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
26 October 1984. Thought for the Week: "There is excuse for defeat, but none for surprise."
Military maxim


"The capitulation by the Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, to the West Australian Government on Aboriginal Land Rights, represents a serious rebuff for the Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr. Holding". - The Age (Melbourne) October 22nd.

The above title was given to an article on Aboriginal Land Rights by The Age, and it is an apt one. The joint statement by Messrs. Hawke, (Clyde) Holding, and Burke (W.A. Premier) very recently to the effect that the Commonwealth would no longer insist on the Aboriginal veto over mining, and would not over ride W.A. State Land Rights legislation indicated a definite back off by Federal "Labor". Furthermore, the indications were that "broad principles", rather than fine legislation would be advanced. Whatever that means.

Before continuing with this story, it is germane to reflect that the campaign AGAINST Aboriginal Land Rights legislation was initiated by the Australian League of Rights back in March 1982. When "Red Over Black" was published, the League threw its weight behind the promotion of this book, sales of which have now exceeded twenty thousand copies, and still rising. Various other activities have taken place since then. Many tens of thousands of the League of Rights' Special Issue of the monthly "Intelligence Survey" ("Aboriginal Land Rights & Australia' s Sovereignty") have been distributed right around Australia. Various action committees have been formed to alert the Australian people to the dangers inherent in this Land Rights legislation; a good example being the "Save Victoria Committee", which concentrated on the councillors of Local Government in Victoria. Much other anti-Aboriginal Land Rights action has been (and still is being) taken.

The sharp reactions from Mr. Clyde Holding and Dr. Coghill (for the Victorian State "Labor" Government) demonstrates the seriousness with which the League of Rights' programmes have been taken. Was just "A lunatic fringe" responsible for Mr. Holding's engagement of Mr. Ken Gott, an ex-Communist journalist, for a period of six months, at $1,500 plus weekly, to "deal with" the League of Rights?
Ken Coghill, Victorian Minister assisting the Premier on Land Rights legislation, was rushing around Victoria for months, berating the League of Rights wherever he went. However, it did the Victorian Aboriginal Land Claims Bill no good; nor any good for Dr. Coghill. All he could do was to rave about the dreaded League of Rights, and people, especially councillors, got sick of that. These sensible, responsible, people, wanted answers sensible answers, to their doubts- not childish ravings against an organisation.

Then came the A.N.O.P. poll on Aboriginal Land Rights, clearly showing a community Backlash: only 18% of Australians approved, 30% disapproved; and 52% were wary and suspicious. Added to this, Mr. Brian Burke, W.A. Premier, warned that 7 Federal seats in W.A. could be lost because of the Land Rights issue. The pragmatic Mr. Hawke could allow the issue to fizz no longer. He had to back off, no doubt enraging his Socialist Left (read "Communist") - and Mr. Clyde Holding.

Now, at last, two and a half years after the League of Rights began its campaign against Land Rights, the so-called Opposition is taking a stand, of course because it sees electoral advantage NOW in being seen to oppose Aboriginal Land Rights. What would have happened, or not happened, if the League of Rights had done nothing, two and a half years -ago? It isn't over yet by a long chalk. They'll come again!


by Neil G. McDonald
"In only six years' time, one quarter of Australia's workers will be unemployed. During the past decade, the jobless have increased by 400% (four hundred per cent). The informant is not a vote seeking Opposition candidate, but rather a Labor Party ally, viz. A.C.T.U. secretary, Mr. Bill Kelty. "If the shadow of unemployment is lengthening, how valid is the supposed economic recovery? Liberals and Labor both endorse full employment, but are not able to produce it. "Has the decrease in employees resulted in shortages? "Not on the surface. Shops are overflowing, offering discounts and pay later specials. There is nothing in short supply, except adequate purchasing power for the unemployed. "Therefore, with the present standard of living, their services are not really needed. "The reason they must also suffer hardship is not due to scarcity, but abundance... too much ... too many cars... surplus milk...and lots of other items. "A short term solution is to export the surplus. But other nations have similar problems; and they increase tariff barriers, and try to force Australia to import goods we don't really need. "One way to hide the effect of unemployment is to increase the government payroll...swell the Public Service; lots of employed persons who do not produce anything. They shuffle forms and make morning tea, but do not embarrass with a visible amount of extra physical production. "No income without a job, becomes a scare call; so jobs are created. seaweed collection.... rubbish re-cycling, tree planting and mud brick making - even gold fossiking. Irish writer, Eimar O'Duffy aptly summed up the unemployed's problem in his book - 'Life and Money'.

"He is hungry and ragged because he cannot pay for sufficient food and clothing.
"He cannot pay for these because he is not working.
"He is not working because he is not wanted.
"His work is not wanted because all the goods required can be produced without his assistance.
"In short, the reason why he must go without food and clothing is that there is plenty of both.
"How insane that the only political solution to unemployment is to get rid of plenty, instead of adequate money to distribute to the needy".


"The Wilderness Society yesterday condemned the Opposition Leader, Mr. Peacock, for a 'gross error of judgment' in promising to allow the Tasmanian Government to build the Franklin Dam" - The Age Melbourne October 22nd.

The man in the street (is this sexist? Then "streetperson"!) probably still considers that the Franklin Dam issue was knocked out forever by the Hawke Government shortly after its assumption of office. Such is by no means the case. The ruling of the High Court gave the Commonwealth the constitutional power to over ride the State of Tasmania and thereby block the building of the Franklin Dam. If the Commonwealth does not want to over ride the Sate of Tasmania on this issue, then the Franklin Dam goes ahead. Mr. Peacock has stated as electoral policy that a Liberal, or Liberal Coalition Government will not invoke the External Affairs power of the Australian Constitution against the Tasmanian Government, nor indeed against any State government for Andrew Peacock did, to his credit, assert strongly his support for States Rights.

But this is not good enough for us. We want more! We want the Constitution to be so amended that it will be impossible, forever, for the rights of the States to be over ridden by the Commonwealth. The framing of the amendment would be a simple matter for the constitutional lawyers; however, the urgency of the need for same may well have to be brought home to the Australian people the hard way - costly battles between the Commonwealth and the States. This is the manner in which civil wars have arisen in history. The "greenies" will be in force, naturally, if the Franklin Dam eventually goes ahead, as well it could. By that time, we are sure, public opinion will swing heavily against the greenies, and the state authorities will have little trouble in dealing with the situation.


Mr. Peacock's "new" income-splitting proposal to assist single income families is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. The "rationale" is to buttress the family, if even to a small degree. The Fraser Government rejected this proposal: so it has been around for years, but only now is dusted off and pushed up front. The "Labor" Government (Communist/Socialist/Humanist) of Mr. Hawke will attack the tax proposal from a philosophical standpoint: it flies in the face of Senator Susan Ryan's "affirmative action" (read "Humanist reaction") - by giving some protection to the family. The Humanist ideologues, maddened by their fallacious ideology, are striving to eject the wife and mother from the home and into that beloved work force. The kids? Government crèches, Big Brother will fill their little innocent minds with madness.