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

19 March 2004. Thought for the Week: "The centralisation of power is not a 'trend' at all. It is the result of long-term planning and it has come out into the open. Such is the proposition before Australia. In accordance with a combination of invitation and pressure, Australia is now being coerced into dispensing with the trappings of sovereignty, and baring her bosom to the endearments of a New World Order…"
Jeremy W. Lee in "Upon That Mountain -- A Plot to Betray Australia's Independence," 1978.


by Betty Luks
The League, and myself in particular, have received some criticisms from a couple of readers lately. That's okay; we shouldn't venture into 'the market place' if we are not willing to 'take the heat' and at times need to explain to friends why we take the positions we do.
One email was from an Australian of German background (C.B.) who thought we are far too critical of Adolf Hitler - because, as I understood his complaint - he thinks we criticize Hitler mainly because he was a German. Not so C.B. -- in fact you are way off the mark.
We are highly critical of traitorous Australian politicians, such as those in the mainline parties, but that does not make us anti-Australian. We are critical of today's politicians, because, not only have they betrayed their own claimed principles, they have betrayed their own people, their fellow Australians, for a 'mess of pottage' - they have sold out our birthrights to the NWO.

National Socialism and Marxist Socialism sects of same 'religion'
Adolf Hitler's philosophy was that of a Socialist, a centralist, albeit a National Socialist -- Nationale Soziale Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (Worker's Party). It was Eric Butler who noted that at the end of WW2 many Nazis went over to the Communist camp in the Soviet Union.
Eric wrote in 1941: "Clashes between Hitler and Stalin must not blind us to the fact that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism are only different sects of the one 'religion'.
C.B., I would remind you, it was the Australian League of Rights who stoutly defended the German people and over the years, exposed the 'holocaust myths' when it was very unpopular to do so. I suggest you do some serious study of 'the enemy within' all nations.

"The Enemy Within the Empire"
The following extracts are from an article which first appeared in 'Ken' (Chicago, U.SA.), November 3, 1938 and was reprinted in Eric Butler's 1941 book with the above title.
"In the spring of 1934, a select group of city financiers gathered around Montagu Norman in the windowless building of the Bank of England in Threadneedle Street. Among those present were Sir Alan Anderson, partner in Anderson, Green & Co.; Lord (then Sir Josiah) Stamp, chairman of the L.M.S. Railway System; Edward Shaw, chairman of the P.&0. Steamship Lines; Sir Robert Kindersley, a partner in Lazard Bros.; Charles Hambro, partner in Hambros Bros.; and C. T. Tiarks, head of J. Shroeder Co…"
"… a new power was established on Europe's political horizon, namely: Nazi Germany. Hitler had disappointed his critics. His regime was no temporary nightmare, but a system with a good future, and Mr. Norman advised his directors to include Hitler in their plans. There was no opposition, and it was decided that Hitler should get covert help from London's financial section…"
"Immediately the directors went into action. Their first move was to sponsor Hitler's secret re-armament, just about to begin. Using their controlling interests in both Vickers and Imperial Chemical Industries, they instructed these two huge armament concerns to help the German programme by all means at their disposal. In the same year English armament firms placed huge advertisements in the "Militaerischer Wochenblatt" offering for sale tanks and guns, prohibited by the Versailles Treaty. A statement made by General Sir Herbert Lawrence, chairman of Vickers, furnished the necessary evidence that the British Government knew about and approved these advertisements. When, at his company annual meeting, he was asked to give the assurance that Vickers' arms and munitions were not being used for secret re-arming in Germany, he replied: "I cannot give you an assurance in definite terms, but I can tell you that nothing is done without the complete sanction and approval of our Government."

The Enemy Within
In ancient history, this 'enemy within' was known as the Whore of Babylon, in Christ's time on earth it was known as Mammon, in this day and age its most public face is the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Another criticism came from B.E. of NSW. He thought we were being hypocritical pushing for social credit principles and democracy instead of a 'theocracy', i.e., obedience to the Laws, Commandments, Statutes and Judgements of the Old Testament.
And yet he went on to say:
"Also responsible government is Obedience to Jesus Christ."

B.E. of NSW, it is important for you to understand the League of Rights promotes the Christian revelation of God. Jesus summed up what was required of us in two commandments - Love the Lord your God with your 'whole being' - and your neighbour as yourself. By fulfilling those two commandments, our behaviour, our whole way of life, fulfils a higher standard than the rigid observances of man-made law upon law upon law.
As Christians, we are not free because John Howard might choose to decree we are free - we are free because Christ has set us free. That is a fundamental Christian truth which has acted as a leaven through the last two thousand years of Christian history.
Please look again at our policies - and I sincerely hope you will see the Truth behind them!
Further reading: "The Australian Heritage Series", $5.00 posted from all Book Services.

Canon Arthur Fellows wrote of the Christian ideal
"It is to Christianity that man owes, if not the awakening of the notion of freedom and human dignity, at any rate its consolidation and universal expansion. The fact is that the Gospel (Good News) emphasised decisively the dignity of the human person. It preserved the natural bonds between the particular individual and the human groups that fashion him, but it clearly laid down the autonomy of the individual, based ultimately on the nature of God, in whose image man was created.
This evangelical ideal, together with the doctrinal principles it inspired, acted through all history as a leaven, constantly urging western man to instill the greatest possible freedom into his social, economic and political institutions.
It is Christianity which insists on the uniqueness of each individual before God. All men are not created equal, but each man is created free, moral and responsible. The inequalities of life are compensated for by the words of Jesus, that "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required".
The worth and dignity of each individual, rich or poor, high or low, and his inestimable value in the sight of God, is fundamental to Christianity (and was the foundation upon which this nation was founded.)

All exterior freedoms flow on from this interior freedom
The working out of this principle in life was a slow process, but, as an example, the Christian conscience came to see eventually that slavery was wrong in principle -- and it was abolished.
The real foundations of liberty are spiritual. True freedom is obedience, obedience to a Moral Law, obedience to God 'in whose service is perfect freedom'."


by Paul Wolfgang Tronvig, USA
"A few months ago we learned a new word was being added to dictionaries to describe dead-end jobs with low pay and potential. The word that was coined was McJobs. Well now, have you heard that Chief White House economist, Gregg Mankiw, is considering the reclassification of fast food jobs from the service sector to the manufacturing sector? He applied fancy economic terminology to this notion and thus characterized fast food production lines as combining inputs to create new products. So now you know that adding the lettuce and tomatoes to your burger is a much more sophisticated process than you have ever imagined!
Feeling overwhelmed by this new wisdom, I feel at liberty to coin yet another new word to commemorate this epiphany. Let's call this McManufacturing!
Of course most of us still cling to the old-fashioned notion that manufacturing must involve the production of products that could be called durable goods - items that can be packaged and shipped and even exported to other countries to help correct our terrible balance of trade deficit in the new global economy. Maybe I'm just dumb, but it seems to me that a customer consuming a hamburger and fries is simply converting this 'product' into something nasty that just ends up in the septic tank in a few hours, so I just can't get my mind around the idea that the fast food industry could be producing any kind of durable good subject to any sane definition of manufacturing.
But I could be wrong. I've never been able to believe in the 'faith-based' economics of the New World Order of the Unstoppable Global Economy in which it is rapidly becoming politically incorrect to point out that the Emperor is not actually wearing any clothes.
But having said this, I fear our economy and our national sovereignty may be heading in the same direction as our digested hamburgers."


by Thomas Dolling
Tony's time of trouble
Tony Blair's latest round of troubles began last week when prosecutors dropped a case against spy services translator Katharine Gun who leaked documents to try to stop the war in Iraq, and when Claire Short, one of Blair's former Cabinet Ministers said Britain spied on Un Secretary General Kofi Annan. The Age 3/3/04

Slow death for Cuban dissidents
Jailed critics of Castro's regime are living in inhumane conditions say rights activists. It is reported at least twenty of 75 Cuban dissidents, arrested convicted and jailed nearly a year ago, are seriously ill. Communism sure is not dead yet!


by Steven Greenhut
What role would I have played in The Passion? Not the movie, but the real-life drama. That's what I thought about as I watched Mel Gibson's spectacular, moving account of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life on Earth. Would I have cheered as Christ was sentenced to death? Would I have laughed as he was tormented toward the cross? It's scary to contemplate. Gibson answered the question for himself. His only on-screen performance was of his arm and hand hammering the nail through Christ's hand. In one small dramatic act, Gibson exposed Abraham Foxman's and the Anti-Defamation League's efforts to defame the biblical account of Christ's death as anti-Semitic. Some columnists are trying to suggest, outrageously, that Gibson is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. They are sounding increasingly bitter, increasingly desperate given the success of the movie and their own irrelevance.

Liberal critics of the movie were aghast at the violence portrayed in it. Well, we finally find a movie that is too violent for these critics. Not "Kill Bill", which liberals celebrated as a hip and edgy film, but The Passion. Violence is too much for them if it is in service to a religious message they simply cannot stand.

The beauty of the film, beyond the magnificent imagery, fine acting and stunning photography, was the portrayal of the key action of our faith as a real event. This, I suppose, is a close portrayal of how the crucifixion and the hours leading up to it took place. As such, I watched and wondered. What would I have done? That's a central question.

Gibson's portrayal of Mary was magnificent. She was real woman, laughing and interacting with her child in flashbacks. Can any parent imagine what it would be like to watch our child tortured in such a way? The pain would be unbearable. Mary's suffering was immense. I was pleased that evangelical Protestants have so freely embraced a movie that is not shy about its Marian intentions. It's time all Christians treat the Mother of God with the honor she deserves. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a Jewish convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.)

I can't recall any similar effort to shut down a movie, to destroy the reputation of a producer or to associate a project with the vilest half-truths and innuendoes. Why? Because the Gospel story still matters. It still offends. It still causes haters of the message to want to crucify, albeit figuratively, the messenger.

Officialdom doesn't care about unsophisticated TV evangelists. Mostly, such evangelists convince the world that Christianity is a joke. But Mel Gibson has clout, and he is using a medium well respected throughout American society. I think the ADL and its allies fear mass conversations, not outbreaks of anti-Semitism.

The film certainly is separating the wheat from the chaff. The first attempt to silence the film came after a stolen copy of an early script was sent to someone associated with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He formed a committee of scholars, and a nun on the committee denounced the movie as anti-Semitic on national TV. The bishops formally apologized, but the scholars' criticism sent Gibson and company reeling.

The Catholic church is now dominated in this country by "progressives." Our local diocese is hostile to expressions of the traditional Catholic faith. I have a photograph of the Bishop of Orange Tod Brown pulling a middle-aged woman up by the arm who was trying to bow before communion. He refused to give her communion unless she was standing.

The bishop and the diocese have been strangely tolerant of sexual deviants in their midst, but they absolutely cannot tolerate traditionalist expressions of the Catholic faith. So it was no surprise to me, although it was a surprise to many Catholics in Orange County, that the diocese spokesman attacked The Passion in the newspaper on the first day it was released.
"I saw a very tedious, slow-moving, graphic, violent motion picture," Fr. Joseph Fenton said in the Orange County Register. "If you are of the bent that feels that graphic suffering makes you feel the terrible sinner that you are and Jesus is saving you, then this is going to be a very big plus in your favor when you see the movie." How snide and revealing. Actually, I would have been shocked had the diocese been supportive of Gibson's act of faith.

In The Passion, the religious leaders were the ones who insisted that Christ be crucified. The average folks could be led one way or another. But religious leaders had created God in their own image. And they couldn't stand to see the real God in their midst. But many leaders in the Catholic church and other churches seem eerily similar to the Pharisees depicted in the movie.

I don't mean to cast stones, but it certainly seems that they have created a New Jesus to go along with their New Church. This phony Jesus is always tolerant, always kind, never uttering a harsh word and never making any demands on his followers. In this phony church, everyone is OK just as they are. There is no sin, so there is no need for Christ to have suffered in such a way. That's my theory why so many so-called Christian leaders are uncomfortable with the Christ portrayed accurately in Gibson's movie. To these New Church leaders, the big issues are temporal ones: gay rights, ending celibacy in the priesthood, liberal politics, social justice, etc. The Holy Church offends them. They cannot take the sight of the stations of the cross. They must move the tabernacle with the Eucharist to broom closets away from the altar lest anyone be unduly reminded of Christ's real presence.

Yet despite the efforts to humiliate Gibson and his movie, the public is drawn to it. Money is only money, but the movie is wildly successful from a financial perspective. More important, it is having an unseen influence on those who see it.

Steven Greenhut is a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Orange County Register. Copyright © 2004


The Bill to sell the remaining 51.0% Telstra government shares has passed the House of Representatives. Urgent task for actionists. Insist to your Senate representatives that under no circumstances do you want him/her to vote for the sale of Telstra.
At the same time let them know you are outraged at the Senate setting up a Committee 'to enquire into an Australian Republic', wasting your hard-earned taxes. It is only a short time ago Australians voted overwhelmingly to retain their Constitutional Monarchy!


"Create a world police to "keep the peace when it is threatened and restore the peace when it is broken." (Taken from "The New World Order Threat to Australia" flyer produced by the League over twenty years ago.) At the time it couldn't be envisaged how this would be done… read on.

The following condensed version of "The world's first government-corporate war and the end of nation states - as we know them," by Victor Thorn, Issue No.2, 1/3/04, comes from Neil Baird's email.

"We hear reports that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is being protected from assassins in Kabul. Who is guarding him - the U.S. Army? No - he is being surrounded by a private military company (PMC) called DynCorp. This same private company also trains the newly formed Iraqi police force, while the Vinnell Corporation trains the Iraqi army and the Saudi National Guard.
How about the huge military base in Iraq that houses our 2nd Armoured Cavalry Regiment - who built that - the U.S. military? No, it was constructed by Kellogg Brown & Root, an affiliate of Halliburton.
How about the Baghdad headquarters of Paul Bremer - who protects him? Surely it must be our armed forces. But no, our commanders are safeguarded by a British private military company called Global Risk International.
Even a significant percentage of our Stealth Bombers, Global Hawks, and Predator Drone aircraft are operated by PMCs, along with our advanced technological operations, intelligence, communications and logistics.
Who is really in control?
With this eye-opening information in mind, someone may ask, "Wait a minute, what does our military do in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and other hot spots? Who's really in control?"
The answer may shock you, but guess who the second largest military force in Iraq belongs to. If you answered Great Britain with 9,000 men, you'd be wrong, for the next highest contingency of troops are constituted by PMCs - Private Military Companies.
But before we explore this intriguing phenomenon that is reshaping how we view war, I feel a clarification is in order. The Centre for Public Integrity defines a Private Military Company (PMC) as: "A Company that provides, for profit, services that were previously carried out by a national military force, including military training, intelligence, logistics and offensive combat, as well as security in conflict zones."

Yes, you read those words correctly
Warfare in the year 2004 is increasingly being carried out by corporate armies (or mercenaries as they were called in a bygone era). One of the primary reasons for this trend is that, worldwide, the size of government armies is shrinking. In the United States, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite being an ardent war-hawk, has cut over 200,000 military jobs, and says that he would like to outsource all armed forces roles except those for actual combat. This stance has angered many long-standing traditional generals (many of whom have been released from their duty), especially when they see that our military has dropped from 2.1 million active members in 1990 to 1.4 million in 2003.

But American forces aren't the only ones that have dwindled
Britain's is at its smallest point since the Napoleonic era, while the Russian army was decimated by the fall of communism, and East Germany's has significantly decreased since the Berlin Wall came down. Even South Africa's once strong forces aren't what they were during the days of Apartheid.

But what of the enormous 'war' budget?
But if the actual size of our military is decreasing, how can we account for the billions of dollars the Bush administration is receiving from Congress? Well, naturally a substantial percentage is being funneled to the defense contractors, while other portions are earmarked for Homeland Security and rebuilding Iraq. But what the mainstream media isn't revealing is the enormity of funds being forwarded to PMCs. In fact, the Department of Defense has entered into over 3,000 contracts with a dozen U.S. PMCs that total $300 billion.

Peter Singer, author of Corporate Warriors
The Secret World of Corporate Mercernaries states that annual PMC global revenue now tops $100 billion. Although this figure sounds incredible, consider that PMCs now operate in over 50 countries, with Kellogg Brown & Root performing manoeuvres in at least 18 different nations since the 1990s. Likewise, Alpha Firm (comprised of ex-KGB agents) operates out of Moscow, Sandline in the U.K., while Israel touts PMCs such as Levdan, Ango-Sedu, and Silver Shadow.

Private military companies
This movement toward Private Military Companies has become so prevalent that a consortium has been formed - the IPOA (International Peace Operations Association) - to bring together all the MSPs (Military Service Providers). But, one may wonder, how does a firm get into the PMC business? The first step they must take is to register with the U.S. Government and get a licence from the State Department. Once that is accomplished, they can either be employed to work with American troops; or, if they want to be deployed on foreign soil, they must get an export licence from the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls. With that paperwork, they can station their employees in the Middle East, or let them be recruited as operatives in one of the CIA's paramilitary divisions.

Fortune 500 companies now in the business of mercenaries
Knowing all this, the next logical question should be: who exactly are these Private Military Companies? The answer is very revealing, and somewhat disturbing, for we begin to realize that quite a few Fortune 500 companies are now in the mercenary business, including:-
a.. Lockheed Martin with L-3 Communications,
b.. Halliburton with Kellogg Brown & Root,
c.. while the Virginia-based MPRI brags of having more generals in its employment than the Pentagon.
d.. Even British Petroleum hired a PMC to represent it in South America.

But instead of mere generalities, let's look at a few specifics
· DynCorp, one of the undisputed leaders in this field, works in unison with the Kuwaiti Air Force, plus also received a $50 million government contract in Iraq where they hired 1000 ex-cops to train the Iraqi police. Their total federal contracts for 2002 totaled $2.1 billion.
· Following closely behind them, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root received $1.7 billion in federal money.
· While the Vinnell Corporation got $148 million to train the Iraqi Army.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this phenomenon is that a substantial amount of this money was awarded through no-bid contracts.
These multi-national companies (MNCs) then use their funds for mining and oil operations, technology & communications, military ventures or computers, or to protect their own factories and headquarters. This final concept - protection - has become a vital consideration for PMCs due to the level of violence they face, especially in volatile foreign countries.

Two newsworthy examples are the recent bombing of a Saudi embassy where employees of the Vinnell Corporation were targeted and killed.
In addition, a fall 2003 attack on the Gaza Strip led to the deaths of some Americans. It was assumed at the time that these were U.S. troops, when in fact they were employees of DynCorp.

But these aren't the only problems associated with PMCs. Military privatization also carries other issues
1) National Security is now in the hands of an outside entity (proxy).
2) Less accountability in that a private company is less apt to answer Congressional questions or open their books to those they view as outside the loop. This notion is reinforced by Jason McIntosh, a spokesman for Science Applications, who said, "We refrain from talking about things our customers don't want us talking about. That's just good policy."
3) The delicate balance of power which this country was founded upon will be circumvented, for Congress will have less input in military matters, while the Executive Branch (via the State Department and Pentagon) will rise in stature. In fact, by law, Congress doesn't even have to be notified by the State Department that a PMC has been hired unless the contract is greater than $50 million. Plus, if you think the CIA has carte blanche now; imagine if there is even less oversight in regard to hiring and operational practices.
4) Lastly, PMCs have no oath or loyalty to this country; only contracts as hired guns. In this sense, they're not compelled to follow a military code of conduct (or any other, for that matter). An excellent case in point is DynCorp, whose employees have recently been involved in a sex-slavery fiasco, prostitution rings on foreign soil, and employment scandals with its female workers…[this] leads us to the crux of this issue. How is the security of our nation affected by the fact that the ability to wage war is no longer the sole possession of governments? Now, I'm not talking about street violence or terrorist acts; instead, I'm referring specifically to war being waged by our government (or any other). If this concept exists outside that commonly held arena, where will it lead the world?…"

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159