Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Home Blog Freedom Potentials The Cross Roads Veritas Books
OnTarget Archives Newtimes Survey Podcast Library Video Library PDF Library
Actionist Corner YouTube Video Channel BitChute Video Channel Brighteon Video Channel Social Credit Library

On Target

9 July 1965 Thought for the Week: ".... from the point of view of fundamental human liberties there is little to choose between communism, socialism, and national socialism. They are all examples of the collectivist or totalitarian state ... in its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from fascism". - Former British Socialist MP., Ivor Thomas, explaining why he left the Socialist Party, in "The Socialist Tragedy". (1949)


The reported statement of the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies to a press conference in London discussing Australia's stand on South Vietnam has thrown the Communists, the Parlour Pinks and the intellectual liberals into another flap. Mr. Calwell, desperately seeking to placate the leftwing of the Labour Party asks the rhetorical question "If Australia is at war, then with whom are we at war?" Perhaps he has been beguiled by the Viet Cong, who, because they do not wear uniform, and have not formally declared war, but at night ravage pillage and murder. Having not formally declared war, ipso facto, there is no war just a social revolution! But then Mr. Calwell pursues the same policy in regard to Unity Tickets in the Trade Unions. Because he has never recognised them they never exist! Its really quite simple.


Mr. Calwell again demonstrates his hypocrisy when he taunts the government with its policy of trading with Red China. If his question "Are we at war with China? If so why are we selling hundreds of millions of pounds of strategic materials to China each year, and all the time trying to promote more trade," was a genuine criticism we would be the first to applaud him. But recently on being challenged by Mr. McEwen to clarify the position of the Labour Party, Mr. Calwell said they agreed with the Australian policy of trade with Communist countries as it was inducive to peaceful relationships. Therefore in this regard he is just as unrealistic as the government and should honestly say so.

The sooner the full force and facts of the Prime Minister's statement are faced the better for Australia and the rest of the Western world. If as Mr. Calwell said it was, the Prime Ministers statement was "merely indulging in an oratorical flourish, suitable for a banquet hall full of wealthy and elderly men," then we are the losers. Sir Robert's statement could well mean a hardening of policy by the government on the trade question. If enough Australians confront him with the realities of his own statement there will be some hope of it not remaining an "oratorical flourish".


The commentators are interpreting the Duke of Edinburgh's recent statement calling for patience in Southern Rhodesia as being pro the Smith Government. However it is pertinent to note that the Duke also said
"I think everybody recognises that the ultimate result is inevitable..." meaning that the British Government policy of African majority rule is inevitable. If this is so it is apparent that the Duke does not recognise the reality or justice of Mr. Ian Smith's position.

In addition to contending for a ratification of the 1961 constitution which would allow the continuance of stable and responsible government by both white and black, Mr. Smith as a responsible head of a nation with the welfare of the whole community at heart, refuses to be a party to handing power to groups which have clearly demonstrated that their only claims to government can be made through terrorism and subversion.


While Australian papers have never hesitated to criticise the stand made by Southern Rhodesia against the folly which has swept the greater part of Africa, we have been forced to wait for reports from others sources for independent views of the truth of the so-called "racist" white government there. One such view was the report in the London Weekly review "East Africa and Rhodesia" on the visit to Rhodesia of members of the New Zealand Parliament.

Mr. J. H. George, M.P. Chief Government Whip in New Zealand, and two other members of the Parliament of that country, who attended the final session in Domboshawa of the indaba (an "indaba" is a native conference) of Rhodesian chiefs and headmen, have said that they were "very impressed with the most fair conduct of the indaba, which certainly showed no signs of having been rigged in any way". They felt that the chiefs had expressed their conviction that there would be peace and happiness in the country but for external interference. (our emphasis)

The leader of the delegation, Mr. George, paid tribute to the fairness of Mr. Harper, Minister of Internal Affairs, and the manner in which he had put the situation to the chiefs. As a result of their six-day visit, he and his colleagues had he said, a very different opinion of Rhodesia, which their Prime Minister had asked them to visit on their way to the annual meeting in Jamaica of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. They could thus speak with some personal knowledge when Rhodesia was discussed at the conference.

As a result of the indaba, which so impressed these visiting N.Z. parliamentarians, the Chiefs declared their loyalty to the Smith Government and their desire to see the 1961 Constitution ratified by the British Government as the basis of independence. The British Government had agreed to take note of the views expressed at the indaba, but subsequently dishonoured this agreement. The Chiefs later visited England and were badly treated by government officials there. They received threatening letters from Bantu terrorist organisations. All these details can be checked in the official government publication The Domboshawa Indaba which was published to give the world the other side of the story being presented through the world news agencies.


In an article in the Melbourne Age E.S. Warren comments on the new Peking decision to abolish ranks in the Chinese Communist army. He presents it as part of "the most gigantic ideological remoulding campaign ever carried out anywhere in the world." "The intent is to have a one-thought nation with every individual following the thought of Mao Tse Tung."
This policy ran into trouble in the army where "officers had grown accustomed to privilege and were reluctant to take part in the class struggle: soldiers could not avoid being diverted from the grind of the class struggle by the lure of working for promotion." "Rank diverted attention from the political goal so it was sacrificed."

This thought of Mao Tse Tung is orthodox Marxist-Leninism as he continually asserts. It is dedicated to the suppression of all religion save that of state worship and socialist leader idolatry.
His writings on these matters leave no doubt whatsoever. Yet this is the teaching, which certain so called Christian leaders tell us we must not oppose. In fact Dr. Carpenter whose views we reported last week evidently considers Chinese Communism superior in many ways to Christianity. It is thought provoking to know that Dr. Carpenter as a Bishops Chaplain acts as an adviser to clergy with problems and in fact is acting in this capacity in Australia!

We can but wonder at the type of advice he is handing out to unsuspecting anglican clergy.

The institution of the group ideal, which both the Dr. and Mao Tse Tung subscribe, is the denial of mans divinity: The only sin for which Christ said there was no forgiveness. (Mark 3:29)


Ever since the Communist trained Tito took over the control of conquered Yugoslavia, he's been painted by the press as an ally of the west who would save Yugoslavia from the Russians. Competent non-socialist observers have from the start stated he was and is a Communist. They were accused of over simplification, and the liberal complicators, ignoring facts, were granted a virtual monopoly of news space to expand their sophistries.

By ignoring twenty years of history refuting them, these pundits, from Lippman to Wilkie have continued to the present week to expound of differences between the Yugoslav and Russian Branch managers, of about as much importance as the way they brush their teeth. An A.A.P. news item of July 2 expresses surprise that Tito now appears to be returning to the Soviet fold. They read this interpretation from a joint Soviet Yugoslavia communique issued on July 1 after the conclusion of Tito's two week visit to Moscow.

The communique stressed agreement on the need for "comradely discussions on the most vital problems of the day, and their solution on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and Socialist internationalism". In it Tito backed the Moscow appeal for Communist unity "in the face of imperialist danger.

We can be assured however that the Lippman's and Wilkie's will try to convince us that this does not mean what it says.

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