Talk:Australian League of Rights

Australia: Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian League of Rights is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Template:WikiProject Political parties

Organizations Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

This article claims that the ALOR openly promotes this document, yet any evidence of this claim is absent from its website. I am thus remiving this claim, and other unsubstantiated claims that reveal a POV. User: Maximus Meridius.

A google search for references to the Protocols on the ALOR website brings up at least 11 results in which they refer to it as being true. Furthermore, the book, alongside such other classics as Mein Kampf, is available for purchase in the ALOR's Heritage bookstore.

"...they have also been accused of being associated with the Australian National Socialist Party" is not a POV statement. They are accused of being associated with the ANSP in David Harcourt's (at the time) definitive work on 20th century Australian neo-Nazism, Everyone Wants To Be Fuhrer (1977?) Drett 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the accusations are unsubstantiated, which in this case they are-there are no sources referenced-the claims appear to express a POV. I do not oppose these accusations on the proviso that they are sourced. "They have been accused" is simply not good enough, and as you are no doubt aware this term is often used to lend credence to individual value judgments, and to provide an undeserved appearence of impartiality. Furthermore, Ebay, Angus and Robertson, Bartleby's all sell "Mein Kampf", would you describe these organisations as Holocaust deniers? Circumstantial evidence in inadmissable in an encyclopaedia. Until you reference these claims, I will keep deleting them. Maximus Meridius 03:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material restored... plus some fantastic references. Drett 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to back up Maximus Meridius' observations. Allegations of ardent anti-semitism in the ALOR are wholly unsubstantiated by any primary documentation. Incidentally, I was driven to this entry by a lucid account of the "History of the Socialist Party of America" which was devoid of any anti-semitism and was anything but "extremist" in tone. Furthermore, I took up the intellectually honest Drett and googled ALOR and anti-semitism. I discovered a mention of it on the website, and some pensive and cautious reflections on the rise of anti-semitism in Europe. There was nothing rabid or insidious about it. I smell a smear campaign. Document your primary sources, if you would be so kind Drett. Referencing left-leaning publications is not going to cut it. Reasonsjester (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no problem about including what left-leaning publications say so long as the attribution is clear. That the ALOR supports the accuracy of the Protocols is clearly shown on their website. It wasn't hard to find, you just put Protocols in the search box. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the reference to Jewish conspiracies by the use of "code words". Firstly euphemism is the correct term- the examples aren't "code words". Secondly, I don't agree that most are euphemisms for anything to do with Jews. The Fabians for instance are a specific socialist group. Opposition to them is opposition to socialism, not Jews. The same applies to "One world", meaning a (socialist) world government. Don't overplay the extent to which the LOR may have been anti-semitic.124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to take over NPA

I've added a paragraph about the League's little-known but near-successful attempt to take over the National Party. Peer review and merciless editing welcome. Can anyone provide citations? My knowledge of this event comes from my father, who was one of the people who worked hard to keep the League out of the NPA.

Also:

I changed "The League is based on the principles of Christianity ..." to "The League claims to be based on the principles of Christianity ...".
Wikipedia should have an article about Eric Butler.
This article should mention Eric Butler.

Chris Chittleborough 14:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: we now have an article about Eric Butler, and this article wikilinks to it. CWC 15:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged CIA Funding

My father also tells me that the League of Rights flourished during the 1950s, with lots of activities, energetic recruiting and well-funded publications. Much later, he says, it came out that the CIA had given them US$1,000,000 to "fight communism". I have no reason to doubt this story (it would not be the only time a lunar right group got US gov't money in the name of fighting communism) but I also have no usable citations. Chris Chittleborough 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt claims that the Moon is made of cheese. But do I have any evidence for this belief?124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should made myself clearer: I'm asking if any other editors have any Wikipedia:Reliable Sources about this alleged payment. (And I could give you reasons to doubt the moon is made of cheese ... jk). Cheers, CWC 15:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

League of Rights and One Nation

Does anyone have a reference/citation for the links between the ALOR and the One Nation Party? My understanding is that one of the reasons David Oldfield and David Ettridge set up that bizarre organisational structure was to prevent ALOR from infiltrating and subverting ON. Of course, (1) I might be wrong, and (2) there would almost be certainly be some sort of linkage, though possibly nothing formal. Cheers, CWC(talk) 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some good ones: [1] [2] [3] ... One of the chapters in Pauline's book was written by someone from ALOR too, if I recall. Drett 01:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. (I should have remembered about Graeme Campbell.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League of Rights and National Action

I've put a {{Fact}} tag on this. Although they're both far right, National Action uses the Eureka Flag and is strongly republican, whereas ALOR is strongly monarchist. --Apeloverage 10:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too find this association to be unlikely, FWIW. CWC 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Greason (one of the founders of NA) was quite involved in ALOR. I'm aware that some NA people (like Ross May) are also connected, will try and find a good source. Drett 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who think Greason had anything to do with the founding of NA is Greason himself. The man is a walking lie but because he published a book the left fawn over him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.209.115 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

I think that it is contentious to say the least to describe the League of Rights as a "far right and anti-semitic political organization". It was conservative rather than right wing, and right wing rather than far right. The suggestion that it was Nazi or neo-Nazi was never more than a smear by opponents. It was not anti-Semitic. The league may well have supported David Irving, but he is not anti-Semitic, and even if he was it didn't support him for that reason. Eric Butler might well have been anti-Semitic - many people were at that time - but anti-Semitism was never league policy. There were many anti-Semites amongst the Soviet Communist Party, but it would be wrong to describe the CPSU as a anti-Semitic organization. And finally, it was not a political organization.101.98.175.68 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]