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
Home Blog Freedom Potentials The Cross Roads Veritas Books
OnTarget Archives Newtimes Survey Podcast Library Video Library PDF Library
Actionist Corner YouTube Video Channel BitChute Video Channel Brighteon Video Channel Social Credit Library

On Target

22 August 2003. Thought for the Week: Mammon: "Wages, therefore, must be kept down to the lowest possible level. It is the price of bread which, everywhere in Europe, determines this lowest possible level. Cheaper bread means lower wages. When the Money power demanded the Repeal of the Corn Laws and the introduction of a system of free imports it was demanding, in fact, a general reduction of wages, or rather, since wages had already in many cases been forced down below reasonable subsistence level, a higher standard of nourishment - and therefore of working power - for the same wages. The chief obstacle to repeal was the existing House of Commons in which the interests of agriculture were prominent. The Money power, therefore, began to agitate vigorously for Parliamentary Reform and to subsidize the 'Radicals'."
"Monarchy or Money Power," by R. McNair Wilson 1933.


by Jeremy Lee
There was a period in more robust times when the ideal of world government stemmed from the bosom of the Marxists and Fabians. The conservative side of politics was unashamedly nationalist - not jingoistically so, but in full knowledge that constitutionalism and participatory democracy went hand in hand. Either parliament drew its terms of reference from the people, or it had no legitimacy. The 'internationalist brigade' drew its inspiration from such unlikely characters as Karl Marx, H.G. Wells and the Socialist International. Even those working to undermine nation-states concealed what they were doing.

Professor Toynbee's now famous statement about internationalism, "and all the time we're denying with our lips what we're doing with our hands" summed up the sheer dishonesty of the dialectic approach. Which was not to say there was no recognition of the need for inter-nation discussion and consultation. But the right of nations to 'contract out" of policies they disagreed with was a tacit part of the libertarian approach with seemed part of the conservative position. This appeared to be reinforced by the UN Charter, which forbade interference in members' internal affairs.

Nobody takes that seriously any more. All that has gone. When it comes to globalism there is no difference between John Howard and Paul Keating. Our Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been fairly derogatory about the ideal of national sovereignty - even though his oath of office was to that ideal, and the constitution under which he was appointed unabashedly national in nature.

It was at its 1962 Conference in Oslo that the Socialist International - originally founded by Marx - declared its intentions
"The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government …. Membership of the United Nations must be made universal, so that all nations, including China, may be represented by their governments in power …."

The Fabian ideologues in the Labor Party have never deviated in their pursuit of this objective. This, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister and the first Gulf War was proposed, the Labor Party pulled its 'anti-American' elements into line. Paul Kelly, writing in The Weekend Australian (Dec 8-9, 1990) spelled it out clearly: His heading was WHY LABOR WOULD GO TO WAR FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

He said: "This week the Labor Party's left wing, renowned for decades for being anti-American, isolationist and pacifist, gave its authorization to a war, if necessary, spearheaded by the United States …. Such a move, just six months ago, would have been inconceivable …. During the left-wing's soul-searching ….the best speech came from Victorian back-bencher Andrew Theophanous …. "A new world order is emerging, as is shown by the unprecedented resolution 678 of the United Nations Security Council …. When a situation arises in which the UN has gained a tremendous boost in its power, in its prestige, in its authority, and is able to carry resolutions and concrete actions as a result of those resolutions, then people who describe themselves as leftist or socialist should not be concerned about it, but should welcome such developments because the increase in the powers of the UN is a very significant development. It is something which the ALP has been committed to for many, many years - ever since the time of Dr Evatt …."

Whatever else is said about such a Labor position, they were at least true to their ideals, as expressed through the Socialist International, - and said so. But when did the Liberals and Nationals take up the socialist agenda, while managing never to spell it out to their supporters in their policies and to voters at election time? It culminated - as far as I'm concerned - with Howard's lame-duck statement in South Africa that "there is now nothing else but globalism".

Perhaps we should be a little sorry for the pathetic idealism of the labor-socialists. They seem to have envisaged a stately world parliament under the auspices of the United Nations, in which the nations of the world took their seats to determine in statesmanlike fashion the orderly and peaceful advance of a civilized world. They obviously knew nothing of the hidden powers to whom the United Nations was a mere plaything, for example, the bankers so well described in Professor Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", who were working steadfastly on their programme for a monetary world order of their own.

With the above in mind, it was almost sad to read the disillusion which came through the writings of Paul Kelly - the same man who wrote about Labor and the New World Order in 1990 - in The Australian (8/8/03) The new scenario resulting from President Bush's spurning of the Socialist-International paradigms for the New World Order obviously concerned him:
"The decline of national sovereignty as an absolute concept has triggered a new global debate over the terms and conditions that justify the right to intervene with military force. The coming decades will witness far more military interventions in the name of humanitarianism, security and saving failed states …. This will have a profound effect on Australia. Our multiple roles as a US ally, proficient peacekeeper, supporter of the UN and as the metropolitan powering a highly unstable part of the world guarantees our involvement as national sovereignty is redefined and reduced. The trend is unstoppable - the issue is whether it means more chaos or a better, rules-based global system …"

Kelly referred to a speech made by Britain's Tony Blair in Chicago in April 1999, in which he gave five tests to justify military intervention:
· Are we sure of our case?
· Have we exhausted all diplomatic options?
· Is the military option prudent?
· Are we prepared to commit to the long term?
· Do we have national interests at stake?
Blair had added that he saw the UN as the "central pillar" of the new rules, but warned that "we need to find a new way to make the UN and its Security Council work".

These words must be haunting the tatterdemalion figure who is the Prime Minister of Britain today. He failed to meet all his five tests in slavishly following the New York cabal to war. He danced all over the United Nations that he claimed was the "central pillar" for international decision-making.

With UN authority in tatters, and US nationalistic imperialism rampant, Paul Kelly advocated a new solution to the world's dilemma put forward by former Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans, and Algeria's Mohamed Sahnoun, recently reviewed in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs. It suggests a new list of conditions that must apply to any military intervention anywhere, to be authorized by the UN's Security Council. Shades of Tony Blair in 1999!

But what if someone as powerful as the United States ignores such conditions and initiates war on its own? The question is not addressed. The reason is there is no answer. As has been pointed out more than once, any New World Order will not be democratic, and will only observe such rules as suit its power-holders at a particular time. It will be the ultimate "might is right". The lovely ideals of the Socialist International are just that - a nonsense when it comes to reality.

How much longer can figures such as Tony Blair and John Howard claim, on the one hand, to be supporters of the United Nations? And, on the other, to slavishly follow the George Bush line, so contemptuous of the United Nations unless it can be used in the US imperialist programme? All of which bears thinking about as we hear Prime Minister Howard's latest proposal for a European Union-type regional bloc in the Pacific, to deal with the budget and defence needs of crumbling island economies, from the Solomons to Fiji and Papua-New-Guinea.

Sprung as though it were a new suggestion, the idea has been around for a long time, put forward at various times by Bob Hawke, Andrew Peacock and Paul Keating. It would obviously involve some sort of Pacific Parliament, with a subsequent integration of trade, defence and tax laws. In fact, the booklet "The Pacific Parliament" was written by former New Zealand Prime Minister and, more recently, president of the World Trade Organisation Mike Moore. Moore, a prominent Fabian and member of the Socialist International (as is current NZ Prime Minister Helen Clarke) was logically following the socialist programme for centralization.

It is not so surprising as it was that John Howard and Alexander Downer are tripping down the primrose Fabian path. The division of the world into politically-coordinated trading blocs, with their own common currencies, central banks, centralized parliaments and codified uniform laws was the theme portrayed by George Orwell in his "1984". A state of semi-permanent war existed between them, the citizenry regularly whipped up into crisis panics by the latest 'threat'.

There is nothing wrong with help by one neighbor for another when asked for. But taking over the decision-making process on a permanent basis is another. What if local people don't want it? Or must they be forced to accept such a proposition "for their own good"? It is the question the Iraqi people are asking. What if they don't want George Bush's version of their future? This is the real question the internationalists always sideline in the grand plans for our future.


I don't know what happens in your house, but in ours the conversation often turns to the present parlous state of affairs in this country and the lack of representation for their people by the politicians in Parliament - and the people's disenchantment, disgust and disrespect for the self-serving politicians. Therefore, it was with great interest I received a copy of Hilaire Belloc's "The House of Commons and Monarchy, " published in 1920. The following are but snippets from the paper, but they bear upon our own present troubles.

Although Mr. Belloc was writing about the United Kingdom over eighty years ago, his words of warning echo down the years. Belloc insisted:
"The House of Commons, though maintaining a representative element, was and is, essentially not a representative body, but an Oligarchy; that is a small body of men segregated from the mass of citizens and renewing itself. But no Oligarchy works (that is, can be morally accepted or exercise authority) unless it be an Aristocracy. Mere Oligarchy, the mere rule of a clique without the excuse of an imputed excellence, will never be tolerated among men.

The whole meaning of Aristocracy is the provision of a sort of worship addressed to the few that govern. Therefore, the House of Commons was vigorous and healthy in its function only so long as it was the Aristocratic organ of an Aristocratic State. For the definition of "The Aristocracy" in an Aristocratic State is, not a body recruited by birth or even from wealth, not a caste (though it may be a caste), least of all a plutocracy, but essentially an Oligarchy enjoying a Peculiar Respect from its fellow citizens.

The decline of that body into a clique
Upon the failure of the Aristocratic quality in the House of Commons, upon the decline of that body into a clique no longer respected, its moral authority disappeared; and, with that moral authority disappeared its power of government. Meanwhile the functions of this highly centralised form of executive, magistracy, and legislature combined, was vastly increased through the rapid development of the modern State. Hence, a double evil and double peril were present: the rapid accretion of material power in something which, as rapidly, was growing morally unfitted to exercise that power."

The only alternative is Monarchy
"…we shall further find that no external reform, not any act from within, can restore an organism so far decayed as is the House of Commons today. We shall further find that no subsidiary body, or bodies, such as the Trades Council or other Chambers can take its Sovereign place. It must be replaced, and can only be replaced in this Great State by that which is the only alternative to aristocracy in a Great State, I mean Monarchy. If some form of Monarchy does not succeed to the lost inheritance of the House of Commons, the State will lose its greatness.

The history of the name "House of Commons"
Mr. Belloc reveals the name was originally attached to something quite different from what we have known as the "House of Commons" for the last (now nearly) four centuries. "First we must learn how it acquired the name it bears; next how that old thing of which it inherited the name disappeared and gave birth to that great Sovereign Governing Assembly which has been the Person of England since the Civil Wars.

The mere words "House of Commons" - the name - is older by far than the seventeenth century. It is a literal translation of the mediaeval phrases "Communz," "Communitas," and the rest; French and Latin titles for certain institutions common to all Christendom in the Middle Ages. But it was in the early seventeenth century that the thing which we call the House of Commons, as distinguished from the name, came into being: say, 1620-50, just as the figment called "The Crown" then first begins to replace the old reality of English Kingship… These parliaments, springing up spontaneously from the body of Christendom, were based, of course, upon the model of the great monastic system, where the representative principle was born."

The verbal trickery of keeping the 'name' but replacing the function
"We must distinguish between these two very different pieces of verbal trickery. Both are well-known and tried ways of keeping a name while you change a thing. In the first case you take the name off one institution and put it on another. The classic example in English history is the case of the Church of England. In the other case you preserve the name attached to the fossil of the thing, but you transfer its active principle (in the case of the House of Commons, Sovereignty) to another thing. The classic example of this second policy in English history is the change in the function of kingship, the old established authority of which was taken away and given to the Aristocratic rule of Parliament, while the name "King" and some few ritual trappings of the old kingly function were retained.
In the first policy you call a new thing by an old name, and pretend you have the old thing still, because you have the old name. In the second policy you keep alive the mere name of a dead thing, and you pretend it is not dead because its name is alive…"
(Editor's note: C.H. Douglas wrote that Henry VIII's Church of England was not the same thing as the Church in England."

Further reading: "The Realistic Position of the Church of England" available from all League Book Services.)

Democracy is breaking down
"The humbug" continued Belloc, "of attempting to reconcile Parliaments and Democracy has obviously broken down. The statement that parliaments are, or can be, democratic is a lie; and you cannot build upon a lie. Parliaments if they are sovereign, are oligarchies; narrow and highly professional oligarchies at that. They can only work, therefore, when they are Aristocratic and act in an Aristocratic community. But once this sham is exposed (and all over civilisation its exposure is now thorough), there remains no instrument of government consonant with the conception of strict national unity and greatness combined, save Monarchy.
There is no conceivable form wherein, normally, as a regular day-to-day matter millions of men scattered over great distances can administer their own affairs. The moment they trust to councils they fall into oligarchy, and Oligarchy without Aristocracy is intolerable to man…"

One man must be sufficiently removed from temptation
"You must have one man sufficiently removed from temptation by his own absolute position and vested with sufficient powers, able to act with sufficient rapidity. That one man is a concrete object. He can be got at by people. He can be blamed or praised. He knows that he is responsible. He cannot shift his burden on to some anonymous and intangible culprit. And that, in itself, apart from the natural indifference and therefore impartiality of one who is above bribery and above blackmail, through his control of national wealth and power, is a vast force in favour of just government…"
To be continued…

Further reading: "Realistic Constitutionalism" by C.H. Douglas;
"Freedom Wears A Crown", by John Farthing;
"The Foundations of Liberty" by Canon Arthur Fellows;
"A New Britannia in the Southern Seas" by Eric D. Butler;
"Hilaire Belloc: 1870-1953" by Anthony Cooney;
"How to get What You Want: Elements of Organisation, Strategy and Tactics" by Arthur Chresby.

All books are available from the League Book Services.


According to a stunning report posted on the internet by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration's assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to "plant" WsMD inside the country.
Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by "friendly fire."

Concerned for her own safety
Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD, but, concerned for her own safety she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. Mr. Martin writes, "Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office" for the DoD. The information being leaked was "obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA.
"According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq," reports Al Martin, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides "Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence".

A retired Lt Commander (US Navy), and the author of a memoir called "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider," Mr. Martin, it is claimed, is one of America's foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and "the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace".
According to the website, "The Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others".

Another aspect of Ms Rogers' report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when "the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called 'friendly fire'. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted."
"They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds," according to Al Martin.

He continued, "These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray…There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of 'friendly fire', 'mistaken identity' and some of them - their whereabouts are simply unknown."
Ms Rogers claimed, "This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it."

After news of Nelda Rogers' claims reach the American public, one would expect the relatives of those who are reported to have died will call for an official investigation. After all, Ms Rogers is claiming over 100 Americans have been killed as a result of a botched-up CIA 'secret mission'.


Do what these folk have done. Take up your pen and express your Opinion to the newspapers an/or your Will to your Parliamentary Representative.

"Sick of Confusion"
The Editor, Forbes Advocate, 6th August 2003. Dear Sir, Your headline, "Sick of confusion", Forbes Advocate 2/8/03 has hit the nail on the head in regard to health services in Forbes, and indeed, throughout Australia. Planned confusion is a favourite tactic used by governments and bureaucracies when they want to keep from the public their real intentions. The agenda for the health services is privatisation which means ownership and control by corporations. Formerly we had common wealth services but now all services are being changed to private wealth. As privatisation advances our democracy declines. Initially, many of the corporations will be Australian owned, but these minnows will eventually be swallowed by the sharks, the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) who have the advantage of paying little or no tax in Australia by courtesy of the 1953 Double Taxation Agreement Bill.
In 1993 Australia signed "The General Agreement on Trade in Services" (GATS) which gave world traders unfettered rights to control workers in all services in Australia, including health, transport, local government and finance, to name a few. I believe GATS is the death knell of workers' rights in Australia.
One example of the long-term tactics of the privatization/globalization capitalist is the successful destruction of the nursing system. For generations nurses were trained in the wards of teaching hospitals. During the 1970s this system was changed and training was shifted to universities which immediately reduced the yearly number of graduates and denied many middle level achievers a rewarding career in nursing so now we have a shortage of graduate nurses. But GATS will come to the rescue. Big corporations will introduce nurses from low income countries in corporate owned hospitals at the rate of pay in the country of origin. Economists refer to this delightful little trick as 'globalisation's race to the bottom."
Our constitution has been almost completely bypassed by the quislingite policies of our governments and bureaucracies. If we had a referendum on GATS Australians could take a step to regain their constitutional rights and retain control over our services.
The repeal of the 1953 Double Taxation Agreement Bill would give Australian corporations an equal taxing basis with TNCs and restore their competitiveness. If both of the above were carried out we could reverse "the race to the bottom".
Yours faithfully, R.J. (Bob) Redfern, Forbes, NSW.

Mr. Alby Schultz, M.H.R., Member for Hume, Parliament House, Canberra. FAX 0262778482 Dear Mr. Schultz, I write on behalf of many thousands of South Australians who are opposed to the intended sale of the remaining 5I % of Telstra. I encourage you to vote against the sale rather than simply abstaining from the vote. First, you are elected to REPRESENT the will of the people who elect you to Parliament. You are not supposed to represent the views of your party. The truth of this remark can be established by reading the Constitution of our Nation. Nowhere does the Constitution refer to political parties, prime ministers, government and opposition. It repeatedly refers to the Parliament of Australia.
Members of the Parliament are elected to carry out the Will of their electors. That is why you are known as a Member of the House of Representatives. I strongly suspect your electors desire you to vote against the sale, rather than abstaining.
Second, it is the responsibility of Government to deliver the necessary infrastructure to ensure the health, welfare, security and prosperity of its people. Today telecommunications are critical to this responsibility. A good example of failing to protect the people of Australia can be seen in the contract that relates to Australia's defence satellite. You will know that Optus Australia won the contract to supply services to our defence satellite. Optus was consequently taken over by Singapore Telecommunications. Thus, today our defence satellite is effectively under the control of the Singapore Government that has a controlling interest in Singtel.
Third, you need to consider the demonstrated effects of privatisation across the range of facilities so far sold or leased out. Electricity is a good example. Unreliable supplies, rising user charges, far lower employment bases particularly in terms of apprenticeships, and a lack of responsibility relative to who fixes what, given a failure.
Fourth, you need to consider the current annual dividend of some $4 billion flowing to the Commonwealth. Any short term capital gain from total privatisation will quickly evaporate as Government will need to raise taxation to make up for the dividend short fall. Witness the plight of South Australia where Government now struggles without the cash-flows that came from Ports, Water, Electricity and so on.
Fifth, under privatization, it is obvious that services to the bush must suffer. It is plain economic common sense that a private business will concentrate effort where maximum profit will occur. The suggestion that $180 million will flow to the bush given the sale is almost farcical: Perhaps that sum may cover current bush deficiencies… But where will the next massive injection come from given the inevitable advance of telecommunications technology? Industry's business is profit… Government's business is service provision.
Yours sincerely, Peter Davis, 12/8/2003 Mayor's Parlor, P.O. Box 1787, Port Lincoln S.A.


28th August is the Annual General Meeting, followed by two brief talks. To celebrate the 30th year of the SCSC, Roy Gustard will present a short history of the Club followed by Maurice Shaya on Afghanistan.
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159