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

28 May 2004. Thought for the Week: "We are speaking 'metaphorically' when we speak of families as 'building blocks of society' and it is always important to know how far a metaphor can be taken and at what point it starts to promote harmful assumptions… if we allow the image into our subconscious, it goes on to do harm. A block or brick is an inert thing locked into a solid structure - immovably and without freedom to grow or develop in itself or in relation to other bricks. It conveys…the truth that society consists of families in relationship. The strength of the whole depends on the strength of the parts - 'society' is as strong as its weakest parts and the security of the bonding between them…
A far richer metaphor, which avoids this solid-state conception of society, is, "Ye are members one of another," suggesting a lively relationship within the family and society as a family of families. "Society" consists of the relationships between individuals and their association in countries and nations, between individuals and their association in groups, organic (living, dynamic) relationships.
Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs in "Home Quarterly".


by Jeremy Lee
As usual there seems to be a vast gap between the official Budget figures and the spin put on them by politicians who want to look like Santa Claus. Total taxation in Australia will increase from $174 billion to $182 billion under Costello's recent Budget - a rise of $8 billion or 4.9 per cent. Of all the various direct and indirect taxes, personal income tax will increase from $89.8 billion to $95.1 billion - an increase of 5.9 per cent. This is what Treasurer Peter Costello is pleased to call "tax-cuts". He certainly has managed to manipulate some eye-catching handouts - all part of the vote-winning process.
First poll results show that most Australians are not impressed. The 'spin' is wearing off. But that small number of swinging voters in marginal seats? Well, that's another matter.

Since the Budget was brought down, we have had an upsurge in petrol prices, which if they persist could see all other 'spin' swept into the cold. Most predict we'll be paying up to $1.10 per litre for some time to come. We'll be told to blame world parity pricing and those devils in OPEC.
What many don't realize is that petrol price rises are delivering a tax bonanza to the federal government. Currently, Excise on petrol is: Leaded - 40.5 cents per litre; Unleaded - 38.1 cents per litre. But after the Excise has been applied, GST is then added at the bowser. The GST is applied to the Excise already added - a tax-on-a-tax.

The Costello Budget planned to raise $13.3 billion in Excise tax on petrol, or $660.00 for each man, woman and child in Australia. But, thanks to OPEC and the Iraq war, this looks like being much higher. Of course, the story doesn't end there. The Howard government has long held that GST is handed to the States and is therefore a State tax (even though it is legislated and raised by the Commonwealth)
The States until recently added their own tax to petrol, until the High Court declared it was unconstitutional. So they now receive GST instead. Currently, GST on petrol is about 8 cents a litre. Because this is hurting the motoring public, some States subsidise petrol at the bowser for on-road users. Queensland, for instance pays back to the motorist a sum of 8.3 cents per litre. NSW does the same in some zones but not in others. I don't have figures for the other States.

So, in Queensland's case and that of northern New South Wales, Canberra grabs 8 cents a litre GST on petrol, hands it to the States, who then hand it back to the motorist in the form of a subsidy! Truly, the ways of our beloved and respected leaders are a mystery to us all!
But the fact remains that if all tax was removed from petrol, we would currently be paying around 50 cents a litre!


Taken from Neil Baird's email, by Lynn Stanfield of Taree.
"The Labor Party endorses the Free Trade Agreements with the United States. This was confirmed at a Public Forum held in Taree last Thursday, (13th May, 2004). Labor Senator, Stephen Conroy, Deputy Opposition Leader of the Senate in federal parliament, was making a whistle-stop visit to the North Coast, aimed at fielding local concerns to the recently announced Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreements, put into place by Mark Vaile.
When I asked if Labor supported the Free Trade Agreement, Senator Conroy said, "…yes we do".

About sixty concerned citizens from throughout the N.S.W's North Coast heard the Senator and the Labor candidate for Lyne, Graeme Watters, confirm that they will continue to support the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreements, if Labor should win Government in the forthcoming elections. This was despite the well-spoken pleas for a reversal of FTA decisions by speakers for Pork Producers, Chicken Growers and Dairy Farmers, who were in attendance. These Primary Producer Representatives, outlined the threat to local jobs, through unfair competition and the absolute devastation of our Primary Industries if infected produce was able to slip through our Quarantine.

The delegation, requested of Senator Conroy that he report back to the Senate Special Committee, investigating Free Trade Deals, that there were very real concerns about our Australian Quarantine Services' ability to protect our Primary Industries from imported diseases when there were already, lessening standards of quarantine being generated to accommodate the FTA. The gathering heard alarming disclosure that there was already a steady flow of Raw Chicken and Eggs being imported from Thailand."

Editor's comment: The real aims of the 'Labour' Party, recorded over 80 years ago by Clifford Hugh Douglas, are worth mentioning again… "The aims of the rank and file and the Central Executive have not so much in common as those of the Central Executive and their alleged adversary, the "Capitalist"..." (These Present Discontents & The Labour Party & Social Credit. 1922)

Mark Latham now has the task of convincing the 'sheeple' that although Labor is also willing to sell out what remains of the people's sovereignty to the New World Order, there is a way we can all benefit. If I have read the picture right, he will be promoting a 'Stake-holder Society' where we will have the best of both worlds - as a 'worker' and a 'capitalist'. We will be encouraged to see a 'Stake-holder Society' as the alternative to the Market and the State.
Although it looks increasingly like Tony Blair will have to 'fall on his own sword' for the sake of 'the Party', (they need a scapegoat for the ghastly situation in Iraq), remember he actually campaigned (or should I say made the right noises) on a 'Third Way vision' (an alternative to the State and the Market) before the last U.K. election. Now it will be Latham's turn to say he has 'seen the vision, the light'.
Although the Brits now know, from experience, 'New' Labour's vision for what it really was, (hot air, with no real change in policy direction) it looks like Australians will have to experience it for themselves.


Summed up, the Idea of a "Stake-holder Society" is one where ownership should be widely distributed rather than concentrated in the hands of the State or the Wealthy… Sounds good? Clifford Hugh Douglas wrote on the matter in "Social Credit" 1924. In 1976 the Canadian journal, Seed, Volume III No. 5, again warned its readers, though the proposal seemed plausible, it was based on a false premise.

The Delusion of Ownership
"Recently, in an item entitled "Creeping Capitalism", the CTV public affairs program WS chronicled the growing popularity of "profit-sharing", the practice of making employees shareholders in the concerns by which they are employed. Those advocating this technique argue that if "workers" can be made part owners of the means of production, then the labour-management "dichotomy" will be largely obviated, industrial disputes minimised, and productivity increased.
The argument sounds authentic; however, reflection reveals it to be specious. In fact, "profit-sharing" is potentially an instrument of monopoly.

Marxist notion
This fact is scarcely surprising, since the root assumption of the technique is the Marxist notion that the poor are poor because the rich are rich or, that the workers are deprived because capitalists are confiscating the results of labour as "profits". The solution, it is thought, is to make workers part owners of industry, thereby distributing profits more extensively. However, as we have pointed out elsewhere in Seed, the cause of the workers' dispossession and the cause of the cost-price squeeze facing industry are not unrelated and are more fundamental than "inequitable distribution of incomes". That, for example, the Anti-Inflation Board permits price increases as a result of increasing costs is tantamount to an admission that "profits" are not excessive.

One wonders what the effect of distribution of corporate profits among all Canadians would be -- for the consumer, and for industry. In fact, we already have extensive examples of "profit-sharing"-- in the forms of taxation and nationalised industry.

Comment: This was written in 1976. What would the 2004 small employer now have to say after experiencing the added burdens of the GST and trying to compete with Third World imports, or the worker for the push by 'privatised' -- read corporatised -- industries for lower wages and longer working hours? There is not too much in the way of profits or lucrative wages to be 'shared' here…ed

When a company's profits are being taxed at, say, a rate of 80%, a version of involuntary profit-sharing is in force. The consequences of this are, of course, higher prices, difficulty in maintaining investment capital, insolvency, and often, "nationalisation", another type of compulsory joint ownership and, ostensibly, "profit-sharing"-- largely intangible.

Industrial profit-sharing, it seems to me, similarly must carry all the liabilities of ownership and few of the advantages. For one thing, does the displacement of the wage by the share give the worker more real disposable income? Or is it a means of constraining the reinvestment of income in industry -- a method of converting income to capital to support the unending capital expansion (and proliferation of costs) which is a feature of the present economic-financial system? Does this sort of shareholding in the ownership of the means of production give the individual increased access to the product?

In this regard, C.H. Douglas has noted that "property" is "decentralised sovereignty". Does worker ownership (or minimal, partial ownership) of industry increase the sovereignty (or autonomy) of the individual? Does he own anything that he can utilize except with the consent and co-operation of a majority of the other shareholders? If, for example, a man has one ten-thousandth ownership of a fractionating tower, can he do anything with it? Though he might be one of the "common owners" of the facility, it is the sort of thing that can operate only as a whole (or, from the point of view of the owners, as a collective).

The shareholder will have a very small vote in how, what is "his", will operate -- a point that has been tersely summed up in Douglas's suggestion about what is likely to happen to one of the "common owners" of the Post Office should he endeavour to relieve the local postal station of "his" share of the stamps. What individuals want is not a fraction of a fractionating tower, but access to the product of that installation -- oil, or gasoline. It is as consumer that the individual wants the means of ownership -- not as part of a productive collectivity.
A consumer having effective demand (an unentailed income) has sovereignty; moreover, he has the means to control production by subscribing his effective demand to any enterprise -- not through a lonely vote at a shareholders' meeting.
Any scheme which promises participation in the ownership of the means of production must be suspected of compromising access to the means of consumption." (emphasis added).


The Australian Shareholders' Association (ASA), the nation's largest shareholder group, is pushing for an end to party political donations by publicly listed companies, arguing that the gifts are a form of bribery that can corrupt the democratic process. (Can corrupt the political process?...ed)
The present chairman of the group, Mr. John Curry, said the organisation plans to contact publicly listed companies and explain the new policy position, "which has come amid increasing speculation about the timing of the next federal election," reports the Sydney Morning Herald 21/5/04.
Mr. Curry said the ASA believed companies should be allowed to lobby political parties but ultimately it should be the shareholders, rather than the boards, who decided whether a gift should be made.
What! Could it be those venal politicians might have to get out among their 'real' electorate and earn the right to represent the people within the electorate rather than act as well-paid messenger boys for the Big Boys in Banking and Business?


We are getting there! The fund has climbed to $31,253.00. Thank you to all the loyal supporters. One of the tasks of the League is to ensure the knowledge of events which have already 'gone down the memory hole' in the politically correct institutions, and the knowledge of the true purposes of finance, economic and politics, must not only be kept intact, but must also be made available to the coming generations - and we are certainly doing that.
Behind the scenes, and thanks to the industrious band of loyal workers, and the wonders of technology, this is proceeding. More people than ever are now reading League material. But we need those loyal supporters to keep us financially 'buoyant'. Thank you.


Queensland's Senator Len Harris has demanded an immediate ban on imported prawns as the state's $140 million a year industry fights for survival. The prawn industry is under threat from Chinese imports that are being landed in Australia for as little as $5.50 a kilo. The cost of production for an Australian trawler to catch prawns in the wild is $7.80 per kilo.
The Australian market has recently been flooded with product from China after the United States imposed a 400% tariff on imported prawns. "This is not even a reasonable overlap of competition, it is complete swamping of our market," Senator Harris said.
"There is already concern from ships chandlers, then you've got the small businesses that supply, packaging, freight, net repairs, fuel, and mechanical maintenance."
Senator Harris said it was sickening to know that the Federal government was doing nothing to help the industry. "The Liberal/National Coalition believes that the economy is paramount and must override all other considerations, including the welfare of our people."
Senator Harris also called for the abolition of the highly centralised seafood marketing system. Just one purchasing company dominates the wholesale seafood market in Queensland. When that company switches to imports, Queensland trawlers will be locked out of local markets.
Australians must help fight for survival:
"One Nation appeals to Australian consumers and retailers not to purchase these Chinese prawns that are farmed in an artificial environment, requiring high levels of antibiotics to be used in the production process."
One Nation Senator Len Harris is calling for:-
· An immediate ban on imported prawns that are directly competing with Australian wild caught or farmed prawns.
· A 400% tariff on all other imported prawns.
· Emergency funding for an Australian seafood marketing campaign to promote the quality and freshness of Australian products.
· Reforms to abolish centralised seafood marketing. Replace the current system with regional seafood markets, preserving local economies and communities.

Taking Action
· Consumers, you can ask your local supermarket and fish shop not to purchase imported seafood from the wholesaler.
· Encourage the establishment of local cooperatives to break the monopoly.
· Restaurants and caterers: you can buy and promote local seafood, your customers will appreciate the superior quality.
· Write letters expressing concerns about imports to newspapers and magazines and to your Federal Member of Parliament and State Senators as well as Trade Minister, Mark Vaile.
For details of how to contact your federal political representatives consult The Harris Handbook at https://www.senatorlenharris.com.au/actioncentre/harris_handbook.htm


by Don Auchterlonie
David McKenzie writes in the Weekly Times of 12/5/04: "The US trade deal will make it tougher to get Asian countries to agree to big cuts in trade deals…ANU Professor Peter Drysdale told the Senate inquiry. "It will undermine our capacity to do deals with Asian countries on agricultural liberalisation for a very long time to come…ANU professor Ross Garnaut told the inquiry that Japan and Korea would happily sign up to a similar bilateral deal with Australia if the word "sugar" was scratched out and replaced with "rice"… He said "I think Australia will deeply regret the agricultural aspects of the US deal…Dr. Andy Steockel, director of the Centre for International Economics, agreed the trade-related gains were not substantial, but the big benefits for Australia would come from the increased US investment… generated by partial relaxation of Australia's foreign investment rules for US investors."
If foreign investment was any good for Australia we could have relaxed the rules without a "trade" deal, with 90% of our businesses already foreign owned it is hard to see what is left to sell.


by Betty Luks
It was such a happy occasion, the Crown Prince of Denmark marrying his lovely Mary Donaldson, commoner, of Tasmania; Mary, magically transformed into the regal Princess, destined one day to become Queen of the future King of Denmark.
It was the stuff of which fairytales are made. But then fairytales have their roots in history; history which became legend and legend which became myth -- and fairytales.
These 'folktales' of beautiful princesses and handsome princes, and kings and queens and wicked step-mothers, and so on, are embedded deep within our psyche. They are our 'folk-memory'; the tales of our Kin(g)ship and all that is involved in human relationships among one's 'kith', i.e, friends and acquaintances, and 'kin', i.e., related by blood or marriage.

The bias was showing
I couldn't help chuckling at the editorial in The Weekend Australian (15-16/5/04). Here was a pro-republican newspaper, although trying to eke the most out of the occasion for its own purposes, was at the same time, denigrating the Kin(g)ship of the British peoples, by sneeringly referring to "the House of Windsor" and "its troubles".
While the editor thought the British House of Windsor hadn't been much of an advertisement for monarchies, he wrote glowingly of Mary joining the Danish royal house of a "thousand-year history".

Some facts which he chose to ignore were
The present Crown Prince of Denmark has Russian, German, English and Danish bloodlines.
Both Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are directly related to the Danish Royal House and both descend from Astrid, the sister of the mighty King Canute.
Denmark's King Christian IX's daughter, Queen Alexandra, was the mother of King George V, our Queen's grandfather; and his son, King George I of Greece was the father of Prince Andrew of Greece, the father of the Duke of Edinburgh.
Queen Victoria's third son, the Duke of Connaught, was the grandfather of Queen Ingrid of Denmark.

As for the sneer at the 'House of Windsor'
It was King George V, who in 1917 by royal proclamation, changed the name to the House of Windsor from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
The 'threads' of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are traced back to northern Europe; the Goths were one of an ancient and distinguished group of tribes which inhabited Scandinavia, now Sweden and Norway, whose language is now retained in those countries - and a large proportion of the language is found in English.

The continuity of Kingship
Not only does the Queen's family tree stretch back to very remote periods in the history of the four nations which form the United Kingdom, but our Queen's ancestry is traced back through the great patriot king, Alfred the Great, through generations of shadowy kings and princes of Wessex to, eventually, the Saxon invader, Cerdic, who founded his kingdom and died in 534.
Nearly 1,500 years and fifty-three generations separate King Cerdic from Queen Elizabeth, but continuity and kin(g)ship has remained.
Individual and distinct branches, for sure often fighting among themselves, are branches of the same 'family tree'-- of which Australia is an offshoot.
One wonders what The Australian's editor made of the fact, which he chose to ignore, that the bride's father wore the kilt of his Clan, which said to me, "my Clan is also a branch of this 'family tree'."


Actionists in the S.E. of South Australia have organised themselves to offer a service to their local community by ascertaining what they want of their local government -- and informing the local government of the results.
The following results were presented to the Naracoorte Lucindale Council by Ken Grundy on April 27, 2004.
Not all questions were answered by everyone, but the following table indicates the number of votes cast for each sub-question and the percentage scored for "Yes", "No", and "Undecided".

· Preferred population of Naracoorte to stay about the same over the next 4 years.
Votes cast: 395 Yes 56% No 38% Undecided 6%
· Prefer population to grow by up to 1,000 over 4 years.
Votes cast: 593 Yes 81% No 14% Undecided 5%

· Would you like traffic lights installed?
Votes cast: 631 Yes 61% No 32% Undecided 7%
· Would you like to see more local proposals?
Votes cast: 441 Yes 67% No 30% Undecided 3%
· Would you like to hire expert consultants to decide the issue?
Votes cast: 428 Yes 19% No 77% Undecided 4%
· Would you like to leave the decision to Transport SA?
Votes cast: 458 Yes 35% No 61% Undecided 4%

· Was it a good idea for the Council to sell it?
Votes cast: 740 Yes 7% No 88% Undecided 5%

· Would it benefit shoppers?
Votes cast: 701 Yes 34% No 58% Undecided 8%
· Would it cause closure of some existing shops?
Votes cast: 697 Yes 83% No 11% Undecided 6%

· It is an easy way to make my views known.
Votes cast: 718 Yes 98% No 1% Undecided 1%
· It is likely to be a wasted effort.
Votes cast: 534 Yes 15% No 66% Undecided 19%
Respondents were asked to indicate subjects of their choice for inclusion in future surveys.
This proved to be a very fertile area. Not all of the suggestions lend themselves to a survey question but they do indicate community concerns.

A by-pass for heavy vehicles, Parking in CBD - disabled too, Transparency in Council - more consultation required especially when assets sold. Council should have conducted this survey.
Loss of trees in town. Roads rural and town (uneven surfaces). Sale of Showground. Council spending. Administration costs too high. More staff than before amalgamation. Rates among the highest. Query methodology. Council vehicles - query private use. Footpath surfaces and kerbing.

Amount spent on tourism. Trees overhanging footpaths. Toilets and signage for same. Land use and zoning. More housing blocks. Where will the extra 1 000 people live? Need for retirement village accommodation. Swimming pool. Sporting facilities. Library hours (extended). Rubbish dump (hours extended) and recycling. Rental housing. CBD speed limit. Use of railway land, including track. Sewerage north of High School. Dog and cat control. Gas supply. Street drainage (lack of). Parking to be banned adjacent to busy intersections to allow clear vision.
The question on population should have been a simple choice between 'Staying about the same' and 'Increasing by up to 1 000'. The result would then have been clearer.
Ken Grundy, Naracoorte, April 27 2004


The next meeting of the SCSC will be held on Thursday 27th May, 2004. A Video Viewing is planned for the evening. It is the video taken by the South Australian League of Rights in 1987, of Alexander Downer, Foreign Affairs Minister in the present government, making an excellent defence of the Commonwealth Constitution. It is quite an education, to observe seventeen years later, how the views of politicians can dramatically change when they reach the higher echelons of power.
The venue is the Lithuanian Club which is situated approximately 600 metres from the Bankstown Railway Station; proceed along South Terrace, past West Terrace to 16 East Terrace, Bankstown. The meeting commences at 7.30pm and cost of attendance is $4 per person. Bring a friend for the first time and the $4 fee will be waived.
Books will be on display as usual by the Heritage Book Service. Should you want a certain book, it can be ordered through the Heritage Book Service, P.O. Box 6086, Lake Munmorah 2259 or Phone: 02 4358 3634.


Bush in Iraq: the recolonisation of Iraq by Tariq Ali:
Tariq Ali has provided a 'streetwise' de-construction of Western spin from a lifelong experience of campaiging for justice. Rich with history we westerners were never taught and a poetry that touches the heart, this writer illuminates our understanding of the 'war on terror'.
Price: $30.00 posted.

The Culture of Critique by Professor Kevin MacDonald:
Kevin McDonald examines several influential 20th century intellectual and political movements which shaped western man's thinking to serve Judaism's interests and agenda.
Price: $65.00 posted.

Prophecy & Politics by Grace Halsell.
Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War. Grace Halsey correctly assessed the significance of the growing powerful alliances between the state of Israel and the militant TV evangelists. This book is of major historical and political importance.
Price: $14.00 posted.

Sexing It Up: Iraq, Intelligence and Australia by Geoffrey Barker:
Senior journalist Geoffrey Barker argues the Howard government applied the information to persuade voters to support the war. We now know it was to prove a dangerous and catastrophic course of action.
Price: $20.00 posted.

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