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

11 July 2003. Thought for the Week: "Once get the mental attitude well established in oneself that institutions exist only legitimately to serve individuals, and it is possible to make demands on Government Departments with which their organisation cannot deal, but are yet entirely reasonable. It is not necessary, and not desirable, to organise this kind of action. The underlying idea is to call the bluff of institutionalism, and to make it deliver the goods or expose the fact that it can't… And the root of the matter is this - mind your business, and allow no man to make a business of minding you. Listen, in reason, to what advice seems to be backed by proper experience and ability, and pay no attention to windy idealists. And then - mind your own business. It is in sore need of your attention."
C. H. Douglas in "The Big Idea" 1941


Section 100 of the Constitution is nothing if not succinct:
"The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation."
That seems plain enough. No referendum of Australians has ever eliminated that clause. Then why do we read in The Weekend Australian (28-29/6/03: "John Anderson is … using a financial lever to develop a national water plan in cooperation with the States. The National Party leader is threatening to withhold competition dividends unless there is agreement on who pays compensation to farmers who lose water rights …."
Commonwealth financial blackmail is being used to overturn the Constitution.

Both government and private control over "the rain that falls on the just and the unjust" has already gone a long way. In New South Wales a new law which came in on July 1 allowed the separation of water titles from the land. New companies and banks are already offering loans to farmers with water titles as a separate security. The Australian Financial Review (16/5/03) said: "The new laws will also make it possible for a farmer to rent out his water rights but keep ownership of the land. Under the old rules you needed to sell the water (because the licence needed to be attached to land). Now you can go and live in a block of flats on the coast, still trade your water into that market, and keep the land …."

But banks already holding existing mortgages with farmers are fearful their security will diminish once water rights are uncoupled from the land. The article continued: "… The banks were working through the first tranche of 10,000 water-attached mortgages in NSW in "a massive exercise to shore up those mortgages."

"Six days later The Australian Financial Review (22/5/03) reported: "Australia's first speculative water rights investment company was given approval by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission this week to launch a prospectus. The company, National Water Bank, hopes to raise more than $27 million to buy water licences in NSW, which last year rose more than 40 per cent in value. National Water Bank will be the first self-declared speculator to take advantage of the new Water Management Act 2000, which takes effect in NSW on July 1 as part of national water reform due to be ratified at the next meeting of the Coalition of Australian Governments in August. The agreement will make water rights a commodity that can be traded nationally to rationalize the use of water and steer it to its highest and best use. For the first time, water rights will not be attached to a parcel of land ….
Critics have argued that water trading would be hampered by the resistance of farmers and fears that entire communities would be left without water….."But, of course, debt-ridden farmers will have their ability to fight for their rights cut to pieces by the money lenders. Cunningly, lending institutions seeking ownership of water are offering lower interest loans to entrap farmers.
And, of course, this situation cannot be divorced from the approaching GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services. The current situation that water titles could only be traded nationally would be changed to internationally if Australia was foolish enough to enter GATS.


With the above in mind, a statement by former Narrabri Mayor and grain farmer Bevan O'Regan deserves the closest attention of farmers throughout the nation:
"Mr John Anderson's statement in a recent publication describing his plans for National Water and his intentions to draw up a national water policy to go to the Council of Australian Governments (C.O.A.G.) is an affront to Common Law and each landholder's rights.

Firstly, John Anderson is a federal minister and should butt out of State matters.
Secondly, C.O.A.G. is an illegitimate body set up in 1990 by the then Labor government which has no more authority than a "think-tank."
Thirdly, and probably the most important point Mr Anderson should take on board, is that Section 6A of the Land and Valuation Act 1916 says quite clearly that "fee simple", which is an aggregation of a land-owner's right, says, "land and water cannot be separated".

It's about time people realized water cannot be traded from a farm because water below each farm boundary to the center of the earth belongs to the land and not the land-owner. This is not the case with oil, gas, minerals or coal, but it is the case with water. Water, air, vegetation and soil make up a property right.

Mr Anderson gives recognition to the 1994 intergovernmental Agreement on Water (IAW). This again is another "think-tank" and, like COAG, should not in any way be given any credibility by any water user.
Mr Anderson said IAW should have offered compensation for water entitlements. We, as State landholders need to tell him that if we agree to any compensation to erode our rights in all our water, then we are agreeing to an immoral and unconstitutional plan.
Mr Anderson says, "it is time to fix the agreement concerning interstate water trading." He should read section 100 of the Federal Constitution which says: "The Commonwealth shall not by any law or regulation of trade or commerce abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation".

If Mr Anderson is going to use the precedent of Bob Hawke's use of the High Court judgment in the Tasmanian Dams case, then the argument in this case is flawed. With unabated arrogance, there now is a prospectus to sell shares in water on the Stock Exchange using the National Water Bank Limited (CAN 102 723 777).
Thank goodness our forefathers had the sense to write a clause into the 1916 Land and Valuation Act to lock land and water together as a "stratum of one".

It is coincidental that Mr Anderson who, as Minister of Primary Industries, had a large role in setting up a company called "AWB Limited International" to relieve farmers of their right to manage their wheat industry is now at the cutting edge of an international company Water Bank to sell farmers water through the Stock Exchange.
Water is God's gift to the world, whether it goes into the streams as run-off or whether it filters into the aquifers as underground water, is of no consequence to the government. If any Local Council or private person accepts money as structural adjustment or as compensation, then they have in reality agreed to a plan to have governments, through legislation, steal their water.
The Federal Government must butt out now before civil disobedience (which under Common Law is quite legal) is exercised against the repugnancy of unconstitutional legislation." (end of article)


We have recently been regaled through the media with pictures of irate settlers in Palestinian territories resisting the Israeli army's dismantling of illegal settlements. This is supposed, one imagines, to convince us of Sharon's sincerity in following the "road-map" for peace. But an article in The Weekend Australian (28-29/6/03) under the heading ISRAEL CAUGHT FUNDING ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS, reported:

"The Israeli Government is funneling money into the establishment of illegal settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank and then paying to have them dismantled, an Israeli television station reported yesterday. The funds for setting up the wildcat settler outposts were channeled through a branch of the government-linked Jewish Agency, the station revealed ….

As part of his commitment to the US-backed "road map" for peace, Mr Sharon pledged to get rid of the wildcat settlements in the West Bank.
But according to the Israeli anti-settlement group Peace Now, more than 60 illegal outposts have been set up since Mr Sharon came to power in March 2001…." Just what is going on? Is this some vast Hollywood-type set for convincing the West that Sharon is serious about giving back their territories to the Palestinians, and all the while actually increasing the number of illegal settlements? If so, it simply confirms the misgivings that sceptics feel for any actual change coming from the "road-map".

Israel has a long record of promising one thing and doing the opposite. A halt to illegal settlements was a condition of the ill-fated Oslo Accords, which Israel simply ignored. Meanwhile, Shimon Peres, former prime minister of Israel, writing in The Wall Street Journal (24/6/03) has issued a strident call for the United States, Europe, Russia and the United Nations to issue a combined warning to the ayatollahs in Iran. They " ….need to be warned that they are crossing the tolerance threshold of the world - a world that will not tolerate the existence of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction …."
Not a word, you will notice. About Israel's own WMDs - including at least 300 nuclear warheads.

There is no doubt that Iran is next on the list for Israel's and Washington's zio-hawks. But with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan deteriorating by the day, and, under the new 'Downer doctrine' Australians deployed on what looks like a lengthy sojourn in the Solomons, it may take much more time to get round to Tehran.


The Australian 4th July, 2003 trumpets the news of a Jewish group's bid to stop the Melbourne Underground Film Festival (MUFF) organisers from screening David Irving's video, "The Search for Truth in History", whilst, during the same evening, having a live telephone hook-up with the British historian. ("Outrage at Jewish bid to stop film").
There is also much ado in certain Jewish circles because MUFF also plans to screen a documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which features the American commentator Joseph Sobran and Palestinian journalist Said Arikat, a correspondent for the Jerusalem-based Arabic newspaper Al Quds. (Australian Jewish News, 27th June 2003). According to the MUFF programme, so reports the AJN, Joseph Sobran "deftly dissects the Israeli state's familiar pretensions and details how the Holocaust story is used to justify support for Israel."

On the subject of Irving's video, Free Speech Victoria president, Terry Lane, said the legal bid by the Jewish group was a pointless demonstration of the Jewish community's lobbying power, since Irving's ideas were widely available on the internet. Quite! But, as he rightly observed, "This is another outrageous attempt by one small section of the community to determine what the whole of the community will see, hear and read."

MUFF's director, Richard Wolstencroft said it was vital to air views that many in the community disagree with, as a fundamental part of free debate. We are sure the present publicity will be a bonus for MUFF and will boost the number of patrons who attend the video showing.

The David Irving video and audio, "The Search for Truth in History" are readily available from the League's Melbourne Book Shop. Prices include postage. Video: $35.00. Audio: $10.00. Send cheque/money order to: Box 1052, GPO, Melbourne 3001. The League carries the full range of David Irving's books.


by Naomi Klein:
Editor's note: The following article, sent to us by John Bunzl of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO), highlights 'the bind' humanitarian and religious organisations now find themselves in, having become more and more dependent on government hand-outs. Like most people, they have not given much thought as to why their funds are now more likely to come via government coffers than from the pockets of the public.

"The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it's not Iran, Syria or North Korea - not yet, anyway. Before launching any new foreign adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take care of. It is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organisations that are helping to turn world opinion against U.S. bombs and brands. The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts. One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts. The other marginalizes and criminalises more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is in charge of handing out the carrots,
while the American Enterprise Institute, the most powerful think tank in Washington, D.C., is wielding the sticks.

On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, gave a speech blasting U.S. NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn't realise they had been assigned: doing public relations for the U.S. government. According to InterAction, the network of 160 relief and development NGOs that hosted the conference, Mr. Natsios was 'irritated' that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn't realise that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George W. Bush. From now on, NGOs had to do a better job of linking their humanitarian assistance to U.S. foreign policy and making it clear that they are "an arm of the U.S. government." If they didn't, InterAction reported, "Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners."

For aid workers, there are even more strings attached to U.S. dollars. USAID told several NGOs that having been awarded humanitarian contracts that they cannot speak to the media - all requests from reporters must go through Washington. Mary McClymont, CEO of InterAction, calls the demands "unprecedented," and says, "It looks like the NGOs aren't independent and can't speak for themselves about what they see and think."

Many humanitarian leaders are shocked to hear their work described as "an arm" of government; most see themselves as independent (that would be the "non-governmental" part of the name). The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren't afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of Medecins Sans Frontieres ('Doctors Without Borders') standing up to the White House and the European Union over AIDS drug patents, or Human Rights Watch's campaign against the death penalty in the United States. Mr. Natsios himself embraced this independence in his previous job as vice-president of World Vision. During the North Korean famine, he didn't hesitate to blast his own government for withholding food aid, calling the Clinton administration's response "too slow" and its claim that politics was not a factor "total nonsense."
Don"t expect candor like that from the aid groups Mr. Natsios now oversees in Iraq.

These days, NGOs are supposed to do nothing more than quietly pass out care packages with a big "brought to you by the U.S.A." logo attached - in public-private partnerships with Bechtel and Halliburton, of course. That is the message of NGO Watch, an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which takes aim at the growing political influence of the non-profit sector. The stated purpose of the Web site, launched on June 11, is to "bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs."
In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House.

This bizarre initiative takes as its premise the idea that there is something sinister about "unelected" groups of citizens getting together to try to influence their government. "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies," the site claims. Coming from the AEI, this is not without irony.

As Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, points out, "The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself, and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet. They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil." As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, the looniest ideas of which have a way of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder, Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president; the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows.

As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February, "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds." In other words, the AEI is more than a think tank; it's Mr. Bush's out-sourced brain.

Taken together with Mr. Natsios' statements, this attack on the non-profit sector marks the emergence of a new Bush doctrine: NGOs should be nothing more than the good-hearted charity wing of the military, silently mopping up after wars and famines. Their job is not to ask how these tragedies could have been averted, or to advocate for policy solutions. And it is certainly not to join anti-war and fair-trade movements pushing for real political change.

The control freaks in the White House have really outdone themselves this time. First they tried to silence governments critical of their foreign policies by buying them off with aid packages and trade deals. Last month U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that the United States would only enter into new trade agreements with countries that offered "co-operation or better on foreign policy and security issues."

Next, they made sure the press didn't ask hard questions during the war by trading journalistic access for editorial control. Now they are attempting to turn relief workers in Iraq and Afghanistan into publicists for Mr. Bush's Brand U.S.A., to embed them in the Pentagon, like Fox News reporters.

The U.S. government is usually described as "unilateralist," but I don't think that's quite accurate. The Bush administration may be willing to go it alone, but what it really wants is legions of self-censoring followers, from foreign governments to national journalists and international NGOs.
This is not a lone wolf we are dealing with, it's a sheep-herder. The question is: Which of the NGOs will play the sheep?"


It is always a source of astonishment - and frustration - to those who have seriously looked into the existing financial/taxation systems to observe the perversity with which intelligent people will put forward any explanation, from sun spots to human greed, for the financial misfortunes, which are attacking nations as well as individuals. They would rather give such erroneous reasons than make the effort to understand why the practical every-day performance of the money system produces such 'thorny thistles' instead of 'delightful figs'. To understand why it bears no relation to the physical realities! This lack of knowledge, this ignorance, is only paralleled by the confidence which these people place in the present oppressive systems, willfully ignoring the 'fruits', the effects.

The present purpose of the policy
The present taxation system "is calculated to cream off income so that it never, except in the case of favoured functionaries, rises above essential expenditure. This policy embodies the distinguishing power of the Slave Master - the power to determine how a man shall spend his time."
Under the present system, we have to: "Go to work to get the cash to buy the food to get the strength to go to work to get the cash to buy the food to get the strength to go to work!" (Elizabeth Holter The ABC of Social Credit).

It is essential the reader clarifies his thinking on these matters and learns to distinguish between two very different systems. Certainly the Christian NGOs should know the difference between the two systems because of the teaching of the Christian Faith.

The old original 'tithe'
Originally the system of tithing, i.e., the social tax, the setting aside of one-tenth of the increase of the produce of the earth for the upkeep of the Church and the State, was essentially just. The tithe (tenth) paid was of everything from the (cultivated) land, whether grain from the soil, fruit from the trees and the tenth of the herd, or of the flock.
As long as the people worked in harmony with nature, and continued to recognise and be true to their organic roots - the absolute origin of their earthly existence, - their financial/taxation systems would simply have reflected the physical facts.
The absolute origin of all their economic activity had its organic roots in the soil, in Nature. The tithe was paid in kind. This meant that when the wheat farmer paid his tithe - his tenth - he would pay it in grain, in produce; the pastoralist would pay his tithe in cattle; the shepherd, in sheep, and so forth.

Economically/physically, (the national housekeeping), the people lived on the products of past effort. Under a tithing system, they had no 'national' debts. The Church had no debts; the State had no debts and the Producers had no debts. In a good year, everyone lived well - including the Church and State. In a bad year, everyone had to tighten their belts - including those involved in church and state affairs.

The old original tithe was a genuine tax
Under the old original tithing system the people's future could not be 'mortgaged'.
Since when can a people produce this year's crops with next year's rain? They can't!
But under the present financial system, which bears no relation to a nation's physical realities, the whole world has mortgaged its future!
Under the old tithing system all were provided for. The distribution of the increase (through the Church and/or State) went to each legitimate claimant, allotted according to his/her station in life.

Douglas observed, "The old and original tithe was a genuine and justifiable tax. It consisted of a certain percentage of the agricultural production of the taxed land. The physical meaning of this to those who paid the tithe was that they did a small amount of extra work or, alternatively, had a little less to eat themselves. There was nothing in such an arrangement which could, or did, make it impossible for the agriculturalists to live."

Communities become more complex
But, as communities developed and became more complex, trade and commerce required a more sophisticated accounting and distribution system; a 'money' (accounting and distribution) system based on precious metals took the place of barter.
The power to control and issue a nation's money supply eventually came under the control of private moneylenders, now known as the Banking System. "It is necessary to be clear as to the origin of what passes for money, and to understand the remarkable powers which are vested in the banking system and the financier" wrote Douglas in "The Breakdown of the Employment System".

Elizabeth Holter (ABC of Social Credit) quotes Canadian MP W.L. McKenzie King who warned in 1936: "Once a nation (the State) parts with the control of its currency and credit, (money system) it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation…"

The situation is now such that C.H. Douglas insisted in Warning Democracy: "Modern taxation is legalised robbery, and it is none the less robbery because it is effected through the medium of a political democracy." The old tithing system concerned itself with the accounting and distribution of the produce of the earth, i.e., the increase, for the benefit of all; but not so the modern banking system!
With the advent of a money system under the control of the modern money lenders, the system became more important than the people.

Taxation in Australia
Jeremy Lee has explained to us why the NGOs are now beholden to governments (and more and more under their control) for their handouts - and why there is less and less financial equivalent, in the form of purchasing power, in the pockets of the people. In turn, there are less and less charitable dollars available through the churches. For this, the churches have only themselves to blame. They were warned, "You cannot serve God and mammon," and yet it can be shown the churches changed their own teaching on the subject of usury and mammon (money lenders/banking system). Further reading: "The Great Harlot" by Peter Lock.

Jeremy Lee wrote: "The latest Federal Budget raised the total of direct and indirect taxation to approximately $10,000 per head of population, or $40,000 for the average family of four. On top of this, the States raise their own taxes. The latest Queensland budget adds an extra $5.6 billion to the Federal tax take, or just under $1,500 per head. But Queensland is not the highest taxing State. New South Wales, Victoria, West Australia, South Australia and the ACT all tax their citizens higher than Queensland. Only Tasmania and the Northern Territory have lower per capita taxes.
The per capita average State tax across Australia is $1,892. So between them Federal and State direct and indirect taxes now levy $11,890 for each man, woman and child, or about $47,000 for each four Australians.
And they still have to pay their household rates, telephone charges and electricity on top, before beginning to earn a dollar for themselves.

Must reading: "The ABC of Social Credit" by Elizabeth Holter;
"Australia 2000- How Bright the Vision" by Jeremy Lee;
"The Truth About Social Credit" by Eric D. Butler;
"The Breakdown of the Employment System" by C.H. Douglas
and for the beginner the "Introducing Social Credit" series.
Details and prices for all books are available on request from all League Book Services.


National Director Betty Luks will be in Tasmania for a number of League 'in-house' and public meetings, including the Launceston Conservative Speakers' Club, Wednesday 16th July 2003. The visit will be from Friday 11th through to Wednesday 16th July.
Details are: Hobart Friday, 11th July; Launceston Monday, 14th July, North/West Coast Tuesday, 15th July, Launceston Conservative Speakers' Club Wednesday, 16th July.
For further information please phone: 03 6331 6414.

BASIC FUND: A smaller step forward this week. A sincere thank you to those who brought the figure up to $40,434.50. We press onwards.

LETTER TO EDITOR: The Australian 4th July, 2003.
"Church Stand":
At last! A basic Christian truth boldly stated (The Nation, 2/7): "The assets are not as important as the people we serve." Congratulations to Jesuit boss Mark Raper. Such a stand, if carried through (whatever its material consequences), would strengthen and possibly restore the faith of thousands." David P. Walsh. Heathmont, Victoria.

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