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 September 2000. Thought for the Week: "... for man the Natural Law becomes a moral law because his actions are free, self-determined and consciously self-directed... Concerning positive human law it is our contention that it is based on the Natural Law, and apart from this has no foundation. This statement follows from the fact that the Law of Nature ordains that man shall live in Society.
Social life cannot exist without an authority which shall possess the moral power to control the members and direct them towards the common good. Therefore human laws are valid and binding only in so far as they correspond with, enforce or supplement the basic law of man's nature from which they received their origin. They are null and void if they are in conflict with the Natural Law of man's being. Hence the individual citizen, or any group of citizens, has the duty of scrutinizing enactments of positive law to see whether or not they are in conformity with the principles of Natural Law."
"The Natural Law: Pastoral Statement on the Basis of Social Justice" by The Catholic Bishops of Australia, 1959


by Jeremy Lee
Forget about the Olympics and the World Economic Forum, which have already created their own bow-waves. The lives of thousands of ordinary Australians have been savaged by the cost of fuel and the slumping dollar. The fact that almost half the cost of a litre of petrol is government tax has come as a revelation to many. That fuel tax is indexed to rise automatically with rising oil prices sticks in the craw of a lot of Australians. In more moderate times the Government would have moved swiftly to ensure its own fuel-tax revenue did not rise with the peoples' anguish. An even sounder government policy would have attempted to counter the rise with a corresponding tax reduction where possible. The Howard/Costello junta has been exposed for what it is - as mean and avaricious as any multinational. It may live to regret its avarice.

France first, followed by Italy and Spain has been pulverised by public demonstrations, with France almost at a standstill, against the rise in oil prices. The same reaction has been seen in Western Australia. It is now anticipated that the Reserve Bank, in the face of the inflationary impact of oil prices and the GST, coupled with the slump in the dollar to near its lowest point in history, will be forced to raise interest rates. It is a crazy idea. To increase the heat at a time everyone is hurting is the very opposite of what is needed. But thinking has not changed since the Government decided to cut wages in the middle of the Great Depression to 'make life easier'.


Writing in The Australian (29/8/2000) the normally sanguine Robert Gottliebsen, under the heading
"This is a comment I hope is wrong. I don't think it is. A number of Australian CEOs, including one in the top five, believe that next year this country is headed for an inevitable debt and currency crisis. At least one big company is adjusting its corporate strategy in readiness. But for now, the share market is basking in good news and believes what the politicians and economists keep telling us - that our current account deficit and total debt are not areas of concern.
However, the current account deficit recently reached 6 percent of GDP and, although it has since fallen back, it provided an alert. Total foreign debt is more than 40 percent of GDP ...."

Gottliebsen's comments were made before the recent dollar slide. It may well be that the coming crunch will occur any time from October onwards.


As Australia stares at an uncertain future, spare a thought for New Zealand. At the end of August the $NZ fell from $US45 to $US42.35, partly due to the just-released monthly current account deficit of $330 million. Something of the madness among economists was illustrated by the remarks of National Bank chief economist Brendan O'Donovan (The Press, Christchurch, August 25th) who said:
"We should all be worried at these levels. But part of the story is a healing thing. Because of our high levels of debt, we need a weak currency and high interest rates."

Petrol prices are about $1.22 a litre. Petrol prices have increased by 38 cents in the past 12 months. Government takes 35 cents a litre in excise, plus 12.5% GST on the rest of the price. If prices stay at their present level, the Government will reap an extra 1.7 billion in taxes on fuel in 12 months. One result is that thousands are leaving New Zealand. In the year to July, 59,000 left the country, the majority under 30. Of these, 26,000 came to Australia - an increase of 15% on the previous year.


A Victorian reader and former Councillor in Victoria has sent us a copy of a letter being circulated by the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment.
No works on any Crown land or reserves, including buildings, fences, memorials, etc. - can now be undertaken without notification and approval from potential native title claimants and/or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Representative Bodies. Among things requiring notification are: new grandstands, gazebos or picnic facilities; walking tracks or broadwalks; internal roads in caravan parks, and the building of tennis courts.

We have heard that native title claimants in northern Australia are seeking rights to the sea. How long before there are claims for air-space?


The following letter, sent by another reader, appeared in The Cairns Post (12/6/2000):
"I had to write this letter because I am a full-blooded Aborigine, and I have a lot of full-blooded Aboriginal friends who are fed up with all this harping about stolen children, land rights and reconciliation. The children were not stolen, they were taken away for their own good, as they did not fit in with full bloods. Land rights are a joke. Some tribes are claiming land they never had anything to do with. I know because being an Aborigine I hear all these things. The white lawyers are a lot to blame.
If there is to be reconciliation between whites and blacks then the truth has to be told about what both sides did to each other back in the 1800s. The black people killed hundreds of survivors of ships that were wrecked on Australian shores, they killed miners, graziers and explorers. The white people killed hundreds of Aborigines, so both black and white are to blame for what happened. A lot of trouble in Australia is being caused by quarter-caste, half-caste and white Aborigines which we seem to have a lot of.
John Howard should not say sorry because he had nothing to do with what happened in the past - neither did a lot of other Australians. The past should be forgotten. Bringing it up does not solve anything.
I have lived in Cairns for more than 50 years. I have my own house, which I worked hard for. I have always got on well with white people, and I was treated like a person with respect.
People should forget about the bloody past and look to the future where we can all live in harmony. If the whites have to say sorry, so should us Aborigines." Lenny Creek, Bruce Highway, Edmonton.


The most populous State in the Union has, for the first time in the US history, reached a situation where whites are in the minority. The Guardian Weekly (7-13/9/2000) reported that the latest Census Statistics just released showed the white population dropping to 49.9% Asians and Hispanics continue to move to California. The report added:
" ....The transformation of California to a 'majority minority' state occurred with lightening speed for a state with about 33 million residents. From 1990 to 1999, the years covered by the new Census estimates, the Latino population of California grew by 35 percent to 10.5 million, while the Asian and Pacific Islander population soared by 36 percent .....In the Los Angeles area, there are whole suburban neighborhoods dominated by Vietnamese, Armenians, Chinese and Koreans....."
Almost sounds like Cabramatta!


In a couple of weeks the people of Denmark are to vote in a referendum on whether to abandon their national currency - the krone - in favour of a European single currency. There's considerable worry in the air. In 1992 Denmark voted against the Maastricht Treaty, and only passed it in a second attempt when an "opt-out" clause was included.

Reporting on the approaching September 28th referendum The Australian Financial Review (2/9/2000) said: " ....Those campaigning for a 'yes' vote in Denmark, which includes just about every major political party, business group and trade union, are playing down the significance of the vote this time .....The possibility that the great dream of a European super-State could be derailed by Denmark has certainly warmed the hearts of the anti-Euro forces in Britain, who have been popping up in Denmark in recent days to lend a hand to the 'no' cause ....."

In Britain, Blair's Labour Government is wondering how to get Britain to accept the Euro. The Guardian Weekly (7-13/9/2000) wrote:
".....Labor's policy, once decided on the conference floor, is now drawn up by a shadowy 'national policy forum' which effectively tells conference delegates the line they are required to support. The document on Europe, agreed at the last policy forum meeting, is expected to emphasise the benefits of signing up for the euro, and to stress the determination of ministers 'to educate voters who are over-whelmingly hostile to the euro that they must face up to the reality of the currency'. Opinion polls suggest that a sizeable majority of the British electorate remains hostile to the single currency, and William Hague is hardening the Conservatives' anti-European stance in the belief that it will be a vote-winner for his beleaguered party ....'"

The British Pound is not doomed yet!


The combined numbers of the ALP and Coalition Government pushed through legislation that allows the Federal Government to call out troops against unarmed civilian protests and strikers, according to Greens' Senator Bob Brown. The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 passed 46 votes to 10 after a marathon debate in the Senate. It was the longest debate this year and the 22nd longest since federation.

"The ALP spin on how it improved the Defence bill, and that the bill was essential to fetter Commonwealth powers, fails when account is taken of the cross-bench amendments it voted down. The ALP joined the Coalition to prevent:
* An unqualified ban on the use of troops against strikers
* An unqualified ban on the use of troops against peaceful protests
* A conscience opt-out for Australian troops called out against Australians
* A requirement that the relevant state agree before troops are deployed
* The recall of parliament where troops are called out but a state of emergency is not declared
* A post-Olympics sunset clause on the bill
* The need for a Federal or Supreme Court warrant before troops are deployed against Australians.

"The Government will now have the power to call out troops in a wide range of circumstances. This could include a future dispute over transport, environmental or industrial matters. The legislation corrodes a century of ALP policy on democracy and civil rights," Senator Brown said.

The ALP-Coalition deal will allow troops to act on strikers or protestors where damage to property might occur, ie, in any situation." The ALP joined the Coalition to prevent a conscience opt-out for Australian troops called out against Australians? Are we talking about the same parties that support the War Crimes Act with its "No Defence of Superior Orders" legislation? Part lll , War Crimes s16 states: "Subject to subsections 6(2) and 13(2), the fact that, in doing an act alleged to be an offence against this Act, a person acted under orders of his or her government or of a superior is not a defence in a proceeding for the offence, but may, if the person is convicted of the offence, be taken into account in determining the proper sentence."

What does this tell us about the laws of our country? Certain citizens can be charged with (selective) 'war crimes' alleged to be committed in another country, because they didn't defy their superior officers, (following orders is 'no defence') and yet, under the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill, Australian servicemen cannot opt-out if their conscience is troubled at using military force (even shoot to kill) against their fellow-countrymen! Is one an Act of vengeance, the other an Act of tyranny; in both cases, isn't the choice of prosecution strictly ideological/political?


by Betty Luks
Who remembers when one of our supporter's requested information about the New International Economic Order from a Federal politician and he pooh-hooed the idea, saying it was all "a figment of the imagination of the Australian League of Rights"? Well, the 'figment of the imagination of the League' - World Monopoly - Mammon - is shaping up as a real-life nightmare!


by Joan Veon, USA
When the Titanic sunk, the people who travelled on the ship could not believe that it was actually happening. After all, it had been sold to them as unsinkable since its unique design included several sealed compartments which would prevent it from sinking. Then, the unbelievable happened: the ship hit an iceberg in the most vulnerable area. The rest is history.

We don't know the rest of the story, however, about the goals of the United Nations. For years Americans have been told only part or bits of the story. Words which political leaders, both here and abroad have used, have not been defined for us. They have been used and like the story of the "King's New Clothes," people try not to show their ignorance by asking the obvious. It is time to ask the obvious: What are they saying in those rose-coloured speeches at the United Nations and what does it mean for me?

The world is one. Kofi Annan opened up the historic Millennium Assembly, going on this week, by using a number of phrases which connote a shift of ownership and responsibility. In past meetings I recall the terminology used conveyed the understanding that our countries were individual nation-states. Today it was different. He said, "You are the leaders to whom the world's peoples have entrusted their destiny. They look to you to protect them from the great dangers of our time."

Let's discuss this
Using all of the collective phrases I have heard over the past six years in covering United Nations conferences, it tells me there has been a transfer of responsibility from individual nation-states to a new collective whole - the leaders of the world as one. Other phrases used today included "common heritage, common awareness, acting in partnership, common good, and solidarity". They all say the same thing: we are one, we are the same.

Global governance
Mr. Annan also described global governance, a phrase which has been popularised by those who support the concept of the New World Order or world government. Global governance is a phrase which sounds innocuous - can't quite put your finger on it and, because you don't understand the agenda, you won't be able to figure out its meaning. He said, "Your peoples look to you for a common effort to solve their problems. They expect you to work together as governments. And they expect you to work together with all other institutions - profit and non-profit, public and private - where human beings join hands to promote their ideas and their interests."

What he was doing was explaining that the day to day responsibility of government has shifted from that of being the sole responsibility of governments to a new entity: public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships was the subject of the Habitat II Programme of Action in Istanbul at the Habitat II Conferences. In numerous interviews which I have conducted with major UN movers and shakers, they all confirm that the world has come to a point where we have to "partner with civil society, with businesses, and other actors".

It should cause all people concern to know that the United Nations is now shifting governmental responsibility to these new public-private partnerships, ...Before long, instead of seeing American corporations and various levels of American governmental entities in a partnership, you will see a further blending or integration with foreign corporations and local, state, county and federal government! America is changing, and this is the change they don't want you to understand.

What is global governance? They say it is not world government, but it really is. A different form of world government than what we imagined, with governments merging their power under one umbrella - the United Nations. Adopting that phrase with public-private partnership, it is a broader form of "governance" because now they have shifted the power and responsibility to entities which have deep pockets: multinational and transnational corporations. Some day in the future in order to get out of global governance, instead of electing someone else to represent us (since that too will change), we will have to sell our stock in British Petroleum, ATT, TRW, 3M, AmericanExpress, CitiGroup, etc.

Lastly, what is another word for global governance? Fascism. When government marries business, a philosophical shift of greater proportions has just occurred. We have switched from free enterprise - where every person is allowed to make a profit to one of great greed and control.

Reform and strengthening of the United Nations
While books could be written on this subject, we are hearing at the dawn of the third millennium about adding great power to this unelected global structure. Bill Clinton, who has done more to polish and perfect world government, called for the United Nations to have a "credible force, missions well-defined by a well-functioning headquarters". Britain's Tony Blair followed Clinton's appeal with calling for the UN to respond to change. He said, "UN soldiers need to work within a system and a UN organization, better geared to dealing with the heavy demands being placed on them. This means a new contract between the UN and its members."

Constance Morella, a Republican from Maryland, has introduced House Bill 4453 which calls for a United Nations Rapid Deployment Force and for 6,000 Americans soldiers to be unilaterally turned over to the United Nations. Along with seven other countries who have already signed a letter of intent to donate 6,000 of their soldiers, the UN is ready to add its own army. If countries are donating their soldiers, I imagine they will also be donating equipment, planes, conveyers, helicopters, etc.

It is time to ask who the opposition to the United Nations is! Are they "nationalists," i.e. those who want their own country's constitution? Most Americans don't even know what "UN" stands for, let alone strengthen and empower it to look, feel and act as a world governmental structure. Ideas to strengthen the UN have long included a global tax and a 'people's' parliament. These too were recommended by world leaders.

The United Nations is being reinvented before our very eyes, before we have time to breathe! Teeth are being put into its structure to make it a very powerful world entity. How will we deal with this? The goal and determination of Americans in this hour will determine who and what is saved.

Ben Franklin replied to the little lady who asked him what sort of government the Founders had created.
"We have a republic, madam, if you can keep it," he replied.

Joan Veon has done extensive research on the UN and its agenda - from Neil Baird's e-mail.


A dinner organised by the Australian Monarchist League is to take place on Friday, September 29th, at The Victoria League, 276 Onslow Road, Shenton Park. Guest speaker is Phillip Benwell MBE, National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League. All supporters of Constitutional Monarchy are most welcome. Cost: $30.00 for dinner, drinks extra. Enquiries to: Mr. Neil Gilmour, 2/12 Murray Avenue, Mosman Park... Phone: (08) 9385 4439


Christopher Sheil, Visiting Fellow in the School of History at the University of New South Wales, has written a thoughtful analysis of the corporatising and then privatising of Australia's public assets, with 'down-to-earth' knowledge of what went on behind the scenes during the two major urban public health crises - known as the 'Big Pong' in Adelaide, SA, and the 'Contamination Crisis' in Sydney, NSW. Water's Fall deals with these two emergencies to show that there are real limits to the 'onward march of market forces'. This book should be read by all those concerned with the impact of 'globalisation' on our common resources. Price $36.95 including postage.


Plans are now well underway for the Annual New Times Dinner, Seminar and Action Conference. See you there!

New Times Dinner - Friday, September 29th, 2000. Bookings are essential and must be accompanied with payment: $37.00 per person (includes GST). To be held at The Victoria Hotel, 215 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. The dinner commences with pre-dinner drinks at 6.30pm, and everyone seated by 7.00pm. Guest of Honour this year is Dr. Ziema McDonell and the title of her address is "My Philosophy of Health".

Seminar - The Victoria, 215 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. Saturday, September 30th, commences 1.00pm: Theme is: "Choosing Paths to Quality of Life: Individually and Nationally" Life is all about making judgements and choices; in the home, the community and the nation. This year's seminar is designed to help you with some choices. Opening address and welcome: Mr. Phillip Butler Speakers: National Director, Mrs. Betty Luks - "The Individual and Social Well-being"; Dr. Ziema McDonell Ph.D. - "The Health of Our Cells: Personal Well-being" . . . the good doctor runs a Clinic for Alternate Therapies from Mermaid Beach on the Gold Coast; Mr. Stephen Lloyd - "The Electromagnetic Smog: Is It a Fact? . . . Stephen is an Environmental Engineer; Mr. Jeremy Lee - "Social Credit in the Twenty First Century" . . . Jeremy says, "New generations are catching their first glimpse of Social Credit, the suppressed solution that is part of the regeneration so badly needed."

Action Conference - Runnymede, Panton Hills. Sunday, October 1st. The Action Conference will commence at 10.00am with a short Divine Service conducted by Mr. Edward Rock. For League actionists and supporters. It is such an opportunity to hear more from Dr. McDonell that we have organised for her to speak on the Sunday morning as well:- "Take a Look at Cancer" - Probable causes: 10 Things You Must Do: Avoiding Osteoporosis; "Men's Prostate Problems" - What You Can Do and How to Avoid the Problems. At the South Australian weekend Dr. McDonell was so bombarded with questions and so willing to help, time got away and she nearly missed her plane back to NSW.


Jeremy will speak on Australia's Growing Crisis at the Royal Hotel, South Road, Drouin, on Wednesday, October 4th. Meeting time: 8.00pm. Enquiries: (03) 5633 1969.


Last week we asked our actionists to support Mr. Phillip Benwell's petition (overleaf) to the Clerk of the Council at the Privy Council Office by writing to the address. We now have both the fax number and e-mail address: Fax: 00 1 44 20 7210 1072; E-mail:


to: The Clerk of the Council, Privy Council Office, 2 Carlton Gardens, London SW1Y 5AA, ENGLAND.
Dear Sir, The Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen sworn by all Privy Counsellors is a life long oath from which Privy Counsellors can only be released should they resign or should they be struck off. The following Privy Counsellors living in Australia swore in their oath of Allegiance to: "bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty and shall assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions, pre-eminence and authorities granted to Her Majesty .... against all foreign princes, prelates, states or potentates." Ø Rt. Hon. Douglas Anthony Ø Rt. Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen Ø Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser Ø Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair

However in the Referendum on the retention of the Monarchy in Australia held on the 6th November 1999, all the above campaigned to have Her Majesty removed as Sovereign of Australia. All subjects of Her Majesty and therefore all citizens of Australia can of course campaign and vote as the individuals concerned might wish - that is their right. However to remain a Privy Counsellor and to accept all the honour and privileges which pertain to that position while simultaneously attacking and undermining Her Majesty's position as Sovereign of Australia is clearly a misfeasance in public office. Each of these Privy Counsellors could honourably have declared their political position and announced they could no longer hold to their oath and petitioned to be struck off. They would then have been free to campaign, without hypocrisy, against the Monarchy. By not doing so they have behaved reprehensively and made a mockery of their Oath and of their Allegiance to The Queen.

We accordingly petition the Council to cause a special reference to the Privy Council's Judiciary Committee per the Judicial Committee Act 1833 on the dismissal of the above named Privy Counsellors. Oaths which can be so easily ignored demean all allegiance, undermine the very being of our constitution and democracy and would demoralise Her Majesty's loyal subjects wherever they may be. Yours sincerely, etc.


Our Website is now functioning correctly -
Arnis Luks webmaster
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159