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
9 February 2001. Thought for the Week: "Now all this is absolutely symptomatic of the philosophy which is driving the World to destruction. The cure for every evil is to drown it in an attractively presented variant of itself.
The cure for temporary floods is permanent lakes, the cure for poverty is more taxation and compulsory insurance (i.e., taking more money away and only giving some of it back), the cure for Monopoly is nationalisation (i.e., super-monopoly), the cure for national wars and tyrannies is super-national wars and tyrannies, and the cure for those is the World State, with its chronic tyranny and civil war; and for that there seems no cure unless it is death and chaos, and a return to the Dark Ages.
It is high time that the instinct of self-preservation began to rise superior to the dreadful fear of being called 'unprogressive' or 'against the trend'."
"On Planning the Earth" by Geoffrey Dobbs, 1951


by Jeremy Lee
As the majority of Australian voters, under threat of fines for failing to comply, go to State and Federal polls this year, few will have a conviction that their votes will change things, and hardly any will have been consulted about specific policies they want. Placing bits of paper into boxes without any assurance they will be counted properly, or that some voters have not recorded their votes more than once or are not improperly registered is a poor substitute for the revered ideal of "government-by-the-people" as developed first in Greece 500 years BC.

No ballot paper will list choices on issues, i.e.: . "Should there be a limit on taxes?" "Should taxpayers have a right to say how their taxes are spent?" . "Should we increase or decrease immigration?" "What should we do about illegal refugees?" . "Should we restore a 'peoples' bank'? "Should we limit imports to what we can pay for by exports, instead of incurring foreign debt?" . "Should interest-rates be variable? Or should there be a ceiling on interest rates by law?" . "Should Australia continue seeking foreign investment and ownership? Or should we change to a policy of increasing Australian ownership of our industries and assets?" . "Should voting be voluntary or compulsory? Should preferential voting be voluntary, compulsory, or scrapped altogether?" . "Should international treaties take precedence over domestic provisions of the Australian Constitution?" . "Should the full Parliament consider the signing of treaties? Should the States have any say?" . "Should the Government create Australia's money requirements? Or should this be left with private banks?" . "Are Australia's defences adequate? Should we re-develop regional citizens' defence forces as a supplement to our permanent Defence?" - and so on and so on.

There is nothing to stop the inclusion, with every ballot, of such a list of questions, to be filled in voluntarily and placed in a special box by each voter who feels so inclined. It should be compulsory to publish the number and percentages on each question.

The art of politics in 2001 is to frustrate any choice by the people on key issues. This was bearable, even if unjust, when Representatives could vote on conscience in Parliament and there was genuine opposition. But the major parties are mere sinecures of each other and what they used to be. The result is the beginning of a stampede towards minor parties and independents - the beginning of a revolt against party perversions which has the major parties jittery. So endless permutations are dreamed up to frustrate any chance of an improvement to the status quo.

Compulsory preferential voting is an obvious example. Take the case of the Queensland election, now in full swing. National Party leader Rob Borbidge, heading a party with no credulity or relevance left, took it upon himself to issue orders that no preferences were to be given to the re-emerged One Nation, which he placed below Labor. He has spent the last few months attacking the proved Labor rorts, but prefers Labor to One Nation!

But reality has rolled over Mr. Borbidge. His own party has overturned his edict - not because it favours free choice for voters, but because stark reality is staring it in the face. If the Nationals are to succeed - a faint chance indeed - they need every preference they can get, and they know the huge disaffected vote which stymied the Coalition at the last State election is, if anything, larger than last time. One Nation is back in Queensland - not with any merit of its own, but as a hammer which the hugely disaffected electorate will use to club the corrupt, servile, self-serving major parties.

Labor leader Beattie, who is at least more human and intelligent than his Coalition counterparts, has said he will not allocate Labor preferences - it is up to voters to decide for themselves. Nice one, Mr. Beattie!


Prime Minister John Howard, described by one wit recently as a "duck-billed platitude" has been doing a bit of foraging of his own in the real world of the electorate, as opposed to the Alice-in-Wonderland world of "growth", "globalism" and "exports". To his surprise showing thousands of Australian families unable to put sufficient food on the table are the real issues so, the issues he thought had been swept aside by his lordly statesmanship are still out there.

His decision not to reduce the impact of outrageous petrol prices will return to haunt him, as many of his hard-pressed backbenchers will attest. Poverty, the BAS haunting small businesses, the Dairy Industry disaster, growing unemployment and the recently-released survey which his government will have to contend over the rest of this year.

Stephen Koukoulas, writing in The Australian Financial Review (29/1/2001) summed it up thus: "Suggestions that Australia is heading for recession were kiboshed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and his Treasurer, Peter Costello. " Yet the murmuring of a looming recession has been inspired by dismal business confidence surveys, a slump in housing and consumer spending, falling employment and job ads and a severe deterioration in the global economic outlook. Stunningly low inflation outcomes following the fall of the $A, the oil price rise and the introduction of the GST from last July only added to the perception that the economy is weak.
In the fog of the debate about whether Australia is heading for a recession, the issue of defining what a recession means has been lost ...."

It may have been lost to politicians who have not had to tighten their belts in the slightest, but hundreds of thousands of Australians know exactly what a recession is. They and their families are experiencing it. And they have votes. All the glib Howard and Costello slogans that "our fundamentals are sound" won't wash when it comes to voting.


Under the heading GET READY FOR YOUR VERY OWN RECESSION, The Australian (29/1/2001) quoted Mr. Saul Eslake, chief economist for the ANZ bank. Mr. Eslake said businesses who were not supplying to government - about 55 percent - were going to find it tough: " ....Mr. Eslake said ANZ's survey of newspaper job advertisements showed a fall of 22 percent in the past six months to the worst level since 1990. The GST, the Olympics, rising interest rates, the collapse of the dollar, higher petrol prices and even the money forked out by shareholders for Telstra 2 had contributed to the slowdown ....Mr. Eslake said the fact that many businesses were set to pay two tax bills - for 1999-2000 and the current year - at one time was compounding the profit squeeze and the choking of cash flow. He said profit in a cash flow sense was critically important for business owners' decisions about investment and employment.
The outlook for both is not healthy. Mr. Eslake said manufacturing, retailing, the dotcom sector and building would struggle, especially those which did not sell exports or have government contracts ...."

Compounding Mr. Eslake's forecasts is the fact that the United States provides 25 percent of the world's export markets. It has been running a massive current account deficit with the rest of the world, of over $US1 billion every 24 hours. Nations round the world have hooked their survival, and their ability to pay the world's bankers, on to exporting to the US. A feature article in The Australian (29/1/2001) said:
"American consumers and companies devoured imports from Asian nations, Mexico and Canada, fuelling their growth and driving the US trade deficit to record levels. Now those countries could get dragged down if the US falls into recession ...."

A slow down in Asia will decimate Australia's exports. Hence, under today's insane rules, when the US sneezes, Australia catches cold. Look at the cycle. International banks, with head offices on Wall Street, lend money round the world and send out their affiliated multinationals to set up businesses to export back to America. Borrowing nations are hooked into exports as a means of paying back the international banks! If the US stops buying exports, all these 'hooked' nations go into crisis or receivership. Australia, despite being in natural terms the richest country in the world per capita, is numbered among them.

As C.H. Douglas and the Southampton Chamber of Commerce pointed out over 60 years ago, nations do not and should not have to depend on their exports for their incomes! The true purpose of trade is to exchange surpluses for domestic satisfaction. The debt system has distorted this into "export or perish". As Douglas pointed out in a well known address, this is a primary cause of war.
(The Southampton Chamber of Commerce Report, $4 posted, from League bookshops.)


The existing crisis keeps elevating the sanity of what Douglas had to say into ever-increasing prominence. For those looking for an alternative to the existing perversion of crippled ballot-box democracy, Douglas outlined the only possible alternative to violence. He called it the Electoral Campaign idea. But it can only happen when there is enough pain to persuade people to look for another way.

Speaking to a conference of Social Crediters in London on June 26th, 1937, Douglas described it thus: " In the Electoral Campaign, the action is perfectly simple; you have to get an undertaking on the part of a sufficient number of people to bring effective pressure, by methods which are perfectly well known to everybody here, to bear upon the Member of Parliament so that he will do what you want; that is to say, you have got to make your Member of Parliament a representative - not a delegate...... The fundamental fact is the sovereignty of the people, but at the present time we are not exercising our sovereignty at all ...."
(The Policy of a Philosophy, C.H. Douglas, $4 posted from League bookshops.)

All of which sounds simple. But timing and the issue are all-important. We have recently heard about a Liberal back-bencher confronted by an ultimatum from a gathering of voters in Victoria. If she did not speak out and oppose Mr. Howard's policy on petrol taxes, each voter would put her last when voting at the next election. Her majority may not be big enough to take the risk of alienating voters. She is now facing pressures she has not experienced before. This should be happening in every electorate in Australia. The party label or otherwise of the Member does not matter. But it will only happen when enough of us can raise our energies to initiate such a development. The battle for Australia will be won in the electorates before meaningful changes occur in Parliaments.


by Antonia Feitz
When Telstra announced a plan to give discounts to customers who paid their bills via the internet there was considerable public protest. Some people said it was discrimination against poor people who, even if they have computers, aren't connected to the internet. Chris Sidoti, the Privacy Commissioner, said on radio that while he had a computer with internet access, he didn't want to pay his bills via the internet because he doesn't trust the online security. Many people would probably agree.

The Australian Consumers' Association IT and Communications policy officer, Charles Britton, commented that, "the people who can least afford it end up paying more, while those who can afford to pay online finish up with a lower bill" (Australian, 30/1/2001). Britton is worried that Telstra's lead will be copied by other companies. He said such a development would result in increased customer segregation and 'web-lining' which is the practice of writing off low-value customers. He said, "The distinction between high-value and low-value customers is big in marketing. They want to identify the BOZOs (below zero value customers). The problem with having a relationship with a company is if you're a BOZO it may want a divorce."


by Antonia Feitz
With such a contemptuous attitude to human beings is it any wonder that economic rationalism and globalisation are on the nose? Is it any wonder that our society is so debased when the philosophy of big business is maximising profits and to hell with every other consideration, even respect for the aged? Not so long ago even the poorest aged pensioner was treated with respect and courtesy by staff at such institutions as banks and the offices of public utilities. Now they're BOZOs. How can anybody think such a disgusting development is progress?

Recently there has been a plethora of glowing testimonies about the benefits of globalisation inevitably referring to its 'inevitability'. In fact, these paeons to globalisation are starting to sound a little panicky as the opposition keeps growing and gets better organised. As a Times report noted (reprinted in The Australian, 31/1/2001), the mood at Davos this year was muted. The meeting last year promised infinite riches from the new economy and as we all know, that didn't happen. Michael Roux, an "international" businessman and member of the WEF Davos global issues group, confessed that until recently discussion about the social divide caused by globalisation put many people, even politicians, to sleep!
That's how much they cared about people's concerns - zilch. Now of course, "the urgency of ensuring the 'have-nots' are not left behind ... has become a global wake-up call" (Australian, 31/1/01).

Roux absurdly claimed the Melbourne WEF "brought the issue home to Australia"! He even more absurdly claimed that groups "still perpetuate the cry they did not have a voice in discussions" because "all legitimate voices were invited to the Melbourne summit just as they have always been to the Davos summits during the past two decades".

Legitimate? Who decided whether voices were 'legitimate' or not? Who can afford to swan around the world anyway? The truth is that dissenters were routinely abused as Luddites, globaphobes and ignoramuses opposed to trade, and there was never any attempt to listen to them. Roux's snide remarks about the dissenters was contemptible: "The brightness of the spotlight as a dissenter, compared to the anonymity of being a participant in bringing about change is more attractive to these groups." Trying to save face he claimed that discussions on public anxiety about globalisation at Davos were not on the agenda because of the protesters. So why were they on the agenda then? As he previously confessed, until recently discussing public anxiety put globalists to sleep. His tone was reminiscent of an ineffectual school-teacher nagging his class.

Listen to these tired old globalist mantras
"Companies have to become efficient because of global competition; governments must provide leadership and address the pressures from their people for benefits; and people must adapt to change.... While it can be argued that globalisation has many flaws [go on!], it is part of the way our world operates today. We cannot turn it off."

It's all just happening you see, like the rising and setting of the sun and the turn of the tide. Never mind that it has taken umpteen laws and treaties and the establishment of powerful supra-national institutions to enforce it, globalisation is 'just happening'. It's not, and to claim it is an insult to intelligence. There's no earthly reason why people have to accept the globalists' hideous plan. People don't want it and increasingly they're lumping it, much to the dismay and fury of the Rouxs of the world. They thought they had it all sewn up.

THE STORY OF BRIAN FYFFE - justice denied

The following assessment (from Neil Baird's E-mail News Report) of the story of a man named Brian Fyffe from Victoria, needs to considered by all law-abiding, freedom-loving Australians.

He writes: "This story is a story in itself of corruption, obstruction of justice, victimisation, etc. If true in all its respects, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then this portrays a very sorry state of justice in the realm of Australia... In addition consider that this action against Brian Fyffe of Victoria, similar to that against John Wilson regarding usurious variable rate bank loans, has only gone on as long as it has and caused such personal hardships, because we have apparently dispensed with one of the cardinal lynchpins of English Justice handed down since Magna Carta, which is namely 'trial by jury', 12 good men and women, chosen randomly, in a way the Establishment can't rig.
Instead we have increasingly adopted the European system of judges and assessors deciding everything for themselves. Judges who invariably come from the Establishment and owe their upward movement in the ranks to the assessments of their peers in the Judiciary and the politicians and businessmen in the wings. So our bastardised legal system is fine in theory, when we can rely on our legal eagles having the wisdom of Solomon; hopeless when this system is corrupted or led by mediocrities."

Mr. Baird asks his readers to "judge for yourself ... whether there is justice in Victoria or Australia". While the sad story of Mr. Brian Fyffe is far too long to be told in On Target, it is a story that is being repeated (not in every detail of course) right across this land. It is a story of the lack of justice in the realm of Australia - for some - and the story of an increasingly dictatorial State. For those who want to learn more contact


by Betty Luks
Whilst the notice came to us too late for inclusion into On Target, we would like to commend the initiative taken by the FREE Association for the Queensland State elections. They invited the candidates of three electorates to appear before a public forum to present their policies and answer questions from the floor. At the least the candidates had to face their electors, explain what they are about and hear what their electors had to say. That is quite different to the 'shuttle-stop' PR tours of John Howard and Kim Beasley. These exercises are stage-managed for the media mass-propaganda units - you know, the group that dishes up the mass-propaganda fodder to the mass-fed sheep.
The FREE Association defend to their utmost (and seek to educate Australians on its importance) the Commonwealth Constitution.

Australians could take a leaf out of the FREE Association's book and insist on regularly held public forums where politicians are openly and seriously questioned not only on the policies they are pushing but more importantly on what they - that is the Queensland electors - want. It's not much good constantly lamenting the fact that politicians are pursuing policies the electorate does not want - the people have to devise the mechanisms to bring the politicians to account. The public forums are a way of doing this. It does not need to be a slanging match; the politician can be advised, firmly but politely, "these are the instructions we have for you as our Representative in Parliament". The key is to stop them 'dividing and ruling us'.


Geoffrey Dobbs, in his little booklet "The Just Tax", reminded us that to concentrate only upon representation by politicians was only half the battle to be fought. "Whatever the degree of mercy or moderation shown by the taxing power, or of 'equality of sacrifice' justice in the Christian sense does not enter into the transaction ... until a contractual element begins to enter into" the arrangement. This involves, Geoffrey writes, "government in obligations to the people in return for the payments received".
"Consent, is the fundamental thing, and it is the implications of consent to taxation which seem to be insufficiently appreciated," he warned.

To help in understanding the moral basis he explains that the three aspects of taxation need to be considered:
First, the purpose of the tax;
Second, its constitution or composition, in the sense of the stuff of which it is made (that is, whether the system under which we are taxed is a just system or a fraudulently manipulated system such as the present money system); and
Third, the amount

He observed that "When we only concern ourselves with the third aspect it is a sure sign that consent is lacking." I was reminded of this truth when reading Neil Baird's report about the corruption of our legal system and the origins of the jury system. Geoffrey Dobbs reminded his readers that much of the freedom we once took for granted was "brought for us by hard bargaining between our predecessors and their Norman rulers. When the burgesses of Leicester agreed with the Earl to pay a threepenny rate on gabled houses in the High Street in return for the right of trial by jury - instead of by combat - they got something specific and worth having for their money, and it was in this spirit that Parliament functioned in its early days..."

Now, how do we get the Christian Church leaders to take up their responsibility of being the 'conscience of the King' as originally understood? Believe or not, the Christian Church was "the great liberating influence which moderated the feudal system and established the concept of the free and responsible man of the Common Law, governed by his own consent", writes Geoffrey Dobbs.

"The Just Tax" by Geoffrey Dobbs is available from all League book services.


The Sydney Conservative Speakers' Club request the pleasure of your company at the Tuesday Evening, February 27th, 2001, meeting. Guest speaker - Mr. Jeremy Lee. Subject - "Australia's Unique Position to Challenge the Menace of Globalisation". The venue is as usual: The Estonian Club, 141 Campbell Street, Sydney. Meeting commences at 7.30pm. The usual excellent supper will be provided. Entrance is $4 per person.

Date for your diary: Tuesday Evening, March 27th, 2001. Guest speaker - Mr. Welf Herfurt. Subject - "The Threat to Freedom & Democracy in Germany Today".

2001 INVERELL FORUM COMING UP - March 23rd-26th

We are pleased to 'give a plug' for the 2001 Inverell Forum. Over the years this annual event has gained the reputation of providing a platform for speakers of all shades of political opinion - from the most conservative to the most controversial. The organisers of the event aim to attract those who are genuinely concerned as to why Australia is going in the present direction. The speakers are lined up for the purpose of answer-ing the question, WHY, and what to do about it. For further details contact Inverell Forum, PO Box 987, Inverell, NSW, 2360. Phone (02) 6723 2351, Fax (02) 6723 2364. E-mail:

BOOK - "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.