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

6 March 1992. Thought for the Week: "Today 'representation' has become a kind of profession, virtually a lifelong career. There is a growing class of 'professional politicians' for whom politics is an occupation and a means of livelihood. They are ever involved in intricate parliamentary maneuvers and there is little point in speaking about 'the will of the people' in this context. One is also struck by the preponderance of jurists and lawyers in most parliaments; one might designate it a 'jurocracy'. (Such a term is all the more appropriate since the plethora of laws and the complexity of legal procedures are such that an ordinary citizen is virtually incapable of defending himself before the law and needs the costly help of an attorney at every step of the way.)"
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in Rebuilding Russia (1990)


by David Thompson
Mr. Keating's economic statement of last Wednesday can best be assessed as not an economic statement at all, but a political statement. It is Keating's first major shot in a desperate campaign to achieve that which presently seems impossible - an A.L.P. election win in 1993. Much can change between now and the election, but on present estimates, Mr. Keating is a gambler with nothing to lose. Such a person can afford to take extraordinary risks with other people's futures. What Mr. Keating needs is a strategy - any strategy - which he can fashion in his own abrasive way, into a tool to match the Oppositions "Fightback package" which includes the G.S.T.
Having delivered the "One Australia economic statement", he then proceeded to goad the A.L.P. backbench into a passionate defence of the statement. His attempt to identify the Opposition with a Britain that allegedly betrayed Australia during World War II, and then by entering the Common Market was sheer parliamentary theatre, characterised by a reckless disregard of the facts of history. Keating's performance was arrogant, abrasive and offensive, but it served two purposes. First it united the A.L.P. behind him, and effectively locked the backbench into supporting his "statement" as a campaign tool. Second, it transferred attention from an outrageously political piece of economic 'pump-priming' that cannot bear sustained scrutiny.

Mr. Keating's barb that the Opposition is still "forelock tugging" to a Britain and Europe of the past is, of course, hypocritical. While he attempts to portray the Opposition as un-Australian, Keating is determined to internationalise Australian trade and industry, and shamelessly panders to Asian interests. Even as he claims his own "vigorous nationalism", his every action is that of an internationalist. His welcome to President Bush should be recalled, when Keating said that the thing that he admired about Bush was the President's commitment to internationalism. Keating sneers that the Opposition looks backward to the 1950s, recalling old attitudes and such things as the Astor radio. It should be pointed out to Keating that the Astor radio was at least made in Australia! Today we import such technology from the Asia to which he panders. Or else we import woollen suits from Italy. The truth is that compared with today, the 1950s of Robert Menzies had much to recommend them; we did at least still educate children - Menzies had loyalty, manners and wit instead of being arrogant and offensive.
The Prime Minister's education, however, must have been extraordinary. He claims that he learned "not about some cultural cringe to a country which decided not to defend the Malaysian peninsula, not to worry about Singapore, and not to give us our troops back to keep ourselves free of Japanese domination..."

The importance of history is illustrated in the debate. While the planning for the defence of Singapore and Malaya may have been inadequate, Australia was as much to blame as Britain. Thousands of British troops died in the Malayan peninsula, or were captured at Singapore. Professor Geoffrey Blainey took Keating to task: "It's not really true. Mr. Keating says that Britain decided not to defend the Malayan peninsula; there is no truth in that. He says Britain decided not to worry about Singapore; well there is no truth in that, because Britain sent out her two great warships." The battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales, however, were sent without air cover, and were both sunk. While it is possible to be highly critical of Britain's conduct of the war, it should be remembered that not all mistakes were "Britain's". Unpalatable as it is to many of us, many of the mistakes were Churchill's, taken either on his own, or in defiance of advice from his military staff. David Irving's Churchill's War throws a whole new light on World War II, and emphasises the importance of history on the future of a nation.

Keating's barb that Churchill refused to part with Australian troops who were needed to keep us free of Japanese domination is pure hypocrisy. While Australians, British and Americans sacrificed their lives to keep Australia independent from Japan, Keating and those like him make a mockery of such sacrifice. In his statement, Keating allocated $40 million for the M.F.P. to be built on a swamp in Adelaide, hoping to encourage the reluctant Japanese to participate. Increasing Japanese tourism is counted upon in his economic calculations, and the Gold Coast is so dominated by the Japanese that there is even a daily newspaper in Japanese!
Keating also claims that Britain has deserted Australia by entering the Common Market. In this respect, the British people are victims of political betrayal. The process of internationalism demands that Britain be destroyed as an independent and sovereign country. It is exactly the same process to which Keating seeks to submit us, except in Asia, rather than Europe!

The British will even lose their flag, of which Keating is in favour for Australia. It should be noted that Mrs. Thatcher leads a growing clamour of British people for a referendum on Europe before "the people are deprived of their rights". Keating has no intention of asking Australians for their opinion on his process of internationalisation through Asia. The fact that former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has supported Keating's campaign to redirect Australia's national consciousness to Asia simply confirms the memory of the disastrous Fraser Government. Many of the betrayals began under Fraser, and were continued by Hawke. The truth is that Australia is not an Asian country. Nations live in time, as well as space. Physical geography is less important than cultural and spiritual origins.

Mr. Keating effectively spits upon a cultural heritage which stems from an ancient spiritual base, not a geographical (European) base. He seeks to deny - even destroy - the unmistakably Christian basis for our law, national institutions like Parliament and the Constitution, the flag with the Christian crosses in one corner. The national anthem was once a hymn, God Save the Queen. Such heritage is anathema to the humanists and republicans, who must see it destroyed on the altar of internationalism. Even our language, inherited from Britain, is in the process of perversion. Keating's railing against Australia's cultural origins and our own distinct identity perhaps reflects his own personal insecurities.
One columnist wrote: "He has always been noted for instant all out aggression in response to the slightest criticism or provocation, and the use of coarse and bullying language ... It does seem that Mr. Keating's manner hides a very fearful and hypersensitive personality, lacking in the normal 'character armour' of the adult..."

The strategy with the economic statement is clearly an attempt to outflank Opposition leader Hewson by producing a tool to match his "Fightback package", in every respect but the Goods & Services Tax (G.S.T.). This would provide Keating with the opportunity to campaign on the claim that the difference between him and Hewson is that the Opposition leader proposes to tax the food we eat, and the shirt on our back. Keating has even stolen a few of the Opposition's policies.
The underlying assumptions of the economic statement confirm some elements of the Social Credit analysis; the economy is starved of money. There are no technical production problems, no shortages of materials or labour, but both industry and consumers are starved of money. Keating has opted to ease this crisis with the traditional Keynesian pump priming. That is, the Government borrows the money from somewhere, and spends it into the economy on its own priorities.

With his one off payment to families in April, the Prime Minister even emulates the concept of the national dividend: a basic payment to enable the individual to subsist, except in this case the individual must still foot the bill somehow, because the $2.3 billion price tag for this financial injection must still be paid by the taxpayer somehow.

In order to "kick start" the economy, Keating has also dabbled with constructive policies with proven anti -inflationary records. He has borrowed from Whitlam's treasurer, Dr. Jim Cairns, by dropping sales tax on new motorcars by 5%. This is sensible, and should be extended across the board. However, dropping the price of cars is ineffective if no one has the money for one anyhow. Mr. Rob McEniry, G.M.H. director of marketing, said: "For private motorists, it's still a matter of whether they've got the disposable income to spend on a vehicle. I'm not expecting the private sector to start buying cars again until the whole economy picks up."

The statement inexorably moves towards the internationalisation of industry. There is no slowing of the elimination of tariffs, or support for import competing industries. Agriculture receives only interest-rate subsidies for planting crops; no reduction of interest rates, or underwriting the wheat crop. The internationalisation of banking proceeds, with an open slather for foreign banks to enter the Australian market.

The well-paid managing director of the National Australia Bank, Mr. Don Argus, commented that "the offshore banking initiatives would help Australia build itself as an Asian-Pacific financial centre". This helps ease Australia into a regional relationship with Asia, towards a regional common market. Mr. Keating is also seeking to boost the shrinking foreign investment to a flood by dropping most of the restrictions to foreign investment in Australian industry and agriculture. That is, he is quite prepared to "sell the farm" in order to finance his own desperate campaign for the Prime Ministership - for power. The relaxation of such restrictions is supposed to facilitate "big projects".

The emphasis on "bigness" is significant. The Statement proposes to "upgrade" electricity transmission links nationwide. This is also an attempt to dilute the States' control of power generation and supply, a constitutional power not yet available to the Commonwealth. That is, electricity generation and supply can be effectively centralised. Lenin did exactly the same when the Bolsheviks came to power in the Soviet Union.

The 'statement' is based on "growth projections" of 4% to 5% for an economy that was described by Mr. Evan Rees, Managing Director of Australian National Industries, as "a cemetery with lights on". The projections for 1992 were optimistic, but projections for economic growth in 1993-1996 are simply wishful thinking. The spending on highways and railway links, power stations, ports, education, etc., is all necessary, but is being done in such a way as to best serve an A.L.P. election victory. It concentrates on "bigness", leaving small business to pick up whatever crumbs it can, and a bit of blatant bribery for the poor.
Keating's projected tax cuts, to be worth $8 billion by 1996, may well never eventuate, and can best be described as simple lies.

Under the rules of conventional finance - that is, debt finance - it is quite certain that in the end the taxpayer must pay for Mr. Keating's re-election gamble. If he loses the gamble, he will absolve himself of all responsibility for the mess that results, since it will be up to the Opposition to clean it up. If Keating can "sell" the "One Australia" package to an electorate easily as desperate as he is, it is likely that any perceived benefits are illusions. It is openly admitted that unemployment will barely improve. The national debt must increase, and analysts expect the balance of payments to blow out again.


from The Australian, February 27th
Professor Donald Horne and his Ideas for Australia Conference really need not worry about the necessity of 'de-colonialising' our education curriculum. "Colonial and imperial history, for instance, have not been taught in most Melbourne or Sydney schools for over a decade now: most teachers opt instead for contemporary sociological survey and the ideology of the late Professor Manning Clark. (By the look of The Weekend Australian, there has been a recent outbreak of colonial interest in remote Dubbo, but a swift directive from Tom Keneally or Sydney University should fix that.) "I suppose that many people would object to Mr. Dawkins' decision to donate $500,000 to support the professor's thinking processes. A more serious objection is the conference's self-confessed desire to create images of Australia. "Apart from the hubris of this ambition, there are surely two other serious problems with this approach.
The first is that any national identity worth having is not something which can be deliberately imposed but rather something which develops over time (and many Australians would say that a very definite national identity has developed over the past 200 years and that people who do not recognise it are either ignorant of our history or pursuing some agenda of their own).
The second is that the people in the professor's team are not necessarily representative of the majority of ordinary Australians, who have not indeed been consulted as to whether they wanted new 'images' created about their country in the first place. "Perhaps those of us who consider that a national identity had already emerged quite successfully from a colonial past can go on teaching how this came about? "This is an abandoned study called Australian history, and it examines the national self concept before 1972 as well as after it." (Neville J. Clark, Headmaster, Mentone Grammar School, Vic., 3194)


from The Australian, March 2nd
Ronald Conway's brilliant article (Inequality is Only Natural, 1/2) gave me a 'Cortez' feeling. At last, an open minded psychologist challenging the equality/egalitarianism absurdities peddled by the 'social engineers.' "After the mindless attack on Eysenck at Melbourne University, Ronald shows admirable courage in saying much of what Eysenck was prevented from saying. But it's no longer a 'wild surmise'. "Ronald's reaction (Letters, 22/2) to McGuiness (The Australian, 19/2) is understandable, given Pradraic's Irish shillelagh approach to Freudianism. But one should not always take us Irish so seriously. We don't. And Douglas Kirsner's agonised apologia for Freud (Letters, 24/2) is singularly devoid of such emotional balance. Much heat. Little light.
"Padraic was largely right. His comments ought not to be decried because he is an economist, since psychology and economics are bound up with metaphysics. Freudianism may not be dead, but neither is astrology. And the whole vast and profitable edifice of Freudian psychoanalysis is now being demolished in the genetics laboratory. Eysenck may have said 'there is something' on astrology, but that's no different from the comment made to me in New Guinea by a university (Melbourne) educated tribal witch doctor, that there 'might be something in psychoanalysis'. Just a matter of viewpoint.
"Dr. Eysenck was not attacked for his view that there are measurable racial differences in intelligence, but for the heretical implication that we are not all 'equal', which is what Ronald is saying. "The growing laboratory evidence that human behaviour is genetically - and not nurture/environment-based, undermines Marxist theology, Darwinian dogma, and the Freudian substitute for the Catholic confessional.

In his latest work, the eminent A.N.U. anthropologist Professor Derek Freeman demolishes the Margaret Mead 'nurture over nature' mythology beloved by Freudians. Dr. Anthony Storr (Human Aggression) says we need more biological research into human behaviour. Even Stalin calls egalitarianism 'appalling' and said social justice would require even greater inequalities.

"The answer to Ronald's question 'Are many criminals beyond hope of rehabilitation because of bad genes'? - is yes. The human behaviour source program is the genetic code, and some people are born without conscience or compassion just as some are born without arms. Psychoanalysis can't help them, although it may help the analysts. "Melbourne University may still, as Ronald says, be focusing on Freudian psychoanalysis as it was 40 years ago. Studies in the United States got me away from that, and later genetics studies eliminated the remains. For which I am grateful. But I wish I could undo some of the damage I must have done to my early students and analysands (sic) with the Freudian fakery. As Lord Acton so wisely said, 'Beware of those who wish to inflict benefit on us'. "Bring your brilliant mind over to genetics, Ronald. Like Cortex, you will find there's a whole new ocean to explore." Andrew Toal, Tanah Merah, Qld.


These being excerpts taken from the article, by Randall J. Dicks, in Heritage (December 1991-February 1992. Heritage is the quarterly journal of The Australian Heritage Society, a Division of the Australian League of Rights. Send $6.00 to your nearest State League Office for a copy (includes postage).

"One of the advantages or attributes of hereditary monarchy is that one knows in advance who will be the next king or queen, and sometimes even beyond that. At the end of the long life and reign of Queen Victoria, one knew that her son Albert Edward would succeed her, and his son George would succeed him, and his son Edward would succeed him, just as, at present, one assumes that Queen Elizabeth II's son will become King Charles III some day, and his son will become King William V in due course. There is a fixed line of succession, in the British, Australian, or any other modern monarchy.

"People sometimes wonder what is the good of modern monarchy, what is the good of a king who reigns but does not rule, how can one justify the supposed 'expense' of monarchy. One can certainly turn the tables and ask the same questions about republics. What is the good of Vice President Quayle (U.S.A.)? What is the good of a Vice President who does nothing? How can one justify the expense of a Vice President who does nothing - his offices and staff, his official residence, his vacation home, his travel (like the President, he has a rather large jet). This Vice President costs a lot, but the people seem to receive very little in return.

"The Prince is deeply concerned about declining educational standards, and about literacy. He is passionate about the environment, about architecture, about preserving historic landmarks. These interests are genuine. He has said, for example, that his interest in architecture is 'not a result of trying to find something to fill my day'. He is actively involved in urban planning, he visits cities and towns and slums. He talks to the poor, the inhabitants of the inner cities, and, most important, he listens to them. His popularity with the poor is enormous and real..."

Some 20 years ago the Australian League of Rights issued, for mass distribution, three special brochures...
1. "Keep Our Flag Flying" (Australian Flag);
2. The Federal Constitution & Individual Freedom; and
3. "Crown or Republic?".

But from the "Crown or Republic" brochure
"The Crown is a central feature of a constitutional system which has its roots deep in the personal ideal of freedom. At the Queen's Coronation Service she was asked, 'Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?' The Coronation Service reflects the Christian concept of Monarchy, the Monarch accepting with humility the necessity to serve the people and to act as a living symbol of the nation's traditions and historical continuity. This is a service which no elected President can provide…."

"The hereditary Monarchy fosters national unity and social stability immediately the Monarch dies, the eldest member of the family, trained and educated for a task of destiny, ascends the Throne and claims immediate allegiance ("The King is dead, long live the King"). "There is no power struggle, no friction, but a sense of continuity. The Monarch has no political post and no party followers to reward, and has no party opponents who detest the Monarch. There is no need for spectacular triumphs or gimmicks to win popular support …..

"The most shallow argument of all against the Crown is that it is 'not our own' and that Australians are 'clinging to the relics of their colonial past by expressing their allegiance to a British Monarch'. This is not true. The fact that many Australians do not understand that Queen Elizabeth II is as much Queen OF AUSTRALIA as she is Queen of the United Kingdom, of Canada or New Zealand, is a serious reflection upon the Australian education system. Her Governors and Governor Generals are Australian in the sense that they work to maintain the Royal system of Government in the Australian context. They are just as Australian as are the Australian Parliaments and the Courts, where the Queen's writ runs…"

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