesn't make it an Aboriginal work'...."


Robert Eddington, Co-ordinator of the Dumbartung Aboriginal Corporation in Perth, specialises in "debunking" pseudo-Aborigines. He and the Chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Board of the Australia Council, Richard Walley, stand firmly by the definition of an Aboriginal person as "someone of Aboriginal descent who identifies as such and is recognised by their Aboriginal community to be so ."

But both Eddington and Walley are emphatic that "Aboriginal blood" is essential; acceptance by others as being Aboriginal is not sufficient, says Walley, and where serious questions about a person's Aboriginal status are raised, they must be checked out with their local community... "

This is a departure from the official government definition of Aboriginal status, which rejects the "racist" attitude that Aboriginal blood is necessary for Aboriginal identity. How much Aboriginal blood, demand the politically correct, is necessary to become an Aborigine? Perhaps in the present climate, where freedom of speech is welcomed by the Prime Minister, his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might direct his attention to this matter? Perhaps this is the sort of double standard that exercises Ms. Hanson's mind?


The following letter was published by The Sydney Morning Herald (3/10/96)
"A mother of four who runs a fish shop - that's what she is, not a Rhodes Scholar, an academic, or even a journalist. She doesn't have the flowery rhetoric of a Jim McClelland, who bags her, or the verbal footwork of many of her peers, but she's had the guts to speak up on issues which bother so many of her fellow Australians who are aware of, and concerned by, the same problems she speaks of.
It is sad our country has reached a stage where somebody such as her is sniped at and pilloried in the pages of one of our leading (?) newspapers, with her supporters being given no credence or recognition at all.
Give her a go. Listen to what she's saying. She'd at least put on a uniform, which is more than some are game enough to do."
Ron Elphick, Buff Point.
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159