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
18 May 1984. Thought for the Week: "That we have attained the final step on the evolutionary ladder of war is most unlikely. For mechanical and chemical weapons may disappear and be replaced by others more terrible. This method of imposing the will of one man on another may in turn be replaced by purely psychological warfare wherein weapons are not even used or battlefields sought or loss of life and limb aimed at. But in its place the corruption of human reason, the dimming of the human intellect and the disintegration of the moral and spiritual life of one nation by the will of another is accomplished."
General J.F.C. Fuller in "Tanks of the Great War"


We have in recent years warned of the unease in the community as the Federal parties combined to impose a break from Australia's traditional immigration policy, and to replace it with something called "multiculturalism". The growing number of critics of immigration developments was brushed aside by all the political parties. But when a distinguished Australian academic, the noted historian, Professor Blainey felt it necessary to reflect community concern, an open debate erupted.

In his original statement Professor Blainey mentioned the freedom permitted under democracy in Australia, and then went on to say, "Not one of these advantages can necessarily be preserved here if the Federal Government's Asianisation policy runs its course and runs it rapidly".

The status of Professor Blainey enabled him to escape the type of vile smearing directed against other critics of immigration policies, while the widespread public support he received clearly indicated to a desperate Opposition that it could be politically opportune to press for a parliamentary debate on the subject.

The media commentators who, generally, have been critical of the Opposition, and who have talked loosely about the "ugly spectacle of racism", are insistent that the multicultural policy must be persevered with. The advocates of the multicultural programme keep on insisting that it has "enriched" the nation. When asked for some evidence of this enriching process, the answer concerns Australia's changed culinary and drinking habits. Such is the level of argument by those who pride themselves on being intellectuals. The fact that Australians generally are drinking more wine has not prevented the nation from suffering the process of disintegration afflicting all Western nations.

The contribution of Labor Member, Mr. Kent, who has Anglicised his name since migrating from Yugoslavia 31 years ago, did nothing to enhance the dignity of Parliament, when he screamed "racist bastards" at Opposition Members and then had to be restrained from physically assaulting them. But then Senator Gareth Evans made his own distinctive contribution to parliamentary dignity when he shouted about the "scum" who should be "thrown out" of the Senate, linking them with the League of Rights. This is the man who says he is concerned about protecting the rights of the Australian people.

The most overworked word in last week's parliamentary debate on immigration, and media comments, was "racism". The politicians on both sides kept on insisting they were not racists. But we have been unable to find where anyone attempted to define what has become a tool of psycho political warfare. The weakness of the Opposition was hammered relentlessly by Prime Minister Hawke and his colleagues: they had merely taken over the Fraser Government's policies.

The former Prime Minister was warmly eulogised by Government spokesmen. The Opposition charged that it was the Hawke Government, which had violated the bi-partisan immigration policy by reducing the number of British and European migrants. When pressed on the point, Mr. Peacock would not say that there had been too many Asians. The number is right, says Mr. Peacock. He creates the impression that he is attempting to obtain votes by creating the impression that he is concerned about the Asianisation policy without really proposing to curb it.

The "balanced" programme advocated by the Opposition is a continuation of the disastrous policies they pursued for seven years under the Fraser Government. However, the Opposition did demonstrate last week that politicians are still sensitive to electoral pressures. That pressure must be increased to the stage where the Opposition formally commits itself to a policy of permitting the Australian people to have a say by referendum on the type of immigration policy they want.

We have constantly said that immigration and Aboriginal land claims are two of the issues, which will increasingly concern Australians. If the Opposition can take up both issues, along with the constitutional question, together with some firm assurances on a reduction in total taxation, not even the charisma of Mr. Hawke could prevent a massive electoral backlash against the Hawke Government.


Mr. Peter Steedman Federal Member for Casey will be recalled by some as a former leader of radical students activities. At one time it appeared that he would be going to be a permanent student. Zionists attempt to create the impression that they are strongly opposed to the extreme radicals of the Labor Party. But the Zionist "Australian Jewish News" of May 11th featured Steedman's recent attack on the League of Rights in the House of Representatives. A reading of the "Hansard" report was a boring experience: the same old tired, and out-of-date nonsense, most of it taken from Mr. Ken Gott's little hate booklet recommended by Mr. Isi Leibler and other Zionists. Mr. Gott was interviewed on the ABC's TV "Nation Wide" last week, and attempted to smear the League in an interview with the same ABC interviewer who covered the St. Arnaud debate between Mr. Eric Butler and Dr. Coghill. The League's opponents must be desperate when they are relying upon well-known radicals like Mr. Steedman and Mr. Ken Gott.

"MOSCOW FACES STRAIGHT TALKING FROM HAYDEN". This was the headline of an article by well-known political journalist, Mr. Laurie Oakes, accompanying Foreign Minister Mr. Bill Hayden on his latest world tour. We can imagine those hard-nosed criminals in the Kremlin going white with fear as they face Mr. Hayden's "straight talking". Mr. Hayden will be treated with the same type of Soviet contempt Hr. Hawke experienced when he last went to the Soviet. Justifying his visit to Moscow, Mr. Hayden says that isolating the Soviet "encourages a national form of paranoia and paranoia is not a productive quality". Neither are double standards very productive. When is Mr. Hayden going to visit South Africa?

The directives by the Australian Broadcasting Commission that its announcers and commentators must use non-sexist language reminds of the statement that those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. Now that Australia has accepted the edict from on high, from the United Nations, itself, that men and women are all equal, and that discrimination is an evil to be shunned, words like "Son", "sportsmanship" and "Mankind" are "out". The former chairman of the ABC (who does not want to be called a chairperson) Professor Dame Leonie Kramer described the non-sexist guidelines as "silly", observing, "It is a principle of language that the fact of the matter is that there is a perfectly common generic use of the word 'man'. It always has been understood ... that it includes both men and women."
Now a Professor of Australian literature at the Sydney University, Dame Leonie fears that Shakespeare and the great writers of the past will have to be re-written. While the whole matter should be treated with hilarity, it should not be overlooked that what is being attempted is but one more deadly attack upon our culture. Unless it is defeated, we will no longer be able to refer to Her Majesty, The Queen, but presumably to "The Throne Person".

One of the most deeply rooted myths about immigration is that bigger populations are essential for avoiding or overcoming economic recessions. Nations with much bigger populations than Australia, including the United States, have as many, or even more, economic and associated problems. Switzerland is a small country, few basic natural resources, a small market and a shortage of skilled labour. Migrants are frowned upon. Guest workers, yes, who are not granted any citizenship rights. The Swiss are not experiencing any more problems than Australia. There is, however, a strong case for a bigger Australian population, this being primarily one of defence. Defence requires a basically homogeneous people. The best migrants are Australian babies. The birthrate is directly linked to economics. Young Australians will have bigger families when financial policies make it possible to have them

Upon his arrival in London, Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden said he could not see Australia inviting the South African Prime Minister, Mr. Botha, to visit except over the "dead bodies" of the Cabinet. But what about Soviet Union, or leaders from other totalitarian governments, such as that of Vietnam? Well, of course, that is different.

In spite of the soothing claims of the politicians and the financial soothsayers, there is growing fear in the USA of rising inflation. Interest rates are rising. Business Council, an organisation of executives from the largest Mexican industries, are expressing fears of another depression in 1985. We repeat there is no way out of growing economic dislocation under debt finance. Mr. Hawke aims to have his early election before 1985 arrives. Eventually the debt bomb must be detonated, before it blows up what is left of Civilisation.

From Hansard
Sex Discrimination Bill; Senate, December 16th, 1983. Senator Shirley Walters (Lib.-Tas.)
"... But from the very beginning the intimidation (sic) by the Government that anyone who dared to speak out against this Bill (now Act) was discriminating against women, is, I believe, irresponsible. From the very beginning, the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, has called people who opposed the Bill, hysterical - that is the word that she so frequently used - yet she has brought into this place 80 odd amendments to the Bill that she brought forward. She will not tell me - even though she has had plenty of time, days, to do so - how many people signed a petition asking for amendments to the Bill. She has no intention of doing so. I will not be intimidated by the name of this Bill, and I want that clearly understood by the Senate

Senator Brian Harradine (Ind.-Tas.)
"What we have witnessed with this Bill has been a denial of the rights of the Senate and of individual senators. The gag has been applied. In applying the gag the Government and the Australian Democrats have in fact undermined the rights of the Senate as a House of review of government legislation. In addition, because of the time allotted to the conscientious objection amendment and civil liberties amendments, the action of the Government and the Australian Democrats has undermined the rights of the Senate to uphold the rights of individuals in Australia. I am concerned about that..."

Senator Ronald Boswell (Qld.-N.P.)
"It is not the same United Nations treaty but the principle is the same. The Government is using a United Nations treaty to come in right over the top of the States. It is taking sovereignty away from the States of Australia. The right of my State is one of the things I have come here to defend. If that were the only reason why I should fight this Bill it would be sufficient to fight it and take it right up to the barriers. I am sorry if I am boring Senator Gareth Evans who is yawning but many people are interested on this subject. Even Dr. Klugman, the A.L.P. member for Prospect, is terrified at the prospect of using United Nations treaties …"
".... I should like to explain how far we have come. As I have said, to begin with the Government, quite openly and blatantly, interfered with our religious freedoms in this country. As I indicated when I spoke last, Senator (Patricia) Giles (A.L.P-W.A.) said that she did not worry too much about this because in her opinion some of the non-government schools had great bias in their religions. I believe that that indicated the real approach of the Government. I am not quite sure what right the Government or Senator Giles has to say that non government schools are biased because they have a particular religious belief, but Senator Giles has taken it upon herself to say that, because she does not believe that way and because it is not her religious belief, it is biased..."