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

1 April 1966. THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: If a man knows himself and knows his opponent, he need not fear a hundred battles. If a man knows himself and knows not his opponent, for every victory he will suffer a defeat. If a man knows neither himself nor his opponent, he is a fool and will suffer defeat in every battle.
Sun Tzu, 500 B.C.


Many of those who express sympathy for Rhodesia refuse to accept the finality of the U.D.I. (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) by arguing that not since 1776 when the American Colonies seceded is there any precedent for such action. Such is not the case. The case of Sudan is right up to the minute. Here was a classical case of U.D.I. to which neither of the responsible governments, Britain and Egypt, objected at the time. But such lack of objection was simply because the so-called "independence" of the Sudan was in line with those policies being promoted by international forces to destroy stable government which accompanied responsible colonial administration.

In 1953 an agreement was reached by Britain and Egypt, who were jointly responsible for administering the Sudan that she should proceed toward independence. Sudan was a colony in the sense that Rhodesia never was. The target for independence was 1956. In the terms of the agreement a national plebiscite was to be held in 1956 to decide the country's future. Such a plebiscite was never held. In December 1955 the House of Representatives in Khartoum without reference to the responsible governments declared the country independent. The British Governor General, Sir Knox Helm was sent on "indefinite" leave and never returned.
How different to the British policy in regards to the use of Sir Humphrey Gibbs in this high office!

The difference from Rhodesia in the whole affair was that it was a non-white government. It is racial prejudice and racial discrimination when the white Rhodesians do these things, but not if you are of any race other than white. Subsequent events in the Sudan highlight the complete hypocrisy of any pretensions towards the genuine welfare for the Sudanese people. The Sudan political service was well aware of the hatred of the Arab North for the Negro people of the Southern Provinces. These Christian Africans of the South have had to bear discrimination and deprivation at the hands of the Muslim Sudanese from 1956 onwards. Tens of thousands have been brutally murdered.

As with so many other cases of "independence" in Africa, this was a case of premature recognition, the type of thing the Smith Government has declared they will never allow happen in their country.


If those politicians who reject Rhodesia's right to guide their nation along the path of stability and progress in the name of majority rule then they are afforded another example of this basis of liberation in the new "nation" of Rwanda in Africa. In 1963 the members of the Bahutus tribe butchered members of the tall Watutsis in thousands shortly after "independence" had been granted. Now comes news that Watutsi tribesmen seeking revenge, led by Peking-trained guerrilla warfare experts have been massing in neighbouring Burundi. Reports state they are armed with modern automatic weapons, mostly from China. Europeans, mainly Americans and Canadians have been evacuating from Rwanda to Kenya. More bloodshed is certain.

"Liberated" Africa is sinking back into charnel house conditions. All this appears to have no effect on Socialist Harold Wilson, who insists that the Rhodesians must also accept "liberation".

The real friends of the simple African people today are those who are supporting the stand of the Rhodesian Government, which is determined not to haul down the flag of civilization in Southern Africa.


We are indebted to the African Institute Bulletin of February 1966 for a penetrating comment on the reasons for the failure of independence in the African states. Their comment in turn was taken from the American Foreign Affairs journal of January 1962.
"The Nigerian Chief H.O.Davies, threw some light on various aspects of this vexed question. He argued that perhaps the most fundamental problem that confronted the newly independent states was the difficult task of fitting their people to the alien constitutions, which had been imposed on them or adopted by them.

Before independence the masses lived more or less the old traditional life of obedience to their chiefs and to the expatriate administrative officers. With the coming of self-government, however, the alien system of parliamentary democracy was introduced. The unsophisticated citizens of the new African states did not understand party politics, except as a call to war against the members of rival parties and this was exacerbated when political parties came to be based on tribal affiliations, which was usually the case, especially in Nigeria. The masses mistake party slogans for a clarion call to war and they go into it with zest. The result is that the people who enjoyed peace and unity during the colonial days were now divided into warring camps, sniping at each other and sometimes engaging in violent encounter.

"The alien system of government by party politics opened new vistas of wealth and power.... Everybody who could, therefore, has sallied forth along the road to political and plutocratic eminence. Those who found themselves in power have used every stratagem to keep themselves there, while for those in the minority no weapon has been too mean to employ in an effort to encompass the downfall of the government and to attain power."


Some of the more superficial observers on International Communism have supported the European Economic Community, and the idea of Britain joining it, because they believed that this was a "barrier" against Communism. One of the "bastions" of this highly-centralised Europe was West Germany. It would be instructive to learn what these observers think about former Chancellor Conrad Adenauer's farewell address to his Christian Democratic party, in which he said that the "Soviet Union has entered the ranks of the countries which desire peace."
Whether or not this was an old man speaking in his dotage, or yet one more victim of Communist "peace" campaigning, the Adenauer statement is one of the greatest propaganda gifts the Communists have had for some time.

But even more alarming than the Adenauer surrender to Communist propaganda, is the news that a West German firm, with the backing of the West German Government, is going to supply Communist China with a 150 million dollar steel plant. It is reported that British, French, Swiss and Italian firms are to join Demag, one of West Germany's biggest machinery builders, in setting up the steel plant in China. Extensive credit will be provided for the Chinese. As even the most superficial observers on Communism do not believe that the Chinese Communists show any signs of "mellowing", they must agree that so far from West Germany being a "bastion" against Communism, it is playing a leading role in aiding its advance in Asia.

A modern steel plant will be a vital contribution to Red China's military capacity. And what does American Secretary of State Dean Rusk feel about the proposal to build up the military potential of the Chinese Communist Enemy? Well, he has expressed "concern". He hopes that his friends in Europe will "keep this matter under review"

While all this double talk is going on, the Western world is increasingly flooding economic aid into the Communist Empire. It is committing suicide. The West will continue in this suicidal policy until some Western Governments have the courage to suggest that they might modify their internal economic and financial policies so that they are not subsidising their declared enemies.


"The Australian" of March 25th reports the holding incommunicado overnight of Miss Polly Toynbee, in a room at the Jan Smuts Airport in South Africa after her deportation from Rhodesia. She had been working there for Amnesty International. As a granddaughter of Sir Arnold Toynbee it is not strange that Miss Polly should be deported if she was adhering to the principles enunciated by her Grand dad in Copenhagen in 1931, and followed out faithfully ever since.

As Director of the Institute of International Affairs, in an address to a group of fellow Internationalists he said,
"If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitation upon the sovereignty and independence of the 50 or 60 local sovereign independent States which at the present partition the habitable surface of the earth. "In plain terms we have to transfer the prestige and the prerogatives of sovereignty from the 50, or 60 fragments of contemporary society.... to some institution embodying our society as a whole.
"In the world as it is today, this institution can hardly be a universal church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations.
"And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."

Since this hypocritical policy is in line with the current actions of the international groups including Amnesty International in attacking Rhodesian independence and sovereignty it is safe to assume that Miss Polly is a true chip off the old subversive block.


In the recent debate in the House of Representatives on Australia's Immigration Policies it was heartening to note that many Labour members supported Liberal members in defending Australia's policies. Messrs. Daly, Stewart and Jones made it clear that they were not in favour of importing the race problems of other nations into Australia. Reality is the greatest teacher and dispels hazy idealism. We should pray that it would be applied in other quarters before it is too late.


The Vietnam situation is in need of our closest attention. Our target on this issue should be related to obtaining recognition by the Government and our fellow Australians that WE ARE AT WAR. We ask all V.P.A.'s and actionists to concentrate upon obtaining from their member and Government spokesman an unequivocal statement that WE ARE IN FACT AT WAR, and that if this is the realistic situation that we should adopt policies which will place the nation on a footing where every policy should be examined from the viewpoint of destroying the enemy.
For example Senator Gorton last week commenting upon the Government's decision to send the Indonesian's 200,000 dollars worth of rice said that many Australians would find this odd in view of our commitments in Borneo where our soldiers are stationed to fight Indonesian guerilla fighters. Senator Gorton should be asked why then are we not supplying the Viet Cong with rice, surely their need is as great as the Indonesians!

This lack of realism by top members of the Government results purely and simply from their failure to understand the nature of the type of WAR the Communists are waging. If aid is to be given to the Indonesians it should be as the result of a clear understanding that the WAR they are waging upon us should stop. If this point can be hammered home on Indonesia it may be possible to get some sense out of the Government on the question of trade with the Communists.

There is much evidence 'that the Government is feeling the heat on the Conscription issue. Many people normally sympathetic to the fight against Communism see the sending of 20 year olds conscripts as breach of individual rights. Much of the criticism against the Government would be nullified on this issue if they took a strong stand against trading with China and Russia.

It was recently pointed out by Douglas Wilkie that aid by Russia to North Vietnam was running at the rate of 500 million dollars a year "Sun"28.3.66. We are joining with the Russians in subsidising Ho Chi Minh when we send wheat and wool to China and Russia.


Just as we should move over to the offensive on the South Vietnamese question, we should also do likewise on the Rhodesian question. Our approach to parliamentarians should be along the lines of "surely it is time negotiations were initiated with Mr. Smith." It is not necessary to wait for Harold Wilson to initiate such action. In fact we can be assured that he will not do so. Australia and New Zealand should grasp the opportunity, which is NOW.
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159