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

12 November 1999. Thought for the Week: "Probably the greatest fallacy of our times is the notion that Reason in itself provides a proof; that because an argument is logical, its conclusion has any concrete embodiment...Reason is especially active in the construction of Utopias; and the most devastating demonstration of its nature lies in the fact that every Utopia we hear of differs from each of the others. As Zeno left motion out of (his) data so did the Planners ignore the organic: Life, the Living, and in particular, Human Nature - the thing-in-itself that produces the diversity in plans. The proof that this is so is not verbal; it is the experience we suffer of Planning."
"An Introduction to Social Credit", Bryan M. Monahan, 1966


by Eric D. Butler
No sensible person says that there are not successful republican systems, but they all share a common heritage based on English law. A feature of English Common Law is that unlike the Roman system of law, it must serve the Individual: this truth is dramatised in Shakespeare's play "The Merchant of Venice." In the play, the merchant of Venice, Shylock, clearly accepts the strict legality of what was being said, but as Shakespeare stresses, unless the spirit (or intent) of the law is accepted it can only result in tragedy.

Roman law was an advance on previous systems, but it lacked the Christian concept made clear in the famous speech by Portia in the Shakespearean play. It is also true there are a number of honourable people who genuinely believe that a republican system of government is preferable to one based upon a constitutional monarch. But the feature of most exponents of the Republican system of government is the philosophy of power wielded by the self-appointed elitists. It is therefore not surprising that the ordinary people distrusted that which the rich and powerful were offering at the referendum.

In her message to the Australian people, referring to the constitutional debate, Her Majesty the Queen offered service. It is the type of service that Prince Charles also offers. He has made the pointed comment that he wishes to distance himself from those Chinese leaders who stress only the material values, such as are offered in 'more trade' with the brutal Communist empire.

The most important lesson of the referendum debate was that the majority of people completely rejected what the so-called 'best educated' or the rich and powerful had to say. The politicians - the Whitlams, Hawkes and Frasers of this world, did not sway the ordinary people. Although it is not without significance that the multiculturalists of Victoria swayed the Yes vote, led by the defeated Liberal leader Jeff Kennett.

The stage has now been set upon which traditional Australians can build to ensure that there is a deeper understanding of what Australia's national heritage really means.


by Betty Luks
Two days before the referendum, Roman Catholic Archbishop George Pell came down on the side of the republic, urging the nation's Roman Catholics to consider his arguments and vote yes. Stressing that the views he expressed were his own and not a position of the Catholic Church he "railed against the monarchy, saying the royal symbolism has ended" (The Australian, 4/11/99). This is the man, who at the Constitutional Convention told John Howard that Jeff Kennett and Shane Stone were the only conservative leaders in the country, who can smell the wind, recognise that change is coming (and) tap into these currents of Australian patriotism. How could he have got it so wrong?

This last week Kennett resigned from politics after being so roundly defeated at the last Victorian elections. Also, one must ask, if the royal symbolism for kingship has ended, has the royal symbolism for the priesthood ended too?

D.M Beavan in "Why Catholics Should Oppose the Republic" puts the matter in a nutshell: "The Catholic Church at present is not a democracy, nor does it follow republican principles. It has a hierarchical, monarchical structure, based upon Papal Monarchy where the Pope is the ultimate (human) source of governmental and jurisdictional authority in the Church. This viewpoint was put strongly by Guillaume De Pierre Godin (born around 1260) in his Tractatus De Causa Immediata Ecclesiastice Potestatis and has been defended by orthodox Catholic theologians ever since."
"...Catholics who call themselves orthodox or conservative in their faith should be concerned about republicanism and its 'modernist' agenda. If political monarchism is flawed, then why is theological monarchism correct? The arguments given by Dr. Paul Collins in his book, 'Papal Power' in criticism of papalism parallel the arguments given by political republicanism against monarchy. Why are conservative Catholic republicans feeling so secure?"


by Nigel Jackson
This comment is written a week before Australians vote in the referendum and the prevailing atmosphere suggests that the NO case will prevail. Where will Australia be then and in what shape will the monarchist cause be? My own impression is that both sides have sustained serious wounds in the 1999 referendum campaign, but that the monarchist position, overall, has been weakened, not strengthened - in the short term. In a longer perspective, however, the royal cause may be able to benefit from the events of 1998-99.

The republican movement has been exposed as largely dominated by the New Establishment, which is money-based and anti-traditional. Large masses of ordinary Australians have no love for this elite or its hangers-on. It is well understood that a noisome gulf has opened up between the minority of rich Australians and the great majority of those who are battling and those who have fallen into poverty. The flight of coalition politicians into the republican ranks has effectively exposed the incompetence of the two parties, Liberal and National, to defend the traditional cause in Australia.

It is difficult not to believe that many of those concerned have been jumping on to what they consider to be the bandwagon. Nationalist and royalist Australians thus have a clearer perception that the organisation of a new political movement is essential - something a great deal better than either One Nation or Australia First. It has also been demonstrated beyond doubt that the major media were unwilling to give a truly equitable coverage of the contest: and no doubt authoritative analyses of this partisan approach will appear in the next two or three years.

Monarchists will be in a strong position to ask ordinary Australians why, if a republican model is so much better than a monarchical one, the major media were so unwilling to allow unfettered expression to all substantial monarchist arguments and groups.
A further factor is the notable failure of republicans to enthuse large numbers of ordinary citizens.

The republic just seems tawdry and boring, a meagre arena for the new elites and their hirelings to swan about in. Despite all this, there seems little doubt that the monarchy has lost the affection of the majority of Australians and that the approach of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy has assisted in that fatal dwindling of sentiment. If monarchists cannot revive a deep love of the Crown and loyalty to the Monarch, then the Australian Crown is doomed.

The kind of arguments advanced in the official NO case may stave off defeat now; they will not do so next time. What is needed is a scrupulous analysis of the whole ACM story, from its founding to the referendum result. We need to know clearly why its leadership was willing to see the Australian Monarchist League sidelined and why it also did not liaise with the Australian League of Rights. I am very doubtful that the ACM will retain sufficient credibility to lead the next campaign for the monarchy: but it must be admitted that the two leagues were also unable to make a sufficient public impact in 1999.

A number of important books in favour of the monarchy were released in the late stages of the referendum, including the NO Papers from the ACM, a book by RSL leader Bruce Ruxton and a collection of essays published by the Samuel Griffiths Society. These and other pro-monarchy writings of the 1998-99 period will need to be analysed and summed up; and it is hoped that the Veritas Publishing Company will publish at least one substantial book of that kind.


by Ken Grundy
Some observations from where we have just been - the referendum - and perhaps what needs to be done in the future.
In debate, the first rule is to define the meaning of the words pertaining to the subject. This enables apples to be compared with apples. If allowed to manipulate the meaning, a skilled debater may score points and lure his opponent into discussing "oranges".

The Queen is Queen of Australia - all references to England, Britain, etc., were "oranges". Similarly references to the queen not representing Australia on trade matters because she is committed to representing UK trade which at times may conflict with ours, is quite false. She is not the trade commissioner for either country - that is not her role.

Another frequent point made by the republicans was about the UK treating us as aliens when we visit them. A hurtful policy maybe but it clearly demonstrates our independence. Another tempting "orange"!

Head of State: Yes we do have a type of Head of State, but this "orange" has split in two because we are not sure whether it applies to our Governor General (an Australian) or is it Her Majesty? As the League points out this is purely a Republican term. It fits with our system like the "Bishop of the Uniting Church"!

Governor General
There is no reference that I can find in the Constitution saying the Prime Minister recommends to the Queen so and so be appointed Governor General. How could it, when there is not reference to "Prime Minister" in the document?

The Constitution
This document is so valuable (even though it could be improved) that it must have more public airing and the citizens must make full use of it e.g. Section 59 which permits the Governor General to annul a law within 12 months of its passing. We must demand full use of these provisions. Banking under Section 51 is another.
Although we admire the Constitution, it must not be like the family silver coffee pot behind the glass - to be seen but not used.

The Future
There are not many groups with any depth to their understanding of Monarchy. If the League can find an ally so much the better, but it may have to do it alone - and that is, compile suitable material of an educational type to reach school age people and upward. There is a huge void out there. Jeremy Lee has had some excellent material as have Arthur Tuck and David Mitchell. There may be others.

Emphasis is needed on the Reserve Powers with a factual report of the Whitlam dismissal covered. Printed material, audio and videotapes could all be promoted on the Internet where the younger interest is centred.

The Referendum NO case
This was essentially all negative material, which attacked the model without reference to any virtues pertaining to the present system. Maybe they were correct in their tactic - they probably employed marketeers who identified the greatest weakness in the YES case, and concentrated on it. However, we cannot rest on our laurels like that. A positive message is required.

The dog may retreat with his tail between his legs for a while, but we know these people are persistent. Maybe the subject deserves a rest for a while, but we will have to redouble our efforts when you consider:
(a) among the NO voters were a huge number of republicans;
(b) relatively few voters need to change their vote to see the result swing the other way.


by Tom Fielder
Countless cenotaphs across Australia honour the names of those men and women who paid the supreme sacrifice in the wars of this century. "...they died for God, King and Country..." the memorials say. They died that we may have freedom. The Flanders poppies being sold at present mark the signing of the 'Armistice' on November 11th, 1918: the War that was to end all wars. Today we have men in full battle order in East Timor, though, thankfully, so far with no casualties.

"Men in full battle order"? Not so! A fact that has had little publicity came to the fore in Melbourne's "Herald Sun ", 21/9/99, "Up to 200 Australian women will be involved in the first wave of troops attempting to restore peace in the troubled region of East Timor..." Despite being banned from direct combat role, why is the female soldier (pictured on page 6 of the newspaper), equipped with exactly the same gear as the male soldier beside her - including a front-line rifle? Is the gun an ornament, or is it intended that she should use it should her partner be involved in an incident with the armed militia?

Where are the red-blooded Australians of this country? Home washing their babies' nappies? As a returned serviceman, I am ashamed that our girls are being used to defend the nation. It is bad enough that our young men should be brutalised, but that our young women should also be staggers the imagination. But then, perhaps many of our young females are already more brutalised than we have realised.

"Baby girl left to die after abortion..." (The Australian, 3/11/99) "Kai man Henry Cho... told the court he had interviewed the 20-year-old mother of Baby J. He said she had a career in the defence forces and said she could not cope with a child." So this unnamed girl-soldier had her unborn child killed because it was a social inconvenience to her career of learning to kill men in the field of battle.
Will the name of 'Baby J' appear on future war memorials? I don't think so. But then, I'm sure the 352 'illegals' that have just arrived (the 24th boatload this year and another 2,000 expected soon - The Australian, 3/11/99) will be pleased with the 'fine' sacrifice of this potential young mother in defence of their future homeland!

Further information: "The Attack on Unborn Children" Book $10.00 by Malcolm Ross, MEA Tapes, Box 184, The Basin, Vic. 3154.

MONEY IN - MONEY OUT - "... The miracle of the revolving door money factory . . ."

Bank customers deposit their savings and the National Australia Bank and the Australia & New Zealand (International Banks) make profits of $2.8 billion and $1.3 billion respectively ("The Age", 5/11/99, p2). How can this be when there is nothing more behind the revolving doors than a well-trained staff and the necessary accounting equipment? No raw materials being converted into usable wealth such as in car manufacturing plait. Only figures being moved around the ledgers.

A young woman "Uni" student was asked recently: "Where does the bank obtain the funds loaned to those needing a mortgage?" "From Depositors," was the immediate reply. Not everyone has had the dubious benefit of being de-educated as this young lady who could not accept the truth even when presented with documented evidence that bank debt at interest is brought into existence by bookkeeping (computer) entry in the bank.

"The other important function, which is exclusive to the banking system, is to create the Community's money supply, to administer the monetary system..." New international Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol.1, p.321 ('It's Time They Knew" Barclay-Smith) With money creation being an almost costless procedure, is it any wonder that the banking industry is so profitable? Not only does the bank have the benefit of debt capital being created out of nothing - it has the advantage of taking possession of the property of those who cannot repay the bank on their terms.

Out in the "bush" farmers repeat the "yarn" that the ANZ (International) Bank no longer has clients -only victims!

Not only is bank debt at interest or "money creation" very profitable, but this "debt stuff' has another magical ability. You see, as interest rates are reduced inflation is "controlled" and then, miracle of miracles, as interest rates are increased again, inflation is controlled!!

Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello's hollow threat to the banks ("As banks profits rise, Canberra vows to monitor interest rate rises" - "The Age", 5/11/99, p.2) is merely trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted which raises the question - Who really governs this country? Howard, Costello and Co. or the Reserve Bank acting for the International Monetary Fund?

Further Information: TAPE $7.00 -How a Money System Works" -Jeremy Lee;
BOOK $12.00- "The Great Confidence Trick" - E.L. Burgi.... MEA Tapes, Box 184, The Basin, Vic., 3154.


by Philip Butler
November 6th, 1999, will go down as a watershed in the history of Australia, the day that the majority of electors in a majority of the States voted a resounding NO to changing the Commonwealth Constitution and replacing our Queen and Governor General with a President. Also, the proposed Preamble was 'blown out of the water' according to one newspaper article, suffering a humiliating defeat with less than forty percent of the people voting for it.

Up to the end of counting on Saturday night, sixty per cent of Canberrans voted for a republic and the only State still holding on to a majority Yes vote is Victoria. The State's party-political leaders and former Premiers Kennett and Hamer endorsed the Yes campaign. The figures to hand reveal that the Liberal 'chardonnay' electorates delivered the numbers for the Yes vote. But the regional and rural electors generally voted NO.

Bendigo, Corio (Geelong) and Ballarat (long held up as the 'foundation of the republican movement' - Eureka Stockade and ALP territory) registered an overwhelming NO vote. A by-election was held at the same time for Gareth Evans' former seat of Holt and although the Labor candidate obtained 66.7 per cent of the vote, the NO vote was 50.7%.

The majority of New South Wales, long thought the stronghold of the republican vote led by merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull and former Premiers Greiner and Fahey, clearly indicated by a 53.38% NO vote that they had made up their own minds. Altogether a great day for the People of Australia.

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