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

21 June 1968. Thought for the Week: "A government abdicates if it tolerates any non-governmental agency's use of violence. If the government forsakes its monopoly of coercion and compulsion, anarchic conditions result. If it were true that a democratic system of government is unfit to protect unconditionally every individual's right to work in defiance of the orders of a union, democracy would doomed."
Ludwigg von Mises.


"Conservative peers now seem determined to risk a major political and constitutional crisis by rejecting a statutory order extending sanctions against Rhodesia" - The Age, Melbourne, June 18.

It would appear that at last a revolt against the mesmerism of the mass media is to take place. The catalyst injected into the world political body by the magnificent stand made by the Rhodesian people on November 11, 1965, is now beginning to express itself more tangibly than ever. The House of Lords, if it fulfills the expectations of the above report, may trigger off a revival of understanding about the true nature of authority in Britain which could challenge the whole basis of the Socialist disease now racking the tortured body of British and Western society.
This stand of the traditional British peers in the House of Lords will throw the Socialists into an absolute frenzy of hatred and malice, which will again help to show Socialism in its true light.

Here in Australia there are similar indications of a return to sanity on the question of Rhodesia and it is to be hoped the Government will correctly read those signs and return to a realistic policy of extending the hand of friendship and justice to Rhodesia. Indicative of some of the sanity prevailing was the comment of Geoffrey Tebbutt in the Melbourne Herald, June 13,
"If those three poor illiterate natives nominated as Ministers in the New Guinea Parliament could read about what the great advanced races are doing: They would see that Britain is hurrying to put crushing economic sanctions on the white government of Rhodesia (where there is no war and no threat of war). The United Nations has never dared to apply such sanctions to aggressors. At the same time - the British Government sends arms to help black Nigerians slaughter secessionist black Biafrans."

And Alan Ramsey in The Australian, June 13, although maintaining a thin veneer of The Australian's anti-Rhodesia editorial policy was most forth right.
"If the Gorton Government had the courage of its convictions it would defy the latest UN directive on Rhodesia in the most unequivocal terms. It would say rightly or wrongly, that it does not support trade sanctions against the white minority.. . It would declare what it sees as the utter futility of the war of words raging round a government which, illegal or not, obviously will remain in power until removed by internal insurrection or external armed force. And, if it was really honest, it would say: Yes, we agree Mr. Smith and his colleagues."

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes contributed the final word in a letter to The Age replying to an editorial calling on the Government to go the full distance with the Security Council directive. Sir Wilfrid completely exposed the double talk and hypocrisy of the Australian Government's policy towards Rhodesia and described the editorial as
" . . . the most amazing example of international shortsightedness and dangerous national self-satisfied smugness that I have seen and read for many a long day."

There is little doubt that such "straws in the wind" could be the first signs of a welcome return to sanity, the first chink of light at the end of the long tunnel.


Mr. Eric D. Butler provides the following report from Calgary, Canada, as he moves across Canada lecturing on international affairs and surveying the current Canadian Federal Elections:

"I was astonished to find that immediately after the killing of Senator Robert Kennedy, this tragedy was immediately projected into the Canadian elections. It would have been natural and normal for both the Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Opposition, Mr. Robert Stanfield, to have expressed their deep regrets. But they, or their advisors, apparently felt it necessary to go beyond this and tell Canadians that they should ensure that similar violence did not erupt in Canada. As political assassinations are not part of the Canadian tradition, and as the rule of law is more widely respected in Canada than in the U.S.A., it seemed to me that the political leaders were pandering to the mass emotionalism being generated by the mass media, some of whose representatives suggested that Canadians, like Americans, were some way associated with the brutal murder of Senator Kennedy.
At least one radio commentator in Vancouver said in an open-line programme that it was the "hatred" created by people like Ron Gostick, Eric Butler and Pat Walsh that were responsible for the murdering of Robert Kennedy.

A vicious article in the Toronto Star (described as a "liberal" paper by the Vancouver Sun which republished it) attempts to smear Mr. Ron Gostick for publishing documental material concerning Mr. Trudeau's background, suggesting that the generation of "hatred" against Canadian political leaders was similar to that which resulted in the Robert Kennedy assassination.

In the national TV debate between Canada's party leaders on June 9, the question was raised whether Canada should not consider tighter gun laws and finger-printing, this because of the Kennedy killing in Los Angeles.
Gun laws of themselves are not going to prevent acts of violence. It has been pointed out that in the U.S.A. large numbers of acts of violence and murder are committed with knives. Prime Minister Verwoerd of South Africa was assassinated, not with a gun, but with a knife.

As I propose to show in a coming article in The Intelligence Survey, much of the mounting violence in the U.S.A. can be traced to those encouraging a permissive philosophy and an attack on the rule of law. Here are several relevant statements I have collected:
"The Negro here, jobless, penned in ghettoes, sees only retrogression, not hope. That's why he's ready to march. And such demonstrations can erupt in violence . . . Thus spoke the late Dr. Martin Luther King, whose "non-violence" always erupted into violence - as he knew it would. And as did his Communist supporters.
"Police will have a chance to use their hilly clubs. We are going to plague this nation. The picnic is over." These were the words of a leader of Dr. King's "non-violent" "Poor People's March."
"If our colleges do not breed men who riot, who rebel . . . there is something wrong with our colleges and universities."
"The more riots that come on college campuses, the better the world for tomorrow." Here we obviously have the outpourings of a dedicated Communist revolutionary? But no. These are the words of the late Senator Robert Kennedy during his recent electioneering.

It is not the conservative anti-Communists who are responsible for the erosion of respect for the rule of law, who are fanning the flames of revolutionary riots and creating the atmosphere in which some men can be stirred to create acts of violence, including political assassinations, but those who attempt to brainwash people to believe that they should seek "freedom" by attacking traditional values and institutions. The revolutionaries are the real hate-mongers.


"All Australia needs is a catalyst to set off violence." Mr. Perkins said. "We have taken 185 years of second-class citizenship and we are not having any more of it." By Black Power, I don't mean that we are going to rape or shoot you. That is the last alternative, although it has to be kept in mind. "- The Age, Melbourne, June 15.

Charles Perkins is a self-styled Aboriginal leader in Australia. It is certain he would never be accepted by the Aboriginal people to act as their spokesman. But in the climate of propaganda on racial issues generated for malicious purposes, a man with a small amount of Aboriginal blood in his veins, but with some drive, and a purpose no matter how twisted, is of immeasurable importance to the revolutionary movement in Australia. The irresponsible vapourings reported above could be ignored but for the fact they are assured of wide presentation by an irresponsible press.
Also it can be equally assured they will be presented in conjunction with accompanying material calculated to keep up the psychological pressure on the Australian people.

Such was forthcoming in the Press the following Monday morning when headlines informed us that there was to be a "National Vigil in Support of Aborigines." The vigil to be organised by the Aboriginal Affairs Department of the National Union of Australian University Students in conjunction with a petition organised by the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Tortes Strait Islanders. We have no doubt the former organisation has its quota of Communist sympathisers, while the latter organisation with which the students are working in such close harmony is a well-known Communist Front.
Mr. W. M. Wentworth, Minister in charge of Aboriginal Affairs referred to Charles Perkins' statement as "silly", but refuted any suggestion that anything should be done to curb such inflammatory statements.

The advice offered by Ludwig von Mises is fundamental to good government, and when an individual publicly threatens the populace with violence and the stirring up of race warfare the government should take action. It is to be hoped there are enough responsible Australian citizens left to point this out forcibly to our government.


"Curiously, this monstrous act, this tragedy, might have been avoided had Senator Kennedy accepted the protection offered by the Los Angeles Police Department" - Review of the News, June 19.
Police Inspector Peter Hagan explained, "We were not there because we were not wanted."

The report makes it clear that the Kennedy campaign organisers traveling with Robert Kennedy not only refused to have anything to do with the police but also attacked them. So intense were these attacks that the Fresno Police Department put out a most revealing press statement.
After outlining how the police Department had supplied 32 Reserves, 35 regular Officers and 10 plain clothes men at the "cost of several thousand dollars to the citizens of Fresno . . . During the entire 4 hours the officers were subjected to constant abuse and filthy language by advance men on Senator Kennedy's staff. I… was told in no uncertain terms that the Senator does not like policemen . . . and they wanted none in sight . . . All further plans we had in regard to escorting the Senator and providing protection for him during the balance of his visit were cancelled. During the time I have been a member of the local Police Department . . . I have never at any time encountered such a group of ill-mannered, uncouth and deliberately obnoxious people anywhere as those on Senator Kennedy's staff."
The report goes on to disclose the close affiliations of the killer of Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, with Communist groups.

Los Angeles Mayor, Sam Yorty, revealed that Sirhan, like Lee Harvey Oswald, the slayer of John Kennedy, kept a diary in which the following is to be found. "Communism is good. Any brand of Communism is good - Russian, Chinese, or Nasser. Long live Nasser:"
The report goes on to indicate the strong links with Communist organisations held by Sirhan, including strong pro Castro sympathy, and the question naturally arises: Why was Kennedy, the liberal-socialist, murdered by his own kind. Some have pointed out Sirhan's pro-Arab, anti-Israeli beliefs, and the significance of the date June 5th, the anniversary of the Israeli war against the Arabs.
The answer could just as easily lie in the belief that the martyrdom of Robert Kennedy must be vindicated by the realisation of the policies he has pursued. There is a highly organised and immensely powerful mass media ready to remind all Presidential candidates of this fact.


"The motor industry has disagreed with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) over the reasons for increases in the price of Australian built cars" - The Age, Melbourne, June 15.
The report proceeds: "In Parliament on Thursday, Mr. McEwen said the increases were a direct result of unfair Japanese competition in the past."

It will be recalled that on May 10 the Japanese had agreed to increase the price of their cars after being accused of unfair competition. It was made clear to them that other steps would be taken to bring the price of Japanese cars up to the level charged by the local industry. It has now been made clear by the spokesman for local industry that it was not "unfair competition" they feared but the rising costs which force them to put up prices. Mr. Mc Ewen should deal with the rising cost impact before forcing Australians to pay more for motorcars - Australian or Japanese. We might then start to get more genuine competition.


Human Rights, Year

1968 has been decreed to be Human Rights Year by the United Nations. No doubt the decision was arrived at in consultation with the Communist members of the UN. The opportunity will be provided for a strong rash of anti-"racist propaganda. South Africa, Rhodesia and New Guinea are lively topics for all those concerned with pointing to the deficiencies around the world in so-called "human rights".

A recent letter in a Melbourne paper came from the secretary of the Human Rights Year Association and appealed for all those concerned to write in, giving instances of any discrepancies of the application of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." However, nothing has been said about another interesting document called "'International Covenants on Human Rights."
An interesting document we have received from South Australia points out that both documents are issued by the UN. It is pointed out that the Universal Declaration, Article 17 (1) declares: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."
The International Covenants however omit this right! This omission is significant and the question arises, which document takes precedent over the other.

Our correspondent from South Australia goes on to comment.
"One right not declared in the Universal Declaration is the right to have the Truth from those parties purporting to have our welfare at heart and to have the Truth so that it is seen openly by all to be the Truth." For, as the document goes on to point out, "On Tuesday. March 19, this year, the U.S.S.R, signed the International Covenant (Communism, of course, denies the right of the individual to own property).
Australia it is understood has also signed."

One can well understand the Soviet signing a document which omits reference to the right to own property alone, but Australia, in effect, has signed a document which justifies along with the Soviet the expansion of the type of society the Communists are trying to impose on the South Vietnamese and which we are sending our young men to die fighting against.

We would suggest that V. P.A, 's obtain both documents from the respective UN Associations within each State, check the facts and take up them later with their M.P.'s. The matter is important as it is pointed out that the Federal Government as a Human Rights gesture are to reprint 1,000,000 copies of the Universal Declaration, to be distributed mainly to schools. The students will be deceived unless action is taken to explain that there are two conflicting documents.

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