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

23 April 2004. Thought for the Week: "It appears to us to be axiomatic that …religion, in the sense of binding back to reality, is of primary importance. Until you have some kind of reliable chart, you are a mere waif on the ocean. Clearly religion in this sense is a seven-days-a-week matter, and requires to be distinguished carefully from 'good conduct'. It ought to result in good conduct, and in fact is the only test of good conduct, but that is something else again."
Clifford Hugh Douglas.


by Kevin MacDonald Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. While Prof. MacDonald is dealing with the situation in the USA, Australians will have no trouble in relating the article to what has happened in this country - as well as the U.K. "Over the last year, there's been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it "anti-Semitic" to say so? The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives -'paleoconservatives'- is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Neocon foreign policy fits well with plausible version of Jewish interests: Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative "godfather" Irving Kristol ("The Neoconservative Persuasion," Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that "the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy." And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:
"[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary." If the US is an "ideological" nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry.
For example, it is certainly true that the neocons' foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S. Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives - but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community.

'Ethnicity' is a practical matter not a moral one: Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof.
We shouldn't be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one.
Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world. But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion. Now, however, as the U.S. acquires an empire in the Middle East, this ban must inevitably fall away. My views on these issues are shaped by my research on several other influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements, including the Boasian school of anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, Marxism and several other movements of the radical left, as well as the movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional immigration.

My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work. I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests.

Key founders originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician: In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All centre on charismatic Jewish leaders-people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud- who are revered as messianic, god-like figures.
Neoconservatism's key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the "New York Intellectuals," a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union.
Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations. After the 1950s, they became increasingly disenchanted with leftism. Their overriding concern was the welfare of Israel.

Astonishing number well placed to influence political leaders: By the 1970s, the neocons were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel. Richard Perle was the prime organiser of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel and the United States.
Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration: (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan).
As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker:
"I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the 'Jewish Question'."
Strauss has become a cult figure-the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples.

Nothing 'conservative' about their goals: While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives - and have even claimed to be simply "conservatives"- there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel.
But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests.
Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived.

Common 'rhetoric': But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science-languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principal actors…" to be continued.


According to a paper received by us, the NSW Young Liberal Movement has unanimously passed a motion rescinding the original statement calling for Australia to become a republic. In fact they go so far as to ask a Mr. John Brogden who has publicly committed himself to a republic, just which one of the over 140 models in the world did he have in mind?
They thought he could be reasonably asked: Which type of republic did he support - the Indonesian, the USA, the Ugandan? What about the present Zimbabwe one?
The paper does go on to ask all Australians to support Liberal values. Well, first we need to know just what are those values. Australians can only go on their 'fruits' and we haven't seen to many good ones for quite some years. What's the saying? One swallow doesn't make a summer.
The original 1949 Liberal Party Statement of Beliefs including the following:
• We believe that national financial and economic policy are not to be designed to control men's lives, but to create a climate in which men may be enabled to work out their own salvation in their own way. (How can Australians 'work out their own salvation' under the present oppressive debt-monopoly financial system supported by all politicians of all parties.)
• We believe in the great human freedoms; to worship; to think; to speak; to choose; to be ambitious; to be independent; to be industrious; to acquire skill; to seek and earn reward." (Not any more you don't! What about the anti-Discrimination Legislation for one example?)


by Betty Luks:
A small number of keen social crediters from around the world have been involved in a discussion via the internet. I have to confess although I put my name on the list to participate my contribution has been pathetic.
But my attention was drawn to the comments of some -- frustrated because of their lack of success in interesting others in social credit, and also the difficulties in corresponding with those at different levels of understanding.
Let me list just some of their complaints:
• One has gone off on a concerted effort to establish world government.
• Another has gone off to promote Gessell's "disappearing money" theories.
• Others have become obsessed with interest on bank-created money derived from loans as being the bete noire of the economic malaise and have said that Douglas "missed the boat" with his "A + B Theorem."
• Others are convinced that the Social Credit concept and proposals re the Just Price are either not relevant or practical.
• Others fancy that the problem can be solved by myth of capital ownership.
As one correspondent wrote: "What bloody chaos. Don't imagine that I am not frustrated."

I do think he has put his finger on part of the problem when he writes:
"One of the main problems is that our culture has been effectively sabotaged through the education system and the established media and this has spread paralysis via confusion. (Australians call it 'dumbing down' W.K.) We need a cultural regeneration to revive the spirit in the human soul--a spirit which seeks only the truth and is willing to make great effort and sacrifice to ensure that it prevails. This goes beyond our individual hopes and desires for a 'quick fix' for Social Crediters. One must persist in the face of adversity and slowness of progress because only "the truth will make you free" and because in the service of God we have no other option but to seek truth and strive for it simply because to do so is 'right.'"

I am in agreement with that as far as it goes. But I have a problem with the following:
" 'M.' made a brilliant and literate foray into the field with his… but then became enchanted with Charles Ferguson whose ideas were known to, and preceded Douglas. Recent editions appear to have almost completely abandoned the case for Social Credit…"

And for myself, I think this is where many of us have gone wrong. Let me explain further by quoting C. H. Douglas.
In "The Realistic Position of the Church of England" he wrote:
"It is important to notice that the " Elders of Zion," whoever they may be, have certain premises in common with their irreconcilable antithesis, Christianity.
Both philosophies explicitly and implicitly condemn and discredit the idea of human equality.
• "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you."
• "Doth a bad tree bring forth good fruit?"
• "He that would be greatest among you, let him be your servant."
There is no essential difference in the premise; there is every difference in the policy as we can see when we come to examine that aspect.
There is nothing in the Protocols so devastating as the injunction (i.e., formal command):
"Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn upon you, and rend you," although the same idea is emphasised.
But the agreement on premises goes further. Both Christianity and the Protocols recognise the primacy and formative nature of ideas.
"My Kingdom is not of this world."
"There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative" [the pursuit of an inborn idea], Protocol V, par II, Marsden Translation.
Christianity, moreover, does not scorn this world. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you."
It is not improper to say that Christianity is inter alia a technique by which a man, by control of his ideation, may gain such part of the world as in the nature of things appertains to him, and there is no injunction of which I am aware against that.
But there is a warning. "What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"…"
By control of his (own) ideation may gain such part of the world which appertains to him… "The civilisation of Christianity was incompletely embodied in the culture of mediaeval Europe, and is exemplified (i.e., clarified by giving an example… and example, meaning something to be imitated) in Magna Carta.
Its essential characteristic is courage, allied to "love," cf. "Perfect love casteth out fear" (a rather unsatisfactory translation). The knight of chivalry, the militant Christian ideal, watched his armour alone in the chapel through the night, and then went out to do battle alone for love against fear and oppression-a very complete allegory (i.e., a visible symbol representing an abstract idea; a short moral story, often with animals in it. The fear in this allegory could be his own fear, frightened to try something new or different… it may not always be fear of another mortal.)
The "mass" is unsaveable, (comes from the same root word as 'salvation' i.e., being made whole) just as a mob is insane ("without health"); the object of Anti-Christ is to keep mankind in ever larger mobs, thus defeating the object of Christ, to permit the emergence of self-governing, self-conscious individuals, exercising free will, and choosing good because it is good. The energising factor is attraction, inducement…" (definitions and some emphasis added.)
Just quoting Magna Carta will not return us the freedoms we have lost and continue to lose. Just quoting Christ's words: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you," will not give us "all these things will be added unto you."
We have to actively pursue them. There has to be a practical application of … "first seek (i.e., try to get or reach; try to locate or discover; try to establish the existence of) the Kingdom of God … and so with Social Credit!
P.S. I have some of Charles Ferguson's books and I see absolute flashes of brilliance and insight within. But it took C.H. Douglas to give us more detail and take us on further in understanding of this thing called 'social credit'. A good idea is to read Michael Lane's book on Charles Ferguson: "Herald of Social Credit". Available from all League Book Services.

"What IS Social Credit?" I hear you asking

The following is taken directly from, "The Essential Elements of Social Credit," an introductory Course of Lectures published with the authority of The Social Credit Secretariat. October, 1946.
Social Credit is: "The power of human beings in association to produce the result intended, measured in terms of their satisfaction."
"As the interests of Life have expanded, so there has spread the recognition that Law operates on other planes than those which are the special interest of physicists and chemists as such; and that such Laws are as inviolable as any others.
"But it is as generally recognised, perhaps, that assessment, of the mode of operation of these Laws is difficult and uncertain in proportion as the individual lacks experience of their consequences, while their range and time of action outspans the lives of individuals, who are nevertheless subject to them.
It may well be that the charting of this cumulative experience of mankind is subject to distorting agencies -- that the social credit is, in this respect, falsified, as in so many other cases. But the very existence of a Social Credit movement is evidence that the effect of this distorting agency is not absolute.
It is not a matter of speculation but of fact that there have been relatively settled times in history, when men seemed to advance towards their dimly perceived but real goal, when Life was more abundant, when manners were inspired by a general if not an universal apprehension or intuition, of the sources of satisfaction, when Faith (" the substance of things hoped for") was wider spread, and "the evidence of things unseen" more credible… You may decide now whether human beings have or have not any such power: whether two or more persons can help each other to produce a result they intend to produce. If they have no such power, Social Credit does not exist: if they have it does."
Doesn't there come a time when the knowledge gained has to be put to the test by practical application? Is it true? What do you think? Put it to the test! "Was Life more abundant?" What were people doing which made it so?
What about Faith? Have we enough Faith "to permit the emergence of self-governing, self-conscious individuals, exercising free will, and choosing good because it is good. The energising factor is attraction, inducement…"
Not all will understand the finer technicalities of the money system, nor be able to follow and quote the A+B Theorem, but each in our own 'neck of the woods' with the talents and inspiration we have, can choose to make a contribution to our world for the better, and thus release and increase the Social Credit.


I always knew that things go round in circles, but I find this ridiculous. A headline in the International Express dated 23rd-29th March 2004. 'PRISONERS MUST BE CALLED MISTER'. One part of the article said "The proposal by the board of visitors at the Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire .... was seen as a move to make the regime more politically correct". One prison officer said, "The idea is bloody stupid and too ridiculous to contemplate".
I served in the Correctional Services for almost 15 years. When I first joined the prisoners were called by their surnames, (except for a few exceptional cases). The officers were addressed as Mister….. by prisoners and chiefs and other officers, generally. We also wore a smart uniform, with collar and tie and cap.
In later years we were encouraged to address them by their first names, but most of the officers did not, but did sometimes use nicknames. Dress went by the wayside and some took off their ties and hats, the smart uniforms went, hats were only for musters, and at the same time discipline was waning. There was even talk of wearing blazers and slacks so it would not be as intimidating as a uniform. (i.e. to make it more social than military, I suppose).
A few years later, the powers that be decided that the prisoners should be called "CLIENTS". I wrote a letter to head office with a few queries about customer/client relations. One of the points I raised was, "Is the customer always right??" Otherwise I cannot see the change being any use at all. (Not that I thought it was anyway). Of course I had no reply although one of the Chiefs somehow got wind of the letter and tried to carry it through, but had about as much success as I did.
I think this is a world-wide trend, not only in prisons but in the Military as well, to a point. What do you think of the uniforms now? I can't for the life of me see why soldiers wear camouflage uniforms in the street, or even worse senior officers, on TV., wearing scruffy looking camouflage uniforms when they DO have smart kaki uniforms.. Not a very good example is it'? Where do we go from here? I am reminded of two old songs which were very popular about 40 years ago.
"Things ain't what they used to be" and "I'm Glad I'm Not Young Anymore"
Doug Holmes, South Australia.


Senate Committee meeting on republic in Melbourne
Five Senators sat, and the meeting was chaired by Senator Bolkus. Thirty two people were in attendance with two thirds of them republicans. The witnesses called were all republicans except a 99 year-old very-British Major who was an Australian by choice and "I have a vote". He was so deaf he couldn't hear the chairman, he had his grandson there to shout messages in his ear. He good-heartedly injected some humour into the day.
He had rung up the particular newspoll the terms of reference had quoted: of 1200 people 52% voted for a republic -- and the newspoll told him 39% voted for a republic, 13% were neither for or against and 48% didn't want a republic. The chairman tried to quote different figures for the same poll.
Most of the republicans spent a great deal of time agonising how they could educate the voters of the need for a republic.
One let the cat out of the bag! He was at the Corowa conference and at the conference in Brisbane, where the Democrats had undertaken to set up this Committee.
Points to learn:- Don't all sit together, scatter throughout the audience. Some sat near the front and they had an open microphone for 30 minutes at the end of the meeting. The Chair took only those who had identified themselves as republicans.
Constructive suggestion: Run a training session at Albury Weekend in October for speaking into a microphone and reading a speech.


For those who thought we quoted the wrong date for Magna Carta in the 8th April 2004 issue. "Magna Carta, the Great Charter of English liberties, was first issued by King John at Runnymede in June 1215. Immediately upon John's death in October 1216, it was reissued in the name of his successor, Henry III, with substantial excisions and alterations. Two subsequent reissues in 1217 and 1225 incorporated further revisions. In the form of the third and final revision of 1225, it was confirmed in 1297 by Edward I and a copy of this confirmation was afterwards placed on the first or 'great' roll of English statutes."
Taken from "The Making of Magna Carta".


"One Land, Two Peoples" by Ilan Pappe:
A history of modern Palestine. Ilan Pappe's book is the story of Palestine, a land inhabited by two peoples, with two national identities. It begins with the Ottomans in the early 1800s, the reign of Muhammad Ali, and traces a path through the arrival of the early Zionists at the end of that century, through the British mandate at the beginning of the twentieth century, the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent wars and conflicts which culminated in the intifadas of 1987 and 2000. While these events provide the background to the narrative and explain the construction of Zionist and Palestinian nationalism, at centre stage are those who lived through these times, men and women, children, peasants, workers, town-dwellers, Jews and Arabs. It is a story of coexistence and co-operation, as well as oppression, occupation, and exile.
Ilan Pappe is well known as a revisionist historian of Palestine and a political commentator on the Israel-Palestine conflict. His book is lucid and typically forthright. It is a unique contribution to the history of this troubled land which all those concerned with developments in the Middle East will have to read. Ilan Pappe teaches politics at Haifa University in Israel. He has written extensively on the politics of the Middle East, and is well known for his revisionist interpretation of Israel's history and is a critic of its policies towards the Palestinians.
Price: $45.00 Includes Postage & Handling: Order your copy today from your State bookshop.

Other Suggested Reading:
Bitter Harvest -- Palestine 1914-79 by Sam Hadawi Price $17.00 posted.
Facts Are Facts by Benjamin H. Friedman Price: $14.00 posted.
Jewish History Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak Price: $33.00 posted
The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler Price: $20.00 posted
The Zionist Factor by Ivor Benson Price: $18.00 Posted
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159