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

13 December 1996. Thought for the Week: "Economics exist for people, not vice versa. A narrow primitive economic rationalism which excludes much of a role for government could be disastrous for society."
Roman Catholic Melbourne Archbishop G. Pell, as quoted in The Age, Melbourne, of November 30th


by Eric D. Butler
Those students of international politics who see history, not as a series of disconnected episodes, but as a reflection of a continuous policy, were not surprised by the decision of the South African Government to unilaterally sever its diplomatic links with the Government of Taiwan. The much-publicised Nelson Mandela was always a captive of those international forces determined to try to bring South Africa and its vast resources inside the ambit of their planned New World Order.

During the years when diplomatic and economic links were maintained between South Africa and Taiwan, I had the opportunity of discussing world affairs with Taiwan's Ambassador Lee in Pretoria. Lee told me on one occasion "history was a very long business". Not without significance is the statement from South Africa that while breaking diplomatic ties with Taiwan, it looks forward to maintaining and increasing economic ties. It is obvious that the advisors to the Mandela Government, representing the international groups, which also advised the pre-Apartheid South African Governments, are also taking the long view of history and visualise the future amalgamation of Taiwan into Mainland China.

The role of Taiwan in post Second World War history provides a glimpse of how real history in the shape of continuous policy operates. No matured student of history disputes that the Communists only came to power in China as a result of the policies of the internationalist traitors controlling the American Administrations. The political destruction of Senator Joseph McCarthy was the result of what became known as his anti-Communist "extremism", of "seeing red under beds". The release of Russian documents reveals that Senator McCarthy, so far from being an extremist, was extremely moderate in his charges; that the Communist penetration of the U.S.A. was far greater than even McCarthy claimed.

The internationalists who destroyed McCarthy still persevere in their attempts to protect the name of one of their own heroes, the late Alger Hiss, the senior Washington diplomat who advised the sick and dying Roosevelt at the infamous Yalta Conference, which paved the way for the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe and into Asia. Hiss was also one of the principle architects of the United Nations Organisation.

The emergence of an independent Taiwan, a continuing thorn in the side of Communist China, was only possible because of sufficient support by those American Congressmen who basically agreed with the concerns so colourfully expressed by Senator McCarthy. Communist China's intervention in the Korean War further helped to stiffen anti-Communist sentiments in the U.S.A.
Eventually it was President Richard Nixon, advised by Dr. Henry Kissinger, who moved to end Communist China's isolation from open participation in international politics. Taiwan was replaced by Communist China on the United Nations Security Council. American and other Western business organisations needed little encouragement to believe that some type of an economic Eldorado beckoned in China, and later, of course, in the whole of Asia.
As one who was closely involved in the 1976 World Anti-Communist Conference in South Korea, I witnessed at first hand where the real centre of world power was based - the U.S.A.

The sudden declaration of Independence by the Rhodesian Government in 1965 was a major setback for the New World Order strategists. British Prime Minister Harold Wilson thought that international sanctions would bring the Rhodesians to their knees within a short period. But this did not happen and a remarkable international phenomena developed: an international network of grassroots pro-Rhodesia movements. One of my greatest difficulties was to persuade Ian Smith and his advisers that the Rhodesian situation could not be understood except in the context of international power politics.

The distinguished South African adviser, Ivor Benson, resigned his position because of the failure of the Smith Government to take advantage of the upsurge of international support. However, we managed to gain representation, for Rhodesia, to the World Anti-Communist League, and because the best informed of the Rhodesian Government, Foreign Minister Lord Graham, had friends in Taiwan, it was agreed that Lord Graham should be one of the delegates from Rhodesia.

Because of South Africa's links with Taiwan, there was no difficulty in flying Lord Graham by South African Airways into Taiwan. There he met with Taiwan officials and attempted to explain to them the reality of the International Money Power. But Lord Graham was not permitted to attend the South Korean Conference because the South Korean Government refused to grant him a visa. The anti-Communist Government of South Korea was not prepared to upset Washington. Eventually Rhodesia was destroyed as a result of the intervention of Dr. Henry Kissinger. South Africa was blackmailed into removing its support for Rhodesia, paving the way for its own destruction.

Step by step the Internationalists have attempted to make real their dream of a New World Order. This has meant that the American policy makers, with President Clinton firmly under their control, are bending over backwards to attempt to bring both the former Soviet Union and Communist China into New World Order programmes, one of the most important of these being the World Trade Organisation. "Free Trade" has become the theme song of gullible politicians like Australian Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer.

Any possibility of the recent American Presidential election denting the grand design of the internationalists was shattered by the massive pro-Clinton Zionist Jewish campaign. Headed by people like Buchanan, grassroots conservatives did make an effort to hold the line. A study of the Republican Platform adopted at the San Diego Conference reveals that it contained some real meat. The Platform's authors drew attention to the all-time trade deficit, including the $34 billion trade deficit with China alone. There was a criticism of Clinton's "hollow agreements" subsidising competition with U.S. industries and agriculture. There was a devastating exposure of what "free trade" has done to American industries. The general standard of living has gone down.

But all of this was ignored by Republican candidate Bob Dole and his colleagues. The reality is that they helped to push the North American Free Trade Agreement and GATT through Congress. One Republican colleague of Bob Dole is quoted as saying that he had not bothered even to read the Platform adopted at San Diego. So much for the grassroots supporters of any party controlling those who in theory are supposed to represent them.

Here in Australia Tim Fischer is lecturing the Asians on the great virtues of Free Trade. Just before he went to Singapore to make the latest contribution to Free Trade appeals, the local Mildura, Victoria, paper published a picture of local orange growers burning their destroyed orange trees. They are unable to compete with cheap imported orange juice from Brazil. This is some of the bitter fruits resulting from the programme being so enthusiastically supported by the Howard-Fischer Government. And as Australian chicken growers shout their concerns about being swamped by chicken meat from Asia, the best that can be offered by the man who is supposed to represent rural Australia is the suggestion that the issue should be "investigated".

As there is no point in even thinking about replacing the Howard-Fischer Government with Labor Party politicians who dance to the same internationalist tune, grassroots Australia has got to find among themselves those who will genuinely represent them, insisting that the nation cannot survive if it sells its soul for a mess of free trade pottage. There is still time to prevent the New World Order trap from being closed.


by David Thompson
Last week, on a trip to southern Queensland for a final meeting of the Brisbane Conservative Speakers' Club, and a number of other meetings, a supporter on the north coast of N.S.W. suggested a meeting in his district. I was happy to comply, and left the arrangements to him. Rather than simply run a house meeting, to which supporters could invite others, he decided on a public meeting in the village of Nimbin. Nimbin is an idyllic location, just inland from Lismore in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range.

It has a sub-tropical climate with plenty of rain, and was a haven for alternative lifestylers, the flower children of the 1960s, and a variety of other social malcontents. Nimbin has a reputation as a "counterculture" community, with experiments in communal living, a variety of drugs, and environmental consciousness. But its inhabitants are not stupid, even if their answer to the pressures of modern society was to "drop out". A wide assortment of intellects can be found in, Nimbin, from inarticulate drug addicts to former university professors. But the suggestion that the National Director of the League of Rights might address a meeting on the Hanson factor in Australian politics appears to have been too much for some in Nimbin, and elsewhere.

As soon as I arrived in Nimbin on a Tuesday afternoon, our local organiser passed on a message that we were to attend an interview at the police station. When stopping by to collect the key to the local hall, we discovered that the police were present in force, together with the Police Rescue squad. They were scouring the hall for hidden bombs. The police station was manned by additional officers from Lismore including the Senior Lismore Sergeant who conducted our interview. Senior Sergeant Berger informed us that he was closing the Nimbin Hall, as the police had received three separate messages indicating that the hall was due to explode at 8.00 p.m., along with anyone therein. One message, recorded by the police communications unit, concluded with: "David Irving must be stopped!" thus revealing the probable source of the bomb threats.

Sergeant Berger revealed that police intelligence had warned him that a contingent of Aboriginal protesters were on their way to Nimbin to attend the meeting, and that a number of Jewish protesters from nearby were also planning to attend. Local advertising, which consisted of a photocopied pamphlet posted on every shop window in Nimbin, ensured that the locals were fully aware of my meeting. But Sergeant Berger had closed the hall, and warned us not to attempt to run a meeting in a park or on the sidewalk. The public meeting in the hall was cancelled. No other venues appeared to be available, so the public meeting was abandoned, and a private meeting arranged in a supporter's home instead.

As news of the bomb-threat circulated, the press started to call. Why was the meeting cancelled? Would I agree to an interview? I readily agreed to press interviews by the ABC and two local television crews. Having refused to conduct such interviews in a private home, the press suggested meeting on the lawn of the police station, at 7.00 p.m. I agreed. However, our attempt to drive through the village to the police station at 7.00 p.m. was frustrated by a police cordon, which had closed off Nimbin's only street in the vicinity of the hall. Already crowds of onlookers, and one group of protesters sitting in the street, had congregated.

Eventually making my way around this area on foot, I arrived at the police station to find an ABC journalist, who proceeded to attract the attention of the camera crews. However, he also succeeded in attracting the attention of a group of protesters, who followed the cameras. It quickly became apparent that no sensible interview was possible, but a certain amount of entertaining shouting was recorded by the cameras. My attitude to such matters as the holocaust, Asian immigration, racism, and other matters were demanded simultaneously, and a raucous debate concerning the merits of views ascribed to the League was undertaken.

After leaving the press to cope with this as best they could, I struck up a conversation with a young female environmentalist. Despite the nose-ring, it was evident that she was highly intelligent, and interested in the issues, although predisposed to disagree with me completely. However, when addressing basic issues, she was surprised to discover that we actually agreed on many matters: She accused me of "racism" for discriminating against Asian immigrants. I asked her if she preferred a completely "open-door" policy. She was horrified: "They'd destroy our fragile environment!" After noting that her immigration policy was more "extreme" than mine, we moved on to environmental matters. She denied environmental extremism, noting that she herself had milled timber to build her home. She was fascinated to find that I bad built my home with earth walls (pise). Gradually common ground began to emerge. She dismissed one gentleman who kept continually interrupting, explaining that he was harmless, but was permanently under the influence of heroin. "I was at the Last Supper" "he shouted on his departure.

As a result of this conversation I was invited back to Nimbin in the New Year. I agreed to return, under certain conditions. They would organise a daylong meeting/discussion. They would find a (more or less) impartial chairman. They would organise a secure venue. And the onus was on them to discuss the issues, rather than shout at me continually. It promises to be an interesting day.


We are receiving an increasing flow of valuable information from right around Australia. While we welcome this, which enables us to accurately assess what is happening in the Australian grassroots, we are unable to make immediate and full use of communications received. Mr. Max Hodgson, who describes himself as a Liberal Party supporter and member of 500 Club, sends a long fax covering a controversy with Victorian Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett, concerning Jeff Kennett's complaint that the comments of outspoken Queensland Independent M.P. Pauline Hanson might result in Melbourne not gaining the next Commonwealth Games. Mike Hodgson expresses the opinion that Pauline Hanson's "message is far more important than the Commonwealth Games."

John Griffin, Premier Kennett's Chief of Staff, replied on behalf of the Premier, stating, "The sort of logic that applies to the current debate should not even be deemed appropriate for the local primary school playground". Responding, Mike Hodgson took exception to the Premier's reference to Pauline Hanson as displaying "uneducated ignorance", stating "Whilst attending a Liberal Party fundraiser not so long ago, at a candidate's home, I fell into discussion with Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who had delivered a well-received address. We discussed the nature and integrity of our culture and the theory that multiculturalism is destined to result not in a cohesive nation but in a fragmented 'Nation of Tribes'…. I suppose Professor Blainey is also 'uneducated' and 'ignorant' and full of 'arrant nonsense with views 'unfit for the school playground"?
Mr. Hodgson then goes on to quote what John Howard said in the past. We can only wish Mr. Hodgson good luck in his endeavours to educate Premier Jeff Kennett. But he should bear in mind that there is such a thing as invincible stupidity.


This complicated issue was brought into sharp relief last week, when the son of the first man to die by legally sanctioned euthanasia condemned the Northern Territory laws under which his father died. Having originally supported the legislation, Mr. Rod Dent now supports Victorian Federal M.P. Kevin Andrews' private members Bill to overturn the N.T. euthanasia legislation. This legislation raises a conundrum for those who are aware of the constitutional pitfalls of the Commonwealth overriding State legislation by legislating in Canberra. The Constitution gives precedence to Commonwealth legislation when it conflicts with State legislation.

In last year's case in Tasmania, the State Government was condemned by a United Nations Committee for its legislation dealing with homosexuality. The State (correctly) refused to acknowledge the U.N. jurisdiction in State affairs, and a Labor Federal administration passed Commonwealth legislation in order to subvert the Tasmanian homosexual legislation. We condemned the Commonwealth legislation as direct interference in legitimate State affairs. The same principle applies to the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation, no matter how abhorrent euthanasia is as a State attack on the sanctity of life.

What else can the Commonwealth do about the N.T. legislation? This is still a "grey area" since the Northern Territory is not really a "State" in its own right; it is still in the process towards Statehood. A number of questions arise. If the N.T. is not yet a State, then surely it is still under the Commonwealth jurisdiction? If so, why does the Commonwealth need to pass a Federal law, imposing it upon all the States, to deal with a territory, which is technically still under Commonwealth jurisdiction?

Much as we applaud the intention of Kevin Andrews' Bill to eliminate euthanasia legislation, we recoil from supporting any measure that further centralises power as this does. Rod Dent notes that his father (Bob) spent $36,000 on medical treatment in his battle with cancer, and now believe that Dent senior only resorted to euthanasia in deep depression, and bitter disappointment at the state of palliative care in the medical system.

Reports indicate (The Australian, 4/12/96) that Mr. Dent had not seen his father for 11 years before his death. A picture gradually emerges of a terminally ill man in pain and perhaps lonely isolation from family, having spent a small fortune on medical care in an attempt to save his life. In desperation he turns to euthanasia, and does away with himself. Is this a satisfactory situation in a western (Christian?) egalitarian society, priding itself on technologically advanced medical achievements?

It is clear that in the Dent case, it is no answer to simply pass a law in order to prevent desperate people from doing away with themselves. The answer is to provide help for desperate people. If their families are unable to do so, then in a civilised (Christian?) country, the community has a role to play, preferably in the most decentralised way available. The evidence indicates that the palliative nursing services have been starved of funds, and are physically unable to offer the help required. As hospitals and health services are progressively "privatised", the situation is bound to deteriorate even further.

We are faced with a political outlook, which insists that "rationalist economics" will be determined by "The Market". Does The Market care about Bob Dent? Of course not. He was simply an inconvenient burden on an already overburdened health system, and has now been satisfactory "dealt with". Mr. Kevin Andrews, M.P., would be better advised to confront his colleagues in the Liberal Party with a condemnation of a "health system" being driven by The Market, where money is more important than human life.

If the Liberals have any concerns about euthanasia, they should be able to do two things:
1) Pull the Northern Territory into line without further centralising power over the States.
2) Help the States to restore funding for the palliative nursing services, and review the entire "privatisation" philosophy where it impacts adversely on the social or cultural requirements of Australian people.

Is The Market there to serve the consumer, or does the consumer exist to serve The Market? Was the Sabbath made for man, or was man made for the Sabbath? In other words, junk the Andrews' private members Bill, and get back to first principles concerning power, responsibility, and the role of the State.

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