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

15 August 2014 Thought for the Week:
"The reason individuals associate is in order to gain some common objective which would be more difficult, or impossible for them to attain if they worked for it separately. The conviction that by association they can gain the objective they desire, brings these individuals together as a group, co-operating to a pre-determined end. This is true of any association of individuals. It is true of a factory; of a temperance league, of a nation, or of society as a whole. To the degree that the individuals forming such associations are convinced that they obtain the objective for which they are associating, the group will function vigorously. It will progress and be successful. But if it fails to yield to its individual members the results which they expect from their association, these individuals will become dissatisfied with the association and the group will tend to break up. It is the operation of this ever increasing dissatisfaction with the results of the present social system which we are witnessing on every hand - and which is leading to the rapid disintegration of society and civilisation".
Centralism, the Policy of Satanism” by LD Byrne


Dear Reader,
It is said ‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad’ and we are seeing a manifestation of this with the Abbott-Hockey led government. The Prime Minister has back-pedalled on a promise to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Mr Abbott promised before the 2013 election he would repeal section 18C of the act, which makes it illegal to offend, insult or humiliate a person based on their ethnicity. But on Wednesday, Mr Abbott said the plan was dead. "It's off the table - it is gone. It's disappeared," Mr Abbott said. (SBS News)

Family First Senator Bob Day announced he will introduce a bill to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. "Someone has to champion the cause of freedom. You can't allow yourself to be intimidated by any particular group," Senator Day told News Corp Australia. Our Readers need to encourage Senator Day and send a message to other politicians - ‘mendacity’ does not win votes.

The latest jobless figures defy understanding... if a person does 1 hour of paid work per week then they are considered employed. Is that regarded as a ‘liveable wage’? Who makes these rules? The ABC reports ‘unemployment surges to 12-year high at 6.4 per cent; youth jobless figure hits 14 pc’. With new immigrants looking for work (or do they) and older people kept in the workforce until 70 years of age, what opportunity does that offer the most vulnerable young people.

With changes to education arrangements Australia is developing into a very ‘mean and lean’ economy to appease the ‘GDP god’ of Treasurer Hockey. He wonders why people do not jump for joy over his budget policies. They know it cannot work! It is time to ‘screw’ the Abbott back -bench without mercy! Write those letters. ND


Abbot & Brandis
Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Attorney General George Brandis announce new counter-terrorism measures and the dropping of proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.

Michelle Grattan, Conversation, 5 August 2014

The move to change the RDA followed a court judgment against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt. Bolt said today: “Too many lobby groups hate free speech. And the reforms were badly sold. I suspect the country will be poorer for this”. The government’s Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, whom it appointed with the special brief of promoting free speech tweeted: “Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18C and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.” Read full report here. https://theconversation.com/government-retreats-on-weakening-race-act-advances-on-toughening-terror-laws-30166

Last Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that he has abandoned his pre-election promise to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Australian Taxpayers' Alliance, through our Free Speech Australia project, has fought tirelessly for the repeal of section 18C. We value the opinion of our members and supporters, so please fill out our short survey and tell us if you support this backflip - or if the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance should continue to campaign for freedom of speech and the repeal of 18C.
PLEASE CLICK HERE https://www.surveymonkey.com/Home_Landing.aspx?sm=qppogP9EZSoSncUkxdTr0UIeOnzKw7O7UmwJmsi0VUI%3d to fill out our short survey and let us know what you think!
Yours in Liberty, Tim Andrews Executive Director Australian Taxpayers' Alliance

PS: Make sure to forward our survey to all your friends!


by James Allen
Source: Online Opinion 7 August 2014.
“So now we know. When given the choice between trying to honour its pre-election commitment to free speech in this country, or caving in to the special pleading lobby groups opposed to free speech, the government opted for the latter. Never mind that Section 18C of the hate speech laws impose a wholly unjustified curtailment on what you and I and the Andrew Bolts of the world can say. Never mind that similar legislation was repealed in Canada last year, the most politically correct place on earth. Canadian Prime Minister Harper stared down the many lobby groups with a vested interest in this kind of hate speech legislation. Our Attorney-General, George Brandis, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott did not.

Apparently it was not worth the fight. Not enough votes in it, they must have reckoned. Of course that sort of calculation depends on the people who want this hate speech legislation kept in place voting for the Coalition because it succumbed to them. Good luck with that. It depends too on there being a lot of MPs in electorates where there will be more votes for them in caving in than there would be for proceeding on principle. I'm sceptical. Heck, the government did not even put their repeal proposals to the Senate. I know the government is calculating that people like me will vote for the Coalition anyway, come the next election, that, like the government itself, we don't really care about free speech. Otherwise it would at least have introduced its bill, passed it through the House and made the Senate block it. But some Coalition MPs obviously did not want to be in this position.

Yet, there are no hate speech laws of any sort in the US and the various Jewish, Islamic and other lobby groups that oppose repealing our hate speech laws do just fine there. Better than in almost every European country with hate speech laws. Apparently the government now implicitly agrees that you can't trust your average Australian to see through the rantings of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers.

Yet, this is the same government that has yet to dump its paid parental leave scheme. And is going to take some set of proposals on amending our Constitution, to put in place Lord knows what, to recognise indigenous people, whatever ''recognise'' means. Any recognition of indigenous people, in the preamble or elsewhere, could well be used by our High Court to strike down and invalidate democratically enacted laws. It could turn into a tool that serves as a sort of proto-bill of rights.

In the last decade our High Court has, in my view, made up a limited right for prisoners to vote. The textual warrant for that was supposedly the one that says that our senators shall be "directly chosen by the people". Shortly after that the High Court decided that it, not parliament, could decide when the electoral rolls could close. And the High Court struck down a democratically enacted law on no basis other than a couple of dozen references to the earlier prisoner voting case and the "directly chosen by the people" phrase.

Those back at Federation who argued about each word, comma and phrase would have been stunned at the results in both cases. So don't tell me that inserting a few words about recognising indigenous people might not have serious ramifications. Neither Brandis nor Abbott will interpret these new words. It will be a committee of ex-lawyers.

At least, though, the constitutional referendum is motivated by good intentions, however much we might worry where they lead. By contrast, yesterday's decision to leave in place our hate speech laws was a terrible and cowardly one made worse by the cynical political calculations that lay behind it.

James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.


by James Reed
It seems that the Treasurer Joe Hockey had to be held back from even worse welfare cuts. While cutting immigration could save governments more than enough to balance budgets given the astronomical infrastructure costs which immigration subjects long-suffering Australia to, that path is not taken because Big Business wants cheap labour. For example, French oil and gas company Total’s chief has said that Australia should “import labour to cut costs” in liquefied natural gas projects. (The Australian 21 July 2014, p.17). You see it is “Australia’s high costs” = high labour costs which upset the capitalists, hence the desire, as it has been for centuries, to bring in cheap labour.

Instead of tackling this, the Libs have turned their attention towards those on welfare, especially NewStart (the dole). Mutual obligation obligations, have been increased with the extra requirement of up to 25 hours a week of “community work” to keep dole payments. Even people aged 50-60 will be required to do 15 hours of an approved activity. It is well known that men over 50 have little chance of getting a job and at present middle-aged men wind up on the disability pension, which pays more than the dole anyway. All of this social decay is showing up in family breakdown, which more often than not has an ultimate economic cause to it. The Australian Family Courts have been said to be “swamped by an epidemic of domestic violence, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse”. (The Australian 28 July 2014, p.9)

This will get much worse as globalist elites put the economy into their economic rationalist pressure-cooker. That is why the League has a new online publication, The Crossroads, which tries to give positive strategies for coping with the terrible times we now face.


Ireland’s David Norris: "Israel bombs first and weeps later"

A must watch Video: Israel is Afraid of Palestinian Unity and America has a shameful role in all of this. Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152366789063353&set=vb.637933352&type=2&theater

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC)
A detailed 30-page report, issued in April 2014 by the research service of the US Congress. From the one-page Summary: "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $121 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries ..." - -http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Washington is Complicit in Israel's Crimes - Paul Findley August 3, 2014
Who is responsible for this tragic treatment of Palestinians? If you ponder that question, bear in mind that Israel could not possibly commit this criminal behaviour without automatic, unqualified, U.S. government support year after year. Pro-Israel lobby pressure controls all major news media. Congress behaves like a committee of the Israeli parliament. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has had the courage to stand up to Israeli wrongdoing. Those who know the truth are afraid to speak out for fear of paying a heavy price - maybe loss of employment. All citizens of the United States must face the truth: Our government is complicit in Israeli crimes against humanity. - - https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/25/washington-is-complicit-in-israels-crimes/

The Israel Lobby: The Only Explanation for America's Morally Bankrupt Policy By Stephen M. Walt
“As it has on several prior occasions, Israel is using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza ... This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby. There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behaviour of the U.S. Congress -- including some of its most "progressive" members -- or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration ... The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby’. - - https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/07/23/aipac-only-explanation-americas-morally-bankrupt-israel-policy


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

“Citing Holocaust, Israel Demands ‘Strict Regulation’ of Antiwar Protests in Europe” - Push for EU Special Commissioner to Regulate Protests, by Jason Ditz, July 28, 2014.

A new Holocaust is imminent, if one is to believe Israeli MPs, who spent the afternoon berating European officials about the growing antiwar protests across their countries, centred on criticizing the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

Officials blamed “one-sided” media reports on the large number of dead civilians in Israel’s attack, and demanded the European Union impose “strict regulations on the format and content” of antiwar demonstrations going forward.

Some of the EU officials present, notably Danish officials, insisted that they had a right to free expression that would be abridged by the proposed “regulations,” but Israeli officials were having none of it, insisting that criticism of Israel was anti-Semitism in and of itself, and that “there is a difference between free speech and incendiary speech.”

The Israeli proposal would see the creation of a Special Commissioner in the European Union that would [be] empowered to “monitor” antiwar protesters and restrict them from portraying Israel an “an aggressor” during its assorted invasions of Palestinian territory. Source: http://news.antiwar.com/2014/07/28/citing-holocaust-israel-demands-strict-regulation-of-antiwar-protests-in-europe/

from Paul Eisen Blogspot
I'm indebted to Francis Clark-Lowes for this. It's called "Silence of a Nation” and features Chris Hedges. You may know about Chris, but I didn't. It seems he's a journalist and commentator, the son of a clergyman and himself, among other things, a student of divinity. Impunity is the word that comes to mind. Eight hundred dead Palestinians. Eight hundred. That’s infinitely more than twice the total dead of flight MH17 over Ukraine. And if you refer only to the “innocent” dead – ie, no Hamas fighters, young sympathisers or corrupt Hamas officials, with whom the Israelis will, in due course, have to talk – then the women and children and elderly who have been slaughtered in Gaza are still well over the total number of MH17 victims.

And there’s something very odd, isn’t there, about our reactions to these two outrageous death tolls. In Gaza, we plead for a ceasefire but let them bury their dead in the sweltering slums of Gaza and cannot even open a humanitarian route for the wounded. For the passengers on MH17, we demand – immediately – proper burial and care for the relatives of the dead. We curse those who left bodies lying in the fields of eastern Ukraine – as many bodies have been lying, for a shorter time, perhaps, but under an equally oven-like sky, in Gaza.

Because – and this has been creeping up on me for years – we don’t care so much about the Palestinians, do we? We care neither about Israeli culpability, which is far greater because of the larger number of civilians the Israeli army have killed. Nor, for that matter, Hamas’s capability. Of course, God forbid that the figures should have been the other way round. If 800 Israelis had died and only 35 Palestinians, I think I know our reaction.

We would call it – rightly – a slaughter, an atrocity, a crime for which the killers must be made accountable. Yes, Hamas should be made accountable, too. But why is it that the only criminals we are searching for today are the men who fired one – perhaps two – missiles at an airliner over Ukraine? If Israel’s dead equalled those of the Palestinians – and let me repeat, thank heavens this is not the case – I suspect that the Americans would be offering all military support to an Israel endangered by “Iranian-backed terrorists”. We would be demanding that Hamas hand over the monsters who fired rockets at Israel and who are, by the way, trying to hit aircraft at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport. But we are not doing this. Because those who have died are mostly Palestinians.

More questions. What’s the limit for Palestinian deaths before we have a ceasefire? Eight hundred? Or 8,000? Could we have a scorecard? The exchange rate for dead? Or would we just wait until our gorge rises at the blood and say enough – even for Israel’s war, enough is enough. It’s not as if we have not been through all this before.

From the massacre of Arab villagers by Israel’s new army in 1948, as it is set down by Israeli historians, to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, when Lebanese Christian allies of Israel murdered up to 1,700 people in 1982 while Israeli troops watched; from the Qana massacre of Lebanese Arabs at the UN base – yes, the UN again – in 1996, to another, smaller terrible killing at Qana (again) 10 years later. And so to the mass killing of civilians in the 2008-9 Gaza war. And after Sabra and Shatila, there were inquiries, and after Qana there was an inquiry and after Gaza in 2008-9, there was an inquiry and don’t we remember the weight of it, somewhat lightened of course when Judge Goldstone did his best to disown it, when – according to my Israeli friends – he came under intense personal pressure.
Source http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/truly-speaking-truth-to-power.html

Comment: The Neocons are not all in America. Readers would do well to reread “It’s Official – John Howard a “Neo-Con” https://alor.org/Volume40/Vol40No21.htm

Let’s Imagine: In a simplistic attempt to justify Israel's Old Testament style slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli apologists always seem to ask the question ''how would the United States respond if a militant group fired thousands of missiles at its population centres from Canada or Mexico?'' These yammering Zionists seemed to think they score heavily in the arena of public opinion with this childish argument.

So let me try my own hypothetical question. How would Americans react if, with the blessings of the great powers, a huge number of heavily armed aliens from Eastern Europe arrived on our shores and claimed our country as their own by insisting that their god had bequeathed it to them via their mythical patriarch somewhere back in the Bronze Age? And after defeating an inept American military, they succeeded in driving most of the American people into either Canada or Mexico or west of the Mississippi. And then not being satisfied with the lands east of the Mississippi, two decades later, they initiate another war that results in their successful conquest of all the territory west of the Mississippi to the Pacific. And while promising the Americans west of the Mississippi an eventual state of their own, they nevertheless begin a program of massive colonization of these territories and also erect an apartheid barrier around all of their settlements.

Furthermore, imagine a small enclave in the southwest near the Mexican border where millions of Americans took refuge on some worthless land. Originally the aliens hoped to colonize it, but reluctantly they turn it over to the Americans to run for themselves as a sort of city state/refugee camp/ open air prison with no powers generally associated with a sovereign state and also reserving the right to move in at any time to protect their interests. Further imagine that after the election of an America government deemed hostile to alien interests they proclaim a crippling blockade which reduces the population to abject poverty and near starvation. Not satisfied with the blockade, the aliens then unleash the full force of their modern military on the helpless inhabitants whose only way of striking back is with crude rockets made from sewer pipe that carry a low yield explosive made from sugar and fertilizer. And finally imagine an alien dominated media that continues to label the Americans as terrorists.
From joe - - ReportersNotebook-owner@yahoogroups.com, 29 July 2014


by Richard Miller
The latest from the indigenous reconciliation crowd comes from former deputy prime minister John Anderson, who has said that the time is not right for Australians voting in favour of recognising Aborigines in the Constitution because Australians have a low awareness of the needs for this change. (The Weekend Australian 19-20 July 2014 p.12) Anderson wants Abbott to spend more taxpayers’ dollars on the campaign. He notes that Aboriginals want a referendum sooner rather than later, so they have a bit of a problem here, balancing everything up. Good for them! For us, we need to keep the “No” case in the air. This involves first addressing the “first peoples” issue when relevant material is reviewed, and pushing the main case that this is a politically correct bill of rights that will give the lawyer and political class a field day.


Andrew Bolt’s Blog: Abusing our good nature, 4 August 2014
“Someone must think we’re idiots. Why are 157 Sri Lankans given refuge in India now demanding we house them instead?

Why have refugee activists taken up their cause, rather than that of the countless real refugees in real danger right now? Why are we now keeping these 157 at our expense in Nauru, when they should have been flicked right back to India? This is an abuse of our good nature and our reason. Australia has always been prepared to help people fleeing for their lives. But these people?


The Editor of The Australian 5th August 2014
The case against constitutional recognition of Aboriginals, as expressed by Barry Maley ('Abandon change to constitution', 5/8), seems unanswerable and it is puzzling that the Prime Minister and 'The Australian' continue to support the Recognise campaign. The changes proposed involve gross ethnic inequity and threaten national unity and capacity to act in times of crisis. Bill Shorten's addition of statements against 'racial discrimination' amounts to an attempt to use the Aboriginal people in order to sneak in massive social engineering unauthorised by the electorate. The warm sentiments expressed in Tanya Hosch's article ('Bring our people in from cold', 5/8) are admirable and deserve sympathy; but those goals can be achieved quite satisfactorily in other ways than by tampering recklessly with the Constitution. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

Here is what anthropologist Barry Maley had to say in The Australian
Unfortunately, that goodwill and the notion of full and equal citizenship for all Australians would be betrayed if the constitutional proposals now presented were to be endorsed because they establish the Aboriginal people as a favoured class of Australians ­ entitled to pursue advantageous claims not available to others. The interim report recommends five alterations to the Constitution. All raise contestable issues but two recommendations (3 and 4) are highly contentious.

Recommendation 3 proposes that Section 51A should say
“Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters; Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”
The reference to “the need to secure the advancement” of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples opens the constitutional door to a host of preferment’s ­ denied other Australians. More generally, the obligation placed on the law to forms of “recognition”, “respect” and “acknowledgment” of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would establish exclusive expectations of unlimited possibility for those peoples. For example, “respecting the continuing heritage” could enhance and extend the prospect of exclusive land claims for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Unacknowledged in all of this are those people who created what is “now known as the Australian nation” and Constitution, and their descendants and their culture that turned a harsh continent into a prosperous homeland for 24 million inhabitants.


The following is an excerpt from Eric D. Butler’s “The Truth about the Australian League of Rights” written in 1985. It bears directly on the present political scene and the issues now confronting Australians. He wrote:

“Students of psycho-political warfare understand how the original meaning of words has often been perverted, while other words are used, not to convey a concept of reality, but to make rational discussion impossible. By constant perversion the term “discrimination” has been turned into one of abuse. Discrimination is a natural law and all forms of life discriminate in favour of themselves. Discrimination requires the making of choices. At one time “a person of discrimination” was looked up to.

“Racism” is another blatantly political swear word. When a person is called a “Racist” this means that he is automatically assumed to be guilty of some evil and that there is no basis for any discussion about what a person may have said…
In May, 1985, Mr Isi Leibler, prominent Zionist spokesman, claimed in a brochure issued to all the media, that the League was attempting to foment hatred against Aborigines and Asians, stating that the League of Rights has said that Asians are “inferior” to Europeans. The League has never fostered hatred against any group of people, and believes that every individual, irrespective of ethnic background, has value in the sight of God.

The Equality Dogma: One of the legacies of the French Revolution, the equality dogma, disputes the reality of the uniqueness of each individual and the many differences between racial groups. Equality means no quality. Christians who preach the doctrine of equality are surrendering to a view for which there is no evidence in The New Testament.

Pope Leo XIII, in Humanum Genus, said: “No one doubts that all men are equal in regard to their being of the same race and nature and having the same final end to be attained by each, and as far as the right and duties that follow from that end are concerned. But as they are not all equally gifted, as they differ in qualities of mind and body, and as there exists amongst them almost innumerable distinctions of manners, tastes, and characters, nothing is so repugnant to reason as to wish to apply the same measure to all and to introduce a strict mathematical equality into the regulation of civil life.” The League of Rights has opposed the policy of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism, not because it believes that, for example, Asians and Africans are inferior or superior to Europeans, but because such a policy must fragment Australia as it has fragmented other countries. It is the natural right of all nations to select the type of migrants they think will cause the minimum of friction. I have never met an Australian who finds it offensive or “racist” that the Japanese impose one of the strictest immigration policies in the world and that Malaysia does likewise.

Coinciding with the national debate on Aboriginal Land Rights during 1984, the immigration question generated a new intensity with the warnings of well-known historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey. The Marxists have long campaigned against the traditional Australian immigration policy of maintaining, as far as possible, a homogeneous nation, so it was not surprising that the Marxists along with Left-wing radicals and totalitarian University academics united in a campaign of both violence and denigration of Professor Blainey. But Zionist leader Isi Leibler also intervened to criticise all those opposed to the policy of attempting to make Australia a multi-racial nation…”


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The European Court of Justice has found that there is a “right” and that it means a “human right”, to “be forgotten”. Thus, for example, search engines such as Google are required to remove links to web pages containing personal information that is irrelevant, no longer relevant or inadequate. Already Google alone has been flooded with requests by individuals seeking such information oblivion.

However, the European approach differs from the position of US courts who recognise no such right, as do Australian courts. The European courts have upheld the French ban on wearing full-face veils in public, valuing social cohesion over freedom of religion. But in the US, freedom of religion trumps social cohesion. This all shows the social relativity of human rights and the danger of giving weight to foreign rulings in Australian cases.


by Chris Knight
The “Health Ranger” Mike Adams has a way of coming to the point, quickly: “America is in a de facto state invasion, and its an invasion that was deliberately engineered to “occupy” America with a flood of illegal immigrants known to be carriers of tuberculosis, scabies, lice, AIDS, Swine Flu and other infectious diseases”. (NaturalNews.com 11 July 2014).

The percentage of infected immigrants, such as those with tuberculosis, is much higher than the rates found in the sending nation. Adams quotes one blogger who observed: “preferentially the sick and diseased are managing to, despite their illnesses, travel long distances across Mexico to get to our borders. We are beyond statistically probability and into purposeful action”. In short, a “bio-invasion”.

Adams quotes other news services indicating that illegal’s with scabies have been released into the general population and that FEMA is more concerned with processing the illegal’s than about any disease issues. And we thought we had problems.


by Peter Ewer

Articles continue to appear in The Australian putting essentially the same case against the Andrew Bolt provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. Tim Wilson, Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, has been fairly good as a more traditional liberal promoting freedoms, such as freedom of opinion and expression. Thus in “Censorship Laws Not Needed to Tackle Prejudice” (The Australian 26 June 2014 p.10), he puts the case that “racism” can be dealt with by other ways rather than restricting free speech, such as by community condemnation. Significantly, he has argued that since human rights are rights protecting the freedom of the individual, anti-discrimination is not a human right because rights such as free association may actually discriminate – after all, “discriminate” means “choose”. Nor are group rights, human rights.

Ross Fitzgerald “Stop Hiding Behind Legislation and Allow Speech to Flow Freely” (The Weekend Australian, 19-20 July 2014, p.24) also has given a good liberal defence of free speech along J.S. Mill lines. Offensive words may hurt, but words are not weapons. By legislating against “offensive” speech the way is open to ban even more speech.

While I think that this is right, it doesn’t really deal with the Left and ethnic multicultural class, who reject the traditional liberal defence of free speech, and free speech itself, because ethnic identity politics comes first. Racial vilification legislation should be seen as a weapon to keep Anglo-Australians, who have been described as primarily “racists”, under control. If writers name a particular group in comments, offence is automatic because there is always an individual who will be offended about any criticism. Anything at all, in principle, can and will be objected to.

The correct response to this debate is to see this legislation as itself “racist”. Its purpose is to silence those with the heavy hand of “THE LAW” who dare get down to fine details about our dispossession. The Gillard-era changes to discrimination law, likely to be revived when the Labor Party return next election, will be a further “devolution” of this oppression, eliminating even the free speech which exists now, in the name of anti-discrimination. It seems that all the battles of the past for freedom, in one way or another, must be refought again.

Comment: Nearly 30 years later: current events are proving the reality of race and culture – On Target, 2 August 1985: “There is no such thing as the successful 'multicultural' society. No society has ever been able to survive where there has not been a system of cohesive moral and social standards, a type of unwritten spiritual agreement to which all agree to abide.

Diluting Patriotism: Did someone just say that one of the effects of multiculturalism would be to break down patriotism? To make it easier for World Government?”


by Richard Miller

Those who are seeking to rebuild from the ruins of postmodernity would do well to consult Masanobu Fukuoka’s “The One Straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming” which he wrote in 1975. Fukuoka (1913-2008) was a Japanese philosopher of agriculture, whose ideas were somewhat similar to America’s Wendell Berry – both philosophers were disturbed by the ecologically destructive effects of modern agriculture. Fukuoka’s response was to develop “natural farming” and he pursued this idea in later books such as “The natural Way of Farming” and “The Road Back to Nature”. Back in the 1970s these books became the bibles of back-to-the-landers who were seeking alternative living for philosophical reasons. Today, things have become much bleaker and alternative agriculture, and indeed, alternative lifestyles, off the grid of consumer society, have become a matter of survival. Influenced by Zen Buddhism and Taoism, Fukuoka proposed that the “ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings”. But to do this, one needs to farm in a way aligned with nature, with minimal soil disruption, no tilling or weeding, no use of fertilisers and pesticides and one must reject in total petrochemical agriculture.

The four principles of natural farming are thus:
[1] No cultivation, no plowing or turning of the soil – it is done naturally by the penetration of plant roots, micro-organism actions and earthworms.
[2] No chemical fertilisers and prepared composts which deplete the soil.
[3] No weeding by tillage or herbicides; weeds need to be controlled, not eliminated because they have their part to play in the balance of nature.
[4] Finally, no dependence on chemicals, especially insecticides as these chemicals disrupt the natural balance.

Instead of getting rid of weeds in say a rice crop, weeds are controlled by a ground cover of white clover and mulch made of rice and barley straw. Fukuoka used uncut straw scattered on the ground to enrich the soil, eliminating the need for compost. Rice growing by Fukuoka involved planting rice seeds, white clover and winter grains all in the same fields and covering them with rice straw. The barley or rye winter grains sprouted immediately and the rice stayed dormant until the spring. After the barley and rye was harvested the straw was scattered across the field as mulch. Following the monsoon rains the rice sprouted through the ground cover. When the field is drained the clover starts growing beneath the rice plants. There was no need to transplant rice plants or grow plants in flooded fields. Labour was thus minimised, as in ancient times, leaving more time for social and cultural activities.

Fukuoka wrote poetry in his spare times. Soils improve over time, unlike the soils of modern agriculture which decrease in fertility, structure and water-holding ability. However, for rice, yields are equal to chemical-based agriculture, some 1,100 to 1,300 pounds per acre.

In natural vegetable growing, all organic matter is returned to the soil, along with the use of animal and human manure. Crop rotation is used to enhance fertility and diminish the problems of pests. Plant diseases are prevented by growing crops at the right time and keeping soils healthy. Insects may be picked off by hand, or better yet, by roaming chickens, which in turn produce rich and healthy free range eggs. The relevance of this for we, who are contemplating the death of agricultural civilisation and the birth of a new world is summed up by Fukuoka: “In general, commercial agriculture is an unstable proposition. The farmer would do much better by growing the food he needs without thinking about making money. If you plant a grain of rice, it becomes more than a thousand grains. One row of turnips makes enough pickles for the entire winter. If you follow this line of thought, you will have enough to eat, more than enough, without struggling. But if you try to ‘make money’ instead, you get on board the profit wagon, and it runs away with you”.

Thus, Fukuoka invites us to try to become as self-reliant as possible with our own food production, even if all we have is a backyard garden. The benefit will be, not only the production of real food with flavour and tang, but the development of character that best comes from the taste of freedom.


Air Pollution: The Telegraph, 5 August 2014.

As Britain is sued by the European Commission for breaching pollution limits, drivers of diesel motor vehicles are warned that they face higher costs. More than 10 million motorists who were “betrayed and misled” into buying diesel cars have been warned that they face higher costs as the European Union puts pressure on Britain to cut air pollution levels…” Joanne Nova on her website writes: “Green plan causes air pollution, may kill thousands in the UK, thanks to dirty diesel”.

A Greenpeace Bio-diesel Campaign, November 2000

“Golly — who would have thought that policies based on a logical fallacy and a pseudo-religion would be a bad idea? It’s not just bad, it’s deadly. For the last ten years environmentalists and greens told Europeans to buy diesel cars, not petrol, because they produce less CO2. So British people, and a lot of Europe too, did exactly that — lured by generous tax breaks, pushed by the guilt trip if they were thinking of buying a petrol car. The car fleet of the EU was transformed. Back in the early nineties, hardly anyone owned a diesel, but now, as many as half of all new cars in the UK are diesel, and some extra 45 million diesel cars have been bought across Europe. But clean energy turned out to be dirty fuel, with diesels producing tons of small dangerous particulates, black carbon, and other real pollutants.

It’s so bad, the UK is not meeting air pollution standards, and more importantly, by at least one estimate, some 7,000 deaths a year can be attributed to diesel pollution from cars. Diesel pollution is becoming such an issue in London that Boris Johnson is thinking of charging diesel drivers an extra £10 to drive in London – “a measure that could be copied by as many as 18 other cities.” A debacle all the way down.

Read further http://joannenova.com.au/


A correspondent wrote:
I promised to find the details on when councils decided to implement ICLEI into their policies, but as it appears, it seems state and local by-laws act in some way as to not need to inform locals of the agenda. Jeff Kennett may well be aware of the situation, but is not letting on. It is therefore up to each council to act as if it is a state law requirement and keep insisting on its implementations

Using the Delphi method its easy to do so. (http://americadontforget.webs.com/documents/14-Delphi-Technique.pdf)
The CEO would have been aware of this as they also had close links with the Labor party and others who were voted in locally.

An extract from one of the items attached.... “Councils play a vital part in this process of reporting to the UN through their reports to the State government”.

Council Implementation of Agenda 21 Voluntary: Councils do not have the backing of the law to force the foreign Agenda 21 program upon residents – they do so of their own initiative and because they have been bullied by state governments. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government in their 2006 SOE (128), there is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community.

According to the Commonwealth: “Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection… This can create tensions because councils and the staff they hire consider themselves to be creatures and servants of the local areas. Instead of being driven by any specific statute, local governments use state and territory laws as toolkits to fix local problems, rather than as the instruction manuals intended by state governments.”

Given this lack of legislative backing, and the decision by all levels of government NOT to seek democratic endorsement of Agenda during the normal electoral processes, the widespread adoption of Agenda 21 by Councils is alarming.

Rio+20: ICLEI Members Admit “Bait and Switch” to Boost Climate Agenda
June 18, 2012. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: To advance public action on global warming, participants attending the ICLEI World Congress admitted today that they are deliberately employing new terminology to misdirect opponents and gain acceptance of their efforts to reduce energy use and green­house gases. By utilizing terms like “sustainability” and 
“sustainable development,” the group wants to mask its objectives and disarm would-be critics 
who might otherwise oppose their agenda, ICLEI attendees confided with CFACT representatives at the conference.

Thinking they can speak candidly on their home turf, ICLEI speakers reveal an unworkable economic agenda,” said CFACT President David Rothbard. “ICLEI’s bait and switch – substituting ‘sustainable development’ for ‘climate change’ – is shameless and deceptive. People need to understand ICLEI’s real agenda, before it cons other local governments into joining. ICLEI is weaving a crafty spider’s web that will entangle communities before they realize how its restrictive rules will kill jobs and reduce freedoms and living standards.”

Read further: https://www.cfact.tv/2012/06/18/iclei-members-admit-bait-and-switch-to-boost-climate-agenda/

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