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 October 2005 Thought for the Week:
"There is small doubt that (we) are handicapped by a system of political thought which takes its immediate rise from Puritanism, although Puritanism, as well as what is commonly called "capitalism" which is an ally of Puritanism, can be traced much further back.
Philosophically, one of the characteristics of Puritanism is the transcendence of God, as distinguished from the immanence of God. Arising directly out of this philosophy there has grown up a convention, to use the mildest description, that, to be respectable it is necessary to be "other-worldly". "Thy Kingdom come" is noble, but "Give us this day our daily bread" is vulgar, and "Let me get at the bread which is going to waste' is downright immoral…
If all history and all observation has not been misread, there is implanted in the individual a primary desire for freedom and security, which rightly considered are different forms of the same thing.
There is no such thing as a freedom and security which is held upon terms, whether those terms are dictated by the State, by a banking system, or by a World Government… Until it can be shown that, with the resources which science has placed at his disposal, the individual is incapable of making freedom and security for himself, the multiplication of organisations whose interference he cannot avoid will only make a world catastrophe the more certain."
Clifford Hugh Douglas, in "The Enemy" The New English Weekly 1933.


by James Reed

Thousands of words of propaganda have been written and spoken about the Howard government's industrial relations reforms. The promoters of economic rationalism and integration with Asia are all for it. From where we stand there is not the same kind of resistance seen over a lesser issue such as the sale of Telstra - lesser because "IR" will change the Australian way of life itself.

Over the years the League of Rights has been critical of organised labour because of the collectivist culture which dominated it. One of the League's policies is "To defend the free Society…" If freedom means anything, it means the right of every man to choose or refuse one thing at a time, including his employment terms. This is not to say that industrial reform is not needed, for the system is at best complex and costly.
Howard though is going much further.

The change to workplace relations laws and the 'freer' market in labour is part of the ongoing plan of globalisation as seen in our immigration policy, financial deregulation and the selling off of assets as illustrated by the sale of Telstra. This is not designed for the long-term benefit of Australians workers, but to make Australian labour more competitive with Asia - and soon, Africa.
Entitlements fought for by our ancestors, through the shedding of blood will be gone, as all workers of the world will be truly united - at the bottom!

Vicki Watson, in a letter to The Australian 11 October 2005 summed it up "… these institutions are not ours to dismantle. They were fought for and won by generations of Australians refusing to give up on universal rights. They are not the preserve of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the various chambers of commerce. The real problem is that most working people today, having not studied any history in our emasculated education system, have absolutely no idea what they stand to lose." They stand to lose everything.


Australians need to be reminded the Australian Labor Party did not arise from within the broader community but was the party of organized Labour and was early 'captured' by Fabian Socialism.
Probably the main reason for Mark Latham venting his spleen on those he now 'hates' among his former ALP colleagues comes to light upon rereading a 25th June 1999 article by Jeremy Lee in vol.35 no.24.On Target.

At the time, Jeremy was writing of "the soul-searching' within the NSW National Party concerned with the dwindling primary vote. He wrote:
"The same death-wish faces the ALP. There is now an open rift between one group, represented by Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean, who believe that the Party should go back to its traditional base, and another, comprising international socialists such as Mark Latham, with Kim Beazley wavering somewhere in the middle.
The publication of a new book, "Labor without Class, the Gentrification of the ALP," by Michael Thompson, and launched by Martin Ferguson, has widened the rift. A review in The Sydney Morning Herald (18/6/99) explained: '…the essence of Thompson's argument - supported by Ferguson in the book's preface - is that Labor has been hijacked by a new middle class more interested in multi culturalism, migration, feminism, Aborigines, welfare and the environment than working class values of 'family, hard work, independence and patriotism'…'

At the time Jeremy noted: "Opposition leader Kim Beazley is trying to keep a foot in both camps. But, as former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen once graphically pointed out, 'If you try to keep a leg each side of a barbed-wire fence, you'll do yourself a mischief.'
Beazley has recently said (that is in 1999…ed) he is in favour of free global trade, but not at the expense of living standards! Why can't he face the truth?
Free trade is synonymous with the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to wages and job opportunities.

The position was made quite clear by former Cabinet Minister Clyde Cameron, now in his eighties, in an interview on the 7.30 Report. Cameron, who sounded like a million dollars compared with the current mob of stooges in the major parties, was scathing in his description of the betrayal of Australian workers by the globalists…"
There you have it, there is no fundamental difference between Labor and Liberal, both are centralist parties despite the hot air gushing forth from various spokesmen.


Mike Charlton Sydney Morning Herald 15 October 2005, had his say in "Kleptocracy rules us all":
"In the crowning moment of his political career, Howard is within an ace of crushing a century and more of trade unionism, cheered on by his boardroom cronies. Most tragic of all, a fumbling and dispirited Australian Labor Party appears set to let him get away with it… (
Mike they are committed to the same globalist agenda, we can expect no change of direction despite your forlorn hopes. I would think they are looking to the long-term when they hope the political pendulum will swing their way…ed)

For a glimpse of John Howard's rosy future of industrial sweet reason, let us look at the strike by Boeing aircraft maintenance workers at the air force base at Williamtown, near Newcastle. On June 1, 35 of them downed tools because they were unhappy with individual work contracts the Boeing company wanted them to sign. The nuts and bolts of the dispute are complex but, in short, they suspected they were being dudded on pay, penalty rates, skill allowances and the like. With some reluctance, they asked the Australian Workers' Union to go through the figures; reluctance because, before they worked for Boeing, many of them had been in the Defence Force, the sort of loyal service personnel who felt, instinctively, that trade unions were a bit bolshie…

The union discovered they were being paid up to $20,000 a year less than technicians doing a comparable job for a competing company, British Aerospace, working across the other side of the Williamtown tarmac. So the Boeing people joined the union and, as is their right, asked it to represent them in collective bargaining with the boss. That is as far as they got. The company refused to talk…

Not a few of our forefathers were transported in chains to the colonies for fighting for the right of workers to bargain collectively with an employer. They must be spinning in their graves."


Still the same problems, still the same terms of reference, over a hundred years later! We hear about the right of workers to bargain collectively with an employer, but what of the employer's rights? Have we heard his side of the 'problem'? Not all employers want to bring their employees down to slave labour terms and conditions, but they also have to operate within the political/economic/financial framework affecting the workers - so what gives? There are arguments for and against on both sides of the "problem".

It appears there is no resolution within the terms the "problem" is set. It would seem we are destined to forever remain on the same old treadmill. Grant a rise in wages, necessary because of the reduced purchasing power from the last inflation cycle. Costs and overheads rise again for the employer and have to be included in prices for goods when they appear in the market place. Employers then demand more productivity from their workers to make up for the added financial/cost burdens, (or they seek lower wages and poorer conditions for their workers) leading to a further rise in prices, workers then demand another pay rise, and so on and so endlessly on.

When "the problem" is tackled along these lines, there arises all manner of confusing and contradictory issues and questions:
· Should wages be adjusted to the time worked?
· Or to the amount and quality of work done?
· Or to the needs of the worker?
· What of the terms of the present awards?
· But what of the employer? If he can't cover all costs and overheads and at least get a little profit for himself, doesn't the employer go out of business and the worker lose his job anyway?
· What about the Work itself?
· Is the Work worth doing or not?
· Is the workman to find satisfaction in the doing of the Work, or only in the fact of being employed and receiving his pay-envelope?
· Is the Work necessary?
· If the (human) Work is not necessary, how will the 'unemployed,' with no other means of financial support, gain access to the necessities of life other than through the present system of 'dole' money?
· When is the Production of a nation considered 'enough'?

What about the philosophical debate?
· Should a man Work in order to get enough money to enable him to cease from working?
· Or should he demand only such payment as will enable him to live in order to carry on his Work?
If the former is true then "blessed are the rich" for they are the flower of a leisured civilisation!
If the latter is true, then blessed is the worker who gets no more than a living wage!
You would think that after a hundred or more years Australians would have realised that the 'problem' is not soluble within the terms in which it is set.


If only Australians could free their minds from the cant that flows from the ruling elite then maybe, just maybe, they could think creatively.
Instead of forever striving to solve "the problem" they could embark on the creation of a new way of life!
And what of the "problem" of working conditions and wages with the interconnected "problems" of industrialisation, mechanisation and automation resulting in an excess of production, etc. - and "unemployment"?

C.H. Douglas widened his sphere of reference and showed us a direction to take, through the Just Price and National Dividend mechanisms; a technique designed to make up the difference between the cost/price/wage/inflation treadmill, satisfying all parties concerned and at the same time, showing us how to use the money system to distribute the goods of the earth - to all the citizens, to those needed in the workforce and to those not needed!

Further essential reading:
Clifford Hugh Douglas - Social Credit; The Tragedy of Human Effort.
Anthony Cooney - Clifford Hugh Douglas; Social Credit-Obelisks; Social Credit-Asterisks.
Eric D. Butler - Social Credit & the Christian Philosophy; Releasing Reality.
Michael Lane - Human Ecology & Social Credit; Charles Ferguson: Herald of Social Credit.


We are informed by The Australian 14/10/2005, that in order to stifle the protests of the churches and the unions and to further his Industrial Relations globalist agenda John Howard has appointed Professor Ian Harper, executive director of the centre for business and public policy at the Melbourne Business School, as Chairman of a new five-person Tribunal charged with the task of setting the minimum wage for Australian workers.

Again it is a case of the sphere of reference being too narrow in this day of industrialisation, mechanisation and automation with the resultant "unemployment problem". Surely it is a good result of a modern production system? Surely a leisure 'bonus'?

At present the good professor's "working hours are spent in the material world as a financial markets economist…" At first glance I would have said his thinking would be governed by the 'capitalist' spirit (or intent): Systems, calculations and expediency.
But we read on, "Professor Harper is a devoted parishioner of St. Jude's Anglican Church in Melbourne's inner-city Carlton…. And like another business associate "he believes in tithing 10 per cent of his earnings to the church." He said, "That's what I believe the scripture calls me to do."


by Betty Luks

I need to use my words carefully here as I may be doing the man a disservice, but I want to comment on the above statement attributed to him in The Australian: "He believes in tithing 10 per cent of his earnings to the church."

"Tithing" refers to a "physical" payment - a payment in kind. "The Tithe" to most Christians would be known as an Old Testament (O.T.) term and actually means ten per cent; it has never meant anything else. "Earnings" is related more to modern working conditions and a financial term. It doesn't necessarily reflect the circumstances and conditions in which the people of the ancient world lived.

Tithing was a common practice throughout the mainly agricultural ancient city-states. It even spilled over into the 15th century in the Western World - after all, the world we know is fairly 'new'.
The important point is that the tithes were paid in kind from the fruits of the earth. The O.T. purpose is clear. It was paid to the Levites (the State) in return for their services to the People. A portion of the tithe (tenth of a tenth) went to the priesthood for their services in the temple (the Church). And it was calculated on the increase of the produce of the land. Why is this of such importance? As long as they worked in harmony with God's creation and continued to recognise and be true to their organic roots the people were governed by those aspects of Natural Law.
They would have recognised that the absolute origin of all their economic activities had their roots in God's creation.

And as for the city-states' (ac)counting systems:
As long as they kept accurate records, it would have been a true, a just record (whatever medium was used - animal skins, papyrus, clay tablets, etc.) of the physical facts. Economically, realistically, the people live(d) on the products of past effort. If it had been a good year, a productive year, everyone would have lived well - if it had been a poor year, everyone would have had to 'tighten their belts', including those servants of the People within the Church and the State.

The tithe was paid in kind, that is, with grains, animals, cheeses, vegetables, fruit, honey, etc. Under the tithing system, as long as the land was productive, there would not have been any 'national' debts. Only because of natural disasters or attacks and pillaging by others would they have been forced to 'borrow' from neighbouring communities to get them through till the next harvest.
The Church had no debts, the State had no debts, and the Producers (the People) had no debts.
And under the tithing system all were provided for according to their station in life, the Church, the State, the people - and the poor and needy.
Under a tithing system the people were not forced to "mortgage their future" by attempting to produce this year's crop with next year's rain - an impossibility of course.
But financially this is what happens today when the farmer is financially forced to mortgage his future 'increase' through this "debt-money" system!

In his booklet "Dictatorship By Taxation," Clifford Douglas wrote:
"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, alternately, 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."

There are some important principles for us to grasp in what happened within the communities in the ancient city/states. But space does not permit a fuller study here. We are not suggesting Australians go back and live a simple agricultural life under a tithing system, but we do say much can be learned from a study of those ancient communities.

Another question I would have for Mr. Harper is:

Has he considered his generous payment to his local church of 10 per cent of his projected annual earnings of $290,000 in the light of the Widow's mite paid into the Treasury? That parable could relate to the wages and conditions of today's workers.

A simple explanation of the tithing system is found in the series "Introduction to Social Credit." Especially Numbers 3, 4 and 5 in the series. Available from all League Book Services.


by Peter Ewer

The October 2005 edition of Quadrant contains an essay by Steven Thiele, "The Problem With Sociology: Morality, Anti-Biology and Perspectivism".
Thiele is himself a sociologist. He says that since Marx's "Communist Manifesto," the birth essay of sociology, the discipline has been in a state of crisis: "Sociology is a mess". It has no agreed body of knowledge and is "Deeply fragmented and chaotic."

Sociology as a discipline is opposed to any biological understanding of human social behaviour, so it has cut itself off from the rest of the sciences. It now goes down the road of postmodernism, relativism and its own destruction. Thiele laments this, if I read his essay correctly.
I say: the sooner sociology dies the better.

This discipline, created largely by Jewish activists such as Karl Marx, was created essentially to undermine a racial and biological approach to the understanding of human society. It has been intrinsically communistic from its beginning and easily embraced feminism, multiculturalism and every other "ism" destructive to our race and culture.
Funding for Australian sociology departments would be better spent channelled into biology, physics or other sciences. Sociology is intellectual rubbish and is meeting the fate it deserves.

Unfortunately the "sociological turn" has had its effects on the secondary school system in the form of postmodernism, the idea that all texts are equal and open to sociological and textual analysis for power relationships. This is merely sociology spread thick into literary studies.
The same communistic levelling effect is found:
The classics of Western civilisation are "oppressive" because these works do not speak highly of blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. Hence the canon must go to be replaced by politically correct texts.
This nonsense needs to be cut off at the roots and it is the discipline of sociology which has produced this mindset.


I heard on the news this week Tony Abbott intends to have enough vaccine produced to vaccinate every Australian against the horrible threat of infection from the 'Avian Bird-Flu'. Hold on Mr. Abbott, the fact is that only 65 people world wide have died from this "Avian Flu", and yet through a barrage of propaganda we are being led to believe this 'little devil' is going to jump species and kill 200 million people!
Huh? 65 is the number so far and even then it appears to be among people closely associated with poultry in rather unhygienic conditions. Not so long ago it was the SARS scare. What happened to SARS?

Why am I uneasy by the fact this will be a 10 to 20 billion dollar boon to the pharmaceutical industry, major political-party contributors? Not only will we all be 'vaccinated' but in the USA there is loose talk of 'Georgie Boy' declaring martial law and having troops quarantine and inoculate American citizens. May I ask, based on what statistics and what science? 65 deaths?
Is the real intention behind the propaganda push to create enough fear within the public that we ask for these things, and think it was our own idea?


Those who know some of the background to the League know that League activists have been involved in the battle against fluoridation of the public water supplies for over thirty years or more. And still the politicians are trying to 'flouridate' those communities who have held the breaches all that time.
Queenslanders are currently besieged to "fluoridate"by Peter Beattie and Victorians by Steve Bracks.

South Australians say: Don't let them use the example of South Australians having had a fluoridated water supply since the Dunstan era. South Australians probably drink more bottled water per population than any other major city. It is our experience the fluoridated water gushing from the taps is generally not used for drinking purposes!

But what sparked our interest because of the latest onslaught was a snippet in the special edition of the League's "Intelligence Survey" of February, 1989 which we reprint for our readers:
Under the heading: A Time to Remember:-
"We have just re-examined an Ipana Flouridated Toothpaste carton on which this warning was printed: 'This contains sodium fluoride (0.22%) and the labelling POISON is required.' You may ask, why this warning is not on present day fluoridated toothpaste cartons. The simple answer is, the Government altered Poison Acts throughout Australia to accommodate the toothpaste manufacturers adding this poisonous substance to what we now classify as a toiletry item, and not to be confused with medicine!"


Last week we asked the question: "Is there still a slim chance to stop the sale of Telstra going through?" In order to answer that question we need to refer to some background history of the English-speaking peoples. We need to go back to the two great quarrels King John became involved in with the Church and the Barons, and to when he was finally forced to grant redress to the grievances of the two parties. The cry was not that the law should be altered but that it should be observed by the King! When the Commonwealth of Australia was founded it was based on those same concepts and principles of law and the framers of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia wisely included an extra safeguard for the people to obtain redress to their grievances. I know you are going to tell me the politicians ride roughshod over our constitutional safeguards. I know that, but I also know if we don't gain a bit of backbone and pressure those who are flouting our rule of law, if we don't do what the barons did at Runnymede, we as a people known as Australians will cease to exist. The constitutional authority Dr. David Mitchell, B.A.; LL.B.; LL.M.; Ph.D. has stated: "The Constitution specifically shows that the Parliament is the advisor (i.e., an expert that gives advice…ed) to the Governor-General. That is to say, the Monarch or the Governor-General, must do as the parliament tells him unless, on good and proper ground, he believes it is contrary to the basic law, the Constitution, or unless he is asked to do something contrary to the will of the people. His responsibility is there as a check on those who are elected to advise him, as are the courts. Make your own lists: Actionists know how difficult it is to gain any redress for their grievances from politicians or other public servants in this day and age, but maybe we haven't tried hard enough, maybe our appeals for support in our efforts haven't been wide enough. What can we lose but our nation? If we all sat down and made a list of the groups and individuals outraged by the sale of Telstra we might find there is virtually a standing army of Australians ready to be enlisted in the battle. We have not demanded the implementation of the Constitution: If enough Australians can rally together and widen their appeals to the churches, the unions, the employers, whomsoever is concerned about the directions this nation is going and the sale of our national communications asset, a demand that the G-G implement his Constitutional responsibilities, might get us somewhere. David Mitchell continues: Not only was this safeguard "specifically written into the Constitution but just in case, a piece of legislation contrary to the wishes of the people or contrary to the basic tenets of the law happened to slip through, there are provisions in the Constitution that within 12 months the Queen can disallow any legislation that has already become law. "This is for the purpose of protecting you. It is for the purpose of protecting every citizen in Australia. This is the reason why you have the right by petition of direct approach to the Queen or the Governor-General. The Governor-General and the Queen will know the wishes of the people." Commence your lists of those to be recruited into the campaign. More next week. Remember - the cry was not that the law should be altered but that it should be observed!


"The Radical Prince," by David Lorimer.
This "practical vision of the Prince of Wales" has to be one of the most positive and constructive books published for quite some time. It provides an overview of Prince Charles' ideas on ecology, organic agriculture, holistic health, religion, education and much more. It offers ideas for local communities to begin the regeneration processes if they don't want to die out all together. You may not agree with all of the Prince's projects but, as one reviewer put it: "If you are not afraid to think and to deepen your understanding of a man who may one day become King, this is the book for you." It is highly recommended and would make a wonderful Christmas gift. Price: $37.00 posted.

"Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7," by Ernst Zundel.
Australians let us all beware, for our systems of Anglo-Saxon-Christian Law have been dangerously white-anted by an alien philosophy. Through the brave efforts of Ernst Zundel, a 'politically incorrect' political prisoner fighting for his freedoms, it is finally dawning on more within the Western World that in Canada a judge of the Federal Court can listen to secret witnesses and secret evidence, look at documents, listen to videos - anything at all - but, the accused and his lawyers will not be told the names of these witnesses, cannot test the documents for forgery, editing or anything else. And Truth is no defence. Yet the judge's decision is final! It cannot be appealed or reviewed by a higher court, not even the Supreme Court of Canada. Read for yourself. Price: $25.00 posted.

"Terror Laws: ASIO, Counter Terrorism & Threat to Democracy," by Jenny Hocking.
Detention without charge, indefinitely? Organisations banned without trial? Children kidnapped off the street, strip-searched, and interrogated without charge? Those things don't happen in Australia you say? Wake up Aussie or you are in for a rude awakening! Our once jealously guarded civil and political rights - freedom of expression, freedom of association, protection from arbitrary detention, the right to independent legal advice - have been deceitfully and cunningly tossed aside in the name of the "war on terror". Jenny Hocking traces the growth of Australia's internal security organizations to the powerful 'counter terrorism' networks that now reach into every corner of our lives. Price: $43.00 posted.

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