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

23 July 1971. Thought for the Week: "Government by average opinion (World Opinion) is a merely circuitous method of going to the devil. Those who profess to lead, but in fact, slavishly follow this average opinion, are simply the fastest runners and loudest speakers in the herd which is rushing blindly to its destruction."
Professor Thomas Huxley, circa 1870.


"Britain's Opposition Leader, Mr. Wilson, came out yesterday in opposition to the terms for Britain's entry into the Common Market." The Age, Melbourne, 19th July 1971.

Mr. Harold Wilson is expected to officially adopt an anti-Market position, binding upon the British Labour Party, on July 28th. Already he is being attacked by pro-Market forces among the leaders of which are the mass media. The Daily Telegraph (London), the Guardian (Manchester), and The Times, (London), have all attacked Mr. Wilson over his anti-Market position.
The powerful pro-Market forces in Europe are rumbling. Mr. Willi Brandt, the German Chancellor, wants "talks" with Mr. Wilson on his opposition to Britain's entry. There is alarm in the air; the Internationalists are worried.

In the current issue of the British On Target, Mr. Donald A. Martin, the National Director of the British League of Rights, draws attention to the possible, perhaps probable role, which the House of Lords will play in the Common Market wrangle. The comment runs ... The House of Lords, by its very composition, is not so vulnerable to Party discipline as is the House of Commons; it is therefore more capable of truly independent judgement."

The Common Market issue will be a supreme test for the House of Lords. If there was ever an issue on which the House of Lords could prove its value to the majority of people in the country, this is the issue. If they can show that they are prepared to draw attention to the transfer of power, and also the centralization of power in Europe, which is the central theme of the whole Common Market concept, and because of this, delay the move at least twice, then they will have endeared themselves to the British peoples as a valuable and worthwhile part of our parliamentary system for many years to come. " . . . Such a course of action is not only highly desirable and justifiable; it is also another clear demonstration to Her Majesty the Queen of the real feeling of her subjects on this vital question. It must also help to lift the burden from her in any decision to use her Royal Prerogative and refuse to give her Royal Assent, dissolve Parliament, and let the people decide the fate and future of their country.


"As I have pointed out on a number of occasions over the past three years there can be no stable and enduring peace without the participation of the People's Republic of China and its 750 million people. That is why I have undertaken initiatives in several areas to open the door for more normal relationships between our two countries." President Richard Nixon of the United States, July 16th, 1971.

At this critical moment in the struggle for the world it is appropriate to recall once again the old truth that those who will not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to continue making those mistakes. Unfortunately for mankind, if the mistakes are serious enough they end with the collapse of civilisation.

Back in 1933, the newly elected President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, made an "historic" statement similar to that of President Richard Nixon. He said that the United States was going to recognise the Soviet Union. He expressed similar sentiments to those of President Nixon. It is now a matter of history, how behind their smiles and honeyed words, Stalin and his fellow criminals were cynically preparing to exploit the recognition by the United States.

The desperate plight of the world in 1971 has stemmed both directly and indirectly from the disastrous betrayal of Western Civilisation by the Roosevelt Administration in 1933. That betrayal continued during and after the Second World War. In the face of the irrefutable evidence that the Soviet's long-term strategic aims had not altered, with incidents such as the Hungarian bloodbath of 1956, the major military thrust into Czechoslovakia in 1968, and an expanding global program of subversion, Western political leaders have continued to act like men in the grip of the death-wish, reacting to every new Soviet pressure with bleats that the Soviet leaders are "mellowing."
Now they are manifesting even more frightening evidence of a death-wish concerning Red China.

President Nixon's statement might be described as a well-phrased camouflage for another major retreat by the West in the face of mounting Communist pressure. After many years of experience with politicians we are well aware of their capacity for deluding themselves. But does President Nixon really believe that by recognising the mass murderers of Peking, the men who have liquidated millions of the Chinese people, the men responsible for the frightful rape of Tibet, the men who aided the attempted Communist takeover of Indonesia in 1965, the men who are engaged in one of the most sub-human of activities, the exporting of drugs to the West, and who are thrusting into Southern Africa, that the 750 million Chinese people are going to participate in making policies leading to peace for mankind?

There is not one iota of evidence that the Marxists in Peking have changed their objectives any more than the Marxists in Moscow have changed their objectives. All that has changed are the tactics. President Nixon is, of course, primarily only the front man for the groups and individuals making American policy, the most publicised of these being the "swinger" Dr. Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is typical of the rootless cosmopolitans who have produced the world we live in. He has played a major role in "winding down" the American involvement in Vietnam.

Seen in retrospect, the Vietnam War can now be seen to have served the purpose of destroying the credibility of the United States as a major responsible Super-Power. The no-win policy enabled America to be disintegrated within, and a whole generation of young revolutionaries to be produced in every Western country. The massive bombing of North Vietnam by the U.S.A. was even greater than that used during the Second World War. If the U.S.A. could not defeat North Vietnam, then it is certain that the American withdrawal from Vietnam, with a wave of anti-American propaganda accompanying this withdrawal, can only end with the whole of South-East Asia disappearing under Communism.
The Peking Marxists must be delighted with the manner in which their strategy is unfolding.

The fact that President Nixon, spokesman for the nation, generally regarded as the leader of the West, has, towards the end of the disastrous war in Vietnam, taken the initiative in seeking to meet the Chinese Communist leaders, and is prepared to go to Peking, can only help convince the thousands of millions of people living under the Communist tyranny that the West is as decadent as the Communists claim it is. Communist propaganda will depict President Nixon as the leader of a defeated nation making his way to seek terms with the victor.

The Kissinger-Nixon policy is not a step towards a better world, but a major step backwards towards the abyss. The spectacle of Prime Minister McMahon, that "very, very anti-Communist", now preparing to eat his own words and to seek entry into the queue of those surrendering to Peking tactics, should at long last convince all genuine anti-Marxists in Australia that they must now unite to exert every ounce of political pressure to ensure that Australia does not once again follow a disastrous American foreign policy.


The nation-wide anti-League of Rights campaign, "triggered" in South Australia by the newly elected Liberal Member of the Legislative Council, Mr. Martin Cameron, has since gained increasing momentum and revealed to many astonished observers a carefully orchestrated program involving the three major political parties. The battle lines are being drawn for a battle, which may well decide the future of Australia.

The highlight of last week was the failure of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to get Mr. Martin Cameron to face Mr. Eric Butler before the T.V. cameras. Significantly, ALP Federal Member, Mr. Chris Hurford, was the man who came forward to confront the League's National Director. In what has been described as one of his most brilliant performances, Mr. Butler quickly disposed of Mr. Hurford. As we go to press there is a Statewide demand in South Australia that Mr. Martin Cameron meet Mr. Butler on T.V. But, like Brer Rabbit, Mr. Cameron is laying low and saying nothing. Perhaps he now realises that he has been used in a nation-wide campaign carefully planned in depth!

Whether the planned campaign runs its full course, which includes raising the subject of the League in the Federal Parliament when it meets again shortly, will depend upon how those directing the campaign assess the state of the battle. Beyond doubt the League has so far scored all the major points.


"Australians were not paying enough in taxes to create a decent society, a leading economist said last night." - The Australian, July 19th, 1971.

The theme of Professor R. Downing research Professor of Economics at the University of Melbourne, was that the burden of taxation must be more equitably distributed (at least it is admitted that taxation is a 'burden'), and that there should be greater spending on health, education, and social services.

Students of political and economic realism well appreciate that the average person has come to be dependent on governmental health, education, and social services because he is kept so short of purchasing power by the imposition of punitive taxation, that he is unable to provide, as he would wish, for himself and his family. So great bureaucracies are erected, with hordes of overpaid empire-building bureaucrats infesting them, with the result that the individual has come to be at their mercy. This is the "Welfare-State"; the Socialists' dream.

With the Welfare State comes social disintegration as can be observed to varying extents in all Western countries. The reasons are rather obvious - the individual is deprived of that vital, continuing decision - making, and responsibility for his or her actions, which develop the character, and bring maturity, sound judgment, and wisdom. Our Welfare-State societies are immature, and are regressing, disintegrating. Policies of centralism and high taxation, the Ugly Sisters, are leading us into the abyss.


"Harassment of the Springbok Rugby Union Team during its tour of Australia was a form of discrimination, and as such was to be deplored, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Archbishop T.V. Cahill, said yesterday." - The Age. Melbourne, July 19th, 1971.

His Grace has said what all decent Australians feel - that it is unfair to place on the shoulders of a group of footballers responsibility for an injustice (we would say an 'alleged' injustice) which is practised by the government of the country from which they come. The Archbishop, as one would, and should expect from a Christian prelate, put his finger on the key point in this whole sorry episode of demonstrations... "However, the end does not justify the means, (our underlining) - violent demonstrations offend against the rights of persons, of citizens and visitors alike".

As against this, some members of the Methodist and Congregational denominations joined together to sponsor a united prayer vigil against racial discrimination before the Springboks' match in Canberra last Wednesday. This is their right, and many people who support the tours of the South Africans would also condemn racial discrimination. It is very easy for us in Australia to berate the South African Government for their policy of Apartheid. We, in Australia, don't have the problem of the South Africans. The South Africans don't accept that all races are equal in capacities and abilities, and they have had over three hundred years experience in these matters. They believe that their duty is to uphold the highest type of civilization of which they are capable, and this has been shown to be the European type of society. They believe that the various native peoples have trouble in fitting into this type of society, and so the best and fairest avenue open to them is to allow the Bantu and Colored to progress at their own pace, in their own way. This is the overall policy.

Of course, there will be some abuses, and these are seized upon by opponents of South Africa to vilify everything South African. It is silly to write off all active opponents of Apartheid as 'commos', or 'pink bunnies'. Very many sincere people of character are appalled at what they believe to be the motives of the South African Government. We believe that they do not have the relevant facts.

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