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


February 2004
In the Australian's Letters column (Commander Howard runs Aground 24-25/1/04) Melbourne barrister Julian Burnside dismissed MP Tony Abbott's attempts "to rehabilitate the moral virtues of his Government". In an earlier Opinion article (23/1/04) Abbott had drawn a comparison between the dilemma faced by actor Russell Crowe in his role in Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World and the moral dilemmas faced by governments. In the movie, threatened with the possibility of the whole ship going down with all lives lost, but knowing he is condemning a crew member to certain death, our 'heroe' cuts away a fallen mast on which the crew member struggles.
One man is sacrificed in order to save the many.
Julian Burnside noted: "Packaged that way, a moral argument can be mounted to support what otherwise looks like heartless cruelty or criminality." He gives a name to the act - Utilitarianism, a view of life pioneered by Jeremy Bentham, English philosopher and jurist 1748-1831. Bentham propounded a test for the morality of conduct: what will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number?
"Utilitarianism appeals, explained Mr. Burnside, "because it avoids the awkwardness of moral absolutes." He continued, "The Crowe example is a good one: utilitarianism justifies killing an innocent human being. And faced with the stark contest between one death and many, it is easy to see the force of a utilitarian solution."
He went on to expose the weaknesses in Abbott's claims: "First, utilitarianism is not such an effective guide when the choices are less stark. When the consequences of competing courses of action are less easy to predict, the result of utilitarian thinking depends uncomfortably on the disposition of the person doing the arithmetic.
Burnside used the example of the Howard regime's military aggression against Iraq - an act Howard continues to justify by such claims as the deaths "of a few thousand Iraqis in war was a fair price to pay to avoid the deaths of hundreds of thousands at Saddam's hands."
But, insists Burnside, there are not enough aspects of the moral argument taken into account in the Abbott equation:
What about "the loss of Iraq's sovereignty", and the "effect of a precedent which sees the world's only superpower invade another country on a false or debatable pretext?" He observes than those aspects would be hard to quantify, so a utilitarian solution would be less reliable, and more subjective than the Crowe example.
Mr. Burnside presents a compelling rebuttal to Abbott's claim of a 'morally courageous' Howard
Government, but for me, he would have presented a better argument for the asylum seekers' plight - again the victims of a utilitarian philosophy - if he had asked why the world is awash with refugees from war-ravaged lands.
The refugees, the asylum seekers, are symptoms of a much more serious malady, of much deeper evils which are never brought to the 'light of day' and dealt with. It's like treating the symptoms of a terrible disease without ever getting to the cause. And - the symptoms, the problems are pretty much the same round the world:
Spiralling violence, tortures, killings, starvation, corruption and fraudulent practices in high places, economic hardship and misery for the masses, privatisation of bloated State enterprises by fraudulent, greedy Super-Debt-Capitalists, who have never had any qualms 'playing the harlot' with Fascist/Socialist/Communist dictators. Need I go on?
No one solves a problem by enlarging its borders. In order to come to grips with a problem, shouldn't one start to ask such questions as:
Why have these people fled their homelands in the first place?
What have our leaders done, in our name, which contributed to the appalling situation?
What can we effectively do to help ensure peace and security for them in their own land?

Whilst mulling over the presently ruling Utilitarian philosophy of the Coalition, I was reminded of one of the most important historical events in the Christian calendar. The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
What happened at the time?
The company of soldiers and their commander and the officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him and led him first of all to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest at the time. Caiaphas had advised the ruling elite that it was better that one man should die for the people.
Utilitarian? I think so! But let's look a little further.
Some of those who had heard what Jesus said and did, went to the Pharisees and reported on the effect Jesus' teaching was having on the people. So the chief priests and the Pharisees conspired together as to what they should do in the circumstances. If they let him alone, men would believe on him and the Romans would take away their positions and privileges as the ruling elite; it could even mean the end of Judea.
To continue…Therefore, in effect, Caiaphas in his position as high priest, judged that it was expedient that one man should die to save the rest of them. One man is sacrificed in order to save the many… especially those in positions of privilege and power! Utilitarian?... Yes! Christian?… No!

Do I believe this philosophy of utilitarianism is still inherent within Judaism? Yes I do. But, more importantly, Christians the world over have themselves become judaised. In fact, it is implicit in the term 'Judaeo-Christian'.

"Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for a friend." If a man is going to lay down his life for his friend, it will be because he chooses to do so - not because someone else chooses he should die. That is murder!
Acts of bravery are recognised as acts of selflessness - a person has been willing to risk his own life to save another.
The general rule for Christians is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It is a philosophy of mutualism - mutual love and co-operation between men of goodwill.
"Friend I do thee no wrong. Why do you think evil because I mean to do good? Did we not agree?" The principle of mutual agreement and consent is essential, it is fundamental, in a free Christian society.
We were told we "cannot serve God and mammon," i.e., the banking-financial system. It is of the utmost importance people grasp the truth of the world situation. A small group of men, International Financiers, are using the financial system to impose their policy of centralised power on the whole world. The financial system is the headquarters of this evil policy. From a Christian viewpoint, the policy of the centralisation of power is the denial of the right of men and women to freedom; it is the denial of the sanctity of human personality.
"The love of money," i.e., the preference for money, in terms of personal advancement, above all other considerations, "is the root of all kinds of evil."
"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not neither do they spin - and yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." In the Old Testament Solomon is portrayed as the great 'money power' of his day. When considering the lilies, we are focusing on God's natural order, as part of His creation, as part of His Order - and it is compared with the order set up by Solomon - mammon.
"He who would be greatest among you must be the servant of them all." The principle of service. Our Queen, Elizabeth II, has pledged herself to a life of service to her people.
"The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath." The claim that institutions are all-important and individuals have no importance is just exactly the claim which was challenged 2000 years ago. It must be challenged again.


Professor Henry Mackow, himself a Jew, wrote a critique of Professor Kevin MacDonald's book, Culture of Critique, which portrayed the 20th Century as a Jewish century. The following is taken from the critical review:

A hundred years ago Jews were an impoverished people, living mostly in Eastern Europe surrounded by hostile populations. Today Israel is firmly established in the Middle East and Jews have become the wealthiest and most powerful elite in the United States and other Western countries. More significantly, according to McDonald, the western intellectual world has become Judaised, Jewish values and attitudes now constitute the culture of the West. Because of deep-seated Jewish hostility toward traditional Western (i.e., Christian) culture, the founding peoples have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history.
Specifically, Jewish organizations promote policies and ideologies aimed at undermining cultural cohesion while practicing the opposite policies themselves. While they promote multiculturalism and internationalism in the West, they insist that Israel remain a racially pure national enclave for Jews.
MacDonald speculates that Jews feel more comfortable in societies without a distinctive national character. I think it is more than this. The break-up of society into isolated individuals is also the agenda of the new world order, which wishes to remove any united resistance."
MacDonald focused on the power and influence of Jewish intellectuals in the breakdown of western values.

Boas - Anthropology, Adorno - Sociology, Freud - Psychiatry, Derrida - Philosophy:
MacDonald focuses on how Jewish intellectual movements, led by authoritarian figures, took over modern intellectual life. He discusses Boas in Anthropology, Adorno in Sociology, Freud in Psychiatry and Derrida in Philosophy.
The "Frankfurt School," for example, was a "Marxist Jewish cult" financed by Jewish millionaire Felix Weil. Theodore Adorno's influential book "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950) was actually sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. It attributed prejudice to Christian sexual repression and portrayed Gentile group affiliations (including Christian religion, patriotism, and Family) as indications of psychiatric disorder.
Professors MacDonald and Makow both insist, social disintegration leads to psychological confusion. Society has accepted Adornos' view that there is no objective standard of truth, no common reality. Every one is isolated and different. Adorno resisted attempts to 'endow the world with any universality, objectivity or totality, with any single organizing principle that would homogenize society...'

This kind of post-modernist philosophy has paralysed modern Western culture. Western civilization is built on the foundation that truth is spiritual, universal and knowable. Ultimately truth is God.
A liberal arts education is 'toxic':
Universities today have given up the pursuit of truth and are devoted to Bolshevik-like social engineering and indoctrination. A liberal arts education today is not only a waste of time but toxic. Far from bearers of the Western tradition, universities are its executioners with the tacit blessing of the government.
He (MacDonald) documents the stranglehold Jews have on U.S. cultural life and shows how it is used to shape American attitudes…Jewish rituals are portrayed as "pleasant and ennobling". There is never any rational explanation for anti Semitism …[it] is portrayed as an absolute irrational evil that must be fought at every turn.
On the other hand, Christianity is typically portrayed as evil in the movies and Christians are even depicted as psychopaths. MacDonald cites conservative Jewish critic Michael Medved who complains that he couldn't find one film made since 1 975 where Christianity was portrayed positively.

Jewish-Christian rivalry:
MacDonald sees anti Semitism as the result of legitimate conflicts-of-interest. Yet Jewish organizations demonise anyone with the temerity to address Jewish power. They suppress the fact that Jewish-Christian rivalry has very deep roots in Western society.
Makow continued: In my view, this rivalry boils down to the fact that Jewish Pharisees rejected Christ's gospel of universal love and human brotherhood. Ever since, Jews have been social and metaphysical outcasts, albeit, ones with amazing powers of self-justification. We have been used as pawns by worldly powerbrokers bent on destroying Christian civilization.
The "modernist" trend of the 20th Century can be seen in these terms.

As I have suggested elsewhere, Judaism is more a racial creed than a religion. Jews are told we have a mission to create equality and social justice. In fact, we are being used by financiers to build a totalitarian world order. The financiers hold out socialist ideals as bait to transfer more and more power to government, which they control.
Of course, not all Jews are pawns of the new world order. Most pawns are not Jews. Racism has no place in this debate. But generally I believe Jews have played a prominent role in modernism.
A beacon for humanity, we have not been. Deceived ourselves, we have deceived others and purveyed personal dysfunction and societal oppression. Our role in Communism is a disgrace. Israel is a source of shame. Jews need to discover who we really are and rededicate ourselves…

MacDonald does not suggest remedies. But to combat the "new world order," Western nations must return to their Christian and national roots. The founding groups should reassert their values and traditions as the common glue. Minorities should be welcomed but they should not be able to remake society in their own image.
At birth we each enter a drama already in progress. We may sense something very wrong but we can't define it. In fact, we are in the advanced stages of a long-term conspiracy to subvert Western civilization. "Modernism" in the 20th Century was a hoax designed to strip people of their familial, cultural and religious identity before enslaving them in a new dark age. Western societies must return to their Christian and national roots or this drama will not end well."