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
26 January 2001. Thought for the Week: "In my council-school days, in London, I was mistaught that Australia was first colonised by British 'convicts', and consequently regarded the first Australians I met, in France, with awe and respect. So subtle is the poison which still runs in our veins from those times.
For what was the crime for which many of these men who were shipped overseas were convicted? That they sought to defend their ancestral right to live, work and eat!"
"Lest We Regret", Douglas Reed, 1943


by Jeremy Lee
With the so-called collapse of Communism we are now supposedly in the thralls of unlimited Capitalism. The new god is the free market, directed without making it obvious to the masses by the high priests of international banking. What has emerged, behind the facade of the democratic process, is a centrally-directed corporate state, run by vast bureaucracies which design their own regulations. It is impossible to track down the desk where the buck stops. The individual wades without direction through a swampy mass of legislation, now directed to controlling every facet of his life. The latest takes us right back to one of the main reasons for Magna Carta in 1215 - the imminent design of 'national guidelines' for the collection of firewood!

Politicians like John Howard and his coterie are at liberty to fashion their own fame or notoriety, so long as they implicitly acknowledge certain paradigms beyond which they may not venture. They can give lip-service to national sovereignty so long as they don't exercise it; no independent use of the National Credit, for instance; no challenge to international treaties and conventions, even when these are directly opposed to the wishes and interests of the people. To exercise this vast, faceless bureaucratic empire, the main feature is taxation, taken to levels of punitive dictatorship.

Michael Warby of the Institute of Public Affairs, in the latest issue of Agenda, sums it up: " .... In the real Australia, Prime Minister John Howard presides over a higher level of Commonwealth expenditure per Australian than any previous PM: twice that under the last McMahon Budget, more than 50 percent higher than the last Whitlam Budget, a third higher than the last Fraser Budget, 16 percent higher than the last Hawke Budget, though a mere 3 percent higher than the last Keating Budget.
The increase in revenue per head has been even more striking, being also twice that of the last McMahon Budget, but 70 percent higher than the last Whitlam Budget, almost 50 percent higher than the last Fraser Budget, more than a third higher than the last Hawke Budget and 16 percent higher than the last Keating Budget.
The fiscal rectitude of the Howard Government has been primarily purchased, not through expenditure cuts, but via revenue increases and reductions in the growth of spending, with expenditure per head dropping in only one year (1997-98). Even then, the 2.9 percent drop per head was more than wiped out by the 5.5 percent increase in expenditure per head the following year ....
The real Australia is a more regulated society now than it was at the beginning of the reform period. As a rough indication, the eight years from 1990 to 1997, a period marked by no great national emergency, saw the Commonwealth Parliament pass more pages of legislation than the period from 1901 to 1980 .... The intrusive ambit of regulation expanded across a range fields; notably environmental law, health regulation, corporation law, tax law and the aforementioned areas of ancillary employment law ...." (The Australian Financial Review, 9/1/2001)

It is certain that no party in any of the coming elections this year will stand on a platform of repealing unnecessary laws and winding back pervasive government. Big government, taxes and regulations are gods of the new and sorry age in which we live. The ultimate society is that it is considered wise and prudent to tax more and spend less; the difference being the "Budget Surplus", which waits to be worshipped in the Holy of Holies - the Inner Sanctum in the Multinational Temple.


The issue of illegal immigrants, now a festering sore in Australia's side, continues. How many perish in transit, how many arrive undetected, and how many more are on the way, nobody knows. The Bulletin (16/1/2001) told us: "Two boats containing scores of Middle East refugees landed at Christmas Island off the West Australian coast. The federal government revealed that 4,174 boat people arrived without authority on 75 boats in 1999-2000, a 354% increase on the previous year.
At present, almost 1,700 illegal immigrants are being held in detention centres as the government announced it will upgrade security at the centres, installing 12m reinforced metal fencing."

That should fix it! So no doubt Finance Minister John Fahey will 'outsource' the contracts to build heavier fencing round the detention centres run by a multinational - which employs and trains its guards under international law. Immigration Minister Ruddock has just been in the Middle East, during which time it was discovered that a sophisticated racket counterfeiting Australian visas was flourishing, openly advertised in local papers. But Mr. Ruddock says everything's under control!


As On Target recorded last year, the Government fully anticipated that up to 25 percent of small businesses would crash as a result of the GST. This was explained by one ATO official as "getting rid of the riff-raff". The crunch would not start with the GST introduction, but would really start to bite in the period it was applied. The second BAS is due in February, with big cash-flow problems for businesses. Bankruptcies in Australia are already increasing dramatically.

The Advertiser (Adelaide, 13/1/2001) gave this picture: "More than 500 South Australians have been declared bankrupt in the past three months and the nation's largest accounting body has warned the situation will worsen. Insolvency Trustee Service of Australia figures show 545 South Australians were declared bankrupt between October and December last year - a 5.6 percent increase on September 2000's figures ..... The SA bankruptcy figures in the 1999-2000 financial year was 2,529, compared with 23,306 nationally. CPA Australia's SA insolvency spokesman, Mark Hall, said yesterday the rise was only the beginning of stormy times for businesses 'Things are going to get worse. Small business have got all their annual leave payments to make, and in February the GST payment is due,' Mr. Hall said. 'There's going to be a lot of pressure on small businesses which may lead to some closing down and employees losing their jobs, which would further increase the bankruptcy figures....'"

The figures for national bankruptcies quoted by The Advertiser were:
1994/95: 14,132.
95/96: 17,340.
96/97: 21,830.
97/98: 24,408.
98/99: 26,376.
99/00: 23.306

Although there had been a slight drop in the last year, Mr. Hall anticipated the worst was yet to come


A Brisbane reader has drawn our attention to another Senate Select Committee inquiry - this time into "Commonwealth Public Sector and Defence Force Unfunded Superannuation Funds and Scemes". Submissions must be made before January 29th. Few people realise what a large bill hangs over them.

The Chronicle (Toowoomba, 11//2000) commented: " ....A report on the contributions to the Parliamentary Superannuation Fund of five retired federal politicians indicates that, collectively, they contributed $628,546 (an average of $125,700) and upon leaving Parliament the total payout to the same five politicians was $10,890,000 (an average payout of $2,178,000. Not bad bikkies for a few terms in Parliament! "Total payouts in this instance exceeded total contributions by almost $10.25 million. No worries, no doubt, the taxpayers of this country footed the bill for the balance ...."

When it comes to the Public Service as a whole the figure is awesome! The Weekend Australian, 15-16/5/99) reported: " .... page 15 of the Budget Statement No. 4 gives the first estimate of the superannuation bill for past and present federal public servants. $69.1 billion this financial year, growing to $72 billion in 2002-3." That equates to an unfunded bill, next year, hanging over our heads, of about $3,800 per head of population ($15,200 for the average dad, mum and two kids) to ensure the retirement comfort of 300,000 or so public servants.

Our reader asks "How is this to be paid?" Under current orthodoxy, from future taxation. He asks, why should not the government, as it is authorised to do by the Constitution and banking legislation, draw upon and monetise the Public Credit, rather than continuing the practice of allowing private-sector banks to lend us the money, to be taxed, as we saw in the first article above, at evermore onerous rates, to pay out a small minority of Australians who have ensured themselves enormous benefits at the expense of the rest?

It seems a fair question, but somehow or other we doubt whether The Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services will include such a creative possibility in the submission they must make to Parliament by the last sitting day in March 2001.


Russia won't make its first-quarter payments this year on the billions of dollars of debt owed to nations known collectively as the Paris Club, a government spokesman was quoted as saying Thursday (January 4th), according to an Associated Press report. But the decision "does not mean and has nothing to do with a declaration of default," the Interfax news agency quoted Gennady Yezhov, spokesman for Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Kudrin, as saying. "A decision on the former USSR's debts will be found after an International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission comes to Moscow in late January or early February," he said.
The government information department later said that Russia plans to pay the amount scheduled for this year, the news agency ITAR-Tass reported.

Russia owes about $48 billion, racked up by the Soviet Union, to the Paris Club countries, a group of industrialised nations that includes the United States. The debt was defaulted on in the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, and again in the August 1998 financial crisis when the ruble's value plunged. Russia owes about $3.5 billion in interest payments on the debt this year, and the missed first-quarter payment amounts to about $1.5 billion. Russia's total foreign debt, including to the Paris Club, is about $148 billion. The huge amount is an impediment to the nation's development. The IMF failed to reach an agreement with Russia last month on new loans - From Neil Baird's website.


We would do well to remember that in its "Report of the National Inquiry into Racist Violence" the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission described the Australian League of Rights as "undoubtedly the most influential and effective, as well as the best organised and most substantially financed racist organization in the country". After reading that opinion one wonders what sort of 'justice' would be meted out to the League should it ever be brought before the HREOC!

We would also do well to remember the warning Canadian barrister Doug Christie gave us during his Australian tour in 1991. He said the long-term purpose of the War Crimes legislation was to further the objective of extending the scope of bringing Australia under International Law. Doug Christie warned us we could expect moves to make denial of the holocaust a criminal offence. He warned us that if that happens in Australia, the legal system would elevate beyond the realm of controversy, beyond the realm of discussion, historical, political and religious matters which ought to be debatable and open to public discussion. He warned there was an expansion of a reign of terror throughout the western world that would lead to the situation where no one will be able to raise a subject antithetical to the powerful Zionist/Jewish interests and remain employed or free in the society in which the claim is that democracy exists.

We are informed in the Bracks document, "Jewish organisations have reported examples of abuse including the distribution of offensive literature, posting of intimidating mail, and so-called 'street anti-Semitism' ranging from offensive language to physical violence." We are not told in what way the material is offensive, nor are we told what constitutes 'intimidating mail'.

The Discussion Paper considers an objective test as: "Instead of considering the actual intention of the person whose behaviour is complained about, it is proposed to use the 'reasonable observer' test to determine whether a person accused of vilification did act unlawfully. It is an objective (? ed) test which requires the person who is deciding the case to consider all circumstances surrounding the alleged act of vilification, for example, the context in which something was said or done, and then determine whether a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would think that the conduct was vilification or not.
The focus is on the likely effect of the vilifier's actions. Where a 'reasonable observer' would determine that a certain conduct did vilify, vilification is established."

What sort of legal definition is that? Nowadays we would be hard put to get an unbiased legal opinion let alone an unbiased 'objective test' by a 'reasonable observer'! Especially one who had been engaged by a politically correct body such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission where truth is no defence! The document laments the fact that at the present time anyone who feels they have been subjected to any "public acts based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people which are likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" only have recourse to "the criminal law".

The Summary Offences Act 1966, the Crimes Act 1958, and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games (Enforcement) Act 1995. The politicians engaged in this little piece of social engineering must be pretty confident the Victorian public will acquiesce to the passing of such Soviet-style laws. It is not the role of the State to determine what political, religious and historical matters can be publicly discussed - not even when certain powerful sections of the community want it.

Readers are urged to obtain a copy of the "Racial and Religious Toleration Legislation" from the Victorian Government and send in a submission. Submissions must be in by February 28th, 2001.


We cannot look at the issue of the proposed "Racial and Religious Tolerance Legislation" as though it was a proposed 'one off' piece of legislation and wouldn't relate to other legislation or political agendas which we have not been informed about.

Issue No.101, February 2001 edition of Endeavour Forum brings to the reader's attention the push, by bureaucrats and politicians such as Attorney-General Daryl Williams and Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, for the ratification of the 1998 Statute for the International Criminal Court, in which case all the 'crimes' listed in the Statute would be incorporated as crimes in domestic law. Under the Statute the International Criminal Court would have the power to determine any cases, including those relating to crimes committed by Australians in Australia, which it judges Australian courts are "unable or unwilling" to prosecute.

Why this push for an International Criminal Court, which will have so-called 'complementary' jurisdiction with national judicial systems over the "most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole" including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes? According to writer Richard Egan, "Its proponents believe it to be a logical and useful extension of the kinds of specific international tribunals previously established to prosecute 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' as a result of the conflicts in Rwanda and Yugoslavia."

Another problem with the Statute is the broad and loose definitions of the "most serious crimes of international concern". Genocide is defined by Article 6 of the Statute in terms identical to those of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was ratified by Australia in 1949. But up to now, this Convention has not been enacted into domestic Australian law and a Federal Court found in the 1999 case of Nulyarimma v Thompson no offence of genocide is known in Australian law. The claimants relied on the Convention definition of genocide now incorporated in the Statute including the phrases "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group".

The definition of 'genocide' includes not only the killing of a racial or religious group, but also causing "mental harm". Lay that alongside the proposed "Racial and Religious Vilification Legislation" and the pieces of the puzzle fit neater together. Under the proposed "Racial and Religious Tolerance Legislation " of the Victorian Bracks Government we are told, "Vilifying conduct harms individuals and their ethnic or religious communities." In which case, couldn't a charge of "racial and religious vilification" be brought before the International Criminal Court - if it judged Australian courts are "unable or unwilling" to prosecute?

Richard Egan thinks so. He writes in Endeavour Forum, "Under the Statute the International Criminal Court would have the power to determine any cases, including those relating to crimes committed by Australians in Australia, which it judges Australian courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute."

Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution Act provides that the High Court is the final court of appeal in Australia. Article 7 paragraph I (h) includes as a "crime against humanity" "persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender... or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. "Persecution" is defined as "the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law..." The Endeavour Forum writer, Richard Egan warns his reader, "The ratification of the 1998 Statute for the International Criminal Court would represent a serious assault on Australia's sovereignty...Such a surrender of sovereignty may be unconstitutional. It appears to border on treason by the Executive Government against the people of Australia."


by Antonia Feitz
All sorts of theories - in the main half-baked - are put forward to explain Australia's declining fertility. But one academic who contributed to a report on welfare policy has concluded that the current economic system of market idolatry must bear the blame. An ANU demographer, Professor Peter McDonald, said the collapse of the birthrate in most industrialized countries is evidence of the failure of the market approach. Survey after survey has shown that young couples do want more than two children, but they fail to have that demographically important third baby. Peter McDonald said the reason is because they learn about the market. "They learn to be risk averse; they experience a system that does not value or reward those who have children. Indeed it very obviously penalises those who have children, particularly women" (Australian, 15/1/2001).

How very convenient that current economic policies not only deter young Australians from having children, but also suit big business. We all know that the big end of town prefers the cheap immigration option to the 'waste' of spending money on babies and schools.


Over the Christmas/New Year break loyal supporters have contributed $3441.50 to the fund bringing the total to $10,568.80. At this time last year the fund was looking far healthier and we are appealing to our supporters to help give the appeal a strong push forward. The target has been $60,000 for quite a few years now as we are well aware of the burdens and problems Australians are experiencing and don't want to add to their burdens. But, if the League is to continue the role of warning, encouraging, educating, co-ordinating and serving Australian communities it does need to fill the basic fund. We cannot falter during this crucial time in our history. We have the faith to believe that the necessary funds will be forthcoming. Will you give - even that 'widow's mite'? It is most appreciated.


The Australian League of Rights in Queensland invites you to an Australia Day weekend function: VENUE: The Highfields Cultural Centre, O'Briens Road, Highfields. WHEN: Sunday, January 28th, 2001. TIME: 10.00am to 4.00pm. Speakers include: National Director Betty Luks and Mrs. Antonia Feitz. Other speakers on various issues. Contribution: $10.00 to cover costs; please bring a plate of finger food for a shared lunch. Tea and coffee will be available. FURTHER INFORMATION: Tony Symonds, Phone 4667 4172; John Brett, Phone 4698 7505

FURTHER SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS FOR NATIONAL DIRECTOR: Betty Luks will also be speaking at the following centres: Monday, January 29th - St. George. Contact: Phone (07) 4625 3723 Tuesday, January 30th - Chinchilla. Contact: Phone (07) 4668 1226 Wednesday, January 31st - Nambour. Contact: Phone (07) 5476 2929 Thursday, February 1st - Tweed Heads. Contact: Phone (02) 6674 0193


The Sydney Conservative Speakers' Club request the pleasure of your company on Tuesday Evening, January 30th, 2001. Guest speaker will be KHILOUD SHAKIR. As an Iraqi national and student of politics for which she is studying her Ph.D., Khiloud Shakir is well qualified to inform us of the present-day pressure against Iraq by the United Nations. The title of the subject will be: "International Law and Sanctions against Iraq". The venue is as usual: The Estonian Club, 141 Campbell Street, Sydney. Meeting commences at 7.30pm.

Dates for your diary: Tuesday Evening, February 27th, 2001. Guest speaker: Mr. Jeremy Lee. Subject: "Australia's Unique Position to Challenge the Menace of Globalisation" Tuesday Evening, March 27th, 2001. Guest speaker: Mr. Welf Herfurt. Subject: "The Threat to Freedom & Democracy in Germany Today".


Help Yourself to Health by Dr. Ziema McDonnell. This book is a real gem. It was described by the father of one of our readers (a retired medical doctor) as one of the best books for the layman to understand the human body that he had read in his 55 years of medical practice. Great praise indeed! It explains many of the biological functions in such simple terms. It explains the importance of a clean and healthy blood system - and what you can do to ensure this. Much, much more for the reader. Special price: $25 retail; $30 posted.