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

6 July 2001. Thought for the Week: "When Christ said, 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's', He gave to the State a legitimacy it had never before enjoyed and set bounds to it that had never yet been acknowledged. And He not only delivered the precept, but He also forged the instrument to execute it. To limit the power of the State ceased to be the hope of patient, intellectual philosophers and became the perpetual charge of a universal Church."
Eric D. Butler, Melbourne, 1956


by Jeremy Lee
As Indonesia's bumbling President Wahid concludes his short visit to Australia before returning to face impeachment in his own country, a significant court case is opening in Washington. ExxonMobil is being sued for providing logistical support for Indonesian troops who protected oil installations in the violence-ravaged Aceh province between 1989 and 1998. ExxonMobil, in conjunction with Indonesia's state-owned Pertamina have been developing large natural gas fields in the troubled province which has been the scene of continual violence and bloodshed.

The charges against ExxonMobil, filed by the International Labor Rights Fund, allege there was widespread suppression and torture by the Indonesian troops who were guarding the installations, and that ExxonMobil built barracks and provided other infrastructure for the troops. It is reminiscent of the earlier situation in Angola and now Sierra Leone, where international oil companies, oblivious to the fighting and starvation round them, paid mercenaries to guard their operations. In the case of Angola, Cuban troops were brought in, staying for many years.

Describing the suit, The Weekend Australian (23-24/6/01) reported: " .... During that period Mobil Oil, which has since merged with Exxon, provided logistical and material support to Indonesian troops, including building barracks where elite military units carried out torture, and provided excavators used to dig mass graves ....."

It is simply another case of multinationals ruthlessly carrying out their operations across the world, oblivious of the misery they are causing in the process.


Meanwhile, as Australia grapples with the increasingly tortuous issue of illegal boat people, the evidence is emerging of a highly organized people-smuggling cartel. The Weekend Australian (23-24/6/01) said: "Two main crime syndicates are dominating the people-smuggling trade from Indonesia to Australia, reaping personal fortunes of tens of millions of dollars for a handful of bosses, according to Indonesian and Australian investigators. The syndicates have effectively divided the people trade to Australia into two regions and have developed elaborate organizations to counter heightened police operations....."

The report went on to describe how Indonesians had identified 22 leading figures in the trade, including five key bosses. One had compiled at least $40 million from the racket by arranging illegal entry into Australia. One Australian immigration official trying to unravel the system was forced to leave Indonesia after death threats. Under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, Australia is one of only 10 resettlement nations, according to Paul Kelly writing in the same issue. The others are Canada, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the US. Australia's acceptance rate is the highest in the world. Governments round the world are spending $10 billion trying to determine refugee status. Overall there are now 22 million refugees in the world.


The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has now produced its final report on "Australia's Role In United Nations Reform". The Committee of 18 members from the Senate and the House of Representatives started its deliberations on November 15th, 1999, taking submissions from the public over the following year. It was asked to consider and report on:
. Peace-keeping operations to address internal disputes within nations, humanitarian relief and support for refugees.
. The UN's role in the reconstruction of civil societies.
. The implications of intervention in internal matters for national sovereignty.
. A standing army for the UN.
. Devolution of responsibility for peace maintenance to regional UN operations.
. The UN's capacity to protect human rights, to address war-crimes and crimes of genocide.
. The viability of the International Criminal Court.
. Reforming the structure of the UN itself.
. The funding shortfall.
. Australia's own role in the UN.

The Report, a lengthy tome of over 300 pages is much too long to analyse in On Target. It is a mixed bag, generally endorsing the raison d'etre and the expansion of the United Nations. However, there are one or two pluses, and some definite minuses. The Committee recommended against the establishment of a permanent UN Standing Army, with the retention by Australia of the right to consider each peace-keeping operation on its merits. On the other hand, the Committee endorsed the establishment of an International Criminal Court, and called for Australia to ratify the proposal.

Four members of the Committee dissented, recording their reasons in a dissenting report. They were: Mrs. Deanne Kelly, MHR; the Hon. Geoff Prosser, MHR; Dr. Andrew Southcott, MHR; and Mr. Andrew Thomson, MHR. In their reasons for dissent, these four said "Dissenting members have several concerns about the proposed International Criminal Court. These concerns are the implications for Australia's domestic criminal justice system, Australia's sovereignty, the potential for politicization of the ICC and the effect this may have on United States unilateral action against terrorism."
Referring to Article 17 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the dissenters said: "This article will govern the interaction of the jurisdiction of domestic courts with that of the ICC. Gary Dempsey of the Cato Institute pointed out that in determining whether a domestic criminal justice system is unwilling or unable to prosecute, the ICC will have the power to invalidate national trials by declaring what constitutes an 'effective' or 'ineffective' trial: if the ICC gets to invalidate national trials by deciding what constitutes an 'effective' or 'ineffective' trial, the international court will exercise a kind of judicial review power over national criminal justice systems. In other words, the ICC will have de facto supreme judicial oversight. This observation illustrates the concern shared by dissenting Members and Senators that the constitutional ramifications of this treaty have not been fully considered in the normal political process in Australia.

What will be the status of decisions of the ICC? Will they be binding or persuasive? This appears to be a puzzling contradiction. The Australia Acts of 1975 and 1986 abolished the Privy Council as a court of final appeal for Australian courts. Although the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is no longer part of the Australian legal hierarchy, and its decisions are therefore persuasive only, the proposed ICC and its decisions would appear to constitute binding precedent in Australian common law by virtue of the ICC's paramountcy over any Australian investigation or prosecution. We find this paradox unacceptable...... Ratifying the ICC represents a surprising excursion into law making based on notions outside the normal constitutional arrangement, as reflected in Chapter III of the Constitution. This profound shift in the operation of our domestic court system requires long debate before any such move could be contemplated ...."

The dissenters went on to point out that a number of recent military actions - notably NATO's invasion of Kosovo and the US invasion of Iraq - had not been endorsed by the UN Security Council, and were illegal in international law. This led to the question, was international law for some but not for others? By far the most comprehensive dissenting report was from Senator Brian Harradine, who objected in a well reasoned and lengthy report to a number of aspects that had not been covered; the abject failure of a number of UN peacekeeping missions; the corruption being uncovered in UN refugee officials' complicity in illegal immigration rackets; the general corruption in UN agencies; and the attack on values inherent in the demand that Australia ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Rights Against Women.

This Report on Australia's Role in United Nations Reform is worth reading for a number of reasons; firstly, that for the majority of politicians, the impact of international treaties and conventions on Australia's Constitution is the last thing on their minds; but secondly, for the fact that there is now a minority who are prepared to consider Australia's sovereignty - a welcome improvement on a few years ago. The dissenters obviously need congratulating for their views. But they should be asked whether they will take their dissent as far as voting against their parties in the House if they have an opportunity to do so.

It also raises questions: is the whole thing just a 'public face' operation, which will have little effect on Australia's ultimate decisions? Many suspect, with good reason, that many areas of our foreign policy are not subjected to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny, and that there is no mechanism to test the constitutional validity of the international commitments we are making. Those who made submissions to the Committee will have received their copies of the Report. It will probably cost those who wish to purchase a copy the usual high price the Government has developed the habit of charging. But it's certainly worth getting. ISBN 0 642 366446


by Betty Luks
It was roughly two years ago when this writer became aware of the Salvation Army's strong links to government and finance. At the very last minute, they notified, that a Salvation Army officer scheduled to speak at a CSC meeting was withdrawing from the agreement, because "he had heard the League was too political". His commanding officer had insisted he withdraw. The Salvation Army decided it did not want to 'speak on a League platform' because of its politics. The theme of the paper was to be, "On the Streets: What it's like at the Coal Face" and other than agreeing to the theme, the content was up to the speaker. The final comment to the man in question was along the lines of "Sir, Your decision not to speak on a League platform is a political statement."

An Anglican Church minister working with street-kids and drug addicts was then asked to speak. He agreed, and when it was explained to him why the invitation was at such short notice, his comment was that "probably the reason the Salvation Army fellow backed out was because they received such large funds from governments".

After reading the 5-page feature article "Inside the Collection Tin" in The Weekend Australian, 23-24/6/01, the reasons for the back away became clearer. "...With an unquestionable reputation for helping the poor, the aged, the homeless and others in need. The Salvation Army wins twice as much funding as any other church-based charity in addition to the millions raised from Australians each year." In their "war against poverty and sin" the 30,000-strong membership of the Salvation Army has amassed net assets of over $1billion and a total investment portfolio of $300 million.

The money raised last year by the Red Shield Appeal amounted to more than $40 million. "But," as the Weekend Australian went on to report, "God's work has also become very big business. If the Salvation Army were a company, it would sit comfortably in Australia's top 200. Split into two territories, one centred in Melbourne and the other in Sydney, it ... has a healthy annual income nestling at about $350 million."

Not only that, the Weekend Australian explained, "In the next month one of the Salvation Army's two Australian territories will choose a new investment house to handle a $150 million parcel held in cash, shares and long-term deposits with instructions to look offshore as well as locally to earn the best returns. Its second territory also has a similar amount invested."

The high-fliers who give the Salvation Army 'sound' financial advice
For financial advice they turn to such high fliers of industry and finance as: "Reserve Bank of Australia director Jillian Broadbent, Sydney City Council identity Kathryn Greiner, millionaire Ian Darling and Caltex chairman Malcolm Irving." No wonder they didn't want one of their officers to speak on a League platform! With a vested interest in the present system, such as the wealth and riches of the Salvation Army, how can the ordinary church-goer expect the hierarchy of any Christian organisation to take on Mammon and expose it for what it is?

In their 'war against poverty and sin' do the hierarchy ever ask themselves why there is so much 'sin and poverty' in a land literally flowing with 'milk and honey'? The World Bank described Australia as the richest nation in the world with natural assets far outweighing any other nation. 'Australia' may have the assets, the know-how and the natural resources, but most Australians don't get access to it. If Mammon was put in its place then maybe the Churches wouldn't have so much 'sin and poverty' upon which to war!

The incontrovertible truth is the present financial mechanism is a usurious system and all who use the money created by this system are partakers of 'usury' with its awful consequences. We were told we cannot serve God and Mammon. Therefore, if we are to serve God faithfully, Mammon must be put back in its place - that of a servant! And as the organised Churches claim to speak in the 'name of God', isn't it time they inquired into why, and then explaine to their followers why usurious Mammon rules and not God?


Slowly, but ever so surely the Fund is being filled. Some very generous contributions have come in over the last week or so, and again we say a humble 'thank you'. In a way, it is 'a money vote of confidence' from our supporters to the League and the work accomplished. The total has risen to $42,795.80. We are now on the way to filling the last third of the appeal.


On the drawing board is the big task of placing all the League's journals onto CD. This means all the journals published over the last 40 to 50 years. It will put the material into a more permanent form and make the material available to anyone with a computer. The task will begin with the On Target weekly commentary. A most sincere thank you to the team who have been sorting and collating the journals for the next stage of the project. It was a huge task performed by a dedicated team of voluntary supporters. Where would the League be without such people? In fact, they are the League. Wherever League supporters are - from the eastern coastlands to the western-most parts of the continent - they are voluntarily working away accomplishing all sorts of tasks and projects under the banner of the Australian League of Rights. You know I mean you when I say thank you!


The following letter was sent to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald in reply to an article written by two gentlemen from the B'nai B'rith attacking the League of Rights. As yet it has not been published.

Sir, I sometimes wonder if I really do live in the same country and speak the same language as some of the critics of the Australian League of Rights. Journalist Paul Sheehan rightly quoted me as saying the League "has no prejudice against anybody" a quote to which Messrs. Gold and Apple of the B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation Commission took exception ("Shadowy racist group is still in a league of its own", SMH, 15/6/01).

The League does not have a prejudice against anyone... in the true sense of the word! Prejudice contains the meaning of 'a judgement or opinion formed without due examination'. Methinks the gentlemen in question need to examine their own prejudices. Prejudice in this day and age is the 'mob-psyche' - the irrational force of 'public opinion' backed by hostile emotion against anyone who dares to challenge it - the 'politically correct' opinion. This 'public opinion' is formed by the endless repetition and suggestion to which we are all subjected through the different types of media and the political and educational systems. Such mob-psyching is as old as civilisation, but was formerly limited by the range of the human voice.

A prejudiced opinion is not the genuine opinion formed by the individual after thinking through the emotional, superficial and sloganish aspects of anything, nor is it that common thinking which arises from a centuries-old common culture founded upon generations of common beliefs, such as those of traditional Christianity. In over 50 years the League's objectives have never changed and have been written up for all to examine, think through and judge accordingly. As a Christian based movement it does uphold the Trinitarian Constitutional Monarchy, with its systems of de-centralised power and insists on the importance of individual freedoms and responsibilities.
The opposite of individual freedom is totalitarianism with its own rigid framework and oppressive laws, such as were the Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany.

As National Director, and on behalf of the many supporters who know and respect Eric Butler, one of the founders of the League, I do take exception to the gentlemen in question accusing Mr. Butler of supporting the Nazis in WW2 ("... which have their genesis in Butler's wartime support for the Nazis..."). Eric Butler served his nation during WW2; he was on active service in the islands north of Australia, later he was an instructor at the Canungra Jungle-Training Camp in Queensland. He was honourably discharged at the end of the war and many years later had his military service medals presented to him by Bruce Ruxton of the Victorian RSL.

I believe Messrs. Gold and Apple owe Eric Butler an apology and pray their prejudices are not so entrenched they cannot find it within themselves to do so. Yours faithfully, Betty Luks, National Director Australian League of Rights, June 24th, 2001


by Antonia Feitz
According to its Constitution, the Irish Government had to put the question of signing the Nice Treaty to a referendum of the people. They sensibly knocked it on the head. The Eurocrats shrugged and said the Irish Government will just have to repute the question until the Irish people get it right. It's up to the Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, to resolve what they termed the constitutional impasse. But there's no constitutional impasse. A question was put to the Irish people and they said no. That should now be the end of the story.

Showing both their own cravenness and their contempt for the democratic process, some leaders of other European countries admitted their people would have similarly rejected the Treaty. Unfortunately for those people, their constitutions didn't require their governments to consult them by a referendum. This proves that the formation of the European superstate is being done with little if any popular support. It's being imposed from the top down.

The Irish Attorney General, Michael McDowell, has come out strongly supporting Ireland's national sovereignty. He's the fourth Cabinet Minister to do so. At the Gothenburg meeting the Irish finance minister, Charlie McCreevy, described the referendum result as a "healthy development". Can anybody imagine the likes of Costello championing our sovereignty? Clearly the Irish don't trust the Eurocrats and McDowell has warned Brussels that it won't be easy to make them change their minds. With a bit of Irish luck, a second referendum might just infuriate them enough to deliver an even stronger rejection.


by Antonia Feitz
As of June 1991, Richard M. Read was Prosecutor for the Queen in Victoria. In a speech delivered at a 1991 Symposium sponsored by the Victorian Criminal Justice System he claimed that over the 21 years he served as a barrister and the 12 years as Prosecutor it became clear to him that crimes of violence had changed. (A shortened version of the speech is published in Quadrant, June 1991, p.10-14).

What were the changes?
Read used rape as an example.
In the 1960s and early 1970s rape was usually an indecent assault accompanied by vaginal intercourse. By 1991, it was "commonplace to hear [a woman] has suffered a combination of assaults" including insertion of foreign objects into vagina and anus, forced oral sex and other degradations. And "not infrequently she will be raped in this fashion by a number of males at the same time."
Read asserted that the change in violent crime coincided with the freer availability of pornography and explicit violence.

Common sense would suggest there is a link but liberals consistently claim it has never been proved.
Read countered that argument saying that with the level and vileness of modern sexual crime, the onus of proving no link between violent sexual crime and pornography lies squarely with those who claim there is no link.

Irving Kristol pointed out the absurdity of the it's-not-been-proved line.
"If you believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you also have to believe that no one was ever improved by a book (or a play or a movie). You have to believe ... that all art is morally trivial and that all education is morally irrelevant." (Quoted in News Weekly, 24/2/01) (if that is the case then let us slash the "Liberal arts and culture" budget and save the money which is obviously being wasted if it cannot change attitudes - Editor)

Convincing example
Richard Read says there must be in-depth case studies to show the link between pornography and crime. He complained that much of the academic work which refutes any connection consists of "experimental studies with university students in clinical surroundings or interviews with people who view X-rated videos" who'd be most unlikely to admit they imitate what they see. Read's own preliminary work contains some very convincing case studies. In 1989 a 19 year old prostitute allowed herself to be driven to a deserted spot to perform oral sex on her customer. Afterwards he became violent and demanded free vaginal and anal sex. He then caused her severe pain by forcing his fist into her vagina while enjoying her screaming. A few weeks later he did the same to another prostitute, again causing severe pain. At the monster's sentencing the judge said, "The indecent assault on the same woman, and on another prostitute, were more invasive and traumatic, having, as I accept you did, watched a number of video cassettes that demonstrated the technique of inserting a human fist in the vagina."

And guess what? When the police arrested him they found a large number of pornographic videos and magazines. One video and one magazine were called, "Fist F***ing". In his police interview the man agreed that the brutal practice he indulged in was his sexual fantasy. And he agreed that he had re-enacted what he'd seen on the videos. What decent human being would ever conceive of such a thing?

Read is right: the onus of proving no link between violent sexual crime and pornography lies squarely with those who claim there is no link. While disliking censorship Read said, "Commonsense dictates we have gone too far and some restrictions need to be put in place." Indeed. The fight to update Australia's draconian censorship laws was never intended to protect such filth.
DH Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is a long way from what's freely available now.


Saturday, August 11th - 35th Annual Seminar & Dinner for the Australian League of Rights
Sunday, August 12th - Australian League of Rights "Action Day": Venue for both days: Perth - Rose and Crown Hotel - Guildford - Phone: 08 9574 6042 For further inquiries and information please contact Maureen Burton, State Secretary: Phone/Fax: 08 9574 6042. After hours: 08 9574 6260

SCHEDULE for Australian League of Rights Tour July/August 2001 with speaker Mrs. Betty Luks, National Director:
Sunday, July 29th - Cranbrook - Murray & Jan Pope - 08 9826 8055
Monday, July 30th - Albany - Murray & Jan Pope - 08 9826 8055
Tuesday, July 31st - Ravensthorpe - Alan Burton - 08 9839 6025
Wednesday, August 1st - Collie - Norm Wiese - 08 9734 4066
Thursday, August 2nd - Harvey - Nigel Offer - 08 9729 3325
Monday, August 6th - Bullsbrook - Helen McKenna - 08 9571 3595
Tuesday, August 7th - Moora - John Broad - 08 9654 9030
Wednesday, August 8th - Morawa - Ed Valentine - 08 9971 1175


The Seminar theme is: "Centenary of the Federal Commonwealth". Venue: Christ Church Parish Centre, O'Halloran Hill, South Australia. Commences: 10am. Admission $12 per person.
Speakers for the SA Seminar: Jeremy Lee, Wendy Scurr & Andrew McGregor, Bishop John Hepworth
August 19th: Action Conference. Admission $12.00, includes lunch.

Speaking on "The Port Arthur Massacre", Wendy Scurr & Andrew McGregor will be doing a series of meetings prior to the SA Weekend. At this stage meetings have been arranged for Melbourne, Horsham, Nhill and Apsley in Victoria; Pt. Pirie in South Australia.


The following tapes are available on speeches made at the very successful Queensland seminar of the Australian League of Rights:
1. Welcome and Opening; An exercise in Social Credit - Terry Rogers.
2. The Victorian Racial Vilification Legislation - Betty Luks.
3. Port Arthur Revisited - Wendy Scurr.
4. Deceit or Terrorism - Andrew MacGregor.
5. The Strategy of Tactics - Sunday Session - Graham Strachan.
6. What is Social Credit? Betty Luks.
7. The Current State of Rural Queensland - Selwyn Johnston. A Challenge from a Young Australian - Damien Symonds.
8. The League of Rights, The National Party & the Rural Disaster - Jeremy Lee
9. The State of the Dairy Industry in Queensland - Dr. John Kingston MLA.

COST: $5.00 per tape, including postage. Money, with order, from: CVA TAPES, PO Box 987, Inverell, NSW, 2360.