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

11 December 1970. Thought for the Week: "Freedom always faces dangers. A free people remain free only through daily acts of courage. A nation's bravery in war cannot atone for timidity in time of peace. We deny our freedom if we don't speak when there is something to be said."
Former Canadian Governor-General Vincent Massey.


"I would describe the UN as a temple to Parkinson's Law, where inefficiency and extravagance worship at its shrines and hypocrisy at its altars. The UN has become a theatre where small countries can strut the stage of self-importance while arrogantly expecting financial assistance from the very countries they denigrate" - Senator R.Turnbull, Tasmanian Independent Senator at the conclusion of his ten weeks as parliamentary observer with the Australian mission to the United Nations.

We must admit that we are not particularly keen admirers of Senator Turnbull, but he must be given full marks for some of his frank impressions of life at the UN. The Herald, Melbourne of December 5, quotes him as saying from New York: "I'm having a ball. Everyone is having a ball here. You can't help it. We have an ambassador and 24 people running the mission here - we could run it with 12.... This whole place is a fantastic joke."
The UN is, of course, a "fantastic joke" at the level Senator Turnbull describes. But behind the joke there is a lot of calculated and deadly intent.

There is no suggestion in any of Senator Turnbull's comments that the UN should be abolished because it is serving the cause of International communism. In fact he told The Herald, "What terrifies me is that we are grouped with the US and we continue to oppose China's admission. That's absurd when we are so close to China."

We have no doubt that Senator Turnbull is right when he says that the UN could be run with much less staff and a much smaller budget. But this is hardly the main point concerning the growth of an international structure, which from the beginning has served the long-term strategy of International Communism. Senator Turnbull has been eulogistic about the work of the special agencies of the UN, such as The World Health Organisation and The Food and Agriculture Organisation although pointing out that these organisations are top heavy. Any worthwhile results these organisations are obtaining could be much more effectively obtained in other ways.
One of the major achievements of The United Nations Educational and Cultural Organisation is to circulate internationally an enormous amount of Communist and pro-Communist propaganda.

Senator Turnbull is not quoted as pointing out that the non-Communist nations make the biggest financial contributions to the financing of the UN. Typical of the criticism of Senator Turnbull's comments on the UN is The Australian's Foreign Editor, Robert Duffield, who wrote on December 5 that, "I know that the one-nation, one-vote power of the little nations makes things difficult at times. But I'd sooner that than no United Nations at all. And that is the only real alternative."

Mr. Duffield has presumably never considered the alternative of the Western non-Communist nations developing their own forms of international co-operation.

One encouraging aspect of Senator Turnbull's criticism is that it may shake the blinkers a little on the eyes of people who have accepted the UN as something pure and beyond criticism. Such people should now be introduced to the booklet, Light on the United Nations (26c. post free from Box 1052J, G.P.O. Melbourne.)


A typical comment: "The League of Rights is doing a tremendous job. It is our only hope. I must get my contribution away".
Yes, but the League cannot operate on all those wonderful intentions. We seem to recall something about the road to hell being paved by them: Since last week only 52 supporters have pushed the basic $25,000 operational fund along by another $1,399. The total is now $10,399. All Northern NSW and Queensland contributions to Box 17 Alderley, Queens land, 4051. All other contributions to Box 1052J, G.P.O. Melbourne, 3001.


"Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs has prepared a report which I understand strongly advises the Government to have another look at its relations with Communist China. It could mark the beginning of attempts to soften our so far hard opposition to China's admission to the United Nations - and to recognition of the Peking Government." - Vincent Matthews, reporting from Canberra in The Herald, Melbourne, December 7.

Following the Canadian recognition of Peking with an immediate concrete pay off of a big wheat sale, and an obvious softening of attitude towards Red China by Washington, we predicted an increase of pressure on Canberra to force a change of Australian policy. Although the general propaganda line is that with "world opinion" moving steadily in favour of permitting Red China "to join the international community," countries like Australia must now start to rethink their position. The truth is that with the economies of the developed nations being convulsed by mounting problems, Red China is seen as a vast potential market for "surplus" production.

The Japanese have been a major exporter to Red China for some time, but Japanese businessmen have been pushing for closer political relations in order that they may (they hope) substantially increase these exports. Last week the Japanese Foreign Minister, Mr. Aichi, told the Japanese Parliament that "world trends were drifting in China's favour."
The Australian Financial Review
of December 7 reported "The Department of Foreign Affairs s expected to come under strong pressure from wheat growers to drop its stand against the recognition of Mainland China and its admittance to the United Nations. Apart from growers concern that a delegation from the Australian Wheat Board has not yet been invited to China to negotiate a new sales contract despite sending two cables to Peking, the industry was shocked by a report reaching Australia last week from an Australian wheat trading firm which recently had a representative visit Peking. The report claims that Australia was listed among a group of nations to be excluded from the Chinese market because of non-recognition of the Peking regime."

As we have stressed on so many occasions, there is no excuse for anyone not knowing that the Marxist-Leninists use "trade" as a political weapon. We warned many years ago that one day Australia could pay a heavy price if it geared a rapidly expanding wheat industry almost exclusively to the Red Chinese market. The chickens (bright red) are now coming home to roost.

The Achilles heel of the non-Communist world is a finance-economic system based on Fabian-Marxist teachings, and the insistence that internal financial problems can only be overcome by increasing export drives. Unless internal finance economic policies are modified, it appears "inevitable" that nations like Australia must submit to the pressures of their Communist enemies.

We wait with interest to see how some of the anti-Communists in the Gorton Ministry are going to react to the pressures to move to a new policy on Red China. In the meantime we quote for the record the following gem from Mr. D. Anthony, Minister for Primary Industry: "I expect we shall be hearing from China again. There is no indication that China has brought politics into trade. They have not mixed the two together." (The Herald, Melbourne, December 7)
It is probable that reports from Canberra on Red China are in the nature of kite flying, to test public reaction.

A flood of letters and telegrams to Canberra protesting against any change of policy on Red China would be most salutary at the present time.


During Mr. Ivor Benson's meeting at the Federal Hotel, Melbourne, on Monday, December 7, an obvious product of the New Left burst through the entrance door to the hall and threw a bottle of ammonia, into the midst of the audience. Fortunately the bottle did not burst and no one was hurt. Doors and windows had to be opened to clear the fumes. A member of the audience managed to grapple with the two youths, but they escaped before the police arrived. Chairman Eric Butler appealed for calm and Mr. Benson continued with his absorbing address. This episode is typical of the cowardly behaviour of members of the "progressive thinkers" in our midst.


"There are farming people on a low income level who are very happy with their lot. These farmers are not unduly concerned. They get a certain subsistence out of their farms. But they are happy with it. Some farmers are ready to enjoy the way of life and let their income slide. If this is their desire, why should anyone interfere? But they cannot expect governments to make up the difference." - Mr. D. Anthony quoted by Vincent Matthews in The Herald, December 8, 1970.

Apart from demonstrating his real ignorance of the forces which motivate those whose life is closely associated with the land, Mr. Anthony also made it abundantly clear again that he has no intention of initiating any alternative policies to those now reducing so many farmers to a subsistence level.

As producers, farmers are concerned to satisfy the needs of consumers. They expect to be adequately rewarded, and it is their right to expect that such financial rewards obtained will maintain a standard of living in keeping with the general economic potential of the nation. Their first concern is supplying the needs of the nation, first from the home consumption need, and secondly supplying legitimate export markets, which bring a genuine return to Australia, supplying imports we cannot produce ourselves. Mr. Anthony and his experts do not start from this fundamental promise.

Mr. .Matthews explains the Anthony concept. "The basic cause of the Australian farmers plight as Mr. Anthony sees it, is the development of science and technology in agriculture overseas and the striving by less-developed countries to become self-sufficient in food production. The result is world over-production of the products Australia wants to sell. And that means poor prices."

What Mr. Anthony is saying is that the advancing prosperity of other countries spells economic and financial ruin for Australia! The opposite should be the case and if sound financial policies were followed it would be so. Today's rural population is half what it was in the thirties, but production is three times as great. Against this background Mr. Anthony and his bureaucratic officials have the nerve to talk about Government propping up non-viable farms. The facts are the Government is responsible for pulling out legitimate props and bringing the farmer down.

Mr. Anthony, along with his fellow members of the Federal coalition Government is responsible for ruinous financial policies which destroy the reality of material production supremacy. These politicians hide behind the sophisticated arguments advanced by their departmental servants. Until forced by electoral pressure to accept their responsibilities of translating into realistic economic and financial policies those results their electors have achieved in the field of production, the politicians will continue to allow the un-elected irresponsible bureaucracy to control policy.

The politician, protected by the party endorsement, an apathetic and confused electorate with the ability to automatically increase his salary to cope with inflation, plus the perks and fringe benefits of the parliamentary institution, staffed, run and organised by a bureaucracy churning out legislation for his endorsement and leaving him free to accept his prestige position. Under such conditions he will never challenge his bureaucratic masters until his electors threaten appropriate action to destroy his security. That time is not far off.


Labor Parliamentarian Dr. Jim Cairns said yesterday he found no more suppression in Russia than in many aspects of Australian life. - The Age, December 5.
"Democracy is a matter of degree, and there's not much of it in Australia." So spoke Dr. Cairns on his return home from the sixth "peace" conference on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, in Stockholm last weekend.

His observations on the Soviet were formed from a 11/2-day stop over on his return trip. From his action and words in the past Dr. Cairns has demonstrated conditioned Marxist reflexes, developed to higher degree than others of his kind. It is appropriate therefore that returning from a conference to further the advancement of Communist tyranny he is frustrated by the realisation that Australia, although advancing rapidly towards the same state of "freedom" as exists in the Soviet, has not yet quite made the grade. Democracy, that word beloved by the Marxists, is as he says a question of degree. When we have achieved the same degree of "democracy" as exists in the Soviet, we will have achieved the millennium.



In last week's Target for the Week we mentioned the attitude taken by Mr. P.Lucock M.P. towards the Independent Rural Policy Statement when he refused to state his own personal attitude and said the demands put in the statement would have to be "put to various government departments." Obviously if Mr. Lucock refuses to use his own judgment on such matters and relies on departmental advice and decisions, the chain of responsibility between the electors and their representative is broken. This is the outstanding feature of modern government. Politicians rely almost exclusively on the various departments to initiate policy making.

Those who work through their various party branches, or their different organisations, farmers organisations, progress or ratepayers associations are increasingly aware that no matter how hard they work to get resolutions through to the point where it is supposed to become either party policy, or the policy of above mentioned organisations, that such resolutions are passed and then forgotten if they do not happen to coincide with policy as it is directed by the bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy has only one objective, the expansion of departmentalism. The politician is a pawn in this process, bought and sold by those who ensure he is well paid so long as he conforms to the process. The politician will never challenge the expansion of departmentalism until a superior force threatens his well-paid and prestigious position. This is the challenge, which faces responsible Australians.

We have no alternative but to restore responsible parliamentary representation. Unless there emerges throughout the length and breadth of Australia, in every electorate and in every hamlet and suburb in every electorate, a vigorous group of people who can initiate the right action to make the politicians responsible to their electors, and to their electorate alone, not some outside body, only then will the tide be turned against what Lord Hewart, a former Chief Justice of England, described as bureaucratic lawlessness.

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