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

27 May 2005. Thought for the Week: "No civilisation is tolerable which suppresses agitation from within its own borders against an existing condition, however mistaken that agitation may be. But no civilisation can survive which will permit members of an alien culture to settle within its borders in order to make exploitation of grievances real or fancied into a highly lucrative profession. It is remarkable that the British Dominions overseas are in the highest degree sensitive to any suggestion of interference from the official British Government in London, while tolerating barely concealed attempts to impose, via specially trained representatives of the London School of Economics working in conjunction with the Central Banks, a comprehensive tyranny entirely foreign in its origin and character."
Clifford Hugh Douglas in "The Brief for the Prosecution", 1945.


by Ian Wilson, LL.B.
I have been given a great pile of papers by folk from within the Freedom Movement dealing with various legal subjects for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the contents.
First - On Secession.
It's Time Australia No.1 reports that the Central Queensland Free State was established on July 1st 2004: see website www.cqfreestate.com. These patriots sent their Declaration and Proclamation to the Queen, Governor-General, Prime Minister, Premier Beattie and Kofi Annan of the United Nations. This is of course a very interesting topic: but is it legal and constitutional?

Lawyers have argued that an individual state can secede from the Commonwealth of Australia (Professor Craven has a book defending this). What about the break up of a State? My view is that as a matter of logic it is legal by the same arguments used to support the break up of a nation. But the real question is political - can the creators of the new state maintain and defend it?
I have also looked at another document doing the rounds in the Freedom Movement, "The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Australia". This document contains such gems as:
"Debates on the private and public activities of parties and members of both Houses is prohibited" - which will be interpreted as allowing rule without accountability.
"Parliamentary salaries will relate more to the salary a candidate enjoyed before entering Parliament". This is allegedly to encourage a better class of politician. Naïve!! Most of this breed are lawyers and this paragraph will encourage the parasites of the system to flourish as never before.
"Parliamentary salaries are to be free of income tax": I rest my case.

The document unwisely, in vague drafting, attempts to sketch basic liberties and freedoms. Thus Section 54 says that: "Any two persons comprising a member of each sex, and who shall be eligible to vote, shall have the right to marry" - so incest is therefore constitutionally protected.
Worse, the document doesn't clearly outline Federalist principles. The document has many good ideas but it needs much work and redrafting if it is to be a realistic constitution - even apart from the validity of its propositions.

In my collection I have an essay attempting to show that in Australia "no government at any level, validly represents the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia". The argument is that Australia did not become a nation at Federation but rather through King George V granting the necessary plenipotentiary documents to give full power to Australian delegates to sign the Treaty of Versailles, and thus be recognised as an independent sovereign nation.
But on that day of signing the British Colonial Law, An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (UK) 1900 became ultra vires (beyond its authority).
One might as well argue that all common law and all law up to that point disappeared. The Constitution was legally binding before 1919 not only as a matter of Colonial Law, but dually because it was voted for at an Australian Referendum. It was law the way any society first gets law - by social agreement.
The fallacy of this paper is lack of understanding of the evolutionary and conventionalist nature of law.

Finally, what about all those papers and seminars pushing the idea of the "common law" as a mechanism to obtain freedom and liberation. Could these good folk really be referring to the legal system, to judges and lawyers?
I note that these folk accept that the Bill of Rights of 1688 is part of the law of Australia, which contradicts the other freedom camp of "lawyers" mentioned in the last paragraph.
I agree that the claim and the opinion of the Attorney-General's Department of NSW in 1996 was that the Magna Carta is also part of our legal system, inherited from Britain. What these good folk do not understand is that you can't use these laws to show that Council rates, for example, are illegal. And even if some part of the Bill of Rights did do so, the later statute law would take precedent over the earlier law.
Those who work in the law are well aware of the extreme limits of the law for defending political freedoms. Yet I am amazed at how many members of the Freedom Movement think that if they had their day in court, they would move mountains.
This is not a balanced, realistic view. The world doesn't work the way of US legal dramas on TV.


Further to this matter the League of Rights has invited constitutional authority Dr. David Mitchell to Adelaide, South Australia (10th-11th September, 2005) to conduct a two-day in depth School on Australia's constitutional foundation and development. Further details will be published as they come to hand.
This will be a very important School. What about making the effort to come from interstate for it? Join with those supporters from within the bounds of the (September) sunny state of South Australia.


by James Reed
It is relatively easy to find Jewish writers celebrating Jewish genius. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with racial and ethnic pride as long as all groups are free to have it. Today, even among "White groups", the celebration of ethnic pride is encouraged. The Mediterraneans - Greeks, Italians, Arabs, etc., do so. Among Nordic Whites, the Scots and Irish do so. Only the English people must feel eternally guilty about their race.
No ethnic group, apart from their Germanic cousins is vilified with such hostility. The Australian literature on multiculturalism is full of vilifications which if they were made against other super-sensitive ethnic groups, would land one before the Human Rights Commission and then Federal Court on a 'race hate' charge. But the English? No, they are fair game, especially by other White ethnic groups bearing historical grudges that should have been long forgotten.
It is therefore important for English people to be reminded of their greatness - and I mean English without the "Celt" attached.

We do not have books written by English people defending England's achievements and we should. I hope to eventually write such a book. In the meantime we have available an excellent book by Peter Ackroyd entitled Albion: The Origins of the English Imagination, (Vintage London 2002). "Albion" means the "White Land" in Gaelic, suggesting purity. Pope Gregory sent Augustine to England to establish a Church in England after seeing blonde Angle slaves. When he asked who such people were and was told they were Angles, he said non Angli sed angeli - not Angles but angels. Today the angels in Britain are an endangered species, under threat by declining birth rates, miscegenation and mass coloured immigration. And to complain about it leaves one open to have the laws, created by our own people, used against one.

Never in history have a people been so eager to commit racial suicide.
Ackroyd's Albion tells us of the world of imagination that is under threat. Ackroyd himself embraces political correctness and tells us that there is no "pure Anglo-Saxon race", that "race" is obsolete; not so, there is a resurgence of research into the racial concepts. Secondly there is no "pure" anything in this world if purity demands "100% purity". But that is an absurd high redefinition. Some intermixture does not mean non-existence. Mud thrown into a flowing stream does not stain the waters forever.
Ackroyd, after getting the politically correct nonsense off his chest then takes us on a magic journey through the literature of, to name but a few, of the English geniuses:
Beowulf (the early sixth century Anglo-Saxon poem), Bede (672-735); Chaucer (1340-1400); Francis Bacon (1561-1626); Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593); William Shakespeare (1564-1616); John Donne (1572-1631); John Milton (1608-1674); Jonathan Swift (1667-1745); Alexander Pope (1688-1744); Samuel Johnson (1709-1784); Edward Gibbon (1737-1794); William Blake (1757-1827); William Wordsworth (1770-1850); Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834); Lord Byron (1788-1824); Perry Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822); John Keats (1795-1821); Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892); Thomas Hardy (1840-1928); Gerard Manly Hopkins (1844-1889); Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936); Ezra Pound (1885-1972); T.S. Eliot (1888-1965); J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973); and W.H.Auden (1907-1973) - to name but a few.

A scholar can spend a lifetime studying the works of any of these masters. Could the same be said about the so-called "greats" of today, such as Roth, Derrida and Faucault?

A book such as Ackroyd's could be written about English achievements in any number of fields: philosophy, mathematics, law and technology - even clothing and food! No other ethnic group as a matter of historical fact has matched the English - not the Irish, Scots, Jews or Chinese. It is therefore not surprising that such a talented people are under racial attack.
In Australia there is no specific group which defends English people. It must always be "British" or the "-Celtic" must be added in haste. Why aren't the English people allowed to exist?
Indeed there are even moves to eliminate England itself. The latest European map, although showing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, no longer shows England as a country. England has become a collection of artificially constructed regions.
The regions are Yorkshire and Humberside, the North East and North West which the Blair government will give the opportunity to devolve from England by referendum. These devolved districts will in effect become a part of the EU. They will need to approach Brussels, not London for funds for major projects.
The original diabolical plan for the destruction of England was devised by the Tories, but Blair took the idea and ran with it.

Clearly English people across the world need their own ethnic defence group. No other group faces the prospect of being defined and deconstructed out of existence. Even if Hitler had invaded England and had won WWII, it is highly doubtful that England itself would have faced the prospect of political annihilation.
The globalists like to portray Britain as a successful multiracial society. The reality though is different. Leo McKinstry said in his article "The Multicultural Thought Police", The Spectator 1/11/2003: "After decades of advancing multiculturalism, Britain is the most violent country in Europe, with the highest rate of gun crime, drug taking and street robbery".
According to J. Steele, "More Whites Become Victims of Racially Motivated Crime", Telegraph 12/10/2000, Asians and Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to commit racially motivated "hate crimes" - largely against Whites. This is a society which is falling apart at the seams.


by Betty Luks
The realism of an assessment of the American situation made by Eric Butler some years ago, was brought home to me recently; after one of his many American tours, he had concluded the Americans couldn't teach us anything about the real state of the world and the shadowy forces directing events behind the scenes. In 1994 conservative publications such as "Criminal Politics" were promoting trade and investment opportunities with the 'emerging' China, predicting great financial gains for their readers, but without a real understanding of the game plan intended by the 'one worlders'.

The Americans are only now becoming aware they were sold a dangerous 'bill of goods' by their financial/commercial leaders and politicians - the 'guff' about trading with China and the 'pot of gold' to be gained from their investments whilst building up that economy. The 'vision splendid' is summed up in a book advertisement in the Financial Advisory section of the "Criminal Politics" journal of February 1994: "The Rise of China: How the Economic Reform is Creating a new Superpower" by William H. Overholt.

What the Americans hadn't grasped was the 'economic reform' of China was going to be at the expense of their own industrial and manufacturing base! In the long-term plans of these 'shadowy forces' it was intended the industrial and manufacturing might of America would wane as the Asian nations were built up.

The Pacific War and China: At the end of WWII - sixty years ago - Eric Butler wrote:
"As a result of the Pacific War, China is being 'developed' and 'modernised' by huge loans from Jewish financiers in America, working in close collaboration with their financial allies, the Soong family, which was educated in America… As early as 1892 Jacob Schiff was in communication with the Americans in China concerning the possibilities of loans to the Chinese Government. At the time of the Sino-Japanese war one of the leading American diplomats, John W. Forster, approached Kuhn Loeb and Co. for a Chinese Government loan of £1,000,000, while the following year Schiff had succeeded in interesting Sir Ernest Cassel in Chinese railway financing. (Sir Ernest Cassel founded and financed the London School of Economics).

After the (Boxer Rebellion) war the old 'spheres of influence' were abolished by international agreement. The agreement constituting the new consortium was signed on October 15, 1920.
The result of this agreement meant that in actual fact China had become a preserve for American-Jewish High Finance. Kuhn Loeb and Co. used Japan to 'modernise' China.

Communism via Moscow
The introduction of Communism via Moscow took place, while the establishment of one of International Jewish Finance's famous chain of worldwide central banks was established. There is little doubt that China with her teeming millions and largely unexploited resources, is ideal for the Jewish inspired planners to build up into a powerful force in world affairs. The last has not been heard of China…" (The International Jew)
In 1995 he warned the Western World:
"…adherence to orthodox finance-economics makes growing friction and conflict of some kind inevitable.

The Chinese Factor
The American policy makers are increasingly attracted to the prospect of expanding trade with China. But under the domination of the same export dogma which haunts all developed nations, the Chinese must also try to maintain their internal economy, and social stability, by striving to "capture" foreign markets…Occasionally there is a little wrist tapping of the Chinese government because of its poor civil rights record, but this does not slow the flood of Chinese textiles and other production into Australia (and America…ed). And Australians are constantly told of the export opportunities in the Chinese markets.

With every day that passes, the warnings of Social Credit author Douglas become more painfully relevant. Desperate attempts to grapple with the effects of a basically flawed philosophy and the debt financial system, can only create more problems and frictions…" (The New Times July, 1995).

A recent email from one of our contacts includes the following:
"I will pass on a comment by my brother who lives and works among the Chinese in Singapore. The US economy has moved to a point where its internal manufacturing potential for general goods like cars and household appliances has decreased below that needed to sustain the consumer demand. In Heavy Industry like steel, manufacturing capacity is barely a fraction of that 20 or 30 years ago. Multinationals have moved the actual manufacturing stages of production into places like Taiwan, Korea and above all, mainland China. It has been done to cut labour costs (or so we are told…ed); almost 50% of all manufactured goods used by the US are now actually manufactured outside of the USA. This percentage is steadily increasing.
The Singaporean Chinese believe that within the next few years the Chinese government will adopt a policy of demanding that countries wishing to trade with China will have to buy Chinese currency to do so.

The USA built up its pre-eminence in world trade by the same process in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and was able to do so because of its powerful economic industrial base that dominated everyone else. That position no longer applies, China is the pre-eminent industrial manufacturing power now controlling, with India, 60% of the world's manufacturing industries. Any move by China to demand trading in Chinese Yaun rather than Dollars or Pounds sterling would collapse the American Dollar and the Pound, and, furthermore, would seriously undermine the ability of the Euro to act as a reserve currency.

The whole international trading system is a castle of cards at this time. It would not take too big a breeze to blow it down. How the multinationals and international banking systems have managed to preserve it for so long is beyond me, but there is a subversive will among the financial sector to preserve it, because it functions, at present, to serve the needs a specific financial elite at the expense of everyone else.

You might argue that the USA could use its military strength as a threat against China to stop them acting unilaterally on the currency issue. However because so much of American technology is now being manufactured in China such a threat would be toothless. Military action would be like shooting off your own foot or more accurately blowing out your own gut."

The Maoist regime and Dr. Sun Yat-sen
The remaining Western nations, America in particular, need to be reminded that those same forces who are financially supporting and publicly promoting the Great Industrial Leap Forward for China are the same powers which not only installed the regime of Mao Tse-tung, but continued down the years to ostracise and enforce diplomatic isolation on the Republic of China. Professor Carroll Quigley's monumental "history of the world in our time" Tragedy and Hope, documents the elaborate steps taken by the 'Western' powers, and those within the United States in particular, to prevent the nationalism of Dr. Sun Yat-sen taking root on mainland China. One of the main organisations created for this purpose was the Institute of Pacific Relations, an offshoot of the American Council on Foreign Relations - part of an all-powerful network spanning the globe.


by James Reed
Recently Betty Luks celebrated the publication of a thoughtful article by National Action chairman Michael Brander in Quadrant, March 2005, entitled "Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the West". I was motivated to read this article as Brander's other writings did not impress me. I was very pleasantly surprised by Brander's deep understanding of Solzhenitsyn's warning to the West.
Of course Solzhenitsyn's primary concern at the time he made a number of addresses to Western audiences, before he was regarded as "off limits" and "dangerous", was to warn about the Soviet menace. Few other writers have documented the tyrannical abuses of this most evil of regimes in such detail and clarity. How could Marxist "intellectuals" in Western universities not have seen this after reading Solzhenitsyn? Well, they didn't read him, and having no concern about the truth, would have dismissed him without serious argument or engagement if they did.

Solzhenitsyn's warning to the West as epitomized in his commencement address at Harvard University entitled "A World Split Apart" was that the West has absorbed some of the key philosophical tenets of Communism because there was a common philosophical root to Soviet Communism and Capitalist America. Both ideologies were based on the doctrine of humanism, that there is no higher law than that of man. Consequently their legal systems embraced legal positivism, that morality has nothing to do with law.
Both systems ultimately had no real and lasting respect for human freedom; monopoly domination was the 'order of the day' for both. Both systems subordinate morality to economic ends. Globalism today combines the ideological baggage of communism (multiracialism, multiculturalism, "egalitarianism") with a merciless capitalism that plunders the world for profits, crushing traditional social institutions such as the family in its path.
Solzhenitsyn's pamphlets should be read by all of us concerned with the preservation of liberty. These pamphlets are available from the League's Book Services.


The Adelaide Advertiser 28/4/05 reported Nick Minchin, Federal Cabinet Minister "wants voluntary voting put on the agenda at the next election and introduced if the Coalition wins". This is the same party that took away our right to cast just one vote on our ballot paper leaving the other boxes empty, thereby depriving the parties of preference votes. We are now forced to record a preference vote, thus voting for those we consider "the lesser evils" standing for election.
"Senator Minchin who opposes compulsory voting on civil libertarian grounds, is urging the Liberal Party to adopt voluntary voting as official policy."
Senator Minchin says he "would love nothing more" than for the Government to use its post-JuIy 1 Senate majority to scrap compulsory voting this term. But the Government made no such promise before the last election, so abolishing compulsory voting this term would breach the trust the Australian people vested in us".
What trust Mr. Minchin?
It would seem the real reason for the Liberals' concern is the steadily rising numbers of informal votes being cast. "Senator Minchin says steadily rising informal vote rates over recent elections shows thousands do not want to vote."
In effect, the voters are saying Mr. Minchin: A pox on all your parties!
The article also informs us Labor and the Democrats oppose abolishing compulsory voting and views "within the Coalition are mixed."


Phillip Benwell reports HRH Prince William of Wales will be visiting New Zealand from the 2nd to the 9th July 2005 and has written to Prime Minister Howard suggesting that he extends an invitation to Prince William to visit Australia as well, particularly in view of the time it takes to travel to this region from the United Kingdom.
And he asks us to do the same: May I suggest that you also contact the Prime Minister to urge him to extend such an invitation.
Details are: The Hon. John Howard MP, Prime Minister of Australia, Office of the Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
You can email the Prime Minister through his web-site at: www.pm.gov.au

AUSTRALIA POST STAMP: The 2005 Queen's Birthday Stamp was issued earlier this month. If your Post Office is not stocking the stamp, please do request that they order in supplies.

KING GEORGE SQUARE - BRISBANE: This is a matter for the Queenslanders. There are concerns that the City of Brisbane may be considering re-naming the King George Square which would also mean removing the statue of King George. Please give consideration to contacting the Lord Mayor as follows to express your disapproval if such a thing were to happen.
Rt. Hon. Cr. Campbell Newman, Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Brisbane Town Hall, GPO Box 2287, Brisbane Qld 4001. Phone: 07 3403 4400 Fax: 07 3403 9930
You can email the Lord Mayor through the Council web-site at:

THE CROWN OF THE COMMONWEALTH REALMS: A Paper delivered by Mr. Phillip Benwell to universities and other meetings in the United Kingdom is available at a cost of $10 from: The Australian Monarchist League, P O Box 1068, Double Bay 1360


To the Editor, Herald Sun, 17th May 2005:
The cases of David Hicks and Mamoud Habib at Guantanamo Bay and of Schapelle Corby in Indonesia have highlighted the importance of the principle that the Australian Government should defend its own citizens and their interests from any kind of unjust treatment strongly, firmly and clearly.
The tradition is that the Crown demands the loyalty of its subjects, in return for which it protects them. The Government should abide by this tradition.
At the present time there is a danger that it may not do so in another case. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has succeeded in persuading the Hungarian Government to seek the deportation of a Perth man and Australian citizen, 83 year-old Charles Zentai, to face charges of alleged "Nazi war crimes".
It is over sixty years since the alleged events. Most witnesses will be dead and many relevant documents have been destroyed. Accusations against Zentai proceed largely from judicial proceedings carried out under a communist-dominated government. Witness statements made then are unreliable, as are witness statements that Zentai's opponents say they can now produce.
In short, it is impossible to believe that a fair trial could occur. Moreover, Zentai's extreme age speaks on his behalf. The Government should be urged to refuse the Hungarian request.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave 3160.


The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 26th May, 2005 commencing at 7.30pm. The venue is: The Lithuanian Club, 16 East Terrace, Bankstown (approx. 600 metres from the Bankstown Railway Station). Guest speaker will be Mr. Graham Hoskin and the subject title is: "The Religious Right in America - Who Are the Fundamentalists?". The speaker has a Bachelor's Degree in Theology and has had several articles published by various journals. His research has included the Palestinian/Israel conflict and the Religious Right in Israel. This will be a subject of great interest to Australians with the Howard Government involving our troops in the Iraqi conflict. Cost of attendance is $5.00. Bring a friend for the first time and the attendance fee will be waived.


The League Book Services will make available Solzhenitsyn's book "Rebuilding Russia" and his 4 speeches (in booklet form) for the price of $15.00 POSTED!
· 1975 New York City: "A Legacy of Terror".
A warning to what is left of Western Civilization, but also a denouncement of the West for financially and materially building up the strength of Communists regimes. (They are still doing it!)
· 1975 Washington DC: "Words of Warning to the Western World".
A dramatic warning to all the world - and to Americans in particular. He strips bare the crimes and excesses of the communist masters in his native land. And he denounces the West for a "senseless process of endless concessions to aggressors in the Kremlin."
· 1976 BBC address: "The West's Betrayal of Civilization".
A moving appeal to the British peoples to rediscover their souls while there was time to avoid complete disaster.
· 1978 Harvard. "A World Split Apart".
In this speech the great (exiled at the time) Russian author touched some raw nerves when he laid the present day situation in the West on the line. He was of course denounced by the Communists but also by such liberal papers as The New York Times and The Washington Post.


A groundbreaking first for the League! Two years in the making. The CD-ROM covers over forty years of On Target plus a bonus - a selection of essays by Clifford Hugh Douglas and Eric Dudley Butler. SEND FOR YOUR CD-Rom COPY NOW! "LIONS FOR FREEDOM" The League Book Shops and Veritas Publishing are handling it.
What an excellent tool for research and what a wonderful gift to your children and grandchildren - Forty Years of Australian political history and commentary at their finger tips. Just down load off the internet onto your computer one of the search engines now so freely available, and you will have your own 'research assistant' at your fingertips as you 'crawl' all over the "Lions for Freedom" CD-Rom! Easy instructions for doing so are on the CD-Rom.
Offer lasts till 30th June 2005.
On Target subscribers who send in their journal's envelope-wrapping with their Mail Order can purchase one "Lions for Freedom" CD-Rom for $22.00 posted!
That is a $10 discount! Over the counter purchase, again with your journal's envelope-wrapping offer is one CD-Rom for $20.00!
Mail orders without the journal's envelope -wrapping is $32.00 including postage and over the counter sales without journal's envelope -wrapping is $30.00 each.
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159