WHITHER VIETNAM NOW

"American troops captured key terrain in the Shau Valley today in an attempt to cut the biggest communist supply line into South Vietnam." - The Age, Melbourne April 30.

Vietnam as a military conflict has practically been pushed off the main pages of the world's press. Gone are the editorials and the special articles. Sporadic reporting of the latest dispute over a site for "peace" talks come through, accompanied by minor reporting we had such as when the Minister for the Army, Mr. Lynch returned from Vietnam. A welcome given to returning troops from Vietnam by 200,000 Sydney people, rated a two inch column in one leading newspaper. The monsoon season does not hide the seriousness of the continued actions being fought, and the comedy relief provided by the Presidential "race", is not sufficient excuse for failure to report adequately the real situation in Vietnam.
A position, which adds up to the fact that the Communists can be well and clearly defeated in the field and the terms of settlement, could be dictated by the Allies.

Besides the fact that Khe Sanh never did become the "graveyard" for American troops, depicted by the propagandists, but was successfully relieved with enormous Communist losses. The Viet Cong's threatened new offensive has never materialised, and it is evident that the desperation of communist terrorism is alienating the populace. The immorality of the mass media, and its use as a pure propaganda instrument is evident in the situation depicted in the above report. This is a most important action in this "limited" warfare. The report discloses the huge amount of Russian equipment already captured, and this communist supply line, threatened by the American action, is the biggest in South Vietnam.

While every negative aspect, such as the rioting occurring in the capital cities of the world, is faithfully reported, accompanied by appropriate pictures of "police brutality", the reality that the war can be won without concluding a false peace is carefully ignored.

RACIAL REALITIES IN BRITAIN

"Thousands of London Dockers went on strike today and started a march on Parliament in Britain's growing racial storm. It was the third time this week that strikers have paraded outside Parliament in support of Mr. Powell. Once it was the Dockers and on the other occasion meat porters from London's Smithfield market. " - The Age, Melbourne, April 27.

When Mr. Powell made his speech just two days prior to a debate on race relations in the House of Commons, it is evident he did so, knowing the consequences of his action. Whether he was sincere, or playing the role of a political opportunist, is hard to decide. Where the welfare of the British people is concerned, some of Mr. Powell's policies in the past leave much to be desired, such as leading the retreat from East of Suez, while the responsible Minister in the Conservative Government. Also Mr. Powell gave voice to something, which had been obvious to the most casual observer for many years. None-the-less, for the first time in many years, a politician was saying something with which the over-whelming majority agreed. Gallup polls record agreement, while newspapers record that letters in favour of the Powell statement run at 13 to 1 and better.

The sacking of Mr. Powell by Mr. Heath from his shadow cabinet position of Minister of Defence, only serves to lower Mr. Heath's stocks to a lower point than formerly - if that is possible. However, it is not this type of political reaction, which is of concern, for there has been complete dishonesty from all political parties on the issues.
Of greater concern, is the reaction to the present Race Relations Bill being debated.

Should it become law, the stage will be set for revolution, sparked off by racial riots following the same pattern as in America. Discriminatory legislation to punish people for holding racial preference - or "prejudice", as preferred by the inflammatory press - is the necessary powder keg to set Britain aflame. The present situation with trade unionists marching on parliament, while black leaders threaten retaliation, is music the ears of the revolutionaries. The whole situation brings home the portent of the view expressed by Karl Marx when he observed that the British would never make a revolution for themselves, and it would have to be imported for them.

ORGANISED BLASPHEMY AT UNIVERSITY

"The Premier (Sir Henry Bolte) has called for a full investigation by Monash University into a mock crucifixion reported to be held on the University campus on the day before Good Friday" - The Age, Melbourne, April 24.

Later reports estimated over 1000 students had witnessed the mock Crucifixion by students, which has revolted and disgusted the public of Melbourne. Protests to parliamentarians and commentators on radio and press were reported to be heavier than for any previous issue. However it is significant that other than the weekly newspaper Truth which first reported the incident, the press as a whole has dropped the matter. Rebuking Melbourne's, "God is meaningless", clergymen, three Bishops of the Anglican Church referred to the matter in a pastoral letter which dealt with the views of Rev. David Pope, and Rev. Peter Lance as "old heresies dressed up in new clothes".

The newspaper report which printed extracts of the pastoral letter referred to the mock crucifixion as "blasphemous and revolting", but omitted the more pertinent observation, that the students were only repeating what had happened on the first Good Friday, when Jesus Christ was mocked by his tormentors. Reaction to criticism in Parliament came with the publication of a letter from 105 students of La Trobe University, to The Age, April 26, protesting against the right of protest being restricted in any way, "It is possible that the bulk of students involved, were conscientiously protesting against customs and beliefs they believe to be unfounded".
Which brings us right back, to Messrs Pope and Lane, now reinforced by 16 clergy and laymen, as well as Dr. Barry Marshall, Chaplain of Trinity College and lecturer in theology, at Melbourne University.

The process of destroying moral standards, by the questioning of accepted standards, and the gradual replacement of fundamental teaching, was given an added twist during the week by the publication of a report in The Herald, Melbourne April 29, where comparisons between the Bible and the book Peyton Place were drawn. "Both are very frank about sex". There was no attempt to emphasise the Christian teaching on this important subject. The comparison was used to plead for an acceptance of greater public licence, in the acceptance of public displays of sex as normal.

The reporting and publicity given to this form of eroticism, is out of all proportion, to its acceptance by the public generally.

The infliction of this type of material on the populace by a small minority, is a flagrant abuse of freedom. No reputable journal does it, or has to do it. A clear case of the infringement of the rights of those who do not wish to have their children subjected to this type of suggestive pornography is involved.

MR. GEORGE BALL U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.

Mr.Arthur Goldberg, 59, today handed in his resignation as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations… President Johnnson immediately announced that Mr. George Ball, former Under-Secretary of State would take over the U.N. post. Mr. Ball, 58, is known as a "peace dove" on the Vietnam issue". - The Herald, Melbourne, April 26.

Mr. Ball is another of the architects of compromises, and appeasement of Communism, who have dominated successive administrations, in the United States of America, for so long. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, on June 4 1962, he said, "I think one cannot rule out looking down the long course of history, that changes may take place in the individual nation states which make up the Communist bloc which will transform them from being dangerous, because they are exponents of a militant, aggressive, international communism, to the adoption of postures which will make them easier to live with in the world".
To which the Communists reply, "Another victory to our propaganda".

From Lenin through to Kosygin, the Communist leaders have made it clear there is to be no compromise with "Capitalism", "The shrimps will learn to whistle", before we forsake Marxian-Leninism said Khruschev.

In India last week Mr. Kosygin told the U.S. they had to stop all the bombing in North Vietnam, and "all acts of aggression" before peace talks could start. There does not appear to be much transformation there, neither is there any sign of the independence of North Vietnam as an "individual nation". Mr. Ball and his ilk cannot recognise that Communism is a single, tightly knit army, dedicated to the defeat of any vestige of resistance, to its power. Mr. Ball is also a member of that peculiar organisation, the Council of Foreign Relations, named as the secret government of America in Dan Smoot's book, The Invisible Government.
As the U.S. Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Ball was also credited as being the mastermind behind the original move of the McMillan government in Britain to join the European Common Market. All of which adds up to the affinity Mr. Ball has of the same type of international society visualised by the Socialists.
The United Nations will be a home away from home, for Mr. Ball.

YOUR CO-OPERATION PLEASE

DISARMING THE UNITED STATES

"Civilian experts on military affairs believed, that Russia was stronger militarily, than the United States, Senator Syminton told the Senate yesterday. These beliefs are not pleasant to contemplate he said" - The Australian April 26.

Commenting upon the cause of the U.S. falling behind in military preparedness, Review of the News, May 1 reports: The truth is that while he was Secretary of Defence, Robert Strange McNamara engaged in a one-man crusade of unilateral disarmament. He constantly rejected the counsel of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, abandoned American military bases all over the world, halted the development of manned bombers on the excuse that the United States would rely on missiles, and then began scrapping American ICBM sites! And that is the barest outline of his perfidy".
The perfidy of Mr. McNamara may have grave results for Australia.

The report continues. "Perhaps nothing better illustrates the absurdity of suggesting that McNamara exercised fiscal responsibility than the obloquy concerning the TXF airplane, now known as the F-111. McNamara awarded the contract to the highest bidder, Texas-based General Dynamics-in spite of the fact that, according to the all-Service evaluation team, Boeing's version was much better designed, and was cheaper by billions of dollars".

Chickens are coming home to roost on this matter, here in Australia as well as the U.S.A.

ATTENTION QUEENSLAND SUPPORTERS

ON TARGET BULLETIN

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
THE PRINCIPLE OF RESPONSIBILITY

Our last subject for discussion was concerned principally with establishing the broad principle of responsibility. If the factors, which activate our society fail to generate the principle of personal responsibility in the face of national danger then our society will undoubtedly come under the control of some form of despotism. At this stage we would refer you to the "Thought for the Week" in this issue of On Target, which puts the matter quite simply and clearly.

In this sense "the people" must exercise their rights. They will do so if they have a sense of responsibility allied to an understanding of the principles involved. If they do not exercise their rights, they will be taken by those who will use them against the people. Take for example the principle of responsibility involved in taxation. Taxation is legitimate to a certain point, beyond this point it destroys responsibility. There is a legitimate case for the individual subscribing funds for the upkeep of the State. However beyond the point where the State merely represents the community in such matters as their relations with other states, the establishment of a national defence system, a just means of exchange which maintains a healthy economy; beyond such points the state begins to encroach upon the responsibility of the individual to supply his own needs, and to fashion his own destiny.
Modern government has gone far beyond the point outlined and therefore demands huge slices of the individuals personal income, to in effect, do such things for him, which if he was a truly responsible person he would do for himself.

The question of helping those who cannot help themselves is another matter; the principle should certainly not be applied to society as a whole.
To return to taxation.

The State having taken unto itself the right to intrude in this sphere and that, education, health (public health and hygiene are legitimate activities of local government) etc., undertakes to take from the individual the necessary funds to implement such schemes. At this point the State moves from what may be described as legitimate taxation to coercive, or forced taxation. The fact that it is impossible to obtain from the individuals being so taxed their agreement to whatever their money is being taken for, has gone beyond public discussion. The important principle of moral responsibility has been almost completely forgotten.

It is hoped that such notes as these will regenerate public discussion on such important matters. We will develop the subject a stage further in a fortnight's time. In the meantime a suitable question for discussion could be. What is my responsibility towards furthering the education of my neighbours children, and what principles are involved?
Such a question could profitably be forwarded to both your member of parliament at some suitable occasion and also to your religious mentor.

A SUPPLEMENTARY TARGET

Replies to questions on Australia's financial sovereignty have been received by a good number of V.P.A. members. Members, including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been at pains to explain that membership of the International Monetary Fund and creation of what is called Special Drawing Rights, (S.D.R,'s) does not in any way involve the loss of our economic and political sovereignty.
Should the individuals who received such letters wish to take the matter further they should ask their informants whether it was a fact that before Britain could obtain financial support from I.M.F, to tide them over their recent financial crisis they had to give an assurance that taxes would be raised in Britain, this resulted in the recent disastrous budget imposed upon the hapless British people.
If this is correct, what safeguards have the Australian people against similar dictates should we at any time be forced to apply to I.M.F. for financial aid.

The point should be made that what is required is that any international financial house should act as no more than a clearing house to facilitate the exchange of national financial exchange. In effect this function can be facilitated by our own banking system and there is no need for an international bank.