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 May 1999. Thought for the Week: "The group exists for the benefit of the individual, in the same sense that the field exists for the benefit of the individual flower, or the tree for the fruit. Groups of any kind, whether called nations, business systems, or any other association, eventually decay and disappear if they fail to foster a sufficient number of excellent individuals, . . . It is also true that excellence involves exercise, a man does not become a good cricketer by reading books on cricket."
C.H. Douglas (1963)


by Eric D. Butler
Although the war in Vietnam left an indelible mark on the Australian psyche, and was a relatively recent event, how many Australians can recall the events, which led up to Australia's involvement? It has become fashionable to now admit that the involvement of the USA in the Vietnam War was a great disaster. The war ended with the whole of Vietnam under a Communist dictatorship.

The will of the USA to continue the conflict was undermined within the USA. As President Lyndon Johnson was forced to admit, it was the Zionist Jewish lobby within the UN, using its control of the mass media like The New York Times and The Washington Post, which was the driving force behind the anti-Vietnam campaign. This fact was mentioned by the late Sir Reginald Sholl, who served as Australian Consul in New York for several years. Needless to say, Sir Reginald was quickly condemned for his "anti-Semitic" comments.

No one attempted to deny the truth of what Sir Reginald said. One explanation was that the Zionist Jewish Lobby in the USA was afraid that the USA campaign in Vietnam tended to weaken its ability to defend the Zionist State of Israel. Be that as it may, it is not without significance that the most Zionist-dominated USA administration in history is backing the current NATO military campaign in Yugoslavia.

Support lost for the bombing campaign against Iraqis readily understandable, but what is the motive for the bombing of Yugoslavia? A number of explanations have been advanced, some of them bizarre and providing evidence to support the view that all supporters of the conspiratorial factor in history as being, at best, slightly "nutty". Which raises the question of how many Australians, including the political leaders, have any understanding of the history of the Balkans. In the absence of this understanding, Australians could be drawn into a conflict with long-term historical implications.

What is happening in Yugoslavia can only be understood in the context of global politics dominated by a strategy to create some type of a New Internationalist World Order. While it can be legitimately argued that Australia should attempt, in its own long-term interests, to influence the course of events in an explosive Indonesia, what Australian strategies or other interests are threatened as a Serbian dominated Yugoslavia attempts to prevent one of its Provinces (Kosovo) to secede from the Yugoslavia Federation?

It is important to recall that it was the pioneers of Internationalism who, at the Versailles Peace Conference following the First World War, who insisted that as the Balkans had been the trigger for the First World War, although with other manifestations of "extreme" nationalism, they should be unified into one Federation. But such a Federation merely left sources of historical friction, which have subsequently been exploited to advance global objectives.

The Internationalists who dominated the Versailles Peace Conference opposed any suggestion that a centralised Germany should be decentralised into its original states and imposed such hard conditions on the defeated Germans that it was almost certain that a dictator like Hitler would emerge. When he did, he was backed by all the forces of internationalism who then sought another World War.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was originally created allegedly to deal with possible Russian aggression and to advance the programme for creating a United States of Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union seriously dented this strategy. Another purpose had to be found for NATO. The politically naive Serbian leader provided the type of excuse necessary to trigger a major conflict. This conflict is designed to create a climate of world opinion, which will readily endorse any programme, which will advance globalisation.

Albanian refugees being airlifted to Australia will not solve the basic problems of the Balkans, but it will increase Australia's problems. The Internationalists of all types are eager and willing to take advantage of such problems. History guarantees that such problems are inevitable unless a halt is called in the very near future.

Saying no to globalist policies is not negative, but can lead to positive and constructive results. Australia should give the necessary lead. Unless such a lead is given, the Balkans affair could follow the Vietnam pattern. It has been said that those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat those mistakes.


by Jeremy Lee
One might have thought that the National Party would have woken long ago to the need for a major push to revive the bush. Even the blind can see that rural Australia is at the tail end of a long period of decline, which started at the end of the sixties. Spaced over the quarter of a century since then has been a refugee crisis which in terms of numbers must be reaching the half-million - obviously led by the 250,000 or so farmers who have walked off the land. All this while the National Party sat on its hands - or washed them, Pilate-like, while the protracted disaster unfolded.

The National Party is now, in reality, two parties: the State-oriented section, of which the Queensland National Party is most obvious; and the "Fed-Nats", best represented by leader Tim Fischer, which has decided that its best chance of harvesting the choicest plums of politics is to tread in the footsteps of the Liberals. It was all fine until One Nation brought into public view what all but the most obtuse of politicians must have known - a seething anger and resentment in rural Australia that had finally tired of being the "bunny" for complacent party hacks who never took a stand on anything. Aware now that, whatever long-term fate befalls One Nation, the disaffected in rural Australia will continue to seek political weapons that can turn the tide, the Nationals are looking for a few alternatives to retrieve their fortunes.
Most Federal Nationals are only in office now with the barest of margins.

The Australian Financial Review (30/4/99), in an intriguing full-page report, described a Sydney meeting between Kerry Packer and a number of top corporate leaders, and the "elite" of the National Party. "Kerry Packer delivered some passionate views in favour of greater government intervention to solve the woes of the bush, views that took the National Party leadership by surprise. His timing could not have come at a more critical moment as the National Party stands at the crossroads, facing fundamental decisions about its policy direction and leadership, with Fischer tipped to resign this year. "And Packer - with broad agreement from many of the senior business people at the lunch - was championing a far more radical position than the Federal Nationals dared even suggest.

"The Nationals at the meeting - Federal leader Tim Fischer, his deputy John Anderson and Party president Don MacDonald - were not surprised to hear Packer's assessment that rural Australia was falling disastrously and irrevocably behind the cities. He could have been reading from a National Party script. But what did surprise them was the extent to which Packer, with dissent from only a minority in the room, thought the Government should move to remedy the situation.

The last time the Nationals were bluntly confronted with the truth was in the mid-eighties, when Ian MacLachlan, as leader of the fledgling National Farmers' Association, gave them a tongue-lashing widely reported in the media. But MacLachlan became a party-politician, and the NFF became a "puppy-dog" establishment body, and the Nationals went back to their old ways of doing nothing - until One Nation mauled them in the Queensland State election.

The article, by Lenore Taylor, described it thus: "… Fischer has committed his nine-year leadership of the Party to helping the bush face the reality of globalisation, rather than hide from it. Anderson has been part of that push and would continue it. "But the economic and social pain caused by globalisation falling commodity prices, cuts to government services in the bush and the flight of population to the cities has translated directly into political pain for the National Party. And that political pain is translating directly into support for leadership contenders who would take a more interventionist stance on policy and be more prepared to rock the Coalition boat…"

Is it possible for a party to cleanse and revigorate itself? The very nature of the back stabbing ambition fostered in party politics mitigates against such a possibility. It is more likely that the best elements are forced to break away - which may yet eventuate. It is clear that the philosophy espoused by Tim Fischer and John Anderson will alienate rural Australia - or what's left of it - even further.


by David Thompson
Counting for the NSW Legislative Council took nearly a month, because of the record of over 200 candidates, and more than 80 political parties and 'groups'. The result of the Upper House election has offended the major parties, even those in Opposition - they know it is a threat to their own claim for a "mandate" when they next replace the ALP in government. The result of the election for the Council was: Labor - 8 seats, Coalition -6; One Nation - 1; Greens - 1; Democrats - I; Unity - 1; Outdoor Recreation Party - 1; Reform the Legal System - 1; and the Rev Fred Nile just managed to win the last seat from the Registered Clubs Party. Premier Carr is now faced with an Upper House in which Labor holds 16 seats, the Coalition 13 seats, and a cross bench of 13 members. In practice, many of those on the cross benches are committed to following the Government's 'line' on most issues, unless they believe they have a "mandate" to object to what Mr. Carr's Ministry proposes. But it will by no means be a "free run" for Bob Carr in the Legislative Council as it is for, say, Premier Kennett in Victoria who holds his own majority in Victoria's Legislative Council. The number of candidates and groups standing in NSW for the Upper House made for an unusual result. The Greens, for example, are livid that the Outdoor Recreation Party, who polled only 7,624 primary votes, were able to garner enough preferences to have Malcolm Jones elected. To rub salt into the wounds, Jones was not even present at the declaration of the poll, preferring to do a spot of 4-wheel driving in one of his favourite bush haunts on the South Coast. In his view, the wilderness should be available to everyone; horses, motorbikes, 4-wheel drives, the lot! The Greens don't quite see it this way. Even with such a small primary vote, Jones was able to successfully organise preference deals that gave him a higher overall vote than either the Democrats or the Greens, who received 10 times his primary vote. All of a sudden, the Greens, in particular, are not so sure that "preferential voting" is such a good system! Mr. Jones thinks its fine, as does Peter Breen. The Reform the Legal System candidate, Peter Breen, was elected on about 35,000 primary votes, and preferences from many quarters, including One Nation. One Nation's vote was the third highest party vote (6.3%), successfully outpolling the Greens again, and propelling David Oldfleld into the Council. The Unity Party, which was set up as an anti-One Nation party, also benefited from preferences. Dr. Peter Wong received 35,000 primary votes, and picked up sufficient preferences to win a seat. Strangely, neither the Greens nor the Democrats are objecting to this; to do so would clearly be racist! But it is becoming clearer, from the NSW results, that voters are turning away from the major parties, and are prepared to deliberately cast a vote (or a preference) for minor groups or independents. Do the big parties get the message yet? There is no sign that they do.


Upon what authority does the Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (SOCOG) decide that the 2000 Games shall be opened by the Prime Minister? This decision, as announced, would appear to be right against the Olympic Charter, which requires that the Head of State of the host nation officially open the Games. By what stretch of the imagination could "Prime Minister" be substituted for "the Head of State"? There is no possible excuse for SOCOG to be involved in this decision at all. This would appear to be the responsibility of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The only faintly possible excuse for the Olympic movement is the fact that Australia does not have "a Head of State" as such; the words do not appear in the Australian Constitution. We have a Monarch. The Monarch's formal representative in Australia is the Governor General. The office of Prime Minister does not appear in the Constitution. How could SOCOG make such an outrageous 'mistake'? Or has SOCOG been "captured" by the republican disease? It would appear that the IOC's only choices (if it has any Latitude for choice whatever) are between the Queen or the Australian Governor General to open the Games. Presumably protocol would require that the Prime Minister's office be invited to advise the IOC - not SOCOG - whether it is more appropriate to invite the Queen or the Governor General to open the Games. But to ignore both Queen and Governor General and simply decide unilaterally that the Prime Minister will perform this function is deeply offensive. In our view it is little less than a calculated offence to both the Queen personally, and her office generally. It is also a crude pre-emption of the decision-making process in Australia, where the people will make the decision about the role of the Crown. Does SOCOG presume to usurp this role, or to preempt the decision? It must be challenged. ACTION: In our view, at least three steps are available to us: 1) SOCOG must be challenged to account for their gross and offensive departure from the Olympic Charter, and betrayal of the Australian Monarchy. President of SOCOG is Michael Knight (NSW ALP Minister), c/- SOCOG, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007. Mr. Knight's fax number is: (02) 9297 2020. For E-mail communications, we understand the contact address is: 2) The IOC needs to be challenged about this breach of etiquette (or worse). We suggest contacting: Juan Antonio Samaranch, President, International Olympic Committee, Chateau de Vidy, CH-1007 Lausanne, Switzerland, TEL: 0011-41-216-216-111, FAX: 0011-41-216-216-216. We understand that the IOC President can be reached at 3) The Prime Minister's office should be requested to provide Mr. Howard's own view of the way in which this decision has been reached. Will he intercede to restore the correct protocol, or is this too much like asking the mouse to guard the cheese? Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 2600.


One aftermath of the devastating hailstorm disaster in Sydney was unexpected. Over 20,000 homes were damaged, resulting in the use of 140,000 tarpaulins, 160,000 sandbags and 5,000kms of rope. A jumbo-jet of "tarps" was flown in from China, but were proved to be "not up to scratch", being too thin and lightly reinforced. At best they could only be used for a quick fix. Over the next few months the Chinese tarpaulins will be replaced by heavier, better quality imports from the UK. So we'll end up importing twice the number of tarpaulins needed. We bet the inferior Chinese brand will not be "returned to sender". But why aren't we making our own, providing Australians with jobs in the process, instead of running up the foreign debt even further with inferior imports?


wrote recently to say: "l am surprised that the League is taking the millennium bug so seriously. It seems to me that it is another hoax like 'the world is running out of oil' et al. It is being used because people in the computer industry, people like Bill Gates, can make megabucks out of it…"

This is a common and possibly valid point of view. A number of books written on Y2K make the point that it is the most common reaction of those first becoming acquainted with the problem. Nor can we say we know what is likely to happen. Nobody does. World wide about $1.3 trillion (over $200 for every living person on earth) is being spent on the issue. In Australia the figure exceeds $1,000 per head of population. Yes, of course - numberless people are cashing in as hard as they can. But is that all it is?

The main issue is NOT computers, which can be identified and fixed. It is often single embedded chips which do no more than perform a single action, such as sending a message when a tap or a switch is to be turned on or off. There are so many of these that nobody can identify where they all are and whether they are date or time-sensitive. Reactions vary widely. A secretary to an engineer at a Queensland power station who attended the Inverell Forum was adamant there was no problem. They had tested and re-tested the Power Station. She could not vouch for the grid as a whole. On the other hand, an experienced computer technician at a major Queensland hospital was concerned at the complacency among management staff, and the large number of equipment items, which were not compliant.

We reiterate. We simply do not know. We hope our correspondent is right. On the whole our best advice would be: "Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst." We would say the possibility of a major financial breakdown is more serious. If the two occur together, it would be very serious indeed.

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