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

7 February 1992. Thought for the Week: "Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hatred of their own society. This eager fanning of the flames of hatred is becoming the mark of today's free world. Indeed, the broader the personal freedoms are, the higher the level of prosperity or even of abundance, the more vehement, paradoxically, does this blind hatred become. The West thus demonstrates that human salvation can be found neither in the profusion of material goods nor in merely making money."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in The Need for Religious Faith


by D. Thompson
The Prime Minister, Mr. Keating, gave implied support to a fledgling republican movement, when supporting the call for a new flag last week. In the process, Keating would have further damaged his chances of A.L.P. victory in the next election. The republican movement strongly welcomed Keating's comments, which included the remark that Australians would be better served if they were not "draped in a somewhat ambivalent garb" with a national emblem that contained the flag of another country.

Canadians, and Australians familiar with Canada, would have been surprised to hear the Prime Minister using Canada as an example of one country that had successfully undergone the transition from a national flag which included the Union flag, to a maple leaf flag. Canadians still endure the bitterness of the debate about the Trudeau betrayal of their heritage by scrapping the symbol of it - the flag. One Canadian Red Indian has pointed out that the maple leaf on the flag is not green but red. A red maple leaf is a dead maple leaf, which has fallen from the body that gives it sustenance - the tree! To many Canadians, the maple leaf flag symbolises the turning away from that which gave them national sustenance - their heritage.

Those who favour an Australian republic, accompanied by a new flag, are attempting to create an artificial impression of majority support. It will be noted that it is largely the "intelligentsia" that are demanding a republic, the president of the republican movement is author Thomas Keneally, supported by such as author Donald Horne, lawyer and merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull and his partner, Neville Wran, journalists Geraldine Doogue and Mark Day, author Blanche D,Alpuget, playwright, David Williamson, etc.

Those who demand a new flag generally come from the same background, and belong to what is sometimes called the "the chattering classes". This is, rather than observing, recording and communicating national trends, their own views are projected again and again to each other, building up a false perception of support for pet issues. For example, it will be noted that the "chattering classes" magnified the visit of George Bush to a major event, with months of speculation before the visit, massive media cover of the event, and protracted post-mortems. The forthcoming visit of Her Majesty the Queen barely rates a mention. Bush simply called in en route to Japan, while the Queen has been invited for a Royal Tour. In fact, Donald Horne describes the Queen's visit as an insult'' and described Sydney City Council's invitation to Her Majesty to celebrate its 150th anniversary as "bad taste".

Could it be that Mr. Keating has been misled by "the chattering classes" to believe that there are votes in calling for a new flag? If so, it will require further roars of disapproval form loyal Australians who wish to preserve their heritage. Victorian R.S.L. President Bruce Ruxton reflects the views of such people when he states the R.S.L. position of totally rejecting a republic and a new flag. The Australian flag includes the Christian crosses of St.Patrick, St. George and St. Andrew as a symbol of our origins. As one writer to The Australian pointed out, the removal of such symbols because they are also used by other countries, is illogical. To argue, as Keating did, the Union Jack should be removed on the grounds that we are no longer a colony, is similar to the suggestion that the 13 stripes (representing the original 13 states) should be removed from the Stars and Stripes because there are now 50 states!

As we noted last year, the battle lines are being drawn with increasing clarity. The League will be deeply involved with the preservation of Australian heritage, which the "chattering classes" bitterly resent. This is why the League, and Mr. Eric Butler, are regularly attacked by such as Mr. Phillip Adams, and others of the intelligentsia.


The distinctly unholy argument about the ordination of women to the Anglican priesthood - more accurately known as 'priestesses' - threatens not only the future of Anglicanism, but marks the lengthening shadow of the United Nations over the Christian West. In his N.S.W. Supreme Court judgment of the application for an injunction to prevent the Bishop of Goulburn from ordaining 11 women, Justice Andrew Rogers ruled that the court should not intervene. He cited as one of the reasons that the State should not intervene in the matter, Australia's commitment to United Nations conventions particularly, the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women.

The radical feminist movement has obviously received great comfort and assistance from such U.N. initiatives, and even court judgments are reflecting this influence. In the case of the Anglican Church, the Court was simply asked to rule on a matter of interpretation of the Anglican Constitution, and restrain a reckless Bishop from circumventing it, not pass a ruling about the ordination of women.

One Anglican priest, James Murray, who strongly opposes female ordination, has pointed out that the question is not one of equality, but of authority. ... while the world at large cannot understand what looks like sex discrimination against women's rights, those committed to the church's pastorate know that while there are many differing functions within the church, it is no insult to women that some of these functions may be exclusively male, and others may be fulfilled by the ministry of women... the question of women's ordination is one of church order, though it has been paraded as a question of justice, an argument which would be entirely persuasive."

In a later column in the Weekend Australian (1/2/1992) Murray notes: "It is a sorry but in evitable development, given that the bishop at his consecration would have sworn to uphold the constitution of the Anglican Church, which clearly means accepting the decisions of its General Synod."

Anglicans are quite clearly free to demonstrate their attitude to the ordination of priestesses, if it occurs. In the United States, church reports indicate that since the Episcopalian Church began ordaining women, 35% of their flock has elected to worship elsewhere. The gradual liberalisation of the Anglican Church in its attitude to sexual matters must have similar results.

Again, Murray comments: "It is laughable to think that women priests will make any appreciable difference, especially as their claim to have been oppressed has led to a strange coalition with homosexually oriented clergy whose "cause" many of them have espoused. Oppressed minority supporting oppressed minority. This whole debate - irrespective of the outcome - can do nothing but damage to the Christian Church. Even the fact that the case is before the secular courts is blatantly disregarding St.Paul's admonition to the church at Corinth not to take its arguments into the secular courts, but to suffer grievances instead, if necessary.

The influence of the United Nations upon our social order, and upon the Christian philosophy, which once underpinned that social order, is growing. As additional conventions are adopted, so shall that influence increase, extending eventually not only to the courts, but to the legislatures themselves. Only last week, the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr. Brian Burdekin, sought to pressure the Premier of W.A., Mrs. Laurence, not to enact harsh new legislation to quell a wave of juvenile crime in W.A. Why? Because, according to Mr. Burdekin, we now have international obligations - particularly under the new U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child! How is it that an unelected bureaucrat is dictating terms to sovereign legislatures? This needs to be rejected by Australians who wish to retain the shreds of freedom, in the strongest possible terms.


The disastrous outlook for Australian primary producers appears to be facing a shift from economic ideology towards recognition of reality. The Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Crean, has at last announced that as an emergency measure, low interest loans should be considered in order for wheat growers to be able to plant 1992 crops. That is, an interest subsidy. This reflects some elements of the 1971 A.L.P. rural policy position, as presented by Dr. Rex Patterson before the Whitlam Government was elected. It is an acknowledgement that the economic health of the nation still largely depends upon primary production, as it did it 1971.

Patterson's next step was in proposing a holiday period of up to five years for potentially viable farmers as regards the repayment of principal and interest... "A moratorium on debt in the first instance means a moratorium on bank debt, which can easily be administered if the policy decision is firm."

Mr. Crean's attention should be drawn to the Patterson proposals urgently. It is recently reported that he proposes to provide a guaranteed minimum price for wheat, in order that growers may organise finance for cropping programmes. While they may provide psychological boosts to agriculture, it is of minimal practical value, as the wheat market is rising, and would only be available for one year. It is not so much the international price of wheat that cripples growers, but the domestic cost structure under which they operate, interest rates, fuel costs, taxes, etc., are important aspects of that cost structure. Mr. Crean can do nothing about the price for grain, but he can argue vigorously in Cabinet for a debt moratorium, long-term low-interest loans, and a general reduction of costs.


The unchallenged arrival of another boatload of 'refugees' on December 31st has regenerated the immigration campaign, and again highlighted inadequacies in the immigration policy. A spokesman for the Immigration Department, Miss Jenny Hoskin is reported as saying the newest arrivals are highly likely to remain in Australia. She points out that even if the Chinese applications for refugee status are refused, this won't happen for at least a few years. "None of the refugee applicants in the past have been forced to return to their country," she said.

There are 23,000 applicants for refugee status yet to be processed. This will take years. In the meantime, the applicants live here as illegal immigrants - while those who apply correctly from overseas are penalised. It should be remembered that 14,000 Chinese arrived in Australia after the Tianamin Square massacre. Their applications to stay have not been processed, but the former Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke guaranteed (in tears) that they would never be sent home. There are other issues. The Bureau of Immigration Research figures for 1990-91 show that 50% of our migrants now come from Asia. Less than 27% come from Europe. This is a dramatic contrast with the Immigrant mix of only ten years ago, when at least half of our migrants still came from Europe and about 28% from Asia. Why the change? Who decided? Were Australians offered a choice about the background of our migrants?
The League's special issue of "Intelligence Survey" on immigration, offering a "vote" on policy is still available for distribution. We make no charge for stocks of this but request a donation to cover the postage costs. This is an excellent tool, and should be widely distributed.


from The Age, Melbourne, January 25th
"Your editorial (23/1) from the Obnoxious To The Ridiculous, refers to the Political Broadcasts and Disclosures Act 1991 which bans advertising on radio and television during election campaigns, and the absurd consequences flowing from this attack on freedom of speech throughout Australia. "The legislation was initiated by the Federal Labor Government and guillotined through the Parliament with the support of the Democrats who stood to gain financially. When confronted with a choice of principle or money, they took the money.
"The point is made in your editorial that it is unclear whether the legislation is intended to apply to local government elections and that the Democrats think not. There is no doubt that the act, as supported by the Democrats, applies to local government elections. In fact Local Government is the worst affected because there is a total blackout on advertising during Local Government elections. "Not only is paid advertising and Radio and T.V. banned, but there is no provision for allocation to so-called "free" time available for Federal and State Elections. This means that electors will be denied information on candidates normally available via local radio ads. This may benefit incumbent members but denies electors access to information.
"If Paul Keating is serious about honesty in government, he should admit this act was a mistake and repeal it. The coalition will remove this obnoxious legislation on being elected to government." (Senator Warwick Parer, Coalition Spokesman on Administrative Services)


from The Age (Melbourne) January 28th
"Sir Richard Kirby's proposal to change the design of the Australian flag for something else is mischievous and divisive. Why are we plagued in this country with amateur social engineers who want to change our institutions, our political system, our way of life and would obliterate our history if they could?
"In this country we have a noisy minority of self-flagellants who hate Australian history and culture. They have a deep sense of guilt at the idea of Australians being so comfortable and, if possible, would happily change us in their own image. This being done, they could re-write the history books even further to alter the concept of 204 years of Australian history.
"I accept Sir Richard Kirby's statement that he is a loyal Australian of British decent. He is not one of the people I have described above but his plan of discarding the flag would fit in very neatly with theirs - that is, scratch the present Australia and start again.
"Don't laugh, the social engineers are getting millions of dollars from the taxpayers to assist with their schemes. The tolerance of Australian society is exemplified by the fact that we have not cut off supplies years ago.
"This despised but beautiful and distinctive flag of ours is instantly recognisable and a perfect symbol of our country. The Southern Cross depicted on the flag indicates that we live in the southern hemisphere, the Federation Star stands for the unity of six states and a territory that came together to form a nation, and the Union Jack, in the place of honour, indicates the origin of the nation, its inheritance of democracy, the English language and the rule of law.
"Anyone who believes that adherence to our flag indicates subservience to another country is quite mistaken. The symbolism on the flag serves to show the world that we have not forgotten our history. "Australia, under its present flag, is one of the older democracies, its Courts function, no one is deliberately oppressed and the press is open for both Sir Richard Kirby and myself to express our opinions.
"We supporters of the Australian Flag know it is only a symbol of our country and can be changed by act of Parliament, but it is an important symbol of our past and future and it would be incredibly damaging to trash that symbol because a minority thinks it unfashionable." (Robert Lawson, Liberal M.L.C. (Vic.) for Higinbotham)


from The Australian, January 31st
"The amount of publicity you are giving that greatest non-event of all time, the Republican Party, makes me wonder whether your newspaper has some sort of hidden agenda "With the amazing resources you have at your fingertips, particularly with opinion polls and the comments of people in the public eye it must be obvious that the Republican Party hasn't a show of achieving its aim. But the question why a republic, doesn't even seem to be answered. If the public at large is satisfied with the status quo, and all the information I get indicates that there's no need for a change, why all the hype? I absolutely discount any of the remarks made by Franca Arena, who has been on several hobbyhorses over the years, all of them questionable. "And as for Donald Horne's remarks that there is confusion there is his own. It's high time that all the so-called famous Australians realised that the most important people in this country, the average hard working Australians, are quite satisfied to have the Queen and her successors remain where they are in the overall Australian political scene.
"The actions of the Socialist Government of South Australia in removing the royal coat of arms from its courts is, of course, childish and despicable and it should be replaced forthwith. "The R.S.L. and its membership is clear on its position-we will never agree to this country becoming a republic, We are proud to be associated with the Queen, who is our patron, and who, as this country's head of State, has never once put a foot wrong. Show me a politician with such a record." (B.C. Ruxton, State President, The Returned Services League, Melbourne, Vic.)


from Herald-Sun (Melbourne), February 3rd
"Senator Bolkus's article (Herald-Sun, Jan 21) was a lame and illogical attempt to justify the attack on freedom of speech made by the Federal A.L.P. Government in its ban on pre-election T.V. advertising. "Firstly, not only do we not have any constitutional right to free speech in this country, but it was a Labor Government which omitted free speech from the so-called Bill of Rights a few years ago. "There is a ready indication of how much the socialists in the A.L.P. really want free speech! So much for Senator Bolkus's posturing about it!
"Secondly, his argument that T.V. advertising cannot be 'free' because it costs money is a ludicrous play on words. In the U.S.A. where people do have a legally enshrined to freedom of speech, could anyone imagine a person suing the telephone companies for charging them to make a long distance call, on the basis that the charge denied them 'free speech'? "Of course not, because such an action would make the same fundamental and perhaps convenient mistake Senator Bolkus has made - in not distinguishing between the right to free speech as against the liability to pay for the cost of mass-dissemination.
"Ironically, this arrogant ban on pre-election T.V. advertising will hoist the A.L.P. by its own petard in the coming Federal Elections. The one hope this shambles of a Government had was to exploit the proposed G.S.T., and a T.V. campaign would have been ideal to dramatically illustrate a suitable 'scare' campaign. So it is likely that the A.L.P. will lose Government by silencing its own right to free speech on T.V., when clearly its intention was to gag its opponents." (Mike Hodgson, Richmond, Vic.)
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159