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
4 April 2003. Thought for the Week: "The plight of humanity is of its own making. It is the inevitable outcome of a progressive violation of the Canon - of shutting off the outward, fear-dominated Mind from Reality. The resulting conflict in the sphere of human affairs is fundamentally a conflict between the spiritual concept of Life and the 'materialistic' concept of Life - between the power of faith and the forces generated by fear - between the power of God and the forces of Mammon - between Christ and the anti-Christ… Upon the outcome of the conflict there can be no doubt…Put in another form, the havoc being wreaked upon the material world around us by the unleashed forces of evil - of destruction - is merely evidence of the self-annihilation of those forces and the materialistic concept they engender, viewed in terms of time and space…"
"Faith, Power and Action" by L.D. Byrne 1946

PRESIDENT HOWARD STEPS OUT OF LINE

Prime Minister John Howard has had no compunction about playing the monarchy card when it suited him. But he has increasingly by-passed the Constitution and adopted a presidential role. When it comes to war, attitudes in the electorate ebb and flow with the state of the battle. There is a strong tendency to the "footy-game' psychology when our troops are in action. Objectivity about the rights and wrongs of war tend to give way to the subjectivity of backing "our team". Knowledge of this fact is understood by politicians, who exploit the "footy-game" tendency to further their ambitions. This was clearly the case with the Tampa election, where a lagging government surfed back to victory on the waves of exploitation involved in refugee and Timor issues.
There are now three 'triggers' allowing for a double-dissolution of parliament, able to be exploited at any time.

If the widespread anti-war sentiments are seen to be muted by watching our servicemen in action, the Coalition may well opt for another election on the issues of defence and the Iraqi war. This is a major gamble. Any setback in Iraq may swing the electorate back to its anti-war stance. There is bound to be a short period of war euphoria in which a successful election could be staged and the Coalition returned again. But there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. Any number of crises could change the scene - the price of petrol at the bowser, any further deterioration on the stock exchange, Australian casualties on the battle-field etc.
All of which leads to the biggest issue, which will sooner or later have to be faced.

At one point Howard publicly proclaimed that the final decision to commit Australian troops into war was his alone. He modified this later by saying it would be made "by the Cabinet". There was no reference to Parliament as a whole, or to Australia's Head of State the Governor-General, who is also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services. In other words, if Mr Howard's position is to be taken as serious, a paid minister of the Crown, together with a dozen fellow-ministers he has hand-picked from the ranks of his own party, have taken unto themselves the right to put their nation into a war situation in the Northern hemisphere, with all the hazards involved - added financial debt and taxes, the risk to the lives of servicemen and women, and the feelings of Australians.
It should be noted that President Bush had to seek the dispensation of Congress before making a declaration of war.
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair sought the agreement of the British parliament. 122 members of his own party voted against him and a number of his ministers resigned. But with the support of the Conservative Opposition, the British Parliament was seen to have endorsed Blair's intentions for war.
Not so in Australia.

There was absolutely no representative check on the Executive. It was a law unto itself. Magnanimously, Howard allowed a parliamentary debate in which hundreds of Labor, National and Liberal members spoke with passion. But he allowed no vote, and made it clear he did not feel himself bound in any way to the views of Parliament as a whole. He and his cabinet coterie would decide - and that was that.

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY?

If there is one thing made absolutely clear in Australia's Constitution, it is that neither Prime Minister nor Cabinet are "head of Australia". There is no mention of either in the Constitution. Who, then, is responsible for Australia's defence?

On this matter, the Constitution is quire clear:
"Section 51: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- (vi) The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth."

The word "Parliament" means much more than the Prime Minister, his Cabinet or his party. It means the combined gathering of ALL the representatives of the Australian people, in parliament assembled.
What, then, should have happened?

The Prime Minister should have tabled before his colleagues a Bill or Act outlining the need for war in defence of Australia, and moving that Australian troops be committed to war. Proper room for the Parliament to debate the Bill should have been provided, before a final vote was taken in support or opposition to the Bill. Two things should then have happened. The Bill should have been sent to the Governor-General for his assent; and the Prime Minister should have announced to the nation that the full Parliament had given its assent to the Bill, and that Australia was now at war:

Section 61 (the Constitution): "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."

Neither John Howard nor his cabinet colleagues are owners of "executive power" in Australia. In fact, they are employees in office at the Governor-General's pleasure:

Section 64: "The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth".

In other words, Government ministers are appointed, paid officers of the Crown, holding their positions at the Governor-General's pleasure. They are certainly not put in a position where they can by-pass the Parliament or the Constitution. It seems clear from the foregoing that the actions of Mr Howard and such of his cabinet colleagues who accept personal responsibility for their actions have been both unconstitutional and illegal.

FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY OUTLINES PRINCIPLE

Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary, resigned in protest at Blair's war decision. In his resignation speech he acknowledged that Parliament had at least been consulted. He said
"From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted as Leader of the House on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better illustrate that they are wrong than for the House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support …"

The British Parliament could have voted to stop the commitment of troops. The Australian Parliament could not. Commenting on this difference, Laura Tingle Australian Financial Review, 21/3/03) said:
"… The Australian Prime Minister has worn the executive power to go to war both as a badge of honour - a tough decision to be made by tough men - and a reason for his blatant disregard for public opinion on this issue…… It is interesting to ponder why Howard - who swept into office in 1996 as the great protector of parliament who would restore standards of accountability by executive government -didn't make a similar commitment.
The fawning supporters who dominate his own party room, and the risks of Labor splitting on the issue, would have made it a loaded political punt while appearing to bow to democratic principles. But the bad feeling aroused in the community about the processes by which we have gone to war, as much as the war itself, could now spark a much more radical turn of events …."

The term "fawning supporters" in the Coalition is, if anything, an understatement. Not one Liberal or National has been man enough to stand for what the Constitution lays out. They have remained, silent and speechless, in their electorates. Each has a personal duty to speak out fearlessly against the misuse of power by the executive. Each has been derelict in this duty. Parliament has, in consequence, suffered further corruption.

WHAT COULD, AND SHOULD, HAVE HAPPENED?

In the face of the massive anti-war demonstrations in Australia - unprecedented before the outbreak of war - every member of parliament, no matter what party, should have conducted his own poll in his own electorate, by advertisements in each paper, seeking the views of all voters. He should have announced the results for publication, together with a statement of his own position. He should have reminded his voters as to what the Constitution says about the making of decisions about defence - that it is a parliamentary decision, not an executive one. In other words, he should have held himself accountable for a decision that would affect the lives and safety of fellow Australians, instead of hiding behind the skirts of a rampaging "rogue prime minister".

And the Governor-General?
He is confined by the convention that he must not involve himself in partisan politics. Fair enough. But, surely, he should have asked for the parliamentary bill, voted by parliament, authorising military action in accordance with the Constitution before ordering his troops to war:

Section 68 (constitution): "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative".

No - President Howard is not the Commander in Chief; and Australians should be made aware of the fact.

If true parliamentary representation is to be regained in Australia, it will need enormous effort and initiative in the electorate itself. The "footy-game" approach must be renounced, and constitutional integrity re-established. How great the forthcoming crisis must be before this happens is anyone's guess.

D'MARKRAZIES

South Australia's Labor Premier Mike Rann and Attorney-General Michael Atkinson have announced changes in the law for the crime of trespass, now euphemistically referred to as 'home invasion'. Instead of the law treating the criminal as the victim, it is hoped the householder will be given back his right to defend that which is rightfully his. The intention is, I think, for the law to once again recognise the citizen's right to protect his own self and property. In this case, it could be summed up as the householder's right to life, liberty and property. Property, meaning that which is proper to him, to enjoy, to possess, to do with as he sees fit.
Hopefully, a South Australian's home is once again going to be 'his castle'- and all that implies.

I might be considered a little old-fashioned but I think those rights are also rights the Iraqi people posses - or should. But just as the 'do-gooders' call the criminal act of trespass 'home invasions' so the 'coalition of the willing' (countries all claiming to be d'markrazies) are basing their invasion of a sovereign nation-state on the euphemistic term, 'pre-emptive strike'.

C.H. Douglas wrote of their kind in Development of World Dominion, 1946:
"Any gang which gets a majority, by a fallacious ballot and a manipulated agenda, can upset all the rules, sell or give away all the assets, and liquidate the Company (Nation), all in the sacred name of d'markrazi. It is not a question of 'Party', but it beyond question that the less scrupulous the gang, the less it is handicapped either in the achievement of power, or the use of it."

WELCOME TO THE WORLD WAR ORDER

America's 'takeover': That great icon of 'truth at all costs' and 'fearless reporting', The Australian newspaper, fudged the news that Americans are waking up to the fact they have been taken over by a Jewish cabal which surrounds and directs George Bush. Consider Andrew Sullivan's article, 17th March, 2003:
"Paranoids point to Jewish conspiracy but proof is hard to find". He writes, "Many American Jews, it should be added, disagree with the neo-conservative analysis of the situation. The leading figure of the anti-capitalist, anti-Israeli and anti-American movement is Noam Chomsky, an American Jew. The New York Times, supposedly a hotbed of Zionist dual loyalty, is against the war. Paul Krugman, a Jewish commentator, writes about Bush as if he were the devil incarnate. Leftist Jews such as Susan Sontag are against war. The point is American Jews can be found on both sides of the argument."

Quite! But those with the power and influence, no matter from which side of politics they come, are herding the American people in the same direction! The tactics of those forces using America for their own ends are the same as used elsewhere.
Andrew, don't write such rubbish!
Proof is not hard to find, but journalists with integrity certainly are.

Zionist control of Bush Administration

On February 19, 1998, in an "Open Letter to the President," the neoconservative (neocons) Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed "a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." The letter continued:
"It will not be easy - and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to [adopt such a strategy]."
Among the signatories were the following current Bush administration officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), Bolton (State Department), Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Paul Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense Department), Richard Perle (Defense Policy Board), and Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense).

In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network and already demanding war with Iraq. Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney (Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.).

At the time, President Clinton would only go so far as to support the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated $97 million dollars for training and military equipment for the Iraqi opposition.

The NEOCONS

The 'new conservatives' would fill the key positions involving defense and foreign policy. On Rumsfeld's staff are Wolfowitz and Feith. On Cheney's staff, the principal neoconservatives include Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. And Cheney himself, with his long-time neocon connections and views, has played a significant role in shaping "Bush" foreign policy.

Thanks to the ABC's Four Corners program "American Dreamers" 9/3/03 and SBS's Cutting Edge 11/3/03, what we have written can be backed up. Both programmes dealt with the Zionist control of George Bush and his Administration.
While the Internet is bristling with websites listing the names of these Zionists of Eastern European origin, it is handy to have the ABC and SBS programmes as back-up.

Where does Australia fit into the picture? "Jewish donors were among the biggest corporate and individual contributors to party political funds in 2001 and 2002, the Australian Electoral Commission revealed in its political donations return released last week," revealed the Australian Jewish News 14th February, 2003. "Westfield shopping mall developer Frank Lowy topped the list of Jewish donations with $624,200 - $311,900 to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and $312, 300 to the Liberals." Other prominent Jews listed as having contributed to party political funds are: Harry Triguboff, Richard Pratt and Isador Magid. The wealth and influence of these people have helped politicians to achieve their political ambitions.

And then - surprise, surprise! Like Shakespeare's Shylock they start demanding their pound of flesh.

Just as Jewish Dr. Kosmin expressed his concern that Ivor Benson "offered the new (Rhodesian) Government a coherent radical rightwing policy which would suit both their internal and external problems," (in other words offer coherent political answers to seemingly insurmountable problems) so Australian Jewry is still concerned Pauline Hanson might 'return' and be a rallying point for traditional Australians.
"Concern grows over Hanson's return," were the headlines in the Australian Jewish News 28th February, 2003. Pauline, standing this time for a seat in the Upper House of the NSW Parliament (results as yet not known) most certainly keeps touching raw nerves within the Jewish community. Is it because Pauline appeals to the same 'herrenvolk democracy' which concerned Dr. Kosmin back in the days of Rhodesia?
Rhodesia being seen as the last bastion of Christianity and Western tradition, with political trends dangerous to Jews?

"Hanson has previously described reconciliation as a 'failed concept' that should be 'abandoned'. She has also called for Australia's immigration policy to be 'radically reviewed' and for 'multiculturalism' to be 'abolished', writes Bernard Freedman.
And he reports, "B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission director Dr. Paul Gardner condemned her record on multiculturalism, Aboriginal reconciliation, immigration and economics."

All 'politically correct' policies referred to are designed to fragment and weaken us as a people, as a nation. Yet Dr. Gardner would have us believe the policies are really meant to do the opposite: "We need politicians guided by values of cohesiveness and harmony, not by the politics of division."

Howard's links

Thanks to the Internet and correspondents scattered around the planet with access to publications such as the Melbourne Age, UK Guardian, Washington Post, the Jerusalem Post etc, it is not hard to build up a solid picture.

Zionist Frank Lowy, Westfield shopping mall magnate has a deep connection with Israel. It is reported, he fought in a crack commando brigade during Israel's War of Independence and is one of Australia's donors to the United Israel Appeal, a Zionist charity that resettles Russian and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. It is said Lowy is Australia's second richest man, his holdings being scattered round the world. According to the London Sunday Times, 14th April 2002, he planned to invest £30 million in property and the media in Israel.

Australian PM John Howard, invited to meet with world Jewish and Zionist leaders on a trip to New York, was given Israel's highest honour for "Community Service". In response to the award, Howard said: "I am particularly delighted to be here today, and I thank the American Jewish Committee for its generous welcome and for the honour it has paid me... I am, as your president has said, somebody who is an unapologetic and longstanding friend of Israel and of the Jewish community, particularly in Australia. And I particularly thank the good offices of my friend, Colin Rubenstein, and others that have made it possible. My friends, it's a great pleasure to be here today. And I hope, in a small way, it makes a contribution to further strengthening the links between our three great nations, Australia, the United States and the State of Israel."

What of the United Kingdom and Tony Blair?

"Lord Michael Levy, a highly influential Zionist, is one of the most important fundraisers for the Labour Party, he is Tony Blair's closest associate and also unofficial envoy to the Middle East. Lord Levy is listed as President of Jewish Care; Governor 1990-95, Jewish Free Schools.

Amidst scandals involving payments made to Lord Levy by Australian Zionist shopping mall magnate Frank Lowy, The Age, Melbourne back-grounded his career, as both Blair's and Labour's chief fundraiser and as a 'cultural arbiter' of the music industry in Britain. Lord Levy received over £250,000 over 3 years from Zionist Frank Lowy who is seeking to expand in Britain.

Just as it was said in 1977 it must be restated - distinctions must be made

"In all this," wrote the Social Credit Secretariat, a distinction must be made. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. There are gentiles who consciously pursue Zionist objectives… Thus Zionism, in essence, like Arianism, is an ideology. And ideologies manifest in a way quite analogous to instincts. Just as the sexual instinct gives rise to a pattern of behaviour, so does an ideology. The objective of the sexual instinct manifests in mating, the objective of Arianism, or Zionism, manifests in centralisation of power. Instinct and ideology are more inclusive - go back further in the past - than race, and race becomes a tool of ideology."

WHERE IS THE PRESENT PHASE OF 'WORLD WAR' LEADING?

If history is anything to go by, Americans will one day come to the realisation, just as the English did after the WWII phase of this battle, having done their duty by this Inner Power, in their weakened state, they will fade from view as a world power. Fanciful thinking? I don't think so.

The situation in which America now finds herself was explained in On Target Vol.39, No.7, 28th February 2003. "Behind all this rhetoric is one of the most desperate gambles in history - an attempt by the US to stave off an imminent collapse and a shift in financial hegemony from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve to the European Central Bank and the EU..."

"As we have revealed in recent editions of On Target, the US has been living off massive trade deficits for many years. Its debt structure is frightening and the destruction of its industrial base even more so. It is diverting more and more of its remaining industrial capacity to armaments and military capacity."

Compare America's present parlous state with that of Britain's experiences in early 1940

"When the British declared war on Germany and went to America's financiers for help she was told "she could get 'assistance' on terms. The terms were payment in cash and provide your own transport…"In order to buy inferior materials at outrageous prices, Great Britain had to strip herself of upwards of £2,000,000,000 of overseas investments. Some of these investments were taken over directly by Khun, Loeb and Co… Great Britain handed over her designs and manufacturing processes, and built, at her own expense, factories in America which added greatly to America's industrial strength."

In the Melbourne Herald 2nd February, 1940 the following article appeared

"Although he personally favours the Allied cause, Mr. Henry Morgenthau, junior, is driving extremely hard bargains with the Allies… The Allies are sometimes forced to pay double the real price of the goods."(Eric Butler "The International Jew").
The 'American' financiers took Great Britain to the cleaners - just as the 'American' financiers are now taking America to the cleaners.

General Ludendorff wrote in 1931, "The Coming War"

"The majority of the English do not realise that, having done their duty by the inner Jewish circle, they have now got to disappear as a world Power."
The majority of the Americans have yet to wake up to the fact that the same fate now awaits them.

The last has not been heard of China

Just after WWII, (is it really nearly sixty years ago?) Eric Butler wrote that "as a result of the Pacific War, China is being 'developed' and 'modernised' by huge loans from Jewish financiers in America, working in close collaboration with their financial allies, the Soong family, which was educated in America… There is little doubt that China, with her teeming millions and largely unexploited resources, is ideal for the Jewish-inspired planners to build up into a powerful force in world affairs. The last has not been heard of China."

At the Melbourne World Economic Forum in September 2000, On Target (20/10/00) carried a press report on the remarks of Mr David Tang, Shanghai Tung chairman, who was unusually frank about the implications of free trade. He told those assembled:
" … I wouldn't concentrate on the rest of the world's companies selling to Asia. I would watch out, if I were you, about the WTO", he said …. "I've never understood why you want to engage us - we've got fantastically low labour [costs]" he told the forum. "China's going to completely devastate your whole labour force. They have labour costs 15 times, 30 times lower than America … All the stuff you're going to make, we're going to completely destroy in terms of costs" he said. "We can make things so much more cheaply than you. I would watch out for your markets being infiltrated by us …." We have been 'herded into' the next phase of the World War Order.