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 October 1973. Thought for the Week: "... the disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all people were made alike, with one character, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, they are its generalised personalities: the smallest of them has its own particular colours, and embodies a particular facet of God's design.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from his Nobel Speech on Literature, 1970.


"Russia and Egypt are planning to re-open the Suez Canal as soon as possible, according to a London report." - The Australian. October 15th.

That enigmatic figure, Victor Louis, has crept into the news reports once again. Our opinion is that Victor Louis is a key man in the Kremlin's probing strategy, and whenever he turns up, and is vocal, then something big is "on". The something "big" this time could well be the re-opening of the Suez Canal. He is reported to have said that the Kremlin anticipates a settlement, leaving the Egyptians on a narrow strip of the Canal's East bank. Pilots and technicians are already being recruited in Moscow. So the Kremlin now wants the Canal open. Why?

The English "Weekly Review" has a most interesting comment upon the present Middle East conflagration. "It is important to remember that the oil-threat plan is a Russian project...the whole thing was worked out in Moscow, and the intention to use Arab oil as a weapon against the West was outlined at a seminar held in Baghdad in the middle of November, 1972.

"If the present fighting takes a course which presses Israel too hard, and the oil threats deter the United States from helping Israel (perhaps indirectly) then the whole Middle East situation will take a course which will eventually compel U.S. intervention on a far greater scale and in far more unfavourable conditions than now."

It appears that the United States is about to send armaments to Israel; but on what scale isn't clear as yet. However, two key objectives in Soviet strategy are clear; the re-opening of the Suez Canal; and the interference with the West's oil supplies. One can only speculate as to why the Russians are only now pushing the former objective; perhaps their still largely psychological war against Southern Africa isn't progressing quickly enough for them to give them control of the Cape sea-lanes, and they now require the more direct access to this part of the world afforded by the Suez Canal.

Just what will transpire as a result of the use of the "oil weapon" remains to be seen. But one or two things are likely to happen. Oil will be scarcer and dearer. What does this mean? It means that in today's industrial economies, an increase in the price of oil will send a veritable blast of increased costs smashing through the economies of Western nations, stoking up inflationary fires to furnace heat, and giving fresh impetus to social unrest, strikes, demonstrations, wage demands - the full scene!

Our eminent patron of The Australian Heritage Society, Sir Raphael Cilento has often remarked that the Russians have always been the world's best chess players. They are playing a really cute game right now on the international "chess board" using "Suez Knights" and "Oil Bishops".


"The Federal Government will hold a referendum seeking power to deal directly with Local Government on financial matters." - The Australian, October 12th

The Premiers' Conference broke down over the issue, with the South Australian Premier, Mr. Donald Dunstan, siding with N.S.W., Victoria, and Queensland to reject Mr. Whitlam's proposal for an agreement to allow Local Government a place on the Australian Loan Council. Western Australia (Mr. Tonkin) and Tasmania (Mr. Reece) were prepared to sanction Mr. Whitlam's proposal. The four Premiers rejected the proposal on two grounds; it could lead to their own revenue being cut; and Local Government representatives would be competing with the States for Commonwealth funds.

Now a referendum is to be held co-jointly with the Senate elections next year. It goes without saying that this proposal should be rejected outright; as it is a thinly disguised attack on the sovereignty of the States, as one must expect from the Socialists at Canberra. This appears to be an extension of the Grants Commission Bill, which will enable Canberra to allocate Commonwealth funds to groups of councils who form themselves into regions, thus forcing them into dependence upon Canberra, and undermining the authority of the State Parliaments. This further move by Canberra, which will be put to a referendum, will even further by-pass the authority of State Parliaments. The attack on the States and the advance of centralism continues. League supporters should lose no time before the Referendum is held to apprise as many people as possible of the real intent behind it.


The sacking of Gordon Bryant from the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. and the part played by Dr. H.C. Coombs; provide an interesting insight into the continuing revolutionary programme. Gordon Bryant, the idealistic Labor socialist with a strong sense of justice for down trodden humanity. Dr. Coombs, the doctrinaire International Marxist, ruthless, is in pursuit of policy to fulfill the strategy of world socialism. To such a man Aborigines are only a means to an end.

Gordon Bryant had shown earlier, in the case of the Cambodians, whom he had seen at first hand as victims of ruthless Communist revolutionary guerilla warfare, that they should be defended. It nearly cost him his membership of the Labor Party when he returned to Australia and became a critic of the established left-wing line. Now, on the Aborigines he has displayed the same distressing inconsistency with the race question.

Not so Dr. Coombs. The hard line must be rigidly adhered to irrespective of what your personal feelings might be about the social conditions of the Aborigines. And even if mistaken about the right way in which those social conditions could be improved, as perhaps Mr. Bryant was, the hard line had to be maintained. That hard line policy centres on the explosive issue of land rights for Aborigines. This is where the real nitty gritty of the revolutionary exploitation of the race question centres. Gordon Bryant had forgotten that; if he ever knew it, and was concerning himself with trying to improve the lot of the Aborigines; at the expense of the revolution.

Many people have wondered at the role of Dr. Coombs as Chairman of the Aboriginal Advisory Council. It seemed to have little relation to his role of a banker. But the two are quite compatible. In banking the centralist policy guided and directed for 25 years by Dr. Coombs, has established inflation, boom and bust policies, extortionate interest rates, all of which are the seeds of social unrest leading to revolution. No one questions them, least of all Mr. Snedden and his fellow travellers.

The race question is the second most important aspect, and Dr. Coombs who has for so many years controlled the swinging doors in the corridors of power, which have decided who is, and who is not good material for the revolutionary cause decreed that Gordon Bryant was not, and he had to go. So he went.


In parliament on Thursday, 11th October, Mr. Andrew Peacock asked Mr. Barnard how he reconciled the Labor Government recognition of the new Chile Government with the telegram sent on behalf of 42 Labor members of parliament, 6 of them cabinet ministers. The telegram made clear the sympathies of the signatories lay with the Marxist Allende regime.

Mr. Barnard replied that recognition by the Australian Government conformed to that of all major governments including all Latin American Governments other than Cuba. The punch line came in Mr. Barnard's statement that recognition was so afforded, as it was demonstrably obvious that the present regime was in firm control of the reins of government. This listener to the parliamentary broadcast, waited with eager anticipation to hear Mr. Peacock, or some other opposition spokesman ask Mr. Barnard the obvious question. Why don't we recognise Rhodesia then? Alas, and alack, no such question issued from the opposition benches.


Those readers of the Australian League of Rights monthly journal Intelligence Survey will have read with interest the various reports that the Israelis are reported to have in reserve a stockpile of atom bombs. The October issue of I.S. published a report of 'Dr. Kissinger and the Middle East Crisis' revealing Dr. Kissinger's role in ordering secret studies from the Rand Corporation on the Middle East. One of these was entitled Circumstances in which American nuclear weapons might be used in the Middle East. The I.S. report taken from the U.S. monthly, Confidential Intelligence Report does not give details of the Rand Corporation recommendations, but the fact that Dr. Kissinger ordered such a study is of significance in the present situation in the M.E. It is no secret that President Nixon is the complete captive of Zionist power groups in the U.S.A. with whom Dr. Kissinger, to say the least, would have no quarrel.


"The Chairman of Britain's biggest motor group today mounted a slashing attack on the Common Market's bureaucracy." - The Age (Melbourne) October 11th.

Lord Stokes Chairman of the British Leyland Motor Corporation stated that the car industry was in danger of being strangled by red tape. He hit out at the "faceless minions" whom he alleged were bent on destroying all individuality and initiative. This has a familiar ring: - "The age of the great leveller is upon us...everything must be the same."

In spite of his sharp criticism, Lord Stokes still believes that Britain's future lies in Europe. We fear that Lord Stokes is typical of so many clever, enterprising, industrialists in our experience; often brilliant men in their own field, but babes in the wood politically. Lord Stokes did say "our concept of the E.E.C. was that we would all be part of one large market of equal opportunities for all and membership of which would lead to a better standard of living for everybody." That's the propaganda.

The Common Market isn't about that at all, as even Lord Stokes is beginning to find out. The everyday villager in Britain could probably give a better picture of the effects of the E.E.C. so far in Britain than could Lord Stokes. The ordinary villager sees the great motor transports thunder down once peaceful English lanes. He sees and feels the sharply increased prices of food in the shops and market-places. Lord Stokes would be likely to miss out on this direct experience as he sits in his board-room, and commutes to and fro from his home in one of the Company's luxury limousines. Not that we have any objection to board-rooms and luxury limousines; the point is that a person living this life-style can very easily lose the common touch, and be out of step with the thinking of John Citizen. We believe that this often happens to men for example in the relative remoteness of Canberra; and especially to ideologues, whose slavish attachment to their pet political theories, not based on reality, leads them on into an Alice in Wonderland world.


"The Federal Government is planning legislation to give it power to enforce United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia." - The Australian, October 11th.

Senator Murphy is upset about some advertisements that have been appearing in Australian newspapers that call for emigration to Australians to Rhodesia. He thinks that they constitute a breach of Australia's U.N. "obligation". Senator Murphy's Department has been writing to the newspapers concerned to bluff them out of accepting such advertisements again. Now for the sinister bit: - "There is under contemplation legislation in order that Australia might be able to implement its obligation". Thus spake Senator Lionel Murphy! What does this mean?

It means that certain international treaties (the U.N. Charter is a Treaty) will take precedence over Australian law. Whether this would be unconstitutional or not, we cannot say. But it is a point that should be investigated by the Constitutional experts. We consider that it would be an infamy, and act of treason, if the rights and protection conferred on Australians by our Constitution were to be legislated away by scheming socialists. It may well be that the time will come when an amendment to the Constitution to prevent any part of it being superseded by any international treaty "obligations" will be called for. It would be one, which the League of Rights would support. Let us be masters in our own house, always!


The next function of the club will be a Dinner on Friday, 26th October, at the Railway Dining Hall. Fellowship from 6-15 pm to 7-00 pm. Dinner at 7-00 pm. Mr. George Turner, President of the South Australian-Rhodesian Association will support his report on a recent fact-finding visit to Rhodesia with an excellent colour film. Tariff: $2-20. Bookings: phone 383 0114 : 78 2517 : or 96 7642.
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159