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
September 19 1975. Thought for the Week: 'During the past thirty years people from all the civilised countries on earth have consulted me...Among all my patients in the second half of life - that is to say over thirty-five there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them had been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook".
Dr. C. G. Jung on Psychotherapists or the Clergy?


By Erie D. Butler
Solzhenitsyn's close friend, Sakharov, the famous Russian scientist, has told the Western peoples that in spite of inflation unemployment and economic dislocation, they are enjoying a material standard of living at least five times higher than that of the great majority of the victims of Soviet tyranny. I instance Sakharov's statement because some spokesmen for the Canberra Opposition parties are attempting to create the impression that there was economic stability, little inflation, and comparative social harmony over 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government. And all that is necessary to save Australia is to get rid of the Whitlam Government at the first possible opportunity.

The League of Rights is sometimes criticised because it warns against accepting this point of view. Regular readers of League journals do not need to be told what the League of Rights thinks of the Whitlam Government's policies. But the Whitlam Government only came to office in 1972, and was re-elected in May of last year because of the failures of the Liberal-Country Coalition. The League attempted to warn the Coalition that unless it changed its finance-economic policies, it was doomed to defeat. The League's viewpoint was not only rejected; Members of the Liberal and Country parties smeared the League just as viciously as have Members of the Labor Party and the Communists.

Some critics of the League resent its warning that there is no certainty that the removal of the Whitlam Government will of itself result in the reversal of the policies being used to drive Australia towards the complete Totalitarian State. The League of Rights made a similar warning in 1949 when the Chifley Government created a wave of electoral opposition to what was regarded then as "extreme Socialism. Compared with the Whitlam Government, the Chifley Government now appears to have been almost conservative.
The Liberal-Country Party Coalition was elected to "put the shillings back into the pound". But so far from solving inflation, the Coalition ended 23 years in Government with the equivalent of the 1949-dollar only worth 32 cents in 1972.

Wishful thinking and uncritical supporters of the Opposition parties are apparently unfamiliar with Australian political history. The Opposition parties imposed the "Horror Budget" of 1951. Only the Petrov Affair in 1954 barely saved the Menzies-Fadden Government from an electoral backlash. Then came the 1960 attempt to control inflation with a massive credit squeeze, creating large-scale unemployment and a large number of business casualties. Once again the Menzies-Fadden Government was nearly swept from office.

Probably the most telling propaganda the Whitlam Government used at last year's Federal Elections in May, was to remind the Australians of the policies of disaster imposed by the Gorton and McMahon Governments. The rural community was being destroyed long before the Whitlam Government came to office. Mr. Doug Anthony and his colleagues offered no constructive policies to halt the growing rural crisis. They even resented the suggestion that they might press for the implementation of some of their own stated policies, such as consumer price subsidies. One critic suggests that the "most important thing is to change it (the Whitlam Government) before they do so much harm to this country of ours that a change will be impossible."

The League has no objection to the Whitlam Government being thrown out of office as soon as possible. But it is not the League of Rights, which is preventing this; Mr. Fraser is the man who will decide when there is to be an election. He is the man who has said that he believes that a Government should be permitted to stay in office for its complete term of three years. The League does not accept the "convention" that once a Government has been elected, it should be able to do, as it likes for three years. The American Senate often rejects money bills and plays a major role in the American Government. The Australian Senate should do likewise.

It is understandable that some now see the era of the Liberal-Country Party Coalition as preferable to what has happened under the Whitlam Government. But it is misleading to argue that the Coalition Government was superior because it had a lower inflation rate. Mr. Whitlam uses the same type of argument when he says that Australia's inflation rate is less than in some other countries. The great majority of Australians would vote to live in Whitlam's Australia rather than under Soviet conditions. The point to be stressed is that false alternatives must be rejected. It is not sufficient to argue that a Fraser-Anthony Government will not be as bad as the Whitlam Government. The major question is whether it will reverse the policies, which, if persisted with must take Australia progressively towards greater convulsions and totalitarianism.
The League's view is that Opposition Members and candidates should be asked to give firm commitments on basic policy issues NOW.

Even Premier Bjelke -Petersen is indicating that he has his doubts about what could happen under a Fraser-Anthony Government. Last week he made the point that the Liberal Party has to make up its mind whether it is to be a big "L" Liberal Party or a small "s" Socialist Party. Mr. Bjelke-Petersen calls for some positive evidence that a Fraser Government will dismantle the whole Socialist structure. The League endorses that approach.

We must remind readers that the League is not engaged in any struggle for power, does not publish its journals for financial profit, but provides a comprehensive service for those Australians who are prepared to face the facts of political life and who wish to defend the free Society. Critics who threaten to cancel subscriptions because of the League's responsible approach to party politics, are wasting their time. The League's long record of reliability speaks for itself. The League believes that Mr. Malcolm Fraser would like to take office with a constructive mandate from the Australian people. He and his colleagues should therefore "Spell It Out" - stating clearly what their policies will be.


The following letter appeared in The Age (Melbourne), September 15th:
"Your leading article (The Age, 4/9/1975) on the Queensland Premier was both intemperate and unfair. His action in filling the Senate vacancy with Mr. Field can be justified on three grounds.
1). He did follow convention - one set over a year ago, when the Prime Minister sought to replace a D.L.P. Senator by an A.L.P. Senator. It is hypocritical of the A.L.P. to complain now.
2). Conventions only apply in conventional circumstances. There is no precedent in our political history for the plunge in popularity suffered by the Government in the last year or two. The old convention assumes that, if an election could be held, a member of the same party as the deceased senator would be returned by the people. The recent Queensland State elections showed quite clearly that this would not have been so on this occasion.
3). Mr. Bjelke-Petersen actually did appoint a Labor man. And who is to say that this is not the true Labor man, or that the fools in the Government are better Labor men?

Personally, I would have appointed a candidate suggested by the A.L.P., but neither appointment really alters the Government's minority position in the Senate. On the other hand, the Premier's appointment appears to be the more rational one, if we believe in democracy, and prefer the majority of people in Queensland to have this representation, and not the minority. - I.T. Maddern (Morwell) Mr. Maddern was formerly Principal of Morwell High School.


Mr. Malcolm Fraser must be given "full marks" for his courageous statement last week, that he hoped that just as Mrs. Helen Susman, anti-apartheid South African Member of Parliament, had been welcomed to Australia, supporters of apartheid would also be encouraged to come to put their point of view. Press reports state that Mr. Fraser departed from the address prepared by the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Andrew Peacock, to make his comment.

The sophisticates of the media are doing their best to present Senator Albert Field from Queensland as some pathetic figure to be pitied. He is, says The Australian, an "unfortunate man lost in parliamentary pastures". We know little about Senator Field. He may be "eccentric ". His pronunciation may not be the best. But he clearly is an honest man. Which is more than can be said for some of the sick, power-hungry party hacks who have contempt for the Australian people who sustain them.

As some Labor supporters (yes, there are still a few left!) hark back to the Chifley Labor Government, and believe that Ben Chifley was the type of Treasurer the Whitlam Government could do with today, it is appropriate to recall what Chifley said supporting consumer subsidies:
"Two main advantages accrue from this method (consumer subsidies) of price control. In the first place, subsidies will permit the stabilisation of retail prices generally, and this will be reflected in a new stability in the Commonwealth 'c' series index which will measure retail prices and by which wages are adjusted"

Orchids to Mr. Lindsay Thompson, Victorian Minister of Education, who says that God Save The Queen is Victoria's choice for the National Anthem. It is to be played in Victorian schools on all appropriate occasions. Mr. Thompson says that the Federal Government's decision to make Advance Australia Fair the official Anthem had been based on a phony poll. (The League of Rights couldn't agree more; it was a typically crude Whitlam effort!) God Save The Queen was contemptuously omitted from three songs submitted to the vote of some thousands of citizens. This was an affront to our Queen!

The Federal Opposition in planning to remove the fat cats from the Canberra bureaucracy whose appointments by the Whitlam "Australian" Government have been blatantly and crudely (in the Whitlam fashion) political. Those whose heads will roll are Mr. I. Menadue, head of the Prime Minister's Department (salary - $38,250), Dr. P. Wilenski, head of the Labor and Immigration Department (salary - $37, 000), and Mr. J. Spigelman, head of the Department of the Media (salary $34,600). Dr. Wilenski's wife, Gail, a veterinary surgeon, has graciously accepted a $17,000 job with the Commonwealth Public Service Board. The spot where we think the axe should really fall is on the Commissioner for Race Relations, Mr. Al Grassby; who will struggle along on $32,000 yearly. Mr. Grassby should not feel too secure in his new post. The Racial Discrimination Act is most probably invalid, and when challenged (as it will be in due course) the High Court of Australia will almost certainly rule that the Act is unconstitutional. This will means of course, that the Commissioner, and his staff and machinery, a statutory Authority under the Act, must be abolished. We urge all supporters, to, in turn, urge all Opposition members to ensure that Mr. Al Grassby is well up in the list of those blatant political appointees to be unceremoniously axed.

Japan is now turning to the deficit Budget for the first time since World War 2 in an effort to stimulate the depressed Japanese economy. Bankruptcies of large Japanese companies are now beginning to occur. The boom years of Cherry Blossom Land are well and truly over.

The world's Money Rulers are trying to phase out gold as the basis of monetary reserves. We believe that the most powerful group of International Finance operators is aiming to have International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.s) accepted as the World Reserve Currency. This does not please such people as the French monetary authorities who are sitting on large gold reserves. The International Monetary Fund has very recently been "dumping" gold in the world's bullion markets. The United States' Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. William Simon, intends that the role of gold will be phased out of international monetary dealings. Mr. Simon represents the most powerful group of International Finance operators. Those would-be "shrewdies" who think that they can beat inflation by hoarding gold (individuals in the U.S.A. may now, by law, hold gold) will be eventually left high and dry, in our opinion.


At present there are two ways - short of price fixing - by which Government action can reduce or stabilise prices. One method, which should lower all wages and prices, is the use of a severe credit squeeze to bring about a depression. In view of all its attendant miseries most people would regard this cure as being worse than the complaint.
The other method, which can be used selectively, and which allows a reduction in prices even when costs cannot be reduced, is the subsidy method. This has been used successfully on a number of occasions to keep prices of certain necessities at a reasonable level whilst still returning the producer a payable amount.
Although this method is effective in stabilising prices it cannot at present be used over a large area of the economy because the money to pay the subsidy must be raised by tax (or paid from Government deficits). Therefore, the payment of subsidy is more a redistribution (under present monetary conventions), rather than addition to the money supply.

The absolutely vital point about the subsidy is that it enters the economy outside the cost-price structure, and lowers prices: hence is anti-inflationary, not inflationary, as some confused politicians sometimes contend.