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
5 October 2001. Thought for the Week: "Political Zionism and International Communism are united in their hatred of traditional Christianity with its philosophy of elevating the individual over the group and its stress upon diversity and decentralisation of power. Practical Christianity is the complete answer to the exploitation of human beings by the exponents of centralised power, whoever they may be.
The real tragedy of the Jews, irrespective of their racial background, is that they have suffered more than most from the imposition of the philosophy of centralised power."


by Jeremy Lee
Almost as the tragedy in the US was digested the media sought the reaction of leaders and peoples round the world. The vast majority were shocked and appalled. In contrast, pictures of Palestinians cheering and clapping were played hundreds of times round the world. It is safe to say that the Palestinian cause, which had gained increasing sympathy in many quarters, received a savage set-back.

Andrew Dodd, writing in the MEDIA section of The Australian (27/9-3/10) described a number of factual errors in reporting events in the New York/Washington tragedies. He quoted Robert Schmuhl, Director of the University of Notre Dame's journalism, ethics and democracy program as follows:
" ....'The old system of journalism allowed for time – time for reporters to double-check facts and verify sources, time for editors to decide what to go with and what to leave. But in the new system that we have now, time isn't a controlling factor. Everything is instant – now. The urge to get something new is so strong, the basics of the journalist's craft get blown over. Lack of time does not excuse some of the errors, which appear to derive from an ideological filter being imposed on the news .....'"

An ideological filter? Dodd gave one of a number of examples: " ....Rumours started circulating after the broadcast of images of Palestinians rejoicing over the terrorist attacks in the US. According to the gossip, the footage was actually taken several years ago and not related to anti-US sentiments at all. Although those rumours appear to be false, a more credible one has arisen in its place. According to the Professor of Media studies at New York University, Mark Crispin Miller, the footage was filmed during the funeral of nine people killed the day before by Israeli authorities. He told Agence France-Presse that 'to show it without explaining the back-ground, and to show it over and over again is to make propaganda for the war machine and is irresponsible.' ...."


Veteran journalist the late Ivor Benson, who held high positions in the Press in South Africa, the former Rhodesia and London's Fleet Street, in his book "The Opinion Makers", gave a number of examples where the media had allowed itself to be part of the political agenda, rather than reporting objectively. In one example he told of an alleged riot in Blantyre, Malawi in January 1960, while British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was staying at Ryall's Hotel. Headlines subsequently screamed round the world that thousands of protesters had been crushed by gross police brutality. The allegations in press headlines round the world were so serious that a judicial commission was set up to investigate the matter.
As Benson explained: "...The incident was watched by a great contingent of journalists representing the world's biggest newspapers and news agencies .... These were not ordinary journalists. They were the stars of the profession...."

The finding of the Southworth Commission, presided over by a British judge Mr. Justice Robert Southworth gave a picture which never reached the world. The Commission heard from 81 witnesses – 10 from the UK Press, nine from the Press in Rhodesia, Nyasaland and South Africa, 17 European police officers, 12 African police officers, and a number who had been witnesses outside the hotel. The findings? Demonstrators numbered between 50 and 80. There was no violence except for one woman whose toe was trodden on. Events had no connection with the wild and provocative reporting worldwide. Benson concluded: "These journalists were, in fact, supplying for the benefit of newspaper readers (and radio listeners) all over the world some of the reporting that accompanied political changes of tremendous consequence in the continent of Africa and, as we now find, to the whole world. "They were helping to create 'world opinion' which in turn must influence the policies of governments on matters of the greatest consequence for the future ...."

If it is true that the mis-reporting of the reaction of Palestinians to the US tragedy is of great benefit to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government, we must ask whether the matter will be corrected in the world's headlines? We suspect not. Why? Perhaps the answer was provided in a feature article in Britain's Daily Telegraph (6/2/96) in this description of the press in the US:
".... More than a quarter of reporters, editors and executives on big newspapers and television networks are Jewish, along with nearly 60 percent of writers, producers and directors of Hollywood's 50 biggest-grossing movies. At the leading law firms in Washington and New York, 40% of attorneys are Jewish, as are 16 in the top 40 of Forbes magazine's list of America's 400 wealthiest men ...."

The major world media papers and broadcasters owe some correction to the Palestinians. The historical background was summed up by journalist Robert Fisk (The Chronicle, Toowoomba, 13/9/01): "So it has come to this. The entire modern history of the Middle East – the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the Balfour declaration, Lawrence of Arabia's lies, the Arab revolt, the foundation of the state of Israel, four Arab-Israeli wars and the 34 years of Israel's brutal occupation of Arab land – all erased within hours as those who claim to represent a crushed, humiliated population struck back with the wickedness and awesome cruelty of a doomed people.
Is it fair – is it moral – to write this so soon, without proof, when the last act of barbarism in Oklahoma turned out to be the work of home-grown Americans? I fear it is. America is at war and, unless I am mistaken, many thousands more are now scheduled to die in the Middle East ...."


Morgan Stanley, the world famous merchant bank, has issued a blunt warning about the world economy (The Australian, 27/9/01): " .... Morgan Stanley's team of international economists issued a blunt warning yesterday; the world is facing its worst recession since World War II, and no region of the globe will escape. "'For a world we judged already to be in synchronous recession before the terrorist attacks on America, the downturn now looks considerably deeper and longer than we ever expected," Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach said in the firm's latest report, Global Economic Forum.
"The report coincides with a warning from Moody's Investment Services that it expects corporate bond defaults to move higher than expected and cause a wave of ratings downgrades...."

Hey Ho! It's been obvious for a long time. It's impossible to run a country, or the world for that matter, on the existing debt system without a prolonged and evermore violent swing between inflation and recession. Consumers, industries, services and governments can't service their debts with their current income-flows, no matter how innovative or efficient their physical production processes. Until someone, somewhere, wrests the money-creation process away from private banks, and issues some credits alongside debits, the world will continue to go bankrupt in the middle of one of the most productive periods in human history.


In natural terms New Zealand is one of the richest countries in the world. With huge timber resources, more sheep per head of population than Australia, a world-standard dairy industry, plenty of oil and natural gas and a highly fertile agricultural nation, New Zealand's three-and-a-half million people – smaller than Greater Sydney – should be enjoying an exceedingly high standard of living. The Editorial in The Press (South Island, NZ, 3/9/01) was headed POVERTY PRESSURES, describing the food banks that have been operating in New Zealand for 20 years to keep the population from starving.

It described a recent survey in the city of Christchurch: "New Zealanders have got used to food banks, but do not regard them with complacency. The shame of the Depression soup kitchens is too deeply embedded in the nation's consciousness for the present-day form of food relief to be calmly contemplated. .....
"City Missioner David Morell gave strong back-up to a New Zealand Council of Social Services survey that found the poor in Christchurch were falling into perilous levels of debt. Some of them were taking desperate measures to survive. Many are handicapped by debt associated with basic commodities, particularly electricity, and that is preventing them buying sufficient food....."

What's the problem? Not enough food to go round? The opposite is true. Food exports from New Zealand are getting better prices. Beef and fat lamb are at record price levels. There is increasing demand for New Zealand dairy products. The result? New Zealanders pay 15% more for milk, 20% more for beef and 27% more for lamb. The price of electricity – almost all of it hydro-electricity in the South Island – has risen dramatically. To sum it all up – prosperity has never made people so poor and hungry! Except the debt-merchants!


In the midst of the mounting chaos which is the Australian economy, Treasurer Costello has announced a bigger-than-expected Budget Surplus – $5.6 billion. And what a time for it to happen! With an ebullient Coalition surging ahead in the polls on the crest of its war and refugee policies, we're now only weeks away from a Federal election. What's produced the surplus? Higher than expected taxation revenue. The total direct and indirect taxation figure is $151 billion – just under $8,000 per head of population ($32,000 for the average family of four). AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REVENUE FOR THE GST which adds a further $1,000 per head to the total. Add onto this State taxes plus local government rates and our tax bill is soaring into the astronomical. But then Costello says the Liberals are a "low-tax" party!


by Antonia Feitz
Driving home last week I heard a man tell the local ABC radio announcer that after being injured at work he now lives on a disability pension of $9,600 a year. A few day's earlier The Australian reported that BHP's seven non-executive directors were paid $9,160 each for attending the company's monthly board meetings (14/9/01). That works out to $110,000 each in cash just for attending the meetings. Between them BHP's top seven executives pocketed $27.3 million in cash and bonuses. CEO Paul Anderson 'earned' $7.8 million, up $700,000 on last year's earnings. His base salary was $1.58 million, topped up with $6.24 million in "short-term incentives" comprising another $1.58 million in cash and the rest in shares. And they seriously wonder why the natives are getting restless? This can't continue.


The governments of the western world are committed to war, so we are told. That is not the same thing as the people of the western world are committed to war. In fact, I am sure that you, me, Bill Smith and Mary Brown who live down the road (considered collectively) whether – Christian, Jewish and/or Muslim – don't want war. It is not governments who are killed or maimed, it is not governments who fight, but in our 'name' – e.g., USA, Israel, Lebanon, Britain, Australia, Russia – governments commit us to war. It is the ordinary people, that is you, me, Bill Smith or Mary Brown – Christian, Jewish and/or Muslim – who do the fighting, who are bombed, etc. Something very wrong here!


by Mark Weber, Director, Institute of Historical Review, USA
Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11th attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks is unrelated to this country's policies.

It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centres of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran. America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests".
George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction – something that happens only in faraway lands. The victims of US air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because US military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives. Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and war planes in, for example, Iraq.

Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent". Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and US bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima...Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "...We think the price is worth it." ("60 Minutes," May 12th, 1996).

Bush pledges 'crusade'
President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism". But such calls sound hollow given the US government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the US supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan – including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11th attacks – in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.

American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11th attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new US military action against Israel's many enemies. In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the US government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.

What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade", but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice. In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them. But the jolting impact of the September 11th attacks – which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky – will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world.
More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.

In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, US Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level US foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.

Over the long run, the September 11th attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.

For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11th attacks, this work will be more important than ever.


To: Mr. Peter Davis, Port Lincoln, SA, 5606. From: Senator Kay Patterson, Parliament House, Canberra, 2600.
Dear Mr. Davis, Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2001 to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, MP, concerning the policy of multiculturalism and illegal immigrants in Australia. The Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf. I have noted your opposition to the policy of multiculturalism. I would stress that this policy was introduced with bipartisan political support and that it is an appropriate policy for our diverse Australian society. Multiculturalism seeks to protect and enhance community harmony by reminding all Austra-lians that we have the same rights to live by our personal preferences, including cultural preferences – subject, of course, to the law. Cultural and religious diversity is a reality of modern Australia.
The Government's position is that all Australians should be able to live together in a spirit of acceptance, inclusiveness and harmony.

In acknowledging this diversity the Government does not, however, accept a diversity of core values. All Australians, regardless of their backgrounds, are expected to have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia and the basic structures and principles of Australian society – including the Constitution and the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy and the principles of tolerance and equality.

In relation to the illegal entry of migrants into Australia, let me assure you that the Government is also concerned about this issue. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Australia is a signatory to the Refugees Convention. Unauthorised arrivals may engage Australia's protection obligations under that Convention. Australia has international obligations to treat such people humanely and to consider fully their protection claims. Successive Governments have considered that it is in the national interest for Australia to be a signatory to United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Thank you for bringing your views to the Minister's attention.
Yours sincerely, Senator Kay Patterson, Parliament House, Canberra,2600.


Dear Senator Patterson, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19th Sept in which you convey defence of multiculturalism and include papers on the Government's position on illegal immigration. It is true that there is a bipartisan political approach towards multiculturalism, developed consciously by Whitlam and Grassby in the early 70s. It is equally true that at every public opinion poll the policy has been rejected by varying margins. You will note that 11th Sept. has since occurred, together with the inevitable incidents typical of multiculturalism. You should also note that multiculturalism as practised by all our neighbours has failed... A good example being East Timor where you are now required to station our Armed Forces to prevent Islam from killing Christianity. And perhaps you need reminding that recently Indonesian Islam began killing Chinese ethnicity. Or, perhaps, if you choose to defend multiculturalism, you could explain why some of us are 'indigenous' if we possess some aboriginal blood, but those of us who may have been here for 4 or 5 generations are part of the community. Similarly, perhaps you could explain why we need a permit to visit their lands.

The inevitable consequence of your bipartisan policy is a Nation of Tribes... who will kill one another given provocation. Relative to immigration, only determined confrontation will stop the infiltration. I would again draw your attention to the order issued by the Malaysian Minister for Internal Security some years ago... "to machine gun arrivals on the beaches if they stepped ashore." Guess where illegal people do not land? Similarly in the Middle East, the State of Qatar's media report that "invaders have recently been repelled" when vessels unload their people. Commonsense, indeed, the examples of race and religion surrounding our Nation, demonstrate the stupidity of your "bipartisan policy" and it's inevitable result.

I note your defence of the United Nations' Convention on Refugees and the associated Protocols which Australian Governments have been silly enough to sign. You would do well to consider the deratifying of this Agreement if you desire to control the future of your Nation. Our first "obligations" are the protection and preservation of the health and prosperity of our own people... Not to some International Treaty... And I note the health and prosperity of our "indigenous" people, let alone the unemployed "wider" community.

I note the million or so Iraqi people who have died as a result of our trade sanctions since the "Desert Storm"... Commonsense would again indicate that if we desire to have fewer Iraqi arrivals we should look humanely at our own trade policy. And inevitably, the result of humane trade would result in a more moderate President Hussein, particularly if we reconsider our current blind support of Israel. Indeed, if we are to have a peaceful Middle East, it is about time we looked critically at the policies and actions of Israel relative to the people of Palestine, the Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and so on.

Yet, I will bet London to a brick that we will continue our current "bipartisan policy" relative to the Middle East. The inevitable result... the Trade Centre catastrophe... will be repeated, with the inevitable retaliation... and stimulus of more boat people. It can be predicted with the certainty of tomorrow's sunrise your policies are a recipe for disaster for our Nation. Witness the need for ever tougher racial vilification legislation and your need to give Government grants to the "Multicultural Community" to hold the policy together. Commonsense would indicate that if the policy is sustainable and desired, that there would be no need for the former nor the latter. Grants would be made to a given "community", rather than a specific sector, and there would be no need of racial vilification legislation.

I acknowledge the difficulty Government is now in with the HMAS Manoora, and the very difficult public relations bind you now face. But it is of your own making. I would draw your attention to ALL THE PUBLIC OPINION POLLS that are telling you a similar story to that which I convey. Your bipartisan policies of multiculturalism and current lenient treatment of illegal immigrants are not supported by a majority of the Australian public.

In closing, I also convey it is my Will that Parliament specifically reject the proposed International Criminal Court proposal. I imagine even politicians should comprehend our own National Sovereignty will be compromised if it is signed. That we would be subject to Nations (whose policies result in boat people) sitting in judgement of our own legal system.
You need to reverse many of present "multicultural" policies... As Confucius said two millennia ago, "It is no use running faster when you are on the wrong road".
Yours Sincerely, Peter Davis, Port Lincoln, 26/ 9/2001.


October 30th – Guest speakers Wendy Scurr & Andrew McGregor – "The Massacre at Port Arthur". The meeting will be held as usual in the Estonian Hall, 141 Campbell Street, Sydney, commencing at 7.30pm. The cost of attendance is $4 which includes an excellent supper. Books from the Heritage Bookmailing Service will be on display and for sale.November 27th – The last meeting of the year will give you the rare opportunity to be a speaker. Open to all members of the audience with a time limit of five minutes. Be prepared to answer questions. A supper with some Christmas fare will conclude our evening. The first meeting for 2002 will be Tuesday, January 29th, 2002.


"SOVEREIGN MONEY – SOVEREIGN NATION": Wednesday, October 10th – Gawler Hall, Gawler, 7.30pm.Thursday, October 11th – Scottsdale RSL, 30 George Street, 7.30pm.Friday, October 12th – Official Dinner, Quigley's Restaurant, 96 Balfour Street, Launceston, 7.00pm for 7.30pm.Saturday, October 13th – Launceston RSL, 313 Wellington Street, parking at rear of RSL.Sunday, October 14th – Short Divine Service and Review, 39 Benvenue Road, St.Leonards.


Australian Civil Liberties Union:Venue: 15-21 Therry Street, Melbourne, near intersection with Elizabeth Street and near Victoria Market. Admission: $10 (free to ACLU financial members). Speakers: Raymond Hoser, "Police Corruption & Persecution of Whistleblowers"; Geoff Muirden, "Free Speech & Anti-Racism Laws"; Dr. Fredrick Toben, "Events of September 11th; Revisionism & Middle East; Durban Race Hate Conference"; John Bennett, "What Price Israel? Why Terrorism? The Irving Case".Date: Sunday, October 21st, 2001. 2pm-5pm. Pre-booking required. Phone: (03) 9347 8671.


As well as the publication of journals for the dissemination of information, the League publishes and distributes a wide range of educational books, videos and cassette tapes. These are available at meetings, at our Melbourne bookshop or by mail order from the following addresses:

Victoria & Tasmania: Heritage Bookshop, 2nd Floor, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, 3000. (GPO Box 1052J, Melbourne, 3001). Phone: (03) 9650 9749; Fax: (03) 9650 9368.

New South Wales: Heritage Book Service, PO Box 6086, Lake Munmorah, 2259. Phone/Fax: (02) 4358 3634.

Queensland: Conservative Book Mailing Service, P.O. Box 7108, Toowoomba Mail Centre, 4352. Phone (07) 4635 7435.

Western Australia: Heritage Book Mailing Service, PO Box 163, Chidlow, 6556. Phone/Fax: (08) 9574 6042.

South Australia: Heritage Book-Mailing Service, PO Box 208, Ingle Farm, 5098. Phone: (08) 8395 9826; Fax: (08) 8395 9827