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

24 July 1998. Thought for the Week: "The League of Rights offers no plans or blueprints for the cure of human problems... The League teaches that these problems cannot be solved by reason or logics. Logic, like Algebra or any other form of mathematics, is only a mechanism, an instrument. Like the slide rule, it can only produce the result of all the factors fed into it. Truth must be discovered. This requires genuine humility. The laws of the Universe, called the Natural Law, transcended human thinking and if man wishes to live in harmony he should endeavour to understand those laws, and to apply them in all spheres - personal, social, government, economic and racial."
The Truth About The League of Rights


by Eric D. Butler
Before the anti-Pauline Hanson critics quote the factual mistakes of the One Nation leader, they might consider some of the factual mistakes of a number of politicians. It is true that Pauline Hanson was not correct about the 1967 Referendum, but she is in good company. There was the occasion when no less a celebrity than Bob Hawke claimed that the 1967 Referendum result, with an overwhelming YES vote, endorsed Aboriginal Land Rights. It did nothing of the kind. If the 1967 Referendum proposal had been worded as suggested by Bob Hawke, there is little doubt that the Referendum result would have been quite different.

The overwhelming majority of the Australian people have always been in favour of a "fair go" for the Australian people of Aboriginal background. They are still in favour of that "fair go". But Pauline Hanson has been progressively gaining support as it becomes obvious that large numbers of part-Aboriginal people are obtaining benefits of all kinds to the detriment of genuine Aboriginals and Europeans. This is producing friction, where previously there was little or none, among those who constitute the overwhelming majority of the Australian people.

In view of the controversy initiated by Pauline Hanson's claims, it is not surprising that a number of National Party supporters are suggesting that another referendum is required to eliminate the controversy, which has been stimulated by Pauline Hanson's claims. For the record it should be noted that the League of Rights was a minority, which refused to endorse the 1967, YES referendum, which, in essence, sought to increase the power of the central Commonwealth powers over the States. This increase in Commonwealth powers has produced a situation, which has progressively deteriorated.

One of the key questions to be resolved is: "Who is entitled to be listed as an Aborigine?" A study of the debates in the Federal Parliament leading up to the 1967 Referendum and the manner in which the Referendum was conducted reveal the type of confusions, which some National Party members feel, should be resolved. In spite of the fact that there were more "dinki-di" Aborigines, as stated by one commentator from the Northern Territory, living in the Northern Territory than the total number living in the Southern States all put together, they were not entitled to vote at the Referendum.

No official case against the proposed constitutional change, allegedly only a "minor" one, was circulated along with the YES case as normally required. Those electors who voted YES in the mistaken view that they were voting to prevent "discrimination" against Aborigines never realised that they were supporting the opening of a Pandora's box which would make it possible for a relatively small number of Aborigines to be exploited by non-Aborigines against white Australians.

One of Australia's best known "Aborigines" becoming a senior official in the Federal bureaucracy was Charles Perkins. Thanks to white benefactors, Perkins was brought up enjoying a comfortable European lifestyle and received a first class education in Adelaide. In his autobiography, A Bastard Like Me, Perkins claims that he was born on the office table of the Telegraph Station in Alice Springs, on January 22nd, 1936 or 1937, while the operator went on typing out messages. The only problem with the Perkins' version of his history is that the official records show that the last message sent from the Alice Springs Telegraph Station was on January 27th, 1922, many years before Perkins was born.

Perkins has a long record of being careless with facts, but he does admit in his book that there are genuine Aborigines of tribal background and those like himself. Perkins writes, "What is going to happen to people like myself... we will probably be pushed out into the background, which will be a good thing in the long run. " Perkins went on to say that people like himself should let the "tribal people" have their day. But the tribal Aborigines have been, like Perkins, the victims of a situation in which they are controlled by the part Aborigines, for whom they have contempt.

These basic "facts of life" cannot be glibly dismissed by loose talk about "Racism". Consider what happened following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. The retreating American troops left behind a quarter of a million children of Vietnamese origin. The Marxist doctrine concerning "the brotherhood of man" did not extend to children of Vietnamese backgrounds but with American fathers. There was no place for these half-caste children in the new Vietnam. Eventually the American Government accepted that the USA had a moral responsibility to accept the biological products of the war in Vietnam. They were adopted into American homes or orphanages. But no one has seriously suggested that they should have the right to return to Vietnam and claim land, or any other kind of rights, on the basis that they are of Vietnamese origin.
Why then should a Charles Perkins, or similar Australian, claim that they have more rights than other Australians simply because they can claim some Aboriginal origins?

What is required is a dash of realism if the further fragmentation of Australia is to be prevented. The situation is not helped by the absurd claims of Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett who, in his recent Menzies Trust Address in the United Kingdom, described Sir Robert Menzies as a strong supporter and pioneer of multiculturalism. The Australian Prime Minister who claimed that Australians were British "to their bootstrap" would be amazed to hear such nonsense. Pauline Hanson has never said anything as silly as that.

Every educated person knows that the nation described as the United Kingdom is an amalgam of Saxon and Celtic peoples; that because primarily of geography they had organically developed into what has become known as a "United Kingdom". The founding peoples are basically from the same stream of history, sharing a common Christian culture. It is a complete myth that Western Europe is a nation in the sense that the United Kingdom is a nation.

While it is possible to describe the USA as a nation because of the biological and cultural roots of the people, it is generally agreed that the USA is starting to display signs of fragmentation as a result of a departure from the original immigration policies, which sought to maintain a homogeneous society.

One of the greatest services Pauline Hanson may render the Australian people is to force a rethink of immigration policies and their long-term effects on Australia. Another referendum may be necessary to clarify what have developed into dangerous myths.


by David Thompson
Not for the first time, Senator Mal Colston finds himself in a curious position. Having to bear all the ritual hatred accorded to an ALP "rat", and reviled by the rather holier-than-thou Coalition figures who have not, themselves, been caught with hands in the public till, Colston has suddenly achieved almost hero-status by those deeply uneasy about the selling off of public assets and infrastructure. Colston's position also highlights a common grassroots gripe that has endured for 10 years, that between the big parties, there is very little difference.

The greatest effort for the big-party politicians seems to be to depict themselves as "against" something they supported in Opposition, or vice versa In Mr. Howard's case, he is now faced with trying to "sell" the GST that he once swore was stone dead ("never, ever") after assisting Liberal Leader John Hewson to campaign for a GST. Does he ever have the feeling with the GST that travellers often have upon awaking in the morning, and wondering where on earth they are today?

Mr. Beazley, on the other hand, now has to try to convince "true believers" that he is again in favour of some sort of industrial protection, having just done his best in partnership with Mr. Keating to shove Australia onto the level playing field of free trade. Is Beazley ever invited to address, say, the Textile Workers Union these days? Perhaps there are no textile workers left?

Perhaps Mr. Tim Fischer now has to recast himself as the champion of retaining public infrastructure, instead of privatising everything that belongs to the public. Mr. Fischer might yet owe Senator Colston a huge favour. If it wasn't for Colston, the Telstra privatisation legislation would not have gone through the Senate, and Fischer would be left to bear the brunt of the enormous regional dissatisfaction with the whole privatisation process. As it is, the Coalition between the Liberals and Nationals will clearly be stretched to breaking point, but without Colston it may well have been completely blown to bits.

National Party MPs who dare to do so, like the admirable De-Anne Kelly, are roasting Fischer publicly on more issues than just Telstra. It is almost certain that the rest are roasting him privately. So much so that Fischer has now declared that the ALP may even win the next election, with Simon Crean the next Prime Minister if Beazley loses his seat because of a One Nation challenge in Brand. This declaration has been taken up with a vengeance by other "conservatives" around the country, including National Party leader in WA, Hendy Cowan.
Clearly Fischer is attempting to restore some Party discipline upon the likes of Kelly, who can sniff the political breeze.


Deputy Prime Minister Fischer claims that the next election will boil down to a choice between the politics of fear and hate versus the politics of achievable progress. His Prime Minister, Mr. Howard, has declared that there is no way he will be "resiling" from tax reform and selling off Telstra. We now notice that Mr. Howard never refers to a GST, but always to "tax reform", in which something like a broad-based consumption tax is merely one element. Tax reform is "non-negotiable".

There may be a number of reasons for Mr. Howard's intransigence. The determination to press ahead, despite the obstacles, is regarded as a virtue. But the leading businessmen have raised over $4 million for an advertising campaign for the GST, most of which has already been committed. Having just regained support from the big-business types, Mr. Howard would be extremely embarrassed to announce a withdrawal of the GST proposal. The big-business types would not be amused. They may be so disgruntled that, come election time, the chequebook is kept buttoned in the back pocket when the Liberal Party fundraiser calls.

Perhaps Mr. Howard also banks upon the Government's own GST sales campaign, in which $10 million of public money is to be wasted telling us what a good thing the GST will be. Except the advertising gurus are now searching for a new name for the hated GST. The latest suggestion was BBT (broad-based consumption tax), which might not last long when the first wag re-names it the "bobbit tax" after the American Wayne Bobbit, whose enraged wife severed his vital member with a butcher's knife. The allusion is surely enough to make even John Howard wince!

The whole issue is once again thrown into focus by former Treasury Secretary and National Party Senator John Stone. In his column of July 17th (The Australian), Stone writes that for some reason Mr. Howard still thinks the GST is a taxation matter, and continues to proffer the technical arguments in its favour. He then includes himself among the "Hansonites" for whom he suspects the GST is not a taxation matter at all, but one of big political parties simply not listening to the people. First, says Stone we rejected the Hewson GST in 1993, condemning us to three more years of Keating. Second, Mr. Howard promised to "never, ever" propose a GST. And third, Howard is obviously blithely preparing to break that promise, whatever the tax is actually to be called. "None of this matters," writes Stone. "If only out of sheer rage and frustration over the arrogance of Howard and Peter Costello - not to mention the stupidity of Nationals' leader Tim Fischer - we will vote against the GST in any case."

The only hope for the Howard administration rests on Howard himself. Either he will eat humble pie, and completely change political tack, or he will go down in history as a one-term Prime Minister. Will Mr. Howard actually "listen to the people" - and represent their views? He doesn't have to do a grand nation-wide tour to "listen". He only has to talk to his backbenchers.

But Australians are increasingly convinced that Mr. Howard cannot bring himself to respond to the wishes of the electorate. He would rather wear a bulletproof jacket while assuring innocent people that the confiscation of their firearms is for their own good. In short, Mr. Howard appears determined to stick to his guns, and like the captain of a sinking ship, go down with the ship as a point of personal honour.


Mr. Howard and his Deputy Fischer are struggling to convince regional Australia that their interests will be considered when the public infrastructure is sold off "in the national interest". De-Anne Kelly, in a forthright letter to the newspapers (The Australian, 17/7/98), quoted a telecommunications analyst as saying that "the Government would be foolhardy to guarantee regional Australians the same level of communications services received in the cities... The one thing the Government absolutely cannot do is guarantee the same quality of services".

Now Senator Alston has guaranteed that when Australia Post is "partially privatised" (echoes of Telstra all over again) "not one bush post office will close". Never ever. And the price of posting a letter will remain 45c until 2003.
Some people actually believe this, although it is notable that they all live in the cities.

The promises of equivalent services in remote areas could be kept, after a fashion, if Government remained responsible for telecommunications, postage, electricity, etc. When the services lag behind in the regions, a Minister for Communications can have his chain rattled. Someone for whom we will have the chance to vote will be accountable. Not so once privatisation sets in. After the promises about more efficient and cheaper electricity under a privatised grid system within the national Competition Policy, much is expected of the new electricity services.

But it comes as no surprise that one of those responsible for delivering the cheaper, better service, admits that it may never be delivered. The company set up two years ago to ensure cheaper electricity prices warned last week that the opposite will happen when the national market is introduced on November 15th. National Electricity Marketing Management Co. Chairman Olaf O'Duill said a national electricity market could lead to higher wholesale prices as network owners would have to provide open access for retailers (The Australian, 17/7/98).

Retailers then pass the higher prices on to their customers. And during peak use periods, like midsummer or winter, high demand would produce higher wholesale prices. When the demand falls off, will the retailers drop their prices back again?


It is imperative that a thorough official investigation be made into the revolutionary activities which prevented Pauline Hanson from addressing a planned meeting of One Nation supporters at the Hawthorn Town Hall last Sunday, July 19th. A number of questions demand an answer, the most important concerning the role of the Victorian police. By mere chance a League of Rights supporter noticed on the Internet a message to Melbourne-based revolutionaries that a rally was planned to stop Pauline Hanson speaking at the Hawthorn Town Hall. The Hanson meeting had not been publicised, and the revolutionaries apologised for the delay in letting their supporters know about the Hanson meeting. We have before us a copy of the message on the Internet.

We presume that police intelligence was aware of what was planned. But in view of the fact that they claimed at the rally at the Hawthorn Town Hall that they did not have sufficient resources to ensure Pauline Hanson a safe entry into the meeting, or to provide a safe exit for those attending, how did this disgraceful state of affairs come about?

The League of Rights has no special brief for One Nation, but stresses that a dangerous situation has developed when an elected Member of Parliament cannot address a meeting of supporters because an organised mob of revolutionaries can prevent the proposed meeting from taking place. Those attending the Hawthorn Town Hall meeting were dismayed when told by the police spokesman that they had negotiated with the revolutionaries, stating that the revolutionaries had agreed that if the One Nation meeting was aborted, they would guarantee the safe departure of those attending the meeting. Not surprisingly there were shouts of protest and claims that this was blackmail.

Last Sunday was a day of shame for all law abiding Victorians. The following questions demand an answer: If the police were aware that a revolutionary movement was planning to use, if necessary, force to prevent Pauline Hanson from speaking in the Hawthorn Town Hall, why were appropriate steps not taken to ensure that Pauline Hanson could attend what in essence was a private meeting? In view of the serious nature of the revolutionary threat, was the Commissioner of Police informed? Was the Victorian Minister of Police, Mr. W. McGrath, informed? Was the revolutionary using a loud hailer, who said, in essence, that what he and his fellow revolutionaries were about would only be settled in the streets, identified by the Police and taken into custody and charged with openly urging violence and breaking of the peace? If not, why not?

Does Premier Jeff Kennett and those who use extravagant language in condemning Pauline Hanson accept any responsibility for threatened acts of violence against Pauline Hanson? Will they give a public assurance that Pauline Hanson and her supporters, or interested members of the public, will receive adequate protection by the police in order that they can attend meetings? Has any direction been given to the Victorian Police by the Government, concerning Pauline Hanson? If it is not the responsibility of the Government to ensure that a Member of Parliament is protected against threats of violence, then who is responsible?

The ugly scenes of violence at the Hawthorn Town Hall have graphically demonstrated how a traditionally law abiding Australian people are being edged towards anarchy. The revolutionaries responsible for the threats of violence against Pauline Hanson and those who may sympathise with her clearly have their own agenda. What is that agenda?

We can assure all our League supporters that we are monitoring closely what is taking place around the nation. Our advice is to take care not to be provoked into any type of violent action. But League actionists, particularly in Victoria, should start asking of all their politicians the type of questions we have outlined.


Once again Phillip Adams cannot resist the occasional outburst about the League. It appears that, like a festering boil, the poison needs lancing periodically. Adams' latest lunge at the League came in his regular column (Weekend Australian, 4/7/98) and is in the context of treason. He attempts to make the case that support for One Nation and Pauline Hanson is a form of treason. That our political leaders, especially John Howard, are traitors (at least to common decency) for failing to cast her into outer political darkness, preferring to defend freedom of speech.

Adams makes the same mistake common to others of the "new class elite" - that of fixing the blame on Ms. Hanson. He fails to appreciate that there are thousands, perhaps millions, for whom she has merely given expression to deep-seated reservations about the process of government. Major decisions about national issues are being made behind closed doors by those who think they know best - clearly the Phillip Adams types - with "the mob" expected to submit. Quietly.
According to Adams, those who resist are now to be known as "traitors".

Of the League, he writes: "I'm one of the writers who has, over the years, been warning the Libs and Nats of infiltration by the League of Rights, truly a nest of traitors, pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic. But no one listened.

A definition of treason
It is the crime of betraying a nation or a sovereign by acts considered dangerous to security. In English law, treason includes 'the giving of aid and comfort to the king's enemies'."

Perhaps an advanced case of internal poisoning has left Mr. Adams in a confused state. The League of Rights has not infiltrated the Liberal or even the National Party. The truth is that they are barely worth infiltrating any more, as De-Anne Kelly seems to be implying. Members of both or either Party may also support the League of Rights from time to time; a privilege, which Adams apparently feels, is obsolete. But it doesn't amount to infiltration.

It is curious that Adams can argue that it is the League that has betrayed the nation. How so? By refusing to blindly, dumbly, stupidly submit to decisions that have, in effect, betrayed the best interests of many - perhaps even the majority - of Australians? By refusing to submit to the erosion of national sovereignty, which he obviously welcomes and embraces? By encouraging resistance to such lunacy, such betrayals wherever influence can be brought to bear? If this is treason, then we plead guilty, and propose to go right on doing it.

If anything, it is clearly the Phillip Adams's of Australia, the "elites", who know what is best for us, who have betrayed the nation and the monarch. It is the likes of Phillip Adams who could more readily be accused of treason. And to argue that those who founded the League - and still support the League in advanced years - are "pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic" is pure nonsense. Many of them served in the RAAF, or the AIF, doing physical damage to Hitler's cause. Most of Adams' poisonous nonsense can be passed off as just that, but the comments concerning the League being "pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic" are now the subject of legal advice.


It is obvious that the Democrats are fearful that the One Nation juggernaut is poised to consume them. The Party is producing a glossy coloured brochure attempting to stiffen up support, by attacking One Nation. The tone of the brochure is faintly intimidating: choose us or suffer under a Parliament dominated by One Nation Senators with a balance of power. Choose tolerance or intolerance. Stability or instability, investment or isolation, reconciliation or confrontation, gun control or gun culture, etc.

Then, under a heading of what senior Liberals have said, Malcolm Fraser is invoked, condemning compromise with racist political parties. Alongside Fraser, Mr. Andrew Robb is quoted, invoking the spectre of the League of Rights as being responsible for Pauline Hanson's policies. Mr. Robb, former Federal Director of the Liberal Party, is quoted from his column in The Bulletin of June 16th: "Their (League of Rights) 'fingerprints' were all over the material prepared and released under Hanson's name."

In his column, Robb had tried to make the case, as Malcolm Fraser had tried previously, that the League was "behind" Ms. Hanson. He even suggested that the letter Ms. Hanson had written to the newspapers, which was the cause of her being disendorsed as a Liberal candidate, had been "written by the League of Rights". All of which is nonsense, and we doubt that even Mr. Robb himself believes it.

We are quite sure that the Democrats don't really believe it either, but they are obviously prepared to perpetuate a falsehood if they think it is in their interests. To invoke the name of the League in order to intimidate their former supporters not to desert them seems pathetic to us. But that's Party politics!


"Once again Peter Costello puts on his "we know what's good for you" smirk to tell us we should have a totally privatised phone system because every other country has one. Just like we should have a GST because everybody else has one. Perhaps the fact we have neither is what makes Australia a better place to live for more people than anywhere else. "Let's keep it that way."
Ken Tilt, French's Forest, NSW, The Australian, 17/7/98
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159