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

23 August 1991. Thought for the Week: "It appears to be in the nature of the universe that the misuse of a 'means' results in the breakdown of the means misused. For instance, the centralisation, which is so rampant, is claimed to be in the interest of efficiency. But civilisation was never so inefficient as it is today. We have unimaginable and unthinkable production - yes. And with it, less security less leisure more suicides more lunacy. Is that efficiency? By the canon of dialectical materialism it may be."
C.H. Douglas, in Whose Service Is Perfect Freedom


Last week's decision by the High Court to uphold the validity of the War Crimes Act now leaves the way open for the pursuit of vengeance in a fashion foreign to the common-law spirit of Christian justice. The Court's decision, on a narrow 4-3 margin, will be welcomed by the Zionist pressure groups who press for prosecutions as a matter of urgency - not from a passion for justice, but a passion for revenge - before the alleged war criminals die off, and face the ultimate judgment. Irrespective of the fine Constitutional arguments concerning the use of retrospective legislation, the Zionist appeal to 'justice' as the reason for the pursuit of elderly men for alleged crimes committed half a century ago, fails simply because of the passage of time. The reason for common law statutes of limitations for certain cases becomes clear in the light of foreign experience in pursuing war criminals.


In June Canadian Justice Chadwick of the Ontario Supreme Court rejected government appeals to send a judicial team to the Soviet Union to gather videotaped evidence against Michael Pawlowski, concluding that Pawlowski could never receive a fair trail under Soviet standards and procedures for taking evidence. In March, charges were dropped against Stephen Reistetter, and the Crown prosecutor noted that insufficient evidence after two witnesses died of old age, and others were unable or unwilling to testify. This prompted a remark from senior legal counsel of B'nai Brith Canada, David Matas: "This case illustrates that the wheels of justice must turn more quickly. There is a biological clock ticking, and as time passes, opportunities are lost...."

Opportunities for what? Clearly not opportunities for genuine justice at all. The hasty pursuit of elderly men of confused memory with dated and shaky evidence perhaps collected in Communist countries under unacceptable standards of procedure can never be regarded as justice. It is better described as vengeance, which the God of the Israelites claims for himself. Perhaps the Zionists do not trust His judgment. Clearly they reject the Christian attitude that it is better that the guilty go free than that the innocent should be unjustly judged.

The difficulty of bridging the gap of time is further demonstrated by the fact that the director of the Commonwealth Government's Special Investigations Unit (War Crimes), Mr. Graham Blewitt, was himself not even born until well after the end of World War II. Ivan Polyukhovich and others were involved in a dreadful conflict that is impossible to comprehend by people living in another age in a country that has never known such conflict. All that is available to Mr. Blewitt is that he rigidly applies the letter of the law, and achieves the results demanded by those to whom the letter of the law is paramount.

Indeed, one of those who has pressed hardest for the trials to proceed, Mr. Mark Aarons, has threatened to publish the names of war criminals in any case, reminiscent of the vicious homosexual tactic of "outing". It is germane to here draw attention to the latest developments in the Israeli trial of John Demjanjuk, who has been sentenced to death (three years ago, in fact) for "operating gas chambers" in the Treblinka concentration camp. Quite apart from the overwhelming evidence of Fred Leuchter (the Leuchter Report) that no actual "gas chambers" did exist as such, fresh appeal evidence on Demjanjuk's behalf has revealed that he, indeed, is not "Ivan the Terrible", the alleged war criminal, but is the victim of mistaken identity, attributable to forged S.S. documentation and the testimony of elderly, emotional, and unreliable Treblinka survivors. (Our emphasis .. O.T.)

The fairly lengthy report, reprinted in The Age (Melbourne), August 19th, from David Horovitz, Jerusalem, August 18th, runs - "the judges may be left with an unenviable dilemma: whether to believe the eyewitness testimony of survivors, who, 40 years after the war, identified Demjanjuk as the sadistic Treblinka killer, or place more faith in evidence collected far earlier, but from convicted war criminals".


The Canadian experience, and the recent Australian High Court decision make the October visit by Canadian barrister, Doug Christie, even more important. Christie, the first man to defend someone tried under the new war crimes legislation in any English-speaking country, has first hand experience of the difficulties faced in obtaining a fair trial for such defendants. Christie, who risked his own safety by going to Communist Hungary and Israel to gather evidence for Imre Finta, is better placed than anyone to warn of the dangerous injustices that occur. And his ability to rip to shreds the evidence of both ageing witnesses and academic "experts" on events in World War II has not only alarmed the Zionist terror-machine, but demonstrated the futility of proceeding with such witch-hunts. His presence at the New Times Dinner and the Annual Seminar in October will focus the debate as never before.


The War Crimes trials will now proceed. Ivan Polyukhovich will be tried, as will others, but the process owes more to the spirit of Talmudic vengeance than to Christian justice. The trials could assume the proportions of a type of backdrop for a Shakespearean drama, in which Shylock is entitled to take a pound of Antonio's flesh under a strict interpretation of the letter of the law. The extraction of a pound of Antonio's flesh becomes of more importance than its effect on the body as a whole. Perhaps this is why St. Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthian church, concerned with the health of the body of Christ, charges Christians with the ministry of the new covenant - not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, while the Spirit gives life. Such a ministry, says Paul, is not engraved on tablets of stone, which brings death, but on tablets of human hearts. This appears to partake of mercy, rather than vengeance.

The Australian War Crimes trials are important not only because of what they may do to elderly men, but because of the damage done by a rigid application of the deathly letter of the law, and the long-term effect it must have on the Australian people. It is a disgraceful betrayal of the best of our Christian heritage.


Europe's Common Agricultural Policy has resulted in what U.S. and other trading nations see as enormous subsidies for agricultural produce in Europe, enabling European primary production to be sold at discounted prices around the world. While this has preserved the traditional rural structure of European countries, it has made life difficult for farmers in countries like Argentina, New Zealand and Australia.

In order to force the E.C. to abandon the subsidy policy, the U.S. has embarked upon a subsidy war, in which they propose to undercut the price of European produce - particularly grain - for two years until the economic cost to the E.C. cannot be sustained. The subsidy war has dramatically slashed wheat prices, with recent sales of grain from both Europe and the U.S. for $US150 per tonne, of which about $US70 was a direct subsidy from the respective governments.

According to reports from New York, the 1989 world wheat prices were $US175 per tonne after a drought in the U.S. Now the price is down to about $US120 per tonne. Australian producers were receiving $A205 in 1989, and the dramatic price drop is directly the result of the multi-billion dollar subsidy war. The U.S. strategy has stretched beyond the expected two year campaign, and Congress has budgeted another $US billion to be spent in out-subsidising the E.C., and appears determined to press ahead with the "war".

With the subsidies that have been offered in the last three weeks by the E.C. and the U.S. to such countries as the Soviet Union, China, Kuwait, Yemen, Egypt, the Philippines and Malaysia, the price to buying countries is about $US65 per tonne. Australia regards all those countries as customers for Australian grain, but now must rely almost exclusively on the Asian market. If the subsidy war spreads to Asia, Australian wheat growers could be destroyed at unprecedented rates.


Australian politicians and orthodox economists argue that the age of subsidising/protecting domestic industries of any sort is over if Australian industry is ever to become internationally competitive, and trade on the 'global markets'. However, in the same breath, it is conceded that the Australian wheat industry is perhaps the most efficient in the world, and yet it still faces destruction.

While it is true that the subsidy war cannot go on forever, the outcome is unclear. The question to be asked is in what shape will the Australian wheat industry be when the war does subside? It is obvious that while the most efficient Australian producers are subject to international forces - whatever they may be - for their very survival, then many simply will not survive at all. The present rural exodus demonstrates this. The latest "socially correct" ideology dictates that tariff, customs, tax and subsidy protection for Australian industry is not to be contemplated.

The real world - the ultimate disciplinarian - dictates that Australian industries of all kinds will be and are being destroyed on a wholesale basis as a result. Australia must recognise the realities, forget the "socially correct" ideological posturing, and urgently move to protect local industry. Perhaps the best form of 'protection' is to lower the price structures for industry, particularly taxes. Australian wheat farmers have watched for many years while governments have protected industries like footwear, motor vehicles, textiles and clothing to the tune of billions of dollars. They can now justifiably ask why, in a genuine emergency for their industry, thousands of farmers must be bankrupted to satisfy fashionable ideological thinking?

It is clear that no relief is available from the Opposition, with the ideologically correct John Hewson, from an I.M.F. background, insisting that a new economic order aligning farmers with international market conditions and a new consumption tax regime will eventually produce a more "efficient" rural base. This is cold, comfort for small producers in any industry. The time could well come by the turn of the century when Australians face food shortages as a result of the prevailing industrial madness.


We regret to note that Mr. Alan Gourley, for whom we have considerable respect, and whose writings have awakened many Australians to policies of treachery undermining Australia's sovereignty, expresses the view that because of the impending entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market and its effect on the Monarchy, and the fact that progress for true democracy will mean we have matured beyond the need for a Monarchy, the continuation for Monarchy in Australia is both impractical and unnecessary". While the League of Rights campaigned from the early 1960s onwards against British entry into the E.E.C., and has consistently warned of the consequent threat to the Monarchy, it has pointed out that in the development of the British Empire, the Monarchy is no longer the exclusive property of the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA. She will continue to be Queen of Australia and the Monarchical form of government will continue in Australia until such time that it is rejected by the Australian people.

WHY GAMBLE WITH OUR FUTURE? from The Age (Melbourne), August 14th
This is a strange letter from Professor A. Rodger, Chairman of the Australian Chapter of the Club of Rome, and councillor, Greenhouse Action of Australia. He appears not to acknowledge that the "greenhouse" issue could be wrong, as many scientists claim that it is. Supporters will be interested in this letter, and the letter that follows, from Mr. Des Moore.. Professor Rodger's letter runs:
"The letter from Des Moore of the Institute of Public Affairs (3/8) could mislead readers into believing that recent greenhouse projections and the warnings of the Club of Rome (Limits to Growth, 1972, etc.) are false. "On the basis of the evidence, the most likely outcome of increases in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is that the existing greenhouse effect will increase and that this will result in higher surface temperatures. Similarly, in a finite world, we must expect that there are limits to exponential growth in the consumption of non-renewable energy and resources, and that there are limits to the capacity of the biosphere to deal with waste products and pollutants.
"The issue is not whether these hypotheses on the greenhouse effect and limits to growth are, in any absolute sense, true or false. The real question for thinking is whether these hypotheses provide the best available explanation of our situation, and consequently the best basis for action. The answer in both cases is unequivocally yes.
"In failing to acknowledge the reality of these probabilities, Des Moore and his fellow travellers fail to recognise the challenges and opportunities that they present. They also divert attention away from appropriate action and thus waste our most valuable and nonrenewable resource, time. "Our hope for the future must be deeply embedded in our appreciation of the present. Just as we should be cautious about gambling with our future, so future generations, if they could have their say, would be cautioning us about gambling with their past. "Rather than engaging in the confrontational environmental politics that shine through Des Moore's letter, we should be joining in discussion and action to establish those sustainable systems that are presumably our common goal." (Allan Rodger, Parkville, Vic.)

GREENHOUSE GLOOM DWINDLING - this letter from Mr. Des Moore (The Weekend Australian, August l7th-l8th), in reply to another "green house" academic (Dr. Lowe)
"Dr. Lowe suggests (The Weekend Australian, August l0th-llth) that 'dubious claims' on environmental issues were made by reputable scientists at a recent conference organised by leading United States think-tank, the CATO Institute, in Washington. He appears to argue that the claims are dubious because they differ from 'the considered views of most atmospheric scientists'. "Ironically, he quotes, with approval, in the same article the minority views of Professor Wayne (sic) Godley - a lifelong supporter of the Briths Labour Party - that the economic record of the Thatcher Government was a 'dismal failure'. "Actually, on at least one major environmental issue the CATO Conference made it clear that Dr. Lowe and his fellow predictors of gloom are set to become the minority. Thus, one paper reported that a survey of U.S. climatologists and meteorologists had shown that an overwhelming majority now take the view that greenhouse gas emissions will not have significant adverse consequences. The 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook of Science and the Future confirms this shift in scientific opinion." (Des Moore, Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne)

PLIGHT OF FARMERS - this letter was sent a few days ago by an actionist to his local Federal Member of Parliament. The South Australian actionist operates a farm machinery business
I am writing to voice my frustration and concern for the plight of the Australian farming community and the lack of support rendered to them by State and Federal Governments and Opposition parties. Thousands of our farmers are in dire financial difficulty and many are desperately in need of assistance. "History shows that the most buoyant times in the farming industry occurred when wheat and wool were subsidised. Although our farmers have no entitlement to vote in American elections they are disadvantaged by American Government decisions and their welfare is directly jeopardised by the policy makers in that country. The pleas to U.S.A. from Australia will continue to fall on deaf ears as American wheat subsidies ravage the world markets. An Australian Government decision to subsidise our growers' wheat and wool would be a far healthier alternative to adding thousands of needy people to the dole queues.
"To add insult to injury, New Zealand is purchasing American subsidised wheat from the Middle East. What has the Government or Opposition done about this? NOTHING!!! Australia should refuse to purchase any dairy products from New Zealand immediately. As an ex-dairy farmer I am incensed that Australia finds it necessary to import New Zealand dairy products when Australia is totally self-sufficient in this industry. "Why does Australia continue to import foodstuffs from overseas? Food that is generally well below the quality and standard that Australia can produce. This is madness!!! Foreign suppliers can produce far cheaper than Australia - no 17.5% loadings, 4 weeks annual leave, 38-hour week, etc… and can flood our markets with their produce whilst maintaining restrictions on imports of Australian products - LUDICROUS.
"My wife was employed by a shoe manufacturer, but is now unemployed due to the importation of shoes from China. WHY? China will purchase her wheat from the U.S.A. if it receives better terms. It has no loyalties to Australia - would it not be better if our workers remain employed in Australian industries?"

DEFENDING SWITZERLAND - this letter appeared very recently in the Melbourne daily press
In neutral Switzerland democracy was founded 700 years ago by common people taking a stand against centralised government oppression. Lacking an aristocracy, they opted sensibly for a decentralised system of government. Thus four populations of differing cultures and languages lived in peace for centuries in a small country. Australians take note.
"After serving in the army Swiss soldiers are sent home with their rifles and ammunition ready to defend their country. A million 'assault' weapons (as gun-confiscators call them) in upstairs attics have never been fired in anger. "Switzerland is the only country safe from totalitarian aggression - because its people are quietly willing and able to fight for their families against all comers and all weapons. They have a formidable civil defence (Australia has none) and every recent Swiss home has a nuclear/chemical warfare fallout shelter. Nuclear shelters under city buildings are connected by subterranean passages beneath the roads.
"The Swiss have the citizen-initiated referendum safeguard against laws politicians try to impose on them. They voted to increase their working hours instead of reducing them! Recently they rejected a socialist initiative to shut down the five safe and clean non-polluting nuclear power plants supplying 42.6% of their electricity at a much lower price. They saw through the articulate Greenpriest parasites from affluent homes in other countries, the destroyers of employment and the environment." (John Grover, Belrose, N.S.W.)

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159