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 June 2008 Thought for the Week:

"But 1947 was also the year when the challenge against bank nationalisation forced on us a realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution, and in particular Section 92. Consequently, this led to a rethinking of our approach. Because, unless the Platform was just to stagnate into irrelevance, the search had to be made for alternative means of achieving our objectives…
"There was another important idea - a method more than a principle - which became closely associated with Fabianism. Sidney Webb called it 'permeation'. Today it would be called 'consensus'….
"That I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of this nation in our first term of office. From the National Summit on, we have attempted to transform the atmosphere of politics - the background, the assumptions, the shared information and perceptions of common goals, through which decisions can be made, not just by the Government and Parliament but by key groups and interests like business and unions…"

- - Taken from Speech by (former) Prime Minister Robert (Bob) Hawke - to the Fabian Society Centenary Dinner, Melbourne 18 May 1984.

"Nation Tired of Confrontation, says Hawke": But Hawke has some advice for Rudd: remember that Australia 'is the most over-governed country in the world with its many houses of parliament"; and as Rudd proceeds with reform through the Council of Australian Governments, beware the nonsense about states' rights.'

- - Paul Kelly, The Australian, 5 March 2008


by Patrick O'Shea
Liberty: the catchcry; Equality: the objective; Fraternity: the happy ending when the workers rule the world ! Workers of the world unite: we will attain our Utopia ! Or so they thought. But, the deceived were to learn: instead of the Proletariat ruling, it was The Party that now ruled and they were to do as they were told. As in George Orwell's "Animal Farm" they were to learn all men are equal but some are more equal than others!

Nearing the end of the dark days of World War I, the world was to witness the next phase of the Revolution. This time, the bloody takeover of Christian Russia by the Bolsheviks It is difficult for present Australians to comprehend the magnitude of the savagery and brutality inflicted upon the various peoples of Russia during this phase.
But the revolution must push on: with the Socialist International firmly in power under the Soviet regime, other tactics would be needed for the western phase. They had learned armed revolution would not work in the West.

Enter Cultural Marxism - the Ideological Phase
In the Australia of the 1920s, money poured in from the sympathetic European Socialist Internationale and the instructions for methods came direct from Moscow to the Australian communists. In fact, in the early stages of development for the Communist Party in Australia, funds were never a problem. It is sickening to research the naivety of grown men of those days accepting the communist brainwashing and believing in the fight for the 'glory of the Soviet'. One of the main objectives was to change the Labor Party's nationalistic platform to one of Socialism.

Some of the earliest prominent Trades Union members travelled to Moscow to receive their instructions and orders on how to betray their fellow countrymen and achieve this aim. For those who care to scrutinise it, they will see the Marxist platform of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is still in place today.
How was this achieved? It was the Union Movement's structure through which these revolutionaries gained the power to control and direct and discipline the ALP members busily ushering in the Socialist agenda. Working away at ensuring the election of their own people to Federal Parliament was one of their main objectives.

1949 and China
The Chinese peoples were subjugated by Chairman Mao's Red Brigade with the backing of sympathetic western powers and the Christian Chinese and foreign missionaries were slaughtered like dogs.*

But Australia was not to be forgotten by the Socialist International
It was to become 'Red' via the Labor Party. A 'Labor' college was set up to instruct the comrades in establishing the Red International Labour Unions. The documented facts survive to this day.**
Work-clothed militant union officials, leading bloody-minded strikes one year changed into business suits the next. They then 'swanned' around in chauffeured-driven government limousines as Senators and Senate leaders.

Over time, Communists and Labor Party members became indistinguishable. Frequently Party conferences were one and the same thing. You could be a Communist one day and a Labor man the next. They dreamed of the day when Federal Parliament became their 'machine' for implementing the instructions from the Comintern for revolutionary war.

And then '. The Fabian Society
In the West, the Marxist cultural phase is mainly through the Fabian Society and Labor governments. The Fabian Society is the training ground for many who seek the pathway to Labor Party power. Fabian objectives are the same as the Communists but their way is not through armed revolution. Theirs is 'softly, softly catches monkey' or as Bob Hawke would put it: through 'consensus'.

The final phase of the Revolution is the complete subjugation of the peoples of the world - an unchallengeable power imposed through sheer brutality. And unless Australians arise from their sleep-walking and act to regain their freedoms, they will experience as much bitter fruit as did the Russian and Chinese peoples and as the Tibetans now do.

* "The Red Lacquered Gate". Try the internet for a copy. ** "The Garden Path," by M.H. Ellis, 1949; "Comrade No More" by Tony McGillick, 1980.


by Betty Luks
After reading Andrew Coyne's article (below) on the antics of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and the psycho-political pressure that it wields upon its hapless victims, echoes from the past reverberated into the present day 'politically correct' climate for me.
I searched out my tattered 1972 copy of "Notes From the Red House", a report smuggled out of the Soviet Union exposing the psycho-political pressure, along with the mind-bending drugs, meted out to dissidents, not criminals mind you, but dissidents, within that slave state.

These were men and women who came to the attention of the KGB authorities as still having a mind of their own, whose spirit had not been broken, who had not wholly conformed to the 'thought processes', the 'politically correct' policies of the brutal Communist authorities.

The booklet lists some of these men
Vassily Ivanovitch Chernyshev, professor of mathematics, who was confined in the Leningrad "Special Psychiatric Hospital" wrote: "Although I am afraid of death, I would rather be shot. How horrible, how loathsome is the mere thought that my soul will be soiled, crushed! Man's individuality vanishes, his brain is numbed, his sensibility destroyed, his memory lost.
But what is worse, as a result of the "treatment", the delicate texture of human personality is coarsened, and this - brings death to creation. People forced to take "aminazin" cannot so much as read after taking the drug. Their mental process becomes an increasingly coarse and primitive one".

N.I. Chernyshev testifies that for more than 25 years, N.I. Broslavsky - a sane man - has been languishing in the same "hospital". He is offered freedom if he denies his faith in God.

Guenady Mikhaiovich Shimanov, (writer of the report): After further "treatment", the author expects to be released from the "hospital" and sent back to his beloved wife, a "feeble-minded, slobbering-mouthed, giggling individual". "There has been some progress!"- the psychiatrist will say, "he has already lost his faith in God. Yet it is true that he reasons with some difficulty and can hardly move his tongue around, but his previous logic was merely a superficial one; as a matter of fact, he was raving."

"Special Psychiatric Hospitals" are known to exist in Kazan, Sychevka (Smolensk region), Leningrad, Cherniahovsk, Minsk, Dniepropetrovsk, Orel. It is very likely that they are also to be found in other regions. In many psychiatric hospitals special wards have been set aside for "treatment" against dissidents of all complexions.

The Moscow Patriarchate, recognized by the atheistic Government of the USSR, and kept under its control, maintains a stony silence."


Andrew Coyne, in Maclean's magazine writes:
"I think my favourite 60 Minutes segment ever was the time shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union that they sent a liberal Russian journalist to interview the surviving members of the Moscow base Institute of the Brain.
The Institute as its name does not quite imply was set up after Lenin's death in 1924 for the purpose of analysing just what it was about the great man's brain that made him superior to other men.
Lenin's body, or corpse, was embalmed, and kept on public view in Red Square. But the brain they'd cut up into thousands of micro-thin slices, the better to perform various tests on it. Which they'd be doing ever since.

What made the piece work was, in part, how deadpan it was. The correspondent never cracked a smile as he interviewed these people who had spent their lives in such sublimely pointless pursuit. But what really made it soar was the detail. I can tell you about the Institute for the Study of Lenin's Brain. But unless you saw it up close - unless you watched these poor, lunatic pseudo-scientists describe their work, at length and with evident pride - you would not capture the full absurdity of it.

I feel much the same way now, after two days spent in a downtown Vancouver court room watching the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's hearings into the case of Mohamed Elmasry et al. versus Mark Steyn and Maclean's. I have tried to convey some of the sense of what I have seen in my posts to the magazine's website. But I fear that unless you were actually in that tiny, suffocating room, you could not fully grasp just how utterly deranged the proceedings were.

You will perhaps be familiar with the case.
It concerns an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, published in Maclean's a year and a half ago. You will recall that a group of students under Elmasry's influence approached the magazine some months after publication demanding it publish an article of equal length, (5,000 worlds!) unedited, together with cover art of their choosing. I do not know of any magazine anywhere that has ever consented to such demands.

So instead we are in court - or rather, not court, but some mad parody of a court, whose contours seem to bend and stretch like some psychedelic vision circa Yellow Submarine.
Things are not quite as bad in B.C. as in Ontario, where the province's human rights commission felt able to issue a judgment without the cost and inconvenience of a hearing. But it's a near thing.

Free speech denied - even truth is not a defence:
Section 7.1 of the B.C. Human Rights: " 'prohibits "any statement, publication, notice, etc., that is likely to expose a person or a group or a class of persons to hatred or contempt." Not that it actually exposes them to anything note: just that it's likely to.

Nor does section 7.1 make any allowance for the usual defences that apply where the law intrudes upon free speech rights. There is no defence of fair comment, for example, or of the public interest, or of good faith. Most notoriously even truth is not a defence.

The "remedies" at the tribunals command are equally breathtaking. Should, I don't know, a magazine be found to have contravened the code, the tribunal must, at a minimum, order that unnamed magazine to "cease the contravention"- i.e. to stop publishing whatever sort of material;; it was that the tribunal deemed unpublishable.
But the tribunal can also force it to publish something, or make it pay compensation to whoever launched the complaint against it. But it is the actual process of hearing cases that the going gets really weird.

As was evident this week, it isn't just that the tribunals have lower standards than regular courts when it comes to rule of evidence, protections for the accused and so on - it's that they have no standards.
Practices that would earn prosecutors a stern rebuke, if not summary dismissal, in any proper court - failure to disclose, hearsay, you know, all that Perry Mason stuff - were here the subject of furrowed brows and frequent huddles among the three panellists. They truly appeared to be making it up as they went along.

In consequence, our high-priced legal help, fine lawyers that they are, found themselves boxing with shadows: all but forbidden to mount a defence, raising objections to evidence without the first clue of what rules, if any, the tribunal would apply, plowing methodically through whatever odd bits of flotsam and jetsam the complainants could think to throw at them - not just their own subjective reactions to Steyn's piece, but polls, blog posts, reports on Islamophobia in other countries, the works.

Is it any wonder that I concluded, even before the hearing began, that our best strategy was to lose? Win the case, and all we do is legitimise the process. See, its defenders would argue - the system works, correctly distinguishing between an occasionally over-the-top polemicist like Steyn and a real, honest-to-God hate-monger. And so we would simply be teeing up the next complainant, and the next.

For what they seek, is not, as they pretend, the right of reply. Their purpose is rather to prevent the offending material from being published in the first place. No, the only answer is to lose, and challenge the law on appeal, on constitutional grounds - and if that doesn't work, to embarrass the politicians into repealing it.

I'm guessing the tribunal can see the threat to their livelihoods if they convict Maclean's, and will do all they can to acquit us. But I have every confidence our lawyers can outwit them."


by Peter West
How must life be for former PM Paul Keating? It seems to me that he now exists in the media solely in nasty outbursts about individuals. Thus he attacked 'conservative' columnist Janet Albrechtsen as "a no-talent proselytiser for causes overtaken by history." (The Australian 29/2/2008) Oh come now Paul my boy. That's like saying you are an Australian nationalist. It is your causes - of multiculturalism, globalism and Indonesia worship - which are being overtaken by history. In the future you may not even be remembered as a bad memory.

Speaking of bad memories, Bob Hawke took time from golf and other arrangements (see The Australian 5/3/08 p.7 for Hawke on the golf course) to tell us: "What are states' rights? There are no such things as states' rights." Why: because "states consist of people, Australian people."

The same reductionist logic would prove that there are no Federal rights either. Talk about centralism on the brain! Maybe Paul and Bob could get together and take the show on the road. They would make a great team with talents to dwarf Lennon and McCartney. I can't wait for their first album.

P.S. It has been announced Mr. Keating is now to be 'recycled' by Rudd Labor. He is to take up a post in London promoting tourism for Australia. What! This is the very man who said "Australia was the *!*#hole of the world." Well, I never.


by Peter Ewer
The claim was made on ABC Lateline by Chicago-based economist David Hale, in conversation with presenter Tony Jones that US "racists" killed Martin Luther King. Here is a quote from a transcript published in The Australian (6/3/08, p.15):
"We have a lot of guns and we also have a lot of people who are deeply racist. They killed Martin Luther King 40 years ago."

Did the "racists" kill thesis-plagiarist and adulterer and woman-beater, civil-rights activist Martin Luther King? Let google do the hard research work. The official story is that James Earl Ray killed King. He allegedly did it not for reasons of race, but because of King's communism.
No major US civil rights spokesman has pushed the "racists did it" line. In fact King's son Dexter King publicly supports the retrial of Ray.

Jesse Jackson, US civil rights activist thinks that the US government did the job. No, we are not talking about Port Arthur, but Memphis Tennessee, 4 April 1968. Funny how all of these conspiracies all have the same structure.


Report and Comment by Nigel Jackson:
Occasionally something appears in the major media which casts a brilliant light on the political realities of our times. Such surely was the news report 'EU nervous ahead of Irish vote on treaty', which appeared in The Australian on 11 June. So far as I know, this was the first mention by the paper of the vital opportunity given to the Irish to halt the EU juggernaut.

In March the UK Government refused to allow the British people a vote on the Treaty of Lisbon, which appears to doom their national independence, even though 70% or more appeared opposed to it. Instead the Government endorsed the treaty in the House of Commons, breaking its pre-election promise to hold a referendum and using deceit to claim that the treaty is not a re-run of the proposed EU constitution which had already been defeated in referendums in France and Holland. In fact, it is 96% the same.

The Irish constitution required a referendum be held. If the Irish voted NO (as they later did), the Treaty of Lisbon would fail and the British would be free again.
Now, note these extraordinary features of the reporting on these matters by The Australian. The only reference to the UK events that I had noticed before 11 June was in an article by Professor James Allan. On Target, but not The Australian, published my letter amplifying and supporting Allan's comments.
The Australian was now telling its readers about the Irish vote only a day or two before it would happen. No chance for Australians to help the NO campaign at such short notice! The paper described the protection given to the Irish by their constitution as 'a quirk of Irish law'. The YES vote was being supported, we were told, 'by all the main political parties and trade unions'. That means the Establishment, of course.

We were told that 'the treaty's backers' were resorting to threats if the Irish voted NO. The Australian described the NO camp as 'a motley alliance of die-hard Catholics, radical socialists and Sinn Fein politicians' - not a favourable portrait! There was finally a bland report, without comment, that a NO vote would not be accepted and the Irish in that case would be asked to think again.
Quite plainly, there seems to be a secret power working to herd Europeans into a super-state in which their cultures will be eroded, languages lost and freedoms diminished; and The Australian appears to have co-operated most generously with that power. It is worth adding that no Australian politician of significance seems to have warned us what was going on.

Further bias shown: The Irish did vote NO by 53.4% to 46.6% in a reasonably high voter turnout of 53%. The bias and lack of magnanimity of the press in reporting the NO victory has shown even more strongly their secret alliance with the powers behind the scenes.
In its report ('Europe mystified as Irish kill treaty', 14-15 June) The Australian began by referring to 'the cantankerous voters of Ireland' - as rude and unchivalrous an attribution as I have ever seen in a major newspaper. It added that the Irish Prime Minister would 'be under pressure from other leaders to hold a second vote to overturn the rejection.' What could be clearer than the fundamentally tyrannous attitude there revealed?

The Age, as it were, wept tears as it told readers ('Ireland rejects key EU treaty', 14 June) that the Irish vote could 'wreck a treaty painstakingly negotiated over years by leaders of all 27 member states.' How sad! There was not a word, however, about the promise-breaking and deceit practised by some of these 'leaders' (they were hardly 'representatives') in ensuring that referendums were not allowed in their nations.

The Sunday Age ('Irish NO vote stymies key reforms of EU', 15 June) used exaggeration in claiming that the Irish vote had 'thrown Europe into political turmoil' rather than caused anguish to certain power elites. The result was blamed on fear, ignoring the fact that fear of tyranny is sensible and ethically acceptable. However, all was not lost for the tyrants (the paper did not put it like that, of course): 'Other European countries said they would try to press ahead for a way to make the Lisbon Treaty work after all' (moving the goalposts during the game!).

On 16 June The Australian published a news report ('Europe powers vow to push on without Irish') which advised that France, Germany and EU officials in Brussels were planning 'to press ahead' with the treaty 'despite Ireland's shock rejection of the blueprint.' It added that Britain and Czechoslovakia felt the treaty was dead. Only near the end of the report came an admission that 'there are signs that across Europe political leaders will face growing public opposition if they disregard the Irish vote.' Below its report The Australian published an opinion article ('Dublin should do right thing and leave the EU') by a former Danish foreign minister and EU supporter, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, who referred to 'the unfortunate Irish tradition for referendums'!

On 17 June The Australian news report ('EU crisis talks on treaty's defeat') advised that 'most EU leaders have insisted ratification should continue in the eight nations that have not yet endorsed the treaty' and claimed that 'doing so would put huge pressure on Ireland to hold a fresh referendum'. Only in the last of the fourteen paragraphs was there a tiny note that EU leaders risk 'being accused of ignoring their citizens.'

Thinking it Over: None of these reports for a moment considered the thought that, if the Irish folk said NO, then maybe many of the other peoples of Europe might also say NO in referendums, in which case it would only be just to hold those referendums.
The Age
on 16 June ('Irish "ayes" outnumbered as voters turn their no's up at Europe's advances') noted that there is now 'enormous pressure on British PM Gordon Brown, who will be badgered into revisiting an early promise to have a referendum in Britain too.' It also stated that the treaty would be considered in both houses of Parliament on 18 June.
In my view all people who cherish continued British independence should write to Her Majesty the Queen appealing to her to refuse to allow Britain to be further integrated into the EU unless the British people have endorsed such a move in a referendum.

It was good that on 16 June an editorial in The Australian ('Celtic snub to the EU') was more reasonable than the paper's other coverage, admitting that the Irish NO vote was 'a clear expression of where its public wants to draw the line' and had 'highlighted how out of touch the Continent's political elite are'. The editorial added that Irish voters were 'calling a halt to 50 years of creeping federalism in Europe'. Clearly they were disinclined to yield 'any aspect of national sovereignty' to a 'supranational bureaucracy'.

Also, on 17 June The Australian published an excellent letter by a British citizen, Dr D. R. Cooper of Maidenhead. Dr Cooper remarked that 'we shall shortly discover the true extent to which the EU respects the rule of law, as claimed on its website.' He pointed out that 'any attempt by the EU to circumvent that 'NO' in order to implement (the treaty) would clearly be illegal under its own law', as would be 'any kind of victimisation of the Irish people for exercising their legal right of veto.'

Here in Australia those of us who cherish our British blood and our ties with our motherland must surely exert ourselves energetically to prevent any further loss of British sovereignty to the EU. The Irish NO is a godsend; but there is still much to do.


From the Gold Coast Citizens Community Forums:
A lot of folk can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country. Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil. We just didn't know we were getting low. The reason for that is purely geographical.

Our OIL is located in Bass Strait; East Queensland Shale Fields; Canning Basin; Perth Basin and the North-West Continental Shelf.

BUT ! Our DIPSTICKS are located in Canberra!! Any Questions ? NO? I didn't think so.


On Target asks Vol.44 No.22 : "We wonder, will the Christian Church leaders stand up to be counted, thus defending the rights granted them as long ago as 1215AD under Magna Carta?" I say no.
I have zero faith in the conventional/orthodox 'Christian' leaders. I don't even think they are Christian - they are a compliant component of a misguided Western academia that is incapable of seeing beyond their compartmentalised conception of the world.
A few of them are kindly men and women but their training and 'education' has condemned even these from gaining any sort of coherent view of reality.
It will take 'outsiders' from the mainstream to see that Christ offers us a coherent view of the world, perfectly in keeping with our human nature and the ways and workings of the universe.

Another matter: Piers Ackerman wrote (Daily Telegraph 4/6/08) of: a "......successful New Zealand model for guest workers from Pacific nations....." What a twit. I wonder if he has spent time in Auckland's southern suburbs? A UK policeman working here told my sister that South Auckland is worse than he experienced in Brixton. I expect we will see riots before too many more years."

- - Bill Daly, New Zealand June 2008

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