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

19 March 1965.Thought for the Week: "All we know of freedom, all we need to know, This our fathers won for us, long and long ago. - Kipling.


The launching of this weekly publication has created widespread interest, and concern, in many quarters. Already Mr. Rupert Murdock's national daily, The Australian, has carried two stories designed to smear the publishers, The Australian League of Rights. These inspired stories indicate that certain people are seriously concerned about the League's expansion and growing influence.

It is particularly interesting that reference is made in the two stories to the fact that the League is inviting businessmen to become subscribers to its activities. The League makes no secret of the fact that it is making every effort to approach what it regards as the natural leaders of the community, and is inviting them to support the League's comprehensive programme against the challenge of the most deadly totalitarian challenge ever offered to free men. We welcome those natural leaders who have become subscribers to ON TARGET. But we must also welcome those concerned about our work.

We extend a special welcome to Mr. Ernest Platz, of 321 William Street, Melbourne. Mr. Platz was so interested in ON TARGET that he requested every issue since the start of publication. Now Mr. Platz is a most interesting study. He is at present the principal official of a body known as The Jewish Council, an organisation described by the Jewish Board of Deputies in 1960 as "a Communist-controlled organisation."
A previous Secretary of this organisation was Mr. Judah Waten, who today openly proclaims his support for the Communist Party.

Mr. Platz has travelled abroad a number of times and invariably supports the Communist "line" on major issues. He is listed amongst those who sponsored the visit to Australia last year of former South African Communist leader, Mr. "Solly Sachs."

We are pleased to know that Mr. Platz and his friends find ON TARGET of such interest that Mr. Platz has become a subscriber!


President Johnson of the U.S.A., aided by his Public Relations men, has attempted to create the impression that he is the man who gave his fellow-Americans, and the rest of the world, the concept of "The Great Society". President Johnson has also insisted that "The Great Society" is the continuation of President Roosevelt's "New Deal". As shown by Eric D. Butler in "The Fabian Socialist Contribution To The Communist Advance", (4/6 post free from The Heritage Bookshop) the term "New Deal" was coined by a prominent American Fabian Socialist. Roosevelt's policies were designed to place the U.S.A. firmly on the Socialist road. President Johnson is continuing along the Socialist road.

It was the English Fabian Socialist writer, Graham Wallas, in 1914, not Lyndon Johnson in 1964, who originated the term "The Great Society". This was the title of a book by Wallas. It is significant that the books carried a dedication to one of Wallas's young Fabian Socialist disciples. The disciple's name was Walter Lippmann! It was almost certainly Lippmann who suggested "The Great Society" theme to his friend, President Johnson. The central feature of this theme, as well might be expected, is greater central Government control of everything and everybody.


Mr. Walter Lippmann is at present being widely quoted by the Communists and their dupes to further the campaign to force the Americans to withdraw from South Vietnam. In our issue of March 5 we quoted the two veteran Washington reporters, Robert Allen and Paul Scott, as stating early this year that the Johnson's no-win policy would include "a military smokescreen of tightly controlled tactical bombing raids" to "cover its strategic retreat from South Vietnam," Now it may be suggested that mounting American bombings indicate that the no-win policy has been thrown overboard, and that the "war hawks", to use a Lippmann term, are now imposing their policies on the Johnson Administration. But it is far too premature to come to such a comforting conclusion.

Note what Mr. Lippmann had to say in a recent special TV interview in the U.S.A., as reported in The Australian of March 11:
"........the President is not a war-hawk. The war-hawks want to bomb Hanoi and all the industries. They want to knock out the whole industrial system of North Vietnam. If anybody says the Chinese will intervene if he does, the war hawks say bomb China too. The President's policy in bombing is a very strictly controlled and regulated policy. We're not bombing North Vietnam; we're bombing the borderland above the 17th. parallel, which is a rather empty country, and we signal our attacks and they know when they are coming. There's no surprise attack, and they are really public relations jobs, much more than they are military jobs." (Our emphasis.)

Bearing in mind Mr. Lippmann's influential position, it must be accepted that he is presenting the Johnson Administration's current policy for South Vietnam, which is withdrawal after "negotiations." But there is a chance that the "war hawks" will upset this defeatist strategy!


The Communists have warmly welcomed the statement issued early this week by 11 Bishops of the Church of England, calling for a "negotiated peace" and the withdrawal of the Americans from South Vietnam. The Bishops' statement is clearly based upon the "arguments" used by the Communists in the daily press advertisements referred to in our last issue. It is one more example of the famous Communist tactic of "Let our friends do the work for us." And yet we find it difficult to believe that the 11 Bishops have retreated so far from their religion that they can view with indifference the sufferings and persecutions of enslaved and tortured humanity behind the Iron Curtain. Surely they are not unaware of the frightful terrorist methods being used by the Viet Cong on South Vietnam? How can any agreement be made with such people?

The only agreement acceptable to the Communists is one giving free reign to the imposition of their evil and inhuman regime in South Vietnam. They proved this by cynically breaking the 1954 Geneva agreement as soon as it was signed. Had God's will been for compromise and co-existence with evil, He would hardly have needed to send His son into a world already dedicated to these policies. We must therefore conclude that the 11 Anglican Bishops are unaware of the Satanic nature of the doctrine they are indirectly assisting. But it is a responsibility of their high office to acquaint themselves with knowledge of this matter before entering publicly into the field of politics. Their own missionaries could provide them with much first hand information on the fruits of the degenerate philosophy if they cared enough to intelligently consult them.


Recent statements by Labor Party deputy leader Whitlam leave no doubt that he is making every effort to ingratiate himself with the Leftist forces dominating the Labor Party at present. He has publicly aligned himself with the darling of the Communists, Dr. J. Cairns, in supporting continued aid for Indonesia and American withdrawal from South Vietnam. Even staunch Labor Party supporters whom we have contacted boggle at continuing support of the red warmongers to Australia's immediate north.

If the Labor Party is to become an effective patriotic national force again, it must purge itself of those types so steeped in Socialist ideology that they are even willing to gamble with their nation's security in order to further their aims. As we have often pointed out, this type of individual is not exclusively confined to the Labor Party, but the Labor Party's declared Socialist policy encourages them in greater numbers.


Many competent authorities are satisfied that there is a close relationship between pornographic and sadistic literature, and the conspiracy against Civilization. The rapid growth of this literature is a feature of all Western countries. There is no doubt that this spate of filth and perversion is undermining traditional values and the moral outlook of our youth, There are people who by the strength of their faith and morality are unaffected by this poison. However, these are not generally the type who would bother to read it in any case, nor do they in the main regard it as harmless.

No sane person looks at the God-given gift of sex as an unmentionable evil. But its elevation to a perverted position of importance and its presentation as a steady diet to people of any age is unquestionably destructive of character. The fact that this "Literature" is usually accompanied by the extolling of some aspect of the Socialist outlook is not without significance.

The pink intellectuals infesting our Universities invariably defend this trash, particularly when they can claim that it is cleverly written. These advocates of "toleration" ignore the fact that evil is more dangerous when presented by a good salesman.

Typical of those University products we have mentioned, is one Dr. Eugene Kamenka, Research Fellow in the philosophy department of the Australian University's Institute of Advanced Studies. The learned Doctor is reported in The Age (Melbourne) of March 12 as saying that "there would be no public mischief or even minor harm if the present circulation of what was termed pornography were increased 10 times."

Do we require men of this outlook to indoctrinate our children?

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