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

15 October 1999. Thought for the Week: "The idea of a long-term strategy on the part of a powerful group of men aiming at World Control is no longer one which can be lightly dismissed as fantastic... and it is becoming difficult to understand the mentality of those who insist that this particular group of men, all associated with banking and finance, acquired such a position by chance.
It is possible now in retrospect to see the key position in the Plan occupied by the financial depression of the 1930's and especially by the policy of the banks in bringing about agricultural depression, with its unavoidable accompaniment of destructive exploitation of the soil, in relation to the 'cure' offered by the financing with astronomical sums of... monopolistic agencies all over the world."
"On Planning the Earth" by Geoffrey Dobbs, 1951


by Jeremy Lee
As the Timor situation develops, more unsavory facts emerge. The Bulletin (12/10/99) published a series of previously unpublished diplomatic cables revealing a shortsighted and hypocritical response from the Australian Government prior to the Timorese referendum. The revelations do not reflect well on Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Not only did Australia argue strongly against a UN peacekeeping force in East Timor, but it was clearly advised that Indonesia was arming the militia, and there was a strong likelihood of violence before and after the referendum.

The Courier-Mail (24/9/99) gave the following assessment: "...East Timor has been devastated; its population either dead or forcibly transmigrated; diplomatic and other relations with Indonesia frayed to the point of breaking; Australian troops, with others from the multinational force, committed to East Timor with no clear time frame and no clear exit strategy; crisis management defining defence and security policy and now the Prime Minister is talking of his 'Howard doctrine'…
"How much is it going to cost and where is the money to come from? Don't know to the first. Ditto to the second…And that's just for East Timor. A long-term 'regional-deputy' role will require a much larger standing army, another proposal on which the Prime Minister has been markedly silent...."

So how ready is our army? A full-page assessment by Deborah Snow in The Sydney Morning Herald (2/10/99) gave a picture:
".... Army funding was so tight that in 1994 it couldn't even provide enough ammunition for logistics soldiers to undertake their annual firing of small arms on the Army's weapons ranges.... The senior analyst Alan Dupont, a former veteran of both the Foreign Affairs and Defence departments says: 'We're talking about being more assertive in the region. But when people look more closely at what we've got, they'll laugh. We can deploy smart weapons in small numbers. We can deploy forces for short periods of time. But we lack depth and critical masses."

Another retired Army chief Lieutenant-General John Sanderson, says: 'The sacrifice in Army numbers was part of an overall sacrifice of civilian and military manpower to get more money for [high] technology. But before you go engaging [around the region] you have to build the stuff that you've sacrificed up again. It seems to me we're engaging before we've properly built up that capability to engage."

One Army logistics officer told The Herald: "Soldiers are sorely wanting for good basic equipment. They have not had good boots, they have had inadequate backpacks (which come in a single, non-adjustable size), they do not have proper body armour and they have sub-standard wet-weather gear and sleeping bags…"

The immediate crisis engulfing the Army now is shortage of numbers. Should the Australian force in East Timor get to the projected 4,500 that would leave no other troops in a state of readiness for any other contingency that might arise.
As Dupont puts it: 'That's your whole Army, thanks very much.'...."


We've had all sorts of wild media speculation as to the whereabouts of large numbers of East Timorese. For example, The Australian (4/10/99) under the heading FEARS FOR THE 'DISAPPEARED' 500,000, went on: "Hundreds of thousands of East Timorese have simply disappeared off the face of the earth and humanitarian agencies are desperate to find them...."

We think it very unlikely that the general whereabouts of missing East Timorese is not known to the Defence Department and its intelligence agencies. There are countless stories of atrocities. It is just as certain that there have been atrocities as it is that there has been media speculation and exaggeration. P.P. McGuiness (Sydney Morning Herald, 2/10/99) gave this information: ".... Lieutenant-Colonel Martyn Dunn, the commander of the New Zealand contingent of Interfet, was quoted in the New Zealand Herald on September27 as saying, after having described progressive discoveries of murdered bodies, that the number of people the militia had murdered was not significant and there was no comparison with the slaughter in Kosovo. He added that there was no evidence to back reports that boatloads of East Timorese had been taken out to sea and dumped. In other words, one cannot accept all atrocity stories at face value. While no-one is claiming that everything is sweetness and light, there clearly is a deliberate whipping up of war fever still going on, with horror stories, as always, an essential element...."


by Philip Butler
All seats retained by the National Party in the Victorian Legislative Assembly have had to go to preferences, for the first time in some electorates. What does this say about a Party that is supposed to be "looking after the bush" - also, they have gone from nine to seven seats. And yet, we have not seen pro-republican leader of the Nationals in Victoria, Pat McNamara, take advantage of the weakened position of the Liberals to wrest some real gains for rural Victorians.

Independent MP for Mildura, Russell Savage, summed up the results of the "hard bargaining" on the part of the Nationals with their Liberal Coalition partners: "The positions they (Nationals) have been given have nothing to do with country Victoria, except for tertiary education... They have let Kennett ride roughshod over them.
They have accepted two-bob ministries and proven to me once again that they are only interested in limousines, the perks of office and privileges that come with being an MP... When are they going to get out of their comfort zones and listen to what people said?
I'm disappointed because I thought they were going to exert some influence in the new government. Why have they abandoned that? They don't seem to be prepared to put the country first... There's been no indication of anything other than a focus on selfish self-interest.
The Nationals are prepared to do anything to stay in power, to be in this untenable situation and keep their snouts in the trough..." (Sunday Herald Sun, 3/10/99).

It is obvious that the Nationals are nothing more than transparent Liberals. Where were they when the Kennett machine ran over rural Victoria destroying the municipalities and service infrastructure? Where were they when the Kennett machine flogged off Victoria's assets and prepared the ground for the "co modifying" of its water resources? The Victorian Nationals have sold out the rural communities - just as their Federal counterparts have sold out rural Australia in the push for tariff reductions and the "level playing field". The Nationals had a golden opportunity - supported by the Independents - to place power back in the hands of the electors thereby decentralising government - and most Victorians would have supported them. They have now blown it.


One of the key demands in the Independents' "Charter for Good Government" is the reform of the election of Legislative Councillors. They are demanding that the Legislative Council be elected along the lines of the Federal Senate. This could mean we would see more independents and minor-party candidates in the Upper House. This would most certainly break the stranglehold the Coalition has had over the House for the last seven years.

However, Kennett is baulking at this reform claiming it was not an issue at the recent elections. He omits to mention that when first elected to Parliament he campaigned against forced amalgamations of councils and municipalities, using the numbers in the Upper House to defeat the ALP's legislation, but when in power he was the driving force behind forced amalgamations. He assured the electors when in opposition, "no municipality would be forced to amalgamate" unless it was agreed to by a binding referendum.
Minority governments could have an effective role to play, history has shown this. The Country Party, as it was known then, formed part of a minority government in 1950.

The breakdown of the election result show: Liberal 27, ALP 24, Country Party 13 and one Independent.

The ALP agreed to support the Country Party (not in Coalition) on three issues, one of which was the reform of the Upper House. The right to vote for the Upper House was widened to include all Victorians 21 years and over; previous, to this, only property owners (houses and/or land) to prescribed values, or those educated to a certain level, had the right.

The Independents should be encouraged and canvassed on other reforms. Queensland's and West Australia's Constitutions cannot be changed without a Referendum, but the other States have no such safeguard. Victorian actionists - it's over to you.


by Betty Luks
Over the last few years little snippets have appeared in columns of newspapers and segments over radio and television expressing concern for the sustainability of future water supplies. Gradually we have been conditioned to the realisation that the world's water supplies are in jeopardy, and at the same time, traitorous governments, the world over, have been busy preparing the ground for the takeover of the water supplies by multinational monopolies - but calling it "privatisation".

At the same time, multinational companies have aggressively taken over most sections of the world's food chain. They are now poised to concentrate on the takeover of the world's water resources. The publication "Soil and Health" (Sept-0ct1999) spells it out for us.

The chemical company Monsanto - typical of the strategy adopted by the multinationals - having positioned itself as an agricultural company through control of the commercial seed supply, the first link in the food chain, now wants to control water - the very basis of life. The crisis of pollution and depletion of water resources is viewed by Monsanto as "a business opportunity".

For Monsanto "sustainable development" means the conversion of an ecological crisis into a market of scarce resources. Robert Farley of Monsanto explains, "The business logic of sustainable development is that population growth and economic development will apply increasing pressure on natural resource markets. These pressures, and the world's desire to prevent the consequences of these pressures if unabated, will create vast economic opportunity. When we look at the world through the lens of sustainability we are in a position to see current and foresee impending resources market trends and imbalances that create market needs. We have further focused this lens on the resource market of water and land." (Emphasis added - Ed.)

According to Robert Farley: "What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it is really a consolidation of the entire food chain."

Since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now trying to establish control over water. During 1999 this multinational conglomerate plans to launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these countries are facing water shortages. Non-government Organisations currently spend around $300 million for water development projects in India and Mexico alone and the need is growing at 25-30 percent a year in rural communities. The Indian Government spent over $1.2 billion between 1992-97 for various water projects while the World Bank spent $900 million. Monsanto is pushing for the diversion of this public money from public supply of water to establishing its own water monopoly in these countries.

Dr. Vandana Shiva observes in the article, "A more efficient conversion of public goods into private profit would be difficult to find. Water is however too basic for life and survival. The right to water is the right to life. The privatisation and commodification of water is a threat to the right to life... Water is a commons and must be managed as a commons. It cannot be controlled and sold by a life sciences corporation that peddles death."
Election comment authorised by B. Luks, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, 3000


A seven-day campaign against the World Trade Organisation is being planned to coincide with the third Millennium Round Meeting in Seattle, USA, in November 1999. The No to WTO, organised by the Seattle-based Network Opposed to the WTO, hopes to bring together 100,000 people.
League actionists need to make every effort to write to their Federal Member and insist that Australia's interests and national sovereignty be safeguarded by our representatives at this meeting. For the internet enthusiast: To take part in the wider campaign 'No To WTO" between November 27th and December 3rd contact Network Opposed to the WTO - People for a Fair Trade Policy at


appeared in The Australian Financial Review (8/10/99)
"I find it difficult to understand the notion that Asian-born Australians would prefer us to become a republic since many have come here to escape their oppressive republics and many more are queuing to enter for the same reason.
"By the age of 15, I had lived through five different types of republic: one French, one American, one socialist, one communist in Vietnam and two years under Soeharto in Indonesia. Each time the wind of change blew we lost generations of savings.
There would be a great loss of one of the world's greatest functioning democracies if the republic was to succeed in November 1999.
Although every citizen can nominate their preferred presidential candidate, the power to choose resides exclusively with the prime minister. The universal right to nominate a president is therefore flawed.
The fundamental difference between the formality and reality thereby proclaims the cosmetic value of this democratic right. Indeed, the president can be dismissed by his prime minister at the drop of a hat.
The provision of having to obtain two-thirds support of members of Parliament does not guarantee democracy. The functions of the parliaments of pre-Hitler Germany, the old Soviet Union, present-day China, Vietnam and Indonesia bear testimony to the fact that it is not difficult to dominate this institution of democracy. History and experience have demonstrated that not only two-thirds support, but even total unanimous support from 'parliamentary 'yes-men' are being obtained every day in overseas republics such as communist Vietnam, China, Indonesia and North Korea.
Contrary to what the republicans want people to believe, this republic is about greater concentration of power in the hands of politicians. Dictatorship relies on luck democracy relies on a good system of governance. We should leave nothing to chance, and say NO to this model of a republic."
Liem Vo, B.A., Research Officer, Faculty of Medicine, Monash University

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