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

14 March 2008 Thought for the Week:

"Freedom to read and freedom to write
They only fear the truth whom the truth shall indict."

-- Scotland's poet son, Robert Burns


DR. FREDRICK TOBEN IN COURT - AGAIN

by Betty Luks
Dr. Ferdrick Toben recently appeared before the Federal Court (The Australian 28/2/08) to face a civil contempt of court complaint by Mr. Jeremy Jones a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Mr. Jones wants Dr. Toben to remove material presently on his Adelaide Institute website which Mr. Jones refers to as "Holocaust denial". Justice Moore has adjourned the case to a date in April, ahead of a possible hearing in June.
Dr. Toben spent seven months in a German prison for daring to challenge the only legally permitted version, by the German authorities, of 'the Holocaust'.

Mark that carefully fellow Australians
It was not because he committed a crime that Dr. Toben was gaoled. He did not commit a criminal act. He did not rob, nor steal, nor commit murder, etc. He dared to disagree with the official version of the 'Holocaust'; he dared to publicly express his opinion and the German authorities imprisoned him!

It is many years since the Australian League of Rights warned fellow Australians that to allow Race and Religious Vilification legislation to be enacted would lead to legal tyranny. Well, now the chickens are coming home to roost. Who will next be hauled before the HREOC for daring to think and write for himself or herself?


PERSECUTION OF 'HOLOCAUST DENIERS'

by Nigel Jackson
To the Editor, The Australian. 29th February 2008:
History shows us that periodically certain fanaticisms take hold of large numbers of human beings with extraordinary intensity of irrationality. Such is true of the current worldwide persecution of those misleadingly called by their opponents 'Holocaust deniers' and then demonised as such.
Manifestations of this persecution include an Australian Parliament statement against 'Holocaust denial' (as inappropriate a use of parliamentary authority as the recent 'sorry' statement), a UNO call on all member states to prosecute the campaign against 'Holocaust deniers', the gaoling of Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in Germany and the current harassment of Robert Faurisson in France.
This persecution is a wicked affront to the principle of intellectual freedom and Dr Frederick Toben ('Holocaust denier claims conspiracy', 29/2) is one of the latest victims. Even if some of his allegations about the Federal Court and some of its judges prove to be erroneous, it still remains true that the present legal attempt to silence him is unjust and unwise.
Matters of history should be able to be discussed in open public debate and it is not the business of either Parliament or the courts to stifle such debate.


THE END OF THE WEST IS IN CANADA

by James Reed
In her own way conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen has recognised that the end of the West is in Canada ("Too Many Rights Make a Wrong for Freedom of Speech," The Australian 16 January 2008 p.12). Canada's Human Rights and Citizenship Committee has greater power than our own Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
According to legal authorities that she sights, the creators of these commissions in the 1960s and 1970s never foresaw that they would expand their jurisdiction and swallow freedom of speech whole. That they did not see this takes some believing in my opinion.
Nevertheless, today even publishing excerpts from books readily available from mainstream publishers such as Mark Steyn's "America Alone", which discusses the Muslim threat to the West, can put one in trouble.

Political Correctness Never Dies: It Just Gets More Sinister
And it will happen here too, without, of course fierce opposition. The 'Human Righters' are likewise pushing for more legislation, and a Bill of Wrongs, sorry 'Rights'.
And under Rudd we are back to the Keating days of political correctness where one only has to blink off cue to be slammed as a racist. Those brave souls opposing the 'Sorry' circus were hosed down with the anti-racism fire hose.
There have been calls by the Left for removal of the few (mild) conservatives in the media. No divergence from the party line is permitted. The cultural wars are not over: they have yet to begin!


SORRY - EVEN BLIND FREDDY COULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING

by James Reed
After the euphoria of the apology to the "Stolen" generation, Rudd's approval rating reached 70 per cent. The punters out there in democracy land loved it; they got into the swing of things.
But opinion polls showed that they did not want to pay compensation. Wait - "sorry" means that you were at fault. "Sorry" implies responsibility and responsibility implies compensation.

Rudd gagged the publication of legal advice on the implications of the apology because he wanted to enter parliament as PM and as a great white anti-racist. So let us not confuse matters with the consequences of our actions.
Now there is a flood of compensation claims - 1,000 claims in Western Australia and the Northern Territory alone: "Lawsuits Prepared for Stolen," The Australian 21/2/08 p.4). The lawyers have been busy indeed!

Now let all those supporting a "sorry" come forward and pay for it. Will those brave millionaires, crying crocodile tears to prove what humanitarians they are - will they be the first to dig into their pockets? Hell will freeze over first: it is always the public till that must be tickled.


EXAMPLE OF A PROCESS BUT NOT OF A GENUINE DEMOCRACY

by Betty Luks
The following is a good example of an organisation that clearly has an undergirding philosophy that is in conflict with its stated aims. It claims to be "an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group" that wants to "use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues". But, by some process quite unknown to those it wants to recruit en masse to its campaigns, 'it' first decides what the issues are and what is the policy position to be taken. It is therefore in advance of the Australian electors, as to the issue and policy to be decided upon.

Their claim is that they "receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign [they] run is entirely supported by voluntary donations." Fair enough. But one can hardly call it democratic. If it was genuinely democratic this group would use their technology to give the electors the opportunity to vote on one issue at a time and then convey to the Parliament the results of the surveys. Just as HASCO has impartially been doing for quite some time. Whomsoever runs this organisation deems it appropriate to determine in advance just what issues should receive their attention on the basis of their own philosophical position.

Look at the following communiqué received from them before Rudd's 'apology':
"Our Indigenous colleagues have stressed two factors in the success of this new way forward.
First, the supreme importance of cross party support when the PM takes to the Parliament floor. So, if your MP is Liberal, please urge him or her to push the party leadership to support the apology.
Second, the apology was always only meant to be the first step and must be acknowledged as such. So, if your MP is Labor, please support, commend, and thank them - but also remind them that this a starting point and that what is required now is the full and comprehensive response to the Bringing Them Home Report." (Emphasis in original)

Really Mr. Webmaster of GetUp ?
Where on your voting mechanism is there a spot for me to record my objection - whereby my objection will be made known to 'Parliament'? And who authorised you to choose this particular version of Australian Indigenous history? The 'Stolen Generation'? Many would say the 'Rescued Generation'!

I don't like your version of 'democracy' - in fact, I reject it! I want to have more control over my own affairs than either you or governments want me to have. I suggest you should have mounted a campaign inviting the Rudd government to put the matter to the people in the form of a Referendum.

Although the whole matter is so flawed and consists of so many half-truths and downright lies, let's put a theoretical case as to how a referendum could have been conducted.

The ballot paper would include another separate section for those Australians who voted:

'YES' I agree with the proposal to mount an 'apology' and
'Yes' I agree with Compensation Claims being recognised and paid out.

The separate section would go something like this:
"I hereby authorise the Taxation Department to collect the taxes from my pay packet for as long as the 'Sorry' Claims have to be met".

The Ballot Paper could read something like this:
"Do you agree to the Rudd government apologising to what are termed the 'stolen generations'? [Yes] [No]
Do you agree that Compensation Claims should be recognised? [Yes] [No]

If you have voted YES: you have agreed to Compensation Claims being paid out of taxation. To ensure that your specific contributions are collected and acknowledged, please register your
Name : Address : Tax File Number and/or Bank Account Number (and any other necessary details).
Your 'Yes' Vote will make you legally responsible to contribute your share of the Taxes necessary to cover the Claims until all paid out."


Saying 'Sorry' makes you morally and legally liable: In the light of James Reed's article just saying 'sorry' should make you liable to pay your share of the taxes! Those who disagree should not be made legally responsible to pay those taxes based on the YES voters' choice.

Now, that seems a fairer system to me, and much more 'democratic' than the present system we groan under.


GOD, GENETIC ENGINEERING AND THE NATURE OF LIFE

by James Reed
Britain is allowing their mad scientists to create human/animal hybrid-animals for research. This is all a spin-off of stem cell research; all that one has to say is "our team will get a cure for cancer" and, seemingly, 'the team' is free to do what it wants, however mad. One critic said that hybrids would be sub-human slaves, made for the purpose of research: with that I heartily agree.

Barry Commoner in "The Spurious Foundations of Genetic Engineering" Harpers, February 2002, pointed out then that advocates of cloning seldom mention that most clones exhibit development failure. Genetic defects are more common than not. The reason for this is that the Human Genome Project is a failure: there are too few genes to account for the complexity of biological form, but genetic engineering is based on the "central dogma" of genetics, that genes determine physical traits. But "if the human gene count is too low to match the number of proteins and the numerous inherited traits that they engender, and if it cannot explain the vast inherited difference between a weed and a person, there must be more to the 'ultimate description of life' than the genes, on their own, can tell us."

As I understand it, recent advances in the understanding of 'junk DNA' (Nature 447, 14 June 2007), support Commoner's position. Genetically engineered organisms are potentially dangerous because they have been created on the basis of a flawed genetics. We cannot predict all the consequences of releasing such organisms into nature.

THE DOGMA OF ANTI-RACIST BIOLOGY
by Brian Simpson
According to Mark Pagel, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Reading in England ("Our World is Growing Apart as People Adapt to their Environment," The Weekend Australian 16-17/2/08 p.23) it may be an exaggeration to say, with geneticist Richard Lewontin, that there is no such thing as race, but the truth is not far off.

"The old ideas about race are flawed," he says, as there are "no abrupt genetic boundaries" separating people. He then goes on to say that the Human Genome Project has shown that most people are 99.5 per cent similar. Yet at the most basic building block DNA level, we are 98.5 per cent similar to chimpanzees as well and not much different genetically from blackberries! Surely the genetic dogmas behind this type of reasoning need exposure because they conflict with scientific facts.

Pagel begins his article by citing DNA co-discoverer and Nobel prize-winner James Watson's view that Africans have a lower IQ than Whites and East Asians. Pagel boldly says, "there is no evidence for innate differences in intelligence" - completely ignoring a major debate that has raged for decades on this issue.

Perhaps he would like to confront the evidence presented in Frank Salter's "On Genetic Interests," (Peter Lang, New York, 2003). There is also the work of Michael Hart on the role of IQ differences in human history, explained in his book, "Understanding Human History".

Even William Saletan writing from the Left ("Created Equal" at https://www.slate.com) has accepted that racial differences in IQ are genetic. Somehow, The Australian hasn't woken up that this debate has already been won and that Pagel's side has lost.


ON GIVING SCIENCE A SMACK

by James Reed
Even though most scientists work for the military and are involved in some shape or form in producing either, weapons of mass destruction, or death and destruction in some form, science as an institution seldom gets criticised outside of left-wing and environmentalist circles. Yet science is at the foreground of the promotion of a materialist philosophy of modernism. For example, evolution, according to this view is fact, not theory. There is no room for God, miracles or the resurrection of the dead in this world-view.

In this context it is refreshing to see Tom Bethell's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science", published by Regnery Press. This is part of the 'PIG' series, which for conservative texts is pretty good - but I would like to see such a book on finance, banking and social credit! In any case, this book by Bethell goes after the environmentalists and hits them hard on topics like the global warming scam, AIDS and genetic engineering and an excellent attack on Darwinism.

Bethell points out that few Christian medieval scholars ever doubted that the earth was round (p.182) and he quotes C.S. Lewis who wrote that "all the authors of the high Middle Ages are agreed… The implications of a spherical earth were fully grasped." (p.183) This idea that Christianity was committed to a flat earth theory is pure myth. Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition because of his mixture of theological views into his science: if he had been more careful he could have avoided conflict.

This is a very interesting book which is sympathetic to a Christian audience: it was a pleasure to read and I found each page an education in itself.


NEW CHILD SEX FURORE : BEAT THIS HEADLINE !

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The headline "Gang Rape Judge in New Child Sex Furore" is from page 1 of The Australian, 15 February 2008. What could top it? The first paragraph of the article reads: "The north Queensland judge who last year allowed nine child rapists to go free has given a teacher, who has admitted forcing an indigenous 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him, time to gather evidence that he was educating his victim in "men's business."
"

Leaving aside what must be going on in "men's business", what is bizarre about this is that such evidence, even if true, is still no defence at law to the charge.
None of this politically correct mythology differs much from the now Official version of the "Stolen" generation. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity report Bringing Them Home said that "genocide" occurred with the "Stolen" generation. These claims have been tested in court and have failed. Academic critics have subjected these claims to scrutiny and found them lacking. Keith Windshuttle (The Australian 9-10/2/08 p.21) has done a good job of demolishing these arguments. The fact is that as a matter of definition it can't be racism to put mixed blood Aboriginal/White children in white homes. Only if one is an anti-white racist, as most establishment elites are, could one conclude this. Every case could be seen as protecting partly White children. Where pure blood Aboriginal children were removed, examine the facts for each case. None of this though constitutes genocide. More children would have died if nothing were done.

Is this what the "Stolen" generation would have wanted? That would have been "genocide", but they would not be here to make compensation claims. Surely in the context of the times, where white children were also removed from white families if in danger, the "Stolen" generation is really the "Saved" generation?


ON UGLINESS

by Peter Ewer
Leading global intellectual Umberto Eco (author of the novel "The Name of the Rose") gives a historical argument in his new book "On Ugliness" (Rizzoli 2007) that ugliness is a subjective quality, in the eye of the beholder. He sets out to do this with what is essentially a set of quotes, which with some commentary are supposed to speak for themselves in illustrating this author's position.
But nothing much is offered for discussion on the concept of ugliness in Asian culture and it is doubtful whether the embrace of cute cuddly extraterrestrials in movies such as Star Wars really proves anything by way of subjectivism.

Some people find lizards cute as well, I suppose. Some people amuse themselves with horror movies, it is true, just as the Romans of old watched Christians being fed to the lions. But all this shows is that people like adrenaline rushes and diversions. A so-called "semiotic" approach to art history doesn't prove much about social conditions that produced that art.

Eco is said by the chattering class to be one of the world's leading intellectuals. This, I think, says more about the limits of the chattering class than the enduring qualities of his work.


THE UNIVERSITY OF DODGY DEGREES

by James Reed
Articles regularly appear debunking the "international education cult": "A Source of Dodgy Degrees," The Australian 23/1/08 p.26; "Foreigners are Exploited," The Australian 6/2/08 p.21. It is clear: foreign students are treated as cash cows. They are herded in, given special ceremonies, whereupon they are 'milked' and given a degree. Markets go easy on them. Many of these students are rich, but some are like us, struggling to get by.

One can't blame foreign students for coming here and trying to get on in a tough world. I don't. I condemn a system that has made education into a supermarket; education has now overtaken tourism as Australia's biggest export and the number of international students is now over 450,000. By mathematics alone, these bodies take places Australian students could and should have.

Our universities are rotten to the core. Problems such as those described in the above cited articles are the logical outcome of such an intellectually corrupt system. The exploitation of foreign students is a higher form of "racism" than that of the great unwashed who don't like seeing so many foreign faces.
At least the "repulsion of colour" is honest and you know where you stand. To be treated as a cash cow, whilst having politically correct slogans whispered in your ear, smacks of deceit.


DON DUNSTAN REVISITED

from Len the Cleaner
Don Dunstan revisited? How could it have happened? A new play about the life and times of S.A. premier Don Dunstan premieres at the Adelaide Festival on 15 March. I won't be there. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would rather eat the sludge out of a wheelie bin than watch a play about Don Donstan. Thank god this…this…whatever you want to call him…did not make it to Federal politics.

I can remember my working class dad being with me when Don was once walking towards us in the Adelaide Central Market. My father turned to him and said: "the likes of you are traitors to the Labour movement and working men." Dunstan did not respond and walked on by, with his hot-pink pants on.

How could it have happened? How could they have voted for him? Why a Calwell, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard and a Rudd? Because the people have become sheaple and have forgotten that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a sense, they have got the rulers they richly deserve.


MODERN ECONOMICS AS A VOODOO RELIGION

by James Reed
Economist Robert H. Nelsen has written an iconoclastic book: "Economics as a Religion" (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001). His thesis is simple but brutal: economists are more like theologians than scientists.
Their basic role "is to serve as the priesthood of a modern secular religion of economic progress that serves many of the same functions in contemporary society as earlier Christian and other religions did in their time." (p. xv)

In fact, Christianity's philosophical roots are strong, while modern economics has been debunked in book after book, but like a Zombie of the living dead, economics continues to arise from its grave. It is better, I think, to compare orthodox economics to some type of voodoo cult.


FORMER FEDERAL HEALTH MINISTER AND FLUORIDATION

from QAWF
With the kind permission of Dr Everingham this recent letter is being forwarded to all Queensland MPs, and others, by Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc (www.qawf.org) Dr. Everingham was Health Minister in the Whitlam Government 1972-1975.

He writes: As a family doctor and often Acting Government Medical Officer in Rockhampton in the 1950s, I wrote a letter praising fluoridation published in the local The Morning Bulletin.
This prompted the late Jack Harding and others to show me books that warned of fluoridation risks. I read those books and have continued to look at reports for and against fluoridation in medical journals and elsewhere.
Reports still not disproved suggest involvement of fluoride medication in contributing after some years of consumption to reduced immunities or increased intensity or numbers of cases of disorders in human and animal development or function of bones, joints, brain, thyroid and other tissues.
Many of the water supplies now fluoridated were earlier showing dental signs of fluoride overdose in a significant proportion of their consumers, and fluoridation increases the prevalence and intensity of such dental fluorosis.
Reports criticize poor experimental and statistical methods in most surveys that favour water fluoridation. Official policy promoters overwhelmingly concede that public water supplies with 4 ppm fluoride are a hazard. Lower limits have been suggested for infants, sufferers from certain metabolic problems and persons exposed to hot conditions. No minimum concentration of fluoride in communal water supplies or in individual fluoride intake has been shown as necessary to produce fluorosis-free, cares-free teeth. Despite repeated calls for such assessment by official reports.
Many studies suggest that the only proven caries-preventing function of fluoride lies in carefully applying toothpaste and dental therapy to tooth enamel, not in swallowing fluoride. Many authors want all artificial fluoridation stopped and natural water supplies limited to some unspecified fluoride level below 1 ppm.
Such authors include professionals formerly in charge of government promotion or direction of fluoridation. Among these are the former Dean of Melbourne's dental school, Sir Arthur Amies, Dr John Colquhoun of New Zealand; and others in the few countries that still promote fluoridation, as well as many that have abandoned or avoided it.
Associate Professor Hardy Limeback, PhD, BSc, Doctor of Dental Surgery, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto and Past President, Canadian Association for Dental Research, is typical of ever more researchers who have turned against fluoridation. In 1999 he apologized for inadvertently misleading colleagues and students saying: "For the past 15 years I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
It thus took that eminent expert 15 years to face plain and crucial scientific facts that were avoided and disparaged by traditional authorities and some industrial sponsors. I took me 10 years after graduating.
It is time for remaining fluoridation promoters to get past collecting titles of supporting political authorities and stop ridiculing opponents as if they were all dupes, cranks, quacks or dimwits. They may then make a similar apology.

--- Doug N, Everingham M.B., B.S. (University of Sydney, 1946) Member, Australian House of Representatives 1967-75 and 1977-84. Australian Minister for Health 1972-75 Vice-President [West Pacific Region's nominee] at World Health Assembly, Geneva 1975.

Post script from Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc. (QAWF):
The Federal Labor Party has initiatives in Oral Health that they can be very proud of (starting the School Dental Service - Gough Whitlam sent 100 dental therapists to New Zealand for training to get it started quickly) and Labor introduced the Commonwealth Oral Dental Health Scheme.
The Queensland Government's actions in forcing fluoridation and forcing it based on fraudulent data will never be an action that can be looked back on with pride.

PETITION FOR THOSE QUEENSLANDERS
opposed to fluoridation of your water supplies:

Go to - https://www.qawf.org/pages/email.html - AND ACT !

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