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

1 March 2013 Thought for the Week:

When asked the question: “What is freedom?” Clifford Hugh Douglas answered: “It is the right to choose or refuse one thing at a time.”

The cuneiform inscription is the earliest known written appearance of the word “freedom” (ama-gi) or “liberty”. It is taken from a clay document written about 2300BC in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

- - Taken from “Origins of the Common Law” by Arthur R. Hogue 1966  

Human Rights Commission - On Target 1985:
We were most pleased to read that an incoming Liberal-National Party government will abolish the Human Rights Commission. This body was set up by the Fraser Government in 1981 to implement the various pieces of legislation to be based on certain United Nations Conventions and Declarations. At that time, there was not the constitutional power for the Commonwealth to legislate fully on these UN statements.

That was all changed in May 1982, when the High Court of Australia ruled that the Racial Discrimination Act was valid. The position of the Commonwealth was further strengthened by the High Court's Franklin Dam ruling in 1983. These rulings shocked much of the legal fraternity in Australia, as they were clearly political decisions. But a few academics in the field of constitutional law pronounced that the High Court of Australia is a highly political instrument.

It is incredible that the whole face of traditional Australia may be changed by the decision of one man, as said by Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He was referring to the split decisions in both High Court rulings, which were 4-3 in favour of the Commonwealth.
Actionists are urged to commend Mr. John Howard, Mr. Andrew Peacock, and the Shadow Attorney-General, Mr. Neil Brown on their intended abolition of the Human Rights Commission, which under the Hawke Socialists/Communists is to become the cutting edge of the revolutionary United Nations edicts.
The new Bill of Rights, which the Communists will not allow the Hawke Government to shelve, will require the Human Rights Commission to cut and shape the legal pattern for the new People's Republic of Australia. Let us therefore make things as difficult as possible. The three gentlemen mentioned above may be written c/- Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600.


wrote Andrew Bolt on his Blog 17/2/2013.
“Last week the head of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, struggled to nominate anything her commission had done to protect our free speech - now under such attack from the Gillard Government. In fact, she suggested repeatedly she was more interested in defining the limits of free speech than in defending it. Just one of many examples in her testimony to a Senate committee… It says something very serious that the public is defending its most basic of human rights against the opposition of the Human Rights Council. The council should change its name. It doesn’t defend human rights but threatens.”

While it is pleasing to see Andrew is pursuing the issue of freedom of speech, he does need to be reminded Australians had a tradition of freedom of speech but it was sadly eroded thanks to the Liberals under Malcolm Fraser.

The Human Rights Commission was set up by the Liberals so as to implement United Nations edicts! By the way, what happened to the Howard government’s 1985 stated intention to abolish the Human Rights Commission? And how can we believe the latest claim on their behalf? If elected, we are assured:
“Liberals find their voice - and will defend yours”: Andrew Bolt, 20/2/2013.

How will the Liberals act this time? It seems we are to expect far-reaching changes in the Human Rights Commission’s culture, etc. No, they won’t abolish the Human Rights Commission if elected – but they will ‘transform the debate’.

Andrew continues: “Paul Kelly describes an inspiring Coalition plan to restore free speech in Australia”: “The Australian Human Rights Commission is slated for far-reaching changes in its culture, priorities and operational methods under a Coalition government, with opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis determined to transform the debate about human rights in Australia… Brandis believes the Left’s once commanding ascendancy over the human rights domain is now eroding because of overreach and a popular backlash. At Senate estimates last week and in an interview with The Australian this week, Brandis defined his line of attack: he believes the commission does not honour its statutory charter and pursues a highly selective and ideological agenda that is unacceptable to a Coalition government…”

Here we go again. The Liberal’s philosophical position has moved dramatically over the last fifty or so years.
I often refer to their 1949 “Statement of Liberal Party Beliefs” as I follow the direction they have taken this once independent and sovereign nation.
1949 – No 3: “We believe in the Individual:
We stand positively for the free man, his initiative, individuality, and acceptance of responsibility.”

1949 - No 13: “We Believe in the Great Human Freedoms:
to worship, to think; to speak; to choose; to be ambitious; to be independent; to be industrious; to acquire skill; to seek and earn reward.”

Whether the issue is Land Rights and the First People being written into the Commonwealth Constitution, Anti-Discrimination laws or Agenda 21, or the myriad of United Nations conventions and treaties that successive traitorous politicians of all political parties have exposed us to, please grasp the fact that they are all interconnected in one way or another – and none to our benefit or freedoms.

Ivor Benson in “Undeclared War: the Struggle for Africa” 1978, wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement that has not operated in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money – and that without the idealist among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact”.

Further reading:
“Land Rights Birth Rights (The Great Australian Hoax)” by Peter B. English, 1985.
This is an examination of the rights to ownership of former aboriginal land in Australia and should not cause any division in genuine Aboriginal societies. $12.00 + postage
“Storm Over Uluru: The Greatest Hoax of All” by Peter B. English, 1986. A resume of events leading up to the questionable hand-over of Australia’s most famous National Park to Aboriginal claimants. $12.00 + postage.
“Red Over Black: Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights” by Geoff McDonald, 1984.
A very revealing book about the driving forces behind the Land Rights push. Geoff McDonald was expelled from the Communist Party for daring to criticise the intentions behind the push for ‘land rights’. Tell me gentle reader – do you really think the lot of the Aboriginal people has been well served by the huge bureaucratic infrastructure set up to implement the policies of mainstream political parties? $10.00 + postage.
“The Evidence” by Geoff McDonald, 1986. This little gem reveals extracts on Aboriginal “Land Rights” from Official Communist Documents. $5.00 + postage.
SPECIAL ACTIONIST’S PACKAGE: The four books for $30.00 posted.

DVDs: Geoff McDonald “Red over Black” (some extra material on DVD) $12.00 posted.
Important: State and National Weekends – 3 DVDS for $25.00 posted.  


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Full page colour ads appeared in The Australian (13 February 2013, p.7 and 14 February 2013, p.8), the day of, and the day after the passage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act. Now what would this cost? Couldn’t the money have been spent to help outback Aborigines? No, there is an agenda here and Tony Rabbit and the Liberals are going along for the ride.

Northern Territory Liberal Adam Giles (“Story Didn’t Begin in 1901”, The Australian 14 February 2013, p.12) says that Australia’s history did not begin in 1901, but incorporates Aboriginal history. And what if the Aborigines were not the first ones here or the only ones here in prehistory?

That is the core assumption in this debate, that Aborigines were the only ones to occupy “Australia”, for what – 40,000 years? In fact, “Australia” began with British settlement. Australia is a nation state, a modern creation and not a mere land mass. The existence of indigenous people prior to this is irrelevant. The Asian countries have little concern for indigenous people in their lands; consider the Japanese attitude to the native people of their land whose existence doesn’t define Japan.

Finally, if any people deserve to be recognised in the Constitution it is the British – but the new class will never do this and instead work tirelessly to destroy Anglo-Australia. Well, on this issue fight them! Start telling everyone you know that Aboriginal recognition is a feel-good smokescreen that will give the lawyers chance to use the Constitution to create, in part, a bill of rights.  


A former anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele is now accusing the ruling ANC party of corruption, thwarting democracy, and abusing power. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/02/201321812375758625.html Mamphela Ramphele, an anti-apartheid activist and co-founder of South Africa's Black Conscious Movement, has announced the formation of a new political party to take on the 101-year-old African National Congress (ANC) of Nelson Mandela.

The 65-year-old medical doctor and social anthropologist told a news conference on Monday that her party will serve millions of South Africans who want a new beginning. "Join me in building the South Africa of our dreams," she said.
She accused the governing party of corruption, of undermining democracy, and of abusing power. "And perhaps worst of all, my generation has to confess to the young people of our country: we have failed you. The dream has faded for the many living in poverty and destitution in our increasingly unequal society," Ramphele, a former World Bank managing director, said.

Al Jazeera's Tania Page, reporting from Johannesburg, said Ramphele also talked about the high unemployment among the young people in South Africa. "About 50 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds in this country are unemployed," Page said.
"She wanted that to be addressed through economic restructuring, and she wants education to be improved."

New beginning: Ramphele said her party, called Agang in the Sesotho language meaning "Build", will be funded by South Africans at home and abroad. She told a news conference that her party will contest 2014 elections, campaign "from village to village" and serve millions of South Africans "who have confirmed a hunger for a new beginning"….”

Oh dear… seems to me, along with the both Black and White peoples of South Africa, we’ve all heard this song before.

In the New Times Survey, February 2008 Jeremy Lee introduced “The Failure of ‘Democracy’ in Africa” by Mukui Waruiru, a native of Kenya.
Mr. Waruiru, was a founder of the African Conservative Forum, a Christian human rights and public policy organization based in Nairobi.

Jeremy wrote: "As Kenya is the latest African country to blow itself to pieces (Naivasha, where the most recent massacre occurred, is my home town) the following article, by a Kikuyu from Kenya is poignant and prescient. He is evidently a Christian who dares say what the pallid church leaders of the West dare not!"

Mukui Waruiru wrote:
Blacks in South Africa enjoy one of the highest standards of living in Africa. Yet the ANC blames whites for the poverty and landlessness of much of the black population. The government of South Africa owns millions of hectares, and is the largest land owner in South Africa. Instead of offering this land to South Africa's poor people of all races, the ANC focuses on making the blacks envious of the white land owners who produce most of South Africa's food.

The ANC plans to maintain its hold on power for decades to come, by inciting racial resentment against the white minority. There is a real danger that the country may join the long list of failed democracies in Africa. Unless a new generation of enlightened black leaders emerges in South Africa, committed to promoting Christian values, property rights, and free market economic policies, South Africa's future looks bleak". Read further…

We ask the question:
Is Mamphela Ramphele one of the genuinely ‘enlightened black leaders’ who will implement policies designed to help the people rise from their troubles – or is she just another opportunist (we have many in Australian politics) who will rise to power on the backs of the people’s hopes, and votes, relishing the perks and positions of office – but quite bereft of the vision, the policies and the integrity needed of a true leader?

Ivor Benson warned in “Undeclared War: the Struggle for Africa” published in 1978.
“There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement that has not operated in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money – and that without the idealist among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact”.  


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The application for special leave to appeal to the High Court arises in the case of a man who has been almost continually in prison since the age of 13, who is alcoholic and has a mental illness. The present sentence is for 71/2 years for grievous bodily harm where the man pelted a prison guard with pool balls, which hit his left eye leading to retinal detachment, eye socket fractures and permanent loss of vision.

The man grew up in a violent home and witnessed his father stab his mother. The District Court had, in the light of R v Fernando (1992) taken into account issues of social disadvantage, but the Appeals Court felt that a long history of criminal activity diminished and R v Fernando effect:
“With the passage of time, the extent to which social deprivation in a person’s youth and background can be taken into account must diminish”, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal held.
At some point people need to be responsible for their own actions. The High Court is being asked to follow the Canadian Supreme Court case of R v Ipeelee where it was held that equality under the law requires considering historical, social and economic deprivation.

Behind all of this is the Establishment’s “concern” about high rates of Aboriginal imprisonment. This sounds like something out of the (allegedly) “racist” Apartheid South Africa, where bad cops frame innocent blacks solely because of skin colour. But in reality the people imprisoned have committed serious crimes just like the assault described here.

Overrepresentation in gaols cannot, without logical circularity be given as a reason for sentence mitigation in an individual case because “overrepresentation” is not a relevant causal factor to the commission of the crime in the specific case.
There is “overrepresentation” because a statistically higher proportion of Aborigines commit crimes than the rest of the population – not because the criminal justice system picks on them for no reason. The prison guard with his eye smashed in is an example of a victim of such a crime. How did overrepresentation cause this?

Social deprivation issues had already been considered by the Court of Appeal. If issues of colonisation are held to be relevant, any Aboriginal will be able to argue for sentence mitigation on this basis. No doubt the New Class would want that, which would create a special law for Aboriginal offenders, against other dispossessed peoples. Maybe in turn other peoples such as refugees will be given special treatment. Watch the rule of law fall apart.

It is vital to oppose the constitutional reform to recognise indigenous people because of the hidden agenda behind this change. Any change, however token, will be used in legal argument to support precedents such as R v Ipeelee and to further multiculturalise the law. The law has already been too far multiculturalised.  


by Peter West
Former Nicola Roxon will retire on a pension (indexed) of about $140,000 a year. Her superannuation has a capital sum of between $5 and 7 million and unlike most people who can only access their superannuation when turning 55, she can immediately access it. Is there anything else we can do for you Nicola – should we get together a hamper for you? Will baked beans be okay? It’s all I have, but you can have it.

Now we have the new attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, “the son of a man who arrived in Australia stateless after escaping the Nazis”. (The Weekend Australian 9-10 February 2013, p.18). I read the rest of the story and it is said his grandparents “sent my father, then aged 11, and his older brother Richard to Australia. They arrived at Station Pier in Melbourne in July 1939… my grandmother and grandfather managed to escape from Germany, arriving in Australia as stateless persons in December 1939”.

So the text under the photo of Dreyfus must be incorrect and should read “the grandson”, and the “son”. But then again, anyone leaving Germany during that time would be regarded as “stateless”, so maybe I am barking up the wrong gum tree. But then again….

Dreyfus wants to strike the “right balance” on free speech. He is quoted as saying: “I think there are other important objectives in the law and the protection that is provided the Australian community by existing anti-discrimination legislation could be seen to be part of that. You are not free to (falsely) cry ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre”. True but irrelevant to the anti-discrimination issue. The false crying of ‘Fire!’ is not the expression of a political belief.
The new Attorney General “feels a connection with successful migrants”. But isn’t that “discriminatory” – what about unsuccessful migrants? What, no “connection”?  


Adam Sherwin, The Independent, UK,18 February 2013.
The BBC will revisit one of the greatest crises in its history when it broadcasts a controversial new Panorama investigation which promises to reveal fresh information about the intelligence deployed by the Blair Government to justify the invasion of Iraq. Peter Taylor, the award-winning investigative reporter, is working on the investigation to mark the 10th anniversary of the Iraq conflict next month, The Independent has learnt.

Taylor, renowned for his sources within the security services, is expected to reveal new information about claims, which turned out to be false, that Saddam Hussein's regime was actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The episode will look ahead to the publication of the Chilcot report into the conflict. It is due to air on BBC1 on 18 March, two days before the anniversary, and is being treated with the highest sensitivity inside a BBC still reeling from the journalistic failures exposed during the Savile scandal.

It was Andrew Gilligan's Today programme claim that the Government "sexed up" the intelligence inserted into the dossier detailing Saddam's weapons' programme which led to the 2004 resignation of Greg Dyke, the BBC Director-General and Chairman Gavyn Davies, following the publication of the Hutton Report. Taylor's film threatens to reopen the issue at a time when the BBC is still suffering a power vacuum at the highest echelons. Potentially controversial BBC investigations face the closest scrutiny following the "serious failure of BBC journalism" which led to Lord McAlpine being falsely identified as a paedophile in a Newsnight report.

A BBC source said: "Helen Boaden is still Director of News and there is a perfectly robust chain of command in place, which goes all the way up to Acting Director General, Tim Davie". In a recent BBC series on espionage, Taylor spoke to "Curveball", an Iraqi defector who confirmed that he fabricated the claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which were quoted as "facts" by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell when he presented the case for war to the United Nations.
Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, vehemently denied Gilligan's claim that he had inserted information known to be incorrect into the "dodgy dossier"...."

Barbarians Through the Gates - These Waters Run Deeper Than We May Think
Our colleagues in the British On Target wrote extensively of the Iraq War and what was behind it.
“In the early years of the Twentieth Century, after five hundred years of gradual decay in the Middle East under Ottoman rule, and under growing Western influence, Iraq was achieving the levels of development of a modern society. We therefore have to ask, as we should ask in the case of the Third and Developing Worlds, mainly of the southern hemisphere, if the exploitation of indigenous natural resources represents a fair exchange and could, or should, this continue on the present economic basis in the longer term?

We must also see the mighty oil industry, like the pharmaceutical and agri-chemical industries, not in the service of the likes of we ordinary mortals, of whatever perceived social class, but as conglomerates, under the control of a Ruling Elite; multinational corporations that have become a politically dominant end in themselves for the purpose of control and profit within the global economic model. British interests in this environment are often, and with superficial logic, seen as paramount in what one has to accept is this supranational and ruthlessly competitive global economic scenario.

But in the United Kingdom this is too readily associated in some minds with traditional Tory values based on the imperial tradition - the position of what we tend to see as that of the "squirearchy". Conversely, attitudes critical of what is now in reality International Finance-Capitalism come to be erroneously identified with the political Left, or "progressive" faction.

However, we must remember that the invasion of Iraq was pursued, against strong public opposition from all sections of the community, by a Labour Government. Objections to what was reported by B.B.C. journalists and others ("B.B.C. hits back over 'rhetoric' claims", The Independent on Sunday, 13th April, 2003), was neither politically Left or Right.
Objections came from those who had justified the invasion - when it suited them - on the grounds that the intention was to "liberate" the people of Iraq. It did not run contrary to British "interests". It was the unpalatable truth for those who precipitated and supported the invasion as events unfolded.

It was reported by seasoned journalists such as Robert Fisk, John Pilger and John Simpson as his convoy of Kurds and American Special Forces was bombed by an American aircraft with the loss of 18 lives. John Pilger wrote, in The Independent on Sunday of 6th April, 2003, under the heading "We see too much. We know too much. That's our best defence"…”  


by James Reed
Weird things are happening in Britain. It seems that David Cameron’s government has had a negative campaign to deter would-be Balkan migrants. Being part of the EU means open migration. Bulgarians and Romanians are about to obtain full EU rights and according to an article in The Weekend Australian 2-3 February 2013, p.13) this “immigration Armageddon” is panicking the British who fear being swamped by hundreds of thousands of them.

To scare them off a campaign of anti-British ads is being devised mentioning the bad weather and food as reasons not to come. But come they will and Britain will continue to be swamped until either it becomes poorer and worse than the Third World – or until it gets out of the EU and UN and controls its own borders and its own economy.  


by James Reed
It comes as no surprise to us, but politicians are free to lie in the forthcoming election as they always do (“Truth an Optional Extra in Campaign”, The Weekend Australian 9-10 February 2013, p.1). Electoral pamphlets from Wayne Swan had been mailed out stating that “We have delivered a surplus, on time, as promised”.
Gillard had promised to create a truth in advertising offence in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, but hasn’t done it. Surprise, surprise. Well, why get all hot and bothered trying to achieve objectives such as a balanced budget when you can tell people “Big Lies” that they want to hear.  


by Peter West
Black US ex-police officer Christopher Dorner, who, after launching his manifesto on the internet, and killing a number of people, is now dead. Dorner in his manifesto had declared “war” on the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), after his dismissal and he accused the LAPD of being based upon racism – not just white on black, but essentially, all races against each other.
Here is the first multiracial, politically correct killer and this, along with other Left-wing killers, raise problems for the gun banners’ claim that massacres are a product of “white men”. Oh, by the way, Dorner was anti-gun and used himself as an example in the manifesto. Such is life in Obamanation.

Beyond all of this, there are some interesting things to note about Dorner’s last stand, where he was burnt to a crisp. This may have occurred because the police used pyrotechnic teargas. The mainstream media reported that on a police scanner apoliceman said: “Burn this motherf—-er” (The Australian 15 February 2013, p.7). Then there is the report that Dorner’s wallet was found inside the burnt cabin. You can see the charred remains on Youtube – nothing survived it. No wallet could have survived.

Overall the Dorner story is odd. Ignore things like the police zeal to get him, including seven LAPD officers opening fire on a truck driven by two innocent women (two Hispanic women being mistaken for one black man??) Dorner waits five years to seek his revenge for being sacked from the LAPD. The police also turned off its police scanners to prevent journalism listening in, but one group heard “Going forward with the burn”.
Thus maybe the police did incinerate him to end the stand-off – one sheriff’s deputy was killed and another injured. If fire was used, then the police have basically passed over into being a paramilitary force. Expect to hear of drone attacks next. This is not to excuse a ruthless killer, but police tactics in this case are a matter of great concern.  


by James Reed
I know: I write about the “new class” a lot. They are the knowledge and money workers who pursue untold politically correct agendas. Common to all new class is having a university degree in arts, the social sciences or law. These by contrast to the mathematical, physical and biological sciences, are the “talky talky” disciplines, obsessed with words, words, words. Such new classers love the sound of their own discourse, especially while eating MSG-laced food.

Nick Cater (“Top of the Class and Looking Down on the Nation”, The Australian 4 February, 2013, p.12) points out that traditional class divisions in Australia have largely been replaced by a division between those who have been educated at university, and those who have not. In particular most of these people educated in the arts, social sciences and law are social progressives and have no religion (bar humanism and liberalism itself).

As in Australia and the United States, the new class is the ruling class or new power elites. B. Hussein Obama is their pin-up, and identity politics their game. I hope this ends with some global disaster which smashes their comfortable system to bits. My hopes were riding on Asteroid 2012 DA14 which recently passed 32,000 kms from Earth, (some satellites, geostationary satellites, orbit at 35,000 kms) but no such luck. Maybe a giant solar storm will fry every computer on Earth, turning out the lights permanently on a tribe of people, more horrible than Orcs and Goblins combined.

Time for the Axe to Fall on Academics
Sociologist Michael Buraway sees four crises threatening the once-comfortable world of academics across the world (The Australian 13 February 2013, p.20). University autonomy and academic freedom are threatened by budget, governance, identity and recognition issues. Cost-cutting is leading to casual workforce without tenure and hence loss of academic freedom. Universities become a corporation in pursuit of profit.

I, for one, see this as a fitting end because all these academics have done with their sacred freedoms is attack Traditional society. I say let the forces of the market destroy them and the evil universities! May the internet render them redundant!  


by James Reed
The forthcoming defence white paper attempts to justify cuts in the defence budget by claiming that a budget surplus is needed for Australia’s defence. Yes, with China arming itself to the teeth, with our armed forces grinding to a halt, getting a budget surplus is all Swan and co care about. For our politicians, what counts is winning the next election, not the bigger issue of saving the country.

The reason for this is that Australia, beginning in the post World War II period, began surrendering its heritage, first with immigration of non-British migrants, then with the end of the White Australia Policy, then with multiculturalism and Asianisation. Now Asianisation is morphing into Chinese colonisation. I guess in this context it would make little sense for new world order politicians being too concerned about defence when in fact the war has happened and the ‘old’ Australia is no more.  


Cardinal Peter Turkson, from Ghana, Africa, could be the first black Pope. Although Italians are favoured to carry on the franchise, my bet is on the Black Pope. The reason is that Catholicism is fast becoming a religion of coloured people, just like the United States is becoming a State for coloured people.

The Catholic Church in the West falls over itself to support almost all politically correct causes relevant to race and migration. It is still a bit slow in embracing homosexualism, at least openly, but respect to doctrine, that will come. Thus, better then to have a Black Pope, so that the true colours of the Church can be seen. Turkson and Obama will be quite a team!
“Cardinal Peter Turkson says an African pope would be a great recognition of a church that has come of age” (The Australian, 14 February 2013).  

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