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

30 November 2001. Thought for the Week: With America the matter is simple. America has existed, and does exist purely on the basis of its complete faith and utter dependence on the principles and concepts of pure and uncompromising capitalism, which, at bottom, is nothing else but pure materialism based on money and nothing else.
What has been ironic in America in the last few days, has been the demonstration of the underlying weakness of their whole system which, as the leading exponent of world capitalism - now representing falsely the One World concept – was brought to a state of near collapse and market failure by a bunch of chaps with beards and white nightshirts who gave their lives for what they believe in without a second thought. No amount of frantic boasting, waving the Star Spangled banner, and military threats they can't make good, is going to hide the fact that their fundamental weakness as a Nation has been exposed for all to see.
"Apocalypse – Exposure of Western Values", British "On Target", October 2001

TRADE UNIONS – WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?

by Jeremy Lee
Every day we now hear about 'down-sizing', mainly from the large corporations; Telstra, Optus, the Airlines, etc. Thousands of employees who have in some cases worked many years in their occupations find themselves in the 'no-mans-land' of unemployment. At the same time, latest reports show that those still in employment are working harder, with longer hours. Why? Talking to a small businessman in Toowoomba this week, who has reduced his staff from five down to one (himself) he told me that for every employee who received $100 per day, it cost slightly more than the same figure to meet all the indirect costs of employing – holidays, insurance, medical, etc., etc. The extra time it cost him, apart from anything else, was prohibitive. He had reduced his operation to the point where he could cater for himself and his family, and was better off. This story can be repeated thousands of times across Australia.

Where a business is forced to employ, it is more profitable to offer one man extra hours than to employ another. The ancillary costs remain the same, no matter how many hours worked. And if existing workers can be replaced by technology, which requires no wages or holidays, so much the better. Most companies that down-size do not re-employ later. Thus we have a country where there is increasing stress among those employed, both in extra hours and fear of job-loss; and an increasing number of redundancies as businesses strive constantly to get the job done with less labour.

The poverty sector in Australia, which is a disgrace in such a country, is a time-bomb waiting to go off, and stretches well past the unemployed to those in the lower ranges of the wage structure. On the whole the trade unions make the situation for employees worse. They strive constantly to maintain benefits and loadings at a high and increasing level, thus raising the bar for employers to uneconomic levels; and they now spend more and more time demanding, with menaces, redundancy packets for those 'down-sized' as a result.

Conscious of all this, the Government now massages the official employment figures so that they no longer give a true picture. The Morgan Poll has recently given examples of this deception, which we have quoted in earlier editions of On Target. Marcus L'Estrange, writing to News Weekly (17/11/01) corrects the "official" figures, quoted by Coalition and Labor alike. He says that the full figures show more than 2 million unemployed, or under-employed in Australia:

"..... Let's look at how the more than two million unemployed are made up:
• "Official unemployed": 600,000-800,000.

Then the following Australians are excluded from the monthly figures:
• 57,000: actively looking for work but not available to start work in the survey week.
• 106,500: discouraged or 'given up' workers.
• 173,000: who wanted to work but lacked childcare.
• 94,000: short-term (less than one month) health problems.
• 144,000: on short-term courses.
• 40,000: thought they had a job to go to.
• 62,000: other family reasons.
• 133,000: other, or similar reasons.
TOTAL: 809,000

To the above we can add 335,000 who are unemployed but cannot start work until the second month after the survey. And we shouldn't forget that those on work-for-the-dole are included in the fully employed. Finally, on this point we can add at least 179,000 who work between 1-10 hours who are counted as being employed. Additionally, there are another 421,000 people working between 10-34 hours, who are counted as being employed but want to work more hours.

TOTAL : two million plus unemployed (rounded figures) Mr. L'Estrange quoted economist Terry McRann (The Australian, 6/7/96):
"....for want of a better term, the 'jobless problem' actually directly hits a staggering 2.5 million Australians (official jobless – 800,000; hidden unemployment – 1.2 million; 500,000 underemployed) – leading on to claims that the official jobless numbers are some sort of gigantic cover-up."

Marcus L'Estrange added in his letter: "I recall John Howard, then Shadow Industrial Relations Minister, saying to me in 1993: "I know the real unemployment figure is 20 percent but I cannot afford to be honest. If I was honest people would become depressed and spend less, thus creating even more unemployment."

It is now almost seven years since the epic State of The World Forum, held in San Francisco under the chairmanship of Mikhail Gorbachev, in which leaders, bankers and economists from round the world gathered. The full story is told in The Global Trap, by Hans-Peter Martin and Harald Schumann. It was agreed that full employment was neither necessary nor possible in industrial nations, and that the needs of humanity across the globe could be met by 20 percent of the existing work force. There was some speculation on what would happen to the 80% of the world's workers made redundant; and it was agreed that they would become a type of peasant underclass, eking out a living on what could be produced at serf level, supplemented by a modern version of bread-and-circuses by the feudal corporations who had all the reins of mass production and distribution in their hands.


AN OLD PROBLEM INTENSIFIED

The impact of technology on the age-old concept of full employment is not new. It has simply intensified to crisis-point. Writing in his book "Democracy At The Crossroads" in 1924 Leslie Hollins commented:
"We have seen that machines can only do one of two things – i.e. increase our material comfort, or decrease our working hours. On the one hand our material comforts have been increased. This, of course, only applies to those in employment. On the other hand, the decrease in working hours is enormous. At first sight this would not appear to be correct, for we know that we have not had an increase in working hours for many years; but if we look at the unemployed, we will find the saved labour among the saved labourers...."
"We must now clearly see that, with few exceptions, the ultimate goal of all inventions is labour-saving or wage-saving. Suppose man reached his goal, what would be the result? On the one hand we would have a mountain of goods produced by automatic machinery, and on the other a multitude of people destitute and poverty-stricken. Not having worked in industry, they would not have earned money – i.e. titles to the goods – and they could not buy them. Does this not present a true picture of the conditions that exist today? ....."

Hollins amplified his case by illustrating the enormous increase in productive capacity in every area of industry that had occurred in a few years. If his argument was true in 1934, how much truer is it in 2001?


THE FUTURE OF WORK

This immense issue is exercising many leaders. A three day conference on the subject was held in Western Australia from November 19-21 under the title Working Visions International Employment Futures Conference, attended by over 1,000 delegates from all over the Pacific region, and addressed by an array of thinkers and futurists.

To date we have not been able to catch up with the papers given. We can simply observe that one set of solutions was offered to this problem almost eighty years ago, and because they required major changes in the area of finance they were silenced and ignored. Yet it remains clear that those down-sized by the technological age must have wages replaced by another form of income; and that simply taxing those employed to pay for the welfare of those without work cannot be maintained. In fact, taxation levels are now severely distorting any justice and equity in the social order.

The essence of Social Credit, which burst onto the scene some eighty years ago, was that with the advent of expanding technology, society was in a position to change from a "full-employment-or-starve" society to a dividend-sharing society; and for this to happen, the banks had to relinquish their monopoly on money-creation, which would instead be credited instead of debited to society in the form of shareholders' dividends and price-reducing techniques, based on a properly-audited national balance sheet.
Shareholding, in such a case, would equate with citizenship.

If we consider that Australia's money supply is increased by somewhere between $85 to $100 million dollars a day in a form which directly drives prices skywards, we can gain some idea of the importance of this never-discussed issue. The technique used in Alaska, where oil-revenues and royalties are paid directly to each citizen annually, is worth looking at as the sort of mechanism needed. The day is coming where Social Credit, long-forgotten, will gain full attention once again.


SHARON EXPECTED TO BE CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES AND GENOCIDE

BBC REPORT, Monday, November 19th, 2001
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is being summoned to a Belgian court to answer questions over his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres, say Belgian media reports. Two separate claims against Mr. Sharon are being brought under a 1993 Belgian law, which allows war crimes and genocide to be tried in Belgium, even if the events took place elsewhere, and even if none of the victims was Belgian. A hearing has been set for November 28th, and Mr. Sharon is expected to be issued with summons documents by the Belgian ambassador to Israel, says Le Soir newspaper.

Belgian magistrate Patrick Collignon has been investigating the two cases, initially to determine whether he has jurisdiction in the case. The first case, charging Mr. Sharon with responsibility for the deaths, was lodged by a group of Palestinians, Lebanese, Moroccans and Belgians. The second suit, which alleges crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, was filed by 23 survivors of the massacres and five eyewitnesses. The massacres took place in two refugee camps in Lebanon which were home to thousands of Palestinians. Three months after Israeli troops invaded Lebanon in 1982, the camps were stormed by Christian militiamen.

Sharon forced to resign
They shot and killed an estimated 800-1,500 of the refugees. Mr. Sharon was Israeli defence minister at the time. An Israeli investigation in 1983 found him indirectly but "personally" responsible for the deaths, and he was forced to resign. Le Soir says the two separate summonses have been left with the Belgian ambassador, Wilfried Green, but are expected to be delivered shortly. The case has left the Belgian administration walking on eggshells, the paper says.

Belgian diplomacy
At the same time as preparing to serve the summonses, Belgium – as European Union president -– is spearheading a new diplomatic effort to restore the peace process. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt is heading a senior EU delegation on a Middle East tour which has included top-level talks in Israel. The delegation, which left Israel on Monday, has held separate talks with Mr. Sharon and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

At the court hearing on November 28th, a Belgian grand jury is scheduled to decide whether the court has jurisdiction in the case. Mr. Sharon's Belgian lawyer is challenging the court's right to be involved, and the Belgian investigation has been suspended in the meantime. The Mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, has angrily attacked the Belgian Government over the affair, accusing Mr. Verhofstadt of heading a 'government of bastards'.


THE CAPTIVE BOY: WHAT MANNER OF MEN ARE WE?

by C. E. Carlson
The following article was taken from the website of the American Christian group We Hold These Truths. The photograph referred to can be viewed on www.whtt.org The article can be reproduced – in full. We ask our readers to photocopy the article and send to Church and community leaders.

"The captive in the Reuters photograph could be any man's son, dragged along by no less than seven armed men. A short but powerfully built figure holds the boy from behind, sturdy left arm wrapped across his chest. It is a civilized arm wearing a gold watch and wedding band. His dark face is seen over the boy's head, beneath the plastic full-face visor attached to his helmet. The look on the child's face is one of unmistakable, indescribable fear. It is the face of an adolescent boy, with smooth, clear light olive skin and eyes that appear to be blue. His mouth is agape as though crying, but no tears show on his face. He is dressed in faded blue jeans with dirt scuffs on his knees, and a long-sleeved blue pullover. He could be described as beautiful. This Reuters photo appeared on the front cover of Washington Report for Middle Eastern Affairs in May. The captive child's left arm is in the grip of a tall, young Israeli who, from his appearance, could be an American from any town, a foot taller than the boy, in green military garb, a rifle hang from a shoulder strap so as to free his arm. On the other side, a large and powerfully built lantern-jawed Caucasian, his Israeli nametag clearly legible on his jacket, has a strangle hold on the boy. His face is also partly masked by a visor and he wears a war flak jacket and kneepads with the ever-present slung, automatic rifle. His grip on the boy indicates that there must have been a struggle before the photograph was taken, for the big Israeli has apparently wrestled the boy's blue sweatshirt from off his arm and wrapped it around his neck so that the boy's face and chin appear in the neck hole of his own shirt, which twists around his neck like a noose.

The impassive-faced Israelis, all armed to the teeth, encircle the boy in his panic. How is it your author knows it is terror and not defiance that we see in the boy's eyes? His blue jeans attest to his fear, for in his fright, he has wetted his trousers. From his crotch to his knees, he is drenched in his own urine. How many men can remember this kind of fear? Few of us have ever been so frightened as to humiliate ourselves by drenching our clothes and live to tell of it. Perhaps at five or six, but not at twice that age! Who among us, as child, ever experience fear as this boy does. This boy may also defecate in his clothes before the ordeal ends, as men under torture often do. For he must know from a hundred true stories that he may not survive the next hour of questioning by the Israeli Defense Forces and the Border Police. He has surely heard the accounts of boys no older than himself who have had their sex organs crushed with clubs, a reminder that more Palestinians are not welcome in Israel. He may have seen, or at least heard of, the bodies of Palestinians returned to parents with fingernails pulled from the quick before being strangled or beaten to death.
The torturing of prisoners is no secret in Israel; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly acknowledges it and seeks to have torture re-legalized.

This boy's body fluids tell us he knows indescribable fear.

Unwelcome Israeli Defence intruders
According to The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, this boy's name is Kamal Ali As'idah who lives with his parents and four sisters in Adi el Jaz in Jerusalem. He was only 10 years old on April 6th when he decided to join the older boys throwing rocks at the unwelcome Israeli Defence Force intruders. Little Kamal played a dangerous game of defiance, even though he had little or no chance of hurting the hooded automatic rifle bearing soldiers. According to Washington Report's editorial in the July issue, Kamal got too close, perhaps because he could not throw as far as the older lads. And he did not run as fast; he was the only boy caught and arrested this day. He became the captors' example to discourage his peers from throwing rocks. The Washington Report Editor followed up the amazing photograph a month later, found Kamal and talked to his family. His father told the Editor that his son was released to him after eight hours in custody. He was badly beaten to the head and legs and one arm was broken.

'Nobleness' of Israeli state
Kamal's father was subsequently fired from his job with an Israeli tour bus company after the incident became known to his employer – retribution for the acts of his 10-year-old son. The bus company probably thrives on American Tourists who learn about the nobleness of the Israeli State on its tours. Mr. Ali As'idah may no longer be trusted. Like many of his neighbours, he is now unemployed. Reprisals against families are standard fare in occupied Palestine. What father of a son cannot find a tightness across his chest on thinking of this 10 years old? Imagine your child so frightened that he cannot hold his urine, dragged away, jailed for 8 hours alone, beaten by men twice his age and strength to the point where his bones break. What manner of men are these who do these acts repeatedly, with the full blessings of their national leader?

A few say they hate Arabs, even children – perhaps they feel they must. Others say the Jewish soldiers are only doing their job. But Christian leaders, what is your excuse? What manner of men are we? Rather than accusing the Israeli recruits, we must ask, what manner of men are we? Christian fathers, what have you to say to Kamal's father? You professing Judeo-Christian Celebrity leaders say nothing because you say the men with the clubs and flack jackets are God's 'chosen people'. But would you tell this to the boy's mother? How can you local church leaders turn your backs on what you cannot deny?

Arab Americans, living in comfort, where are your voices? Did not Jesus say, "I was in prison and you came unto me...inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me?" What would Jesus say about you, his chosen ones, ignoring the torturing of Arab children before your very eyes? If He were to walk into your temple this Sunday, what would Jesus say of your silence to the sniper rifle reports, the ritual assassination of children? Jesus said, "Suffer these little ones to come to me." He was talking about little Palestinian children then. What has changed?

Every time a child screams out in terror in his own humble home, fearing the midnight pounding on the door, Christ sees. He suffers for the terrified children and their mothers. What is your excuse, Pharisee worshipers of the 'chosen people' myth? You cling to the pale excuse that these destroyers of the youth and innocence are acting in 'self defence. The blood and shattered bones of little Kamal are on you!

Demand a stop to all military support for Israel now! Stop all trade with Israel until torture and terror are excluded from its national policy. Believers, do not junket to Israel and patronize the tourist bus companies like the one that fired Kamal's father. Reconsider your support of any religious organization of any kind that does not speak out for Kamal and his four sisters and for all those like them. Give this letter to your Pastor. This movement can only start in the Christian Church. It must start now."


UK MULTICULTURAL 'CHICKENS' COMING HOME TO ROOST?

by Betty Luks
The P.C. policies of multiculturalism have produced some belligerent offspring in the UK and some small-l liberals are finding it hard to cope with the cocky upstarts. Take the case of journalist, Carol Sarler, "Why must I tolerate bigots just because they are Moslems?" is her plaintiff cry (International Express, November 20th, 2001.) It seems by the end of "Islamic Awareness Week" in the UK, "it had become blindingly apparent – if any of us even dare to express doubt, fear or misgivings about Muslim communities in our midst, we are sternly smacked for our right wing views".
An ICM poll had revealed "that among British Moslems, 67 percent still think Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with (the twin towers' bombing). And a disturbing quarter of them approve of their young men rushing off to fight for the Taliban".

Her complaint is, while she has not (she claims) shifted ground to the right, she sees the intellectual traditions of her culture "are being sorely tested as we are asked to accept the antithesis of views and freedoms that matter to us while knowing that at the first lick of protest, we shall be gagged". "Why will they be gagged?" you may ask. Carol replies, "You know why. Because the notion has taken hold that 'multiculturalism' is both our pride and our future and that even to hint otherwise is to declare yourself a racist." Surprise, surprise.

The League of Rights has consistently warned of the inevitable national troubles associated with the imposition of alien races and cultures upon host nations. For our troubles we have been constantly smeared by Ms. Sarler's fellow professionals. She complains the liberal is not allowed to pick and choose between the worst and the best of other cultures. "We are not allowed to pick and choose. Love the food and pinch the khol but reject the beaten wives, hate the suppression of women and find repugnant the Halal butchery."
Where has Ms. Sarler been for the last 30 or 40 years? None of this can be new to her.

The cry was: we are all multiculturalists now! What about the "intellectual traditions of her culture" which "are being sorely tested as we are asked to accept the antithesis of views and freedoms that matter to us while knowing that at the first lick of protest, we shall be gagged". Her profession was in the forefront of suppressing open discussion on such matters as differences in culture!

She continues, "All over the country the law that requires children to attend school is persistently broken; young schoolgirls are sent to say Pakistan – often against their will – and married to men who will then gain legal entry to Britain in what is no better than a sexual trade in children's flesh for passports." But why has it been brought up at this time in the UK? All the above was widely known. It wouldn't have anything to do with the war in Afghanistan – would it? It wouldn't have anything to do with the inflamed conflicts and passions which have arisen from political, ethnic and religious differences – would it?

It has been estimated there are two million Moslems in the United Kingdom. Those roosting chickens have turned out to be full-grown menacing eagles and are right smack in the midst of those smug small-l liberals. It must be mighty uncomfortable and unnerving for them.


WHAT OF 'AFFIRMATIVE ACTION' IN OUR ARMED SERVICES?

Whilst on the subject, one wonders what is the percentage of 'ethnics' in the Australian armed services? Affirmative action has been the policy of all shades of the political spectrum for many years now. Whatever government department one visits these days, the fruits of that policy are obvious. But what about our armed services? Is the policy enforced there? What percentage of 'ethnic' Australians are in our armed services? Assuming affirmative action applies to the armed services as well, what percentage of these 'ethnic' Australians are in the contingent that John Howard sent to Afghan? What about writing to John Howard posing some searching questions.


WHAT CAN I DO?

At times we are asked, what can I do? Our answer is: we cannot exercise your freedom for you – you must do that. Freedom is a gift you have received – but you must exercise it. That is your privilege. The letter that is not written will not have any effect. The phone call not made will not have any effect. You must insist your politician represents your interests – that is your responsibility.

FEDERAL ELECTION

In our last issue of On Target we stated that the Coalition had gained control of the Senate in the recent federal election. Happily, we were wrong. The Greens and the Democrats will hold the balance of power.

THE LEAGUE'S BOOK SERVICES

As well as the publication of journals for the dissemination of information, the League publishes and distributes a wide range of educational books, videos and cassette tapes. These are available at meetings, at our Melbourne bookshop or by mail order from the following addresses:

Victoria & Tasmania: Heritage Bookshop, 2nd Floor, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, 3000. (GPO Box 1052J, Melbourne, 3001). Phone: (03) 9650 9749; Fax: (03) 9650 9368.

New South Wales: Heritage Book Service, PO Box 6086, Lake Munmorah, 2259. Phone/Fax: (02) 4358 3634.

Queensland: Conservative Book Mailing Service, P.O. Box 7108, Toowoomba Mail Centre, 4352. Phone (07) 4635 7435.

Western Australia: Heritage Book Mailing Service, PO Box 163, Chidlow, 6556. Phone/Fax: (08) 9574 6042.

South Australia: Heritage Book-Mailing Service, PO Box 208, Ingle Farm, 5098. Phone: (08) 8395 9826; Fax: (08) 8395 9827

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