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

2 May 2014 Thought for the Week: Catherine Engelbrecht's Testimony at House of Representative: A political machine that would put its own survival above the civil liberties of a private citizen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxcMKtsm5BU - Published on Feb 6, 2014

Wallace Klinck wrote after watching the video
Excellent! She obviously is a responsible and courageous woman who speaks forcefully and coherently in support of honestly held convictions. If only she and others of such initiative could be enlightened as to how the present defective financial system militates against her ideals of freedom. Politics is a rotten power-seeking and self-serving activity and only the people themselves can retain their legitimate freedoms by curtailing those political entities which would, with increasing abandon, abuse the citizenry for purposes of securing and enhancing their own power and fortune to the disadvantage of the general populace which they are pledged to serve.

The Devil’s in the Details: More on the 9/11 Crime, 11 April 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTANZaYPCkw


by Chris Knight
H.J. Massingham (died in 1952), is one of many English writers (Tolkien being another), who rebelled in revulsion against the destruction of the English countryside by the forces of money. “The Tree of Life” first published in 1943 (reprinted by Jon Carpenter, 2003) identifies the forces of finance as working to destroy communities and the agricultural practices of a thousand years. Massingham traces the rise of mechanistic materialism philosophy, in philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Descartes, which aided in the ruling ideology regarding nature as mere matter, fully open to exploitation with the rise of industrial capitalism. The world was just a vast machine and science and technology enabled the ruling elites to manipulate and dominate it. This mechanistic philosophy of exploitation is primarily the domain of city thinkers. Massingham contrasts this “sterilisation of nature” (p.104) with the views of Christ, a “rural redeemer.” Christ “remained a regional figure and there was not the faintest veneer of cosmopolitan culture either in his life or his utterances.” People from the cities of the time, came to him, not the other way round.

The decline of genuine Christianity embracing the countryside as God’s great earth is in tandem with the other “dual tragedy” of the mechanisation of nature, and the marginalisation of leisure in favour of relentless work. A true religious philosophy should strive to conserve the earth as a source of real wealth rather than the artificial wealth of industrialism. Thus, for Massingham, the real battle of the future, which is our present, is not between Left and Right, but between economic materialism (globalism) and an organic view of life based on the land. The quest should be to rediscover English traditions through the “Doctrine of Creation”, a Christianised, organic rebirth of life. This can be done in three ways. First, it is time to learn from experience about the illusions of progress given by industrialism. If we haven’t seen ample evidence of this by today, we never will. Second there is a need to dig the depths of Englishness to recreate English traditions. Today, with mass migration that Massingham never saw, this is the battle of the century. Finally there is a need for the recreation of alternatives to modernity, such as the Christian “Doctrine of Creation”. However local self government and self reliance are important forces in opposing centralisation.

I noticed only a passing reference to the social dividend (pps.144, 152) which the author endorsed but with qualification. Embracing in full social credit would have strengthened his case. “The Tree of Life” for all its beauty of writing, cries out for reference to C.H. Douglas.


by Peter West
As the wheels of politics turn to the great battle about Aboriginal “Constitutional recognition” or as I prefer to call it, the politically correct drive to destroy our Constitution, there are many aspects of the argument that need examination, ranging from points of Constitutional law to history. The League is well supplied with books to educate actionists on all aspects of this battle. And a battle it will be at the grassroots level because the conventional media, obviously enough, will not give any fair and reasonable time, let alone, equal time, to the “No” side.

One book actionists should examine as background reading is Rodney Liddell’s “Cape York: The Savage Frontier” (3rd edition 2010, first edition, 1996). This book is directly relevant to the question of Aborigines as a first people, because it sets out to show that the original indigenous Australians were Papuans who were exterminated long before whites came to Australia. In fact the first contact between whites and Aborigines was in 1606 when a sailor from the Dutch ship “Duyfken” was killed at Cape York by Aborigines. (p.iv)

This is a “gripping” book, telling the story of such encounters, especially on the “savage frontier” of Cape York. I do not want to spoil this for you, but I will comment on Chapter 1 “The Aboriginal Invasion of Australia,” which is directly relevant to the coming Constitutional threat. Liddell presents the case that the original inhabitants of Australia were Papuans who had come down from New Guinea when both countries were connected by land bridges due to the lower sea levels. The Tasmanian aborigines were some of the last of this race who were clearly distinct from the race that Captain Cook confronted in 1770.

Liddell believes that much of this evidence has been censored or ignored by academic anthropologists, whom he has a low opinion of. He goes back to the literature before the age of political correctness, such as the 1930 book “Artists in Strings” written by acclaimed anthropologist Alfred Cort Haddon’s daughter, Kathleen Haddon. She said: “Long headed, broad nosed people of ‘Pre-Dravidian’ stock, they are connected racially with the ‘Veddah’ and certain jungle tribes of South Indian, rather than the neighbouring Papuans and Melanesians. These ‘Pre-Dravidians’ appear to have displaced an earlier woolly haired people, who had come into Australia via New Guinea and who survived until recent times only in Tasmania.” (p.1)

Professor Haddon in 1909 in his book “The Races of Man” also stated that the aborigines/Pre-Dravidians had “exterminated” the previous Papuans or Negritos, but the formation of Bass Strait had prevented the Pre-Dravidians entering into Tasmania. Liddell quotes other early anthropological authorities such as A.P. Elkin and E.R. Gribble. He also quotes English navigator William Dampier, who in 1688 and 1699-1700 had visited Northern Australia and described the natives as having “Hair curled like the Negroes.”

William Dampier was the first Englishman to explore parts of what is today Australia, and the first person to circumnavigate the world three times. Wikipedia Born: 1651, East Coker, United Kingdom. Died: 1715, London, United Kingdom

Rodney Liddell concludes:
“The fact that Dampier had seen the Papuans less than 300 years ago, spread over a thousand miles of the West Australian coastline, clearly shows that large numbers had survived the onslaught up to that time and that the invasion by aborigines may have been of a very recent occurrence.” (p.3)

Professor Elkins quoted Professor J.W. Gregory, who believed that the aborigines had been in Victoria for only four hundred years. What about Carbon 14 Dating showing a supposed long age of aboriginal artefacts? This system is good only for dating material between 5,000-10,000 years old. Basically samples need some sort of isolation from the environment background radiation, or widely wrong readings come up. Thus the shells of living snails indicated that they had been dead for 27,000 years. (p.4)

Clearly native rock paintings have not been protected from the effects of background environmental radiation and Carbon 14 dating is likely to be an inaccurate indication of the real age of the paintings. That is, if the paintings are authentic at all, Liddell argues. One such painting had the colour of “blue” in it, which was later found to be a detergent used in washing machines.

In the 1950s a white man and two aborigines were found to be doing their own cave painting on Cape York Peninsula, paintings which were Carbon 14 dated to be over 14,000 years old. (p.4) Reading all of this undermined my previous belief that cave paintings were 40,000 years old. The paintings, Liddell believes, are probably only about 400 years old. (p.5) Other dating techniques such as Mass Accelerator Spectrometry and Cation Ratio Dating have the same problems Liddell argues.

Liddell says that there are rock engravings said to have been done by aborigines centuries ago which portray sailing ships! One such engraving at Hook Island in the Whitsunday Islands, Queensland was actually done by sons of a fisherman in 1963 and Liddell interviewed two of the witnesses. (p.6) All of this material in just six pages of the book! In conclusion, books such as “Cape York: The Savage Frontier” have an important role to play in reviving “censored history” and the facts that have been forced down the memory hole


by James Reed
Although not dealing with Social Credit issues, a new text book on economics by C.A.S. Hall and K. Klitgaard, “Energy and the Wealth of Nations” has the virtue of rejecting orthodox economics in favour of a biophysical model. The book says that orthodox economics has basic assumptions which are seldom justified, and which are false. The model violates the laws of thermodynamics and its idea that growth can continue at an exponential rate on a finite planet is incoherent. As well the work of at least 10 Nobel Prize winners in economics undermine the paradigm at a most basic level. All well and good. Now all we need is a new text book on alternate finance written from the perspective of Social Credit.


Submissions may be made up to 30 April at s18cconsultation@ag.gov.au Racial Discrimination Act

Proposed Reforms announced on 25 March 2014 Submission by Nigel Jackson

ONE The Government is correct to state that laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech. Such wrongdoing has occurred in overseas nations. Australia, if it wishes to remain a free nation, should ensure that it does not happen here.

TWO The amendments to the Act should contain a specific statement that the principle of free speech takes precedence over the principle of protection from racial vilification. This is because free speech is an essential bulwark against tyranny. Tyranny is a much greater danger to human welfare than racial vilification.

THREE If the term ‘racism’ is used, it should be carefully defined. Not all discrimination based on race or ethnicity is unjust or not in accord with truth.

FOUR The existing protection against intimidation should not be preserved in this Act. There is adequate protection against intimidation and menace elsewhere in Australian law. To retain the protection in this Act might facilitate needless and unjust legal action against a person or persons by those for whom, as it were, campaigning against racial vilification has become a religion.

FIVE I believe that the new protection against vilification should NOT be included in the amendments. This is because the phrase ‘incite hatred against’ is too subjective a criterion on which to found just law. It is also true that, from as early as the 1920’s in Soviet Russia, laws against ‘racial hatred’ have been wrongfully instituted and applied in order to protect and advance the interests of certain groups of citizens at the expense of other groups and sometimes the majority of citizens. See Point One above. ‘Vilification’ is also too vague and subjective a term on which to base legal sanctions.

SIX If the protection against intimidation is preserved, then I agree that ‘intimidate’ should be taken to mean ‘fear of physical harm’. Claims that ‘fear of emotional harm’ should be included should be rejected, as the criterion would be too vague and subjective. Such an addition would facilitate special pleading and be contrary to the spirit of my Point One above.

SEVEN The proposed Section 4, allowing exemptions, is not too wide, as some objectors have claimed. The phrase ‘public discussion’ is appropriately wide-ranging. It takes account of the fact that reasonable and acceptable discussion of sensitive topics takes place in arenas other than the strictly academic (universities and other tertiary institutions). It also takes account of the fact that dissident writers are often denied access to major media. It takes account of the fact that much useful discussion is simply posted on to the internet.

EIGHT However, one word should be added to the list of kinds of matter. That word is ‘historical’. The phrase should thus read: ‘of any political, social, cultural, historical, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.’ Some of the most sensitive controversies bearing on race and ethnicity deal with historical topics.


Bob Carr’s book “Diary of a Foreign Minister” has really stirred the pot by outlining the power and influence of the Israel Lobby. He goes so far as to say that under Julia Gillard Australia’s Middle East policy-making was subcontracted out to Melbourne’s rich and powerful Israel Lobby. “What I’ve done is to spell out how the extremely conservative instincts of the pro-Israel Lobby in Melbourne was exercised through the then PM’s office. Certainly they enjoyed extraordinary influence. I had to resist it and my book tells the story of that resistance coming to a climax when there was a dispute on the floor of the caucus,” Carr said on Lateline.

How was this influence achieved? According to Carr, on the same Lateline program: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.” The response by members of the said lobby has been : why should we apologise about this when others also try to have an influence on government? But this response ignores Carr’s main critique which is that the level of influence was, and arguably maybe is, so great as to be at an “unhealthy level.” Carr says that about one-fifth of the money raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community.

Now in response to this debate one can agree that a group which is part of the fabric of Australian society should be able to influence the government. Thus the majority racial group which founded Australia, fought for the nation and built it, the Anglo-Saxon people, should also organise as a lobby group and influence government. Any objections anybody? None? Okay, let’s get to work.


“Former Australian Foreign Minister Confirms that the Israel Lobby Controls Australia’s Foreign Policy”: Brenton Sanderson Occidental Observer, April 13, 2014

In my series of extended essays entitled “The War on White Australia” I described how Jewish activism was pivotal in ending the White Australia policy and initiating the mass non-White immigration that is rapidly transforming that nation. In addition, I showed how Jewish activism was instrumental in establishing multiculturalism as the ideological and legislative basis for social policy in Australia. Recently I explored the Jewish role in pushing for the enactment and extension of laws banning speech deemed contrary to their interests. Given the profound impact of Jewish ethno-politics on the Australian nation, nobody will be surprised to learn that Jewish influence also extends to the determination of Australia’s foreign policy.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr recently confirmed that this is indeed the case, observing that Australia’s foreign policy (particularly with regard to the Middle East) was being virtually dictated by organized Jewry. Carr, Australia’s Labor Party foreign minister from March 2012 to September 2013, made his comments while promoting his new book “Bob Carr: Diary of a Foreign Minister”.

Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in Julia Gillard’s cabinet… Following Carr’s comments The Jerusalem Post sourly noted that: “John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who wrote a 2007 book alleging that the ‘Israel lobby’ has a stranglehold on US Foreign policy, have an Australian cousin: former foreign minister Bob Carr.”


Speaker Stephen Walt
The "Special Relationship" and “What Has Changed Since The Israel Lobby Book” at The National Summit at National Press Club, 7 March 2014: Stephen M. Walt is professor of International Affairs at Harvard University; previously taught at Princeton University, University of Chicago; consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the National Defense University. He presently serves on the editorial boards of Foreign Policy, Security Studies, International Relations, and Journal of Cold War Studies. Walt also serves as Co-Editor of the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Author of The Origins of Alliances, which received the 1988 Edgar S. Furniss National Security Book Award and, with co-author John J. Mearsheimer of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Watch Stephen M. Walt’s video presentation here… The Israel subject was a taboo subject in America. How things have changed since 2006 – and what hasn’t changed. The tide finally changed a bit.


The huge crowds that have come out to greet the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and this afternoon Prince George, were in no way due to a celebrity factor, as republicans are saying. The younger Royals are not celebrities, they are there to serve the people and, as far as the Duke of Cambridge is concerned, to perform his constitutional duties as second in line to the Throne. What film, TV or pop-star celebrity can possibly match the life of duty combined with the enormous charitable work that is undertaken by the Queen and our Royal family?

Whilst Princes William and Harry, and now Kate have had an enormous impact on the younger generation, they are not solely responsible for the younger people embracing the monarchy. Even before they assumed Royal duties the mood was changing. The Australian Monarchist League became aware of this over six years ago when so many young people were joining our ranks and were thirsty for information on the monarchy and on the Australian Constitution.

In fact, of our 17,000 members, which includes our online members and supporters, far more than half are under the age of 40 and many of our office bearers are in their twenties. This is similar to the manner in which the monarchy is continually reinvigorating itself whilst remaining a constant factor in our lives.

We saw the way our system of constitutional monarchy works with the sudden resignation of Barry O'Farrell from the premiership of New South Wales. There was no interruption to the governance of the State because that governance is in the hands of the Queen's representative, the Governor, who commissioned Mike Baird as the new Premier because he was the person who could command a majority in the Legislative Assemble of NSW.

Whilst congratulating Mr Baird, we believe that it was a severe lack of protocol, manners and judgement that he announced to the media that he supported a republic at the time that he was about to host the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as Premier of the State. It is to be hoped that he exercises greater care as Premier of New South Wales.

Furthermore, his advocacy of a republic shows how out of touch he is with public sentiment, particularly as recent polls have shown, amongst the younger generations who will probably view his quaint thinking as out of date and irrelevant to their Australia of 2014. Indeed, the majority of young people don't want some tired old politician as their head of state. They honour and respect the Queen and feel comfortable and safe in the knowledge that in time William will become Prince of Wales and then King and then George after him.
Philip Benwell, National Chair Australian Monarchist League


From Social Crediter Christopher Quigley
I noted this content in CNBCs 25th Anniversary comment on Trader Talk: https://www.cnbc.com/id/101589873

The Walking Dead on Welfare - "The baby boomers are in terrible shape. I mean financially. The oldest baby boomer is now 67- the age of retirement. And they need our help, and the help of everyone in the financial journalism community.

The three "stools" of retirement - Social Security, personal savings, and pension - are all under attack. They are underfunded, and baby boomers have done a shockingly poor job of preparing for retirement. It gets worse: We are all going to live to 85 years or older. We might, but a lot of us won't have two dimes to rub together.

The result: Unless something radical happens soon, there will be hordes of impoverished 70- and 80-year-olds walking around in less than a decade.

The Walking Dead on welfare. That's where CNBC and other like-minded networks come in. We need to begin a Great Saving program. With baby boomers living another 25 years, we need to get people to start saving more now and to invest MORE in the stock market, not less."

The recommendation for a “Great Saving program” - "to get people to start saving more now and to invest MORE in the stock market, not less” would hardly stand up as sound advice in the light of Social Credit analysis which identifies the investment of monetary savings as a major cause of an increasing disparity between prices and incomes with consequent increasing dependence upon financial debt. A policy which fails to liquidate the financial costs of current production while creating additional financial costs and obligations against future incomes hardly seems like a credible solution to our financial and economic problems.

Add to this the enormous displacement of human effort as a factor of production, such as predicted in the recent Chicago Tribune article, we are obviously accelerating toward a collision with disaster - not a disaster involving real and potential scarcity of goods and services, but a crisis of barred access to actual and potential abundance of such wealth because of a "financial disaster". How long will we permit distorted symbolic abstractions to dominate our real lives?


by Peter Ewer
We are now seeing what the Libs intend to do to destroy us. Labor had its own agenda, but the Libs differ in being a little more gung ho on globalisation and in anything to increase the profits of the big end of town. With Abbott’s ‘hop-skip-and-a-jump to see our masters in China, he has made the promise that it will be even easier to buy up Australian resources, Australian farms and Australian real estate. Virtually throwing away all foreign investment regulations will be just the start as he tries to outdo John Howard’s effort in Asianisation “Team Australia is here in China to help build the Asian century,” Abbott said. The Australian, 11 April, 2014 p.6) Spoken like a true slave!

However Tony Abbott is concerned that his Surrender Australia Policy, allowing communist Chinese State-owned companies could fuel a “race backlash”. (The Advertiser 12 April 2014 p.15) The aim is to develop the north of Australia as a “food bowl” to feed China’s rising middle class – not us. The aim is delusional and authorities have in the past pointed out problems with the north’s water. Yes, there is a lot for a few months of the year – then nothing. And most of it falls near the coast where it can’t be stored. But don’t let reality wreck a good fantasy for the economically insane Liberal Party.


Vladimir Putin has been in the news lately and many people see him as the rising ‘saviour’ in world affairs. Probably not unlike how many people saw Hitler – people who were seeking a way out of the misery and destitution of the 1930s. But do keep in mind, as reported in On Target, Vol 50 No 30 4 April 2014: “Last week MasterCard and Visa stopped servicing some Russian banks, which shows the Russian market remains the monopoly of international operators…” In other words, the financial system operates over and above Russian governments as it does in all other countries. Russia is not truly free… just being used, as is China, for the next phase of the World War for World Power.

I had been pondering over the news of Putin for a while and went looking for the material that tied in with what is happening with the rise of China along with Russia and the Eurasian trade block - and the weakening of the West. The American people have yet to learn their part in the World War Plan is over. Along with the rest of the West, it is planned they will sink into oblivion. There is nothing new in this push for World Power - it just wasn't so open as it now is.

The material I was looking for is in On Target, 4 April 2003 “If history is anything to go by, Americans will one day come to the realisation, just as the English did after the WWII phase of this battle, having done their duty by this Inner Power, in their weakened state, they will fade from view as a world power. Fanciful thinking? I don't think so.” The situation in which America now finds herself was explained in On Target Vol.39, No.7, 28th February 2003:
"Behind all this rhetoric is one of the most desperate gambles in history - an attempt by the US to stave off an imminent collapse and a shift in financial hegemony from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve to the European Central Bank and the EU..." "As we have revealed in recent editions of On Target, the US has been living off massive trade deficits for many years. Its debt structure is frightening and the destruction of its industrial base even more so. It is diverting more and more of its remaining industrial capacity to armaments and military capacity."

Compare America's present parlous state with that of Britain's experiences in early 1940
"When the British declared war on Germany and went to America's financiers for help she was told "she could get 'assistance' on terms. The terms were payment in cash and provide your own transport…" In order to buy inferior materials at outrageous prices, Great Britain had to strip herself of upwards of £2,000,000,000 of overseas investments. Some of these investments were taken over directly by Khun, Loeb and Co… Great Britain handed over her designs and manufacturing processes, and built, at her own expense, factories in America which added greatly to America's industrial strength."

In the Melbourne Herald 2nd February, 1940 the following article appeared
"Although he personally favours the Allied cause, Mr. Henry Morgenthau, junior, is driving extremely hard bargains with the Allies… The Allies are sometimes forced to pay double the real price of the goods." (Eric Butler "The International Jew"). The 'American' financiers took Great Britain to the cleaners - just as the 'American' financiers are now taking America to the cleaners.

General Ludendorff wrote in 1931, "The Coming War"
"The majority of the English do not realise that, having done their duty by the inner Jewish circle, they have now got to disappear as a world Power." The majority of the Americans have yet to wake up to the fact that the same fate now awaits them.

The last has not been heard of China
Just after WWII, (is it really nearly sixty years ago?) Eric Butler wrote that "as a result of the Pacific War, China is being 'developed' and 'modernised' by huge loans from Jewish financiers in America, working in close collaboration with their financial allies, the Soong family, which was educated in America… There is little doubt that China, with her teeming millions and largely unexploited resources, is ideal for the Jewish-inspired planners to build up into a powerful force in world affairs. The last has not been heard of China."

At the Melbourne World Economic Forum in September 2000
On Target (20/10/00) carried a press report on the remarks of Mr David Tang, Shanghai Tung chairman, who was unusually frank about the implications of free trade. He told those assembled: " … I wouldn't concentrate on the rest of the world's companies selling to Asia. I would watch out, if I were you, about the WTO", he said …. "I've never understood why you want to engage us - we've got fantastically low labour [costs]" he told the forum. "China's going to completely devastate your whole labour force. They have labour costs 15 times, 30 times lower than America… All the stuff you're going to make, we're going to completely destroy in terms of costs" he said. "We can make things so much more cheaply than you. I would watch out for your markets being infiltrated by us …." We have been 'herded into' the next phase of the World War Order.

Further reading: “The Monopoly of Credit” by C.H. Douglas found here…


Source: CHINA TOPIX April 20, 2014
China intends to invest in massive projects in Crimea less than a month after the former Ukrainian province was annexed by the Russian Federation. Vladimir Chizhov, Russia’s ambassador to the European Union, said Russia is partnering with China in two major Crimean projects: the “Power of Siberia” gas pipeline and a 25 metre deep Crimean deep water port. These projects will continue despite the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine, Chizhov said.

Chizhov described the “Power of Siberia” gas pipeline as a mega-project that will pump 60 billion cubic metres of gas annually from the Kovykta and Tchayandinskoe gas fields to Russia’s far east, where a branch line will deliver 38 billion cubic metres a year to China. He noted that Gazprom, Russia’s national oil company, and China National Petroleum Corporation (China’s largest oil company) have a legally binding agreement from 2013. He said that exploitation of the Tchayandinskoe field will begin in 2019. Chizhov said Russia and China will continue with plans for Chinese firms to build a 25 metre deep port in Crimea as part of a new transport corridor from Asia to Europe called “The Economic Belt of the Great Silk Route.”

As part of this project, Chinese firms will dig an enormous trench near the Crimean town of Frunze and fill it with sea water by demolishing a dam. Chizhov said Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which has been roundly condemned, has done nothing to stop the Crimean port project that is worth $3 billion in the first stage alone.

The Voice of Russia, the Russian government’s international radio broadcasting service, said that China “takes interest in alternative energy projects in Crimea.” Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich concurred.

Source: here. . .


by James Reed
Treasurer Joe Hockey has been the one to tell us that we will have to work until age 70. The Gillard government raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 from 2013, but the Libs want to outdo that and will make it 70, but the date of commencement as yet is uncertain. The cost of the old age pension is likely to reach $70 billion a year in the next decade as the baby boomers retire. At present it is $40 billion-a-year. Obviously the goal of the Libs is to ultimately eliminate the social welfare system, brick-by-brick.

Personally I think it would be a good thing to eliminate it all tomorrow, if Tony had real backbone. Bring it on! Saving money is your ‘goal and god’ Tony, so why don’t you do it? Don’t let social chaos and human misery stand in the way of penny pinching! Give the Chinese some amusement! I mean to say, just cutting immigration would save the infrastructure of about the present cost of the old age pension. But fear of the ethnic lobby will never let him do that.


By Peter West
Item 1: Chronicle of Higher Education blogger, Naomi Schaefer Riley was fired for writing a blog arguing for the elimination of US Black Studies departments. She argued that many dissertations border on the absurd.

Item 2 : Actress Kirsten Dunst dared to state in the May edition (apparently forthcoming) of UK’s Harper’s Bazaar a defence of traditional motherhood and she said that femininity is undervalued. The best relationships are those where men can be men, and women, women. Instantly feminists went berserk, screaming abuse at her. Looks like the end of her acting career – and that’s a pity because she was sensational as a damsel-in-distress in the first “Spider-man” movies.

Tobias Langdon in his article “Comrades and Cannibals: Odium Theologicum on the Modern Left” (Occidental Observer.net 7 April 2014), reflecting on many more absurdities like this concludes that “The Left is not just eating itself: it’s eating the West, helping to destroy the societies that have funded its parasitism and tolerated its posturing. There is no easy or painless way out, but one positive thing will emerge from the approaching collapse: leftism and liberalism will be discredited for good.” The time will be ripe to rebuild society on a new foundation – so let’s get it right that time!


by Richard Miller
The “great debate” about the government’s proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act has shown one thing : that a multicultural/multiracial society is essentially inconsistent with classical liberalism. Lateline (10 April 2014) dealt with the issue of leaders of many “ethnic communities” joining forces to stop these changes. Groups “rarely seen together” have been “hugging”, united by the cause of stopping changes. Isn’t that odd?

In other words, despite an enormous amount of argument by conservative and legal minds, mainly in The Australian, clearly showing that these laws undermine free speech, the ethnic lobby holds to resisting changes. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that they rank social control above freedom of speech.

And so too does the Left and all of our “intellectuals” as Janet Albrechtsen has pointed out, quoting Canadian journalist Mark Steyn (The Australian 9 April 2014, p.11). Australia’s “intellectuals” are silent because their level of political correctness and/or cowardice is even greater than Canada’s. But at least we have seen where multiculturalism leads to: group interest overrides the liberal value of free speech. That to my mind is a knockdown argument against multicultural societies.


by Peter West
Let us never forget… When Bob Hawke was prime minister of Australia he delivered a speech to the Fabian Society Centenary Dinner 18th May 1984. The Fabian Society, which had as its “coat of arms” a wolf in sheep’s clothing, wanted to establish socialism not by an all-out revolution, but by the inevitability of gradualism. The (white) frogs sitting in the water do not notice the temperature changes until it is too late and they are cooked!

The Hawke paper mentions that the philosophy of Fabianism “aims at the reorganisation of society by the emancipation of the land and Industrial Capital from individual and class ownership.” As Hawke says: “The Fabian Society acknowledges the principle [sic: “principal” Bob] tenet of Marxism : the abolition of private property.” Nothing here about financial monopolisation! On the contrary, individuals having property and land is the real basis of freedom and wealth. The fault of Capitalism, from the perspective of Social Credit is, to put it crudely, that the people do not have enough “private” property, especially purchasing power.

Hawke mentions the principle of the inevitability of gradualness and also the Fabian principle of changing the mental climate of a country, or “permeation”. This has been successfully done with the slow undermining of the White Australia Policy, multiculturalism, mass migration and the latest globalist-socialist strategy of Asianisation – although Hawke said nothing of this in 1984. He does say that social change must involve “the whole mood and mind and attitudes of the nation” being “permanently changed”.

If you can’t beat them, join them – well not exactly “join them”, but learn from their strategies and tactics. We, the dispossessed majority, have to work as the victorious Fabians have done, and apply their principles of permeation and the inevitably of gradualism against them; “never confront the enemy directly in the open battlefield, but defeat him gradually through a series of small battles, running after each successful foray”. Thanks for the tip, Bob.

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