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

1 October 2004. Thought for the Week: "If in practice, to stand up in church and announce: "I believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost", leads to precisely the same social policy as announcing, "I believe that God does not exist and the Holy Trinity is a load of pernicious, mystical nonsense", there is really no point in making these religious noises. As the late C. H. Douglas put it: "It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting opinions."
Those who believe that facts, whether concerning the ultimate nature of things, or anything else, are matters of opinion, and that the truth can be established by counting opinions, are not Christians in any practical sense, whatever creed they habitually vocalise on religious occasions. Indeed, the creeds themselves are being increasingly neglected, and especially the Creed called Athanasian which sets out the central, Trinitarian conception upon which Christendom, and our Christian Constitution have been founded and gradually built over the centuries."
Geoffrey Dobbs in "Responsible Government in a Free Society", 1969


by Betty Luks
An interesting article has appeared in The Australian Jewish News, 24th September, 2004. But before you read on, ask yourself this question: "Do you think a Christian could be elected the Prime Minister in the Jewish state of Israel?" Not likely, you think?

West Australia's Waverley Council deputy mayor, George Newhouse, took offence at WA Liberal MP Don Randall, member for Canning, stating that most Australians would prefer a Christian as prime minister. Mr. Newhouse, who is also the Jewish Labor Forum's executive spokesman, rejected Mr. Randall's comments saying, "Australia is well known as one of the most open societies in the world."
"Australia," continued Mr. Newhouse, "is a country where a Jew, Buddhist, Catholic, Sikh, Muslim, Baha'i or another faith could become a prime minister," going on to insist, "The prime minister must take a strong moral stand and reject the comments by Ron Randall immediately."

Really Mr. Newhouse? And why a moral stand? What set of moral standards are you appealing to? Surely what is good enough for the Jews in Israel must also be good enough for predominately Christian Australia?
Footnote: It was reported in the article John Howard was cautious not to be drawn into the debate.


by Phillip Benwell
Mr. Benwell is the National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League.

"The recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee into a republic have very serious consequences for our democracy and if a Labor Government is elected there is a high probability that they will be implemented. This is why I have taken such a strong stand at this election that to secure the continued protection of our Constitutional Monarchy, it is imperative that Monarchists temporarily override their angst against those Members of Parliament who are republicans and at this election vote for all coalition candidates to ensure the return of a Howard Government as a Latham Administration would certainly destabilise, if not destroy, our Constitution.

Whilst the holding of plebiscites are repugnant to our constitutional practice and will be manipulated to provide a return beneficial to the republicans, I am not convinced that it will assist our cause to make it an issue during this election campaign. In fact it could well work against us as promoting Latham's republican agenda may influence swinging voters who are republicans to vote for Latham on this very issue!

The danger of Labor governing in all six States as well as Federally is a far safer issue to promote. 'Wall to wall Labor' will override the interests of the States and create an impediment to the proper government of this nation. It is a matter of great concern that the Senate Committee has ignored the many submissions, both against the holding of the inquiry and against a republic. It is also worrying - indeed reprehensible - that the Committee in recommending a civics education programme has stipulated that it should be "in relation to the issues surrounding an Australian republic."

Recommendation 24 8.66 is extremely dangerous
It recommends that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions Act should be amended to allow the preparation and dissemination to voters of independent information, rather than partisan arguments for the Yes and No cases, and that such preparation be overseen by the proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee on Constitutional Education and Awareness WHICH MEANS THAT THE POLITICIANS WOULD CONTROL THE ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES. It is therefore crucial that those who value our democracy do everything within their power to prevent a Latham victory on October 9th.

This is not playing 'party politics' but a desperate appeal to prevent our Constitution from vicious attack. Even should Costello become Prime Minister within the next three years, we will still have friends in his Government whereas under a Latham Administration, we will have none!"
The Report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee into a republic has been published. Copies should be able to be obtained by emailing: <
The Committee's official website:


There was a time responsible governments and authorities would have withheld alarmist news of threats to 'national security' for fear of frightening or panicking the citizens. Those responsible for the nation's security went about their duties of protecting and safeguarding the citizens, and, only when it was absolutely essential were warnings broadcast to the general public. These days we are being bombarded with controlled 'news' of 'terrorist' activities. How much of this 'news on terrorism' is meant to strike fear in us? Fearful people are more easily manipulated and herded in the 'right' direction.

Astonishing claims
But one would have thought the mainstream media would 'eagerly snap up' the astonishing claims by American lawyer Stanley Hilton that "George Bush authorised the 9/11 attacks"! Mr. Hilton, a former senior advisor to Senator Bob Dole, and 'insider' of the Republican Party is suing the U.S. Government for carrying out the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The lawsuit, he explains, is a Taxpayers' Class Action on behalf of the families of the victims of 9/11.

Stanley Hilton claims
· To have some very incriminating documents verifying that George Bush personally authorised the attacks and signed the Order to do so.
· That Bush and his puppets, Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld among others, were involved, not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen, but in actually ordering it to happen.
· Mr. Hilton has deposed a number of American military officers (to make statements under oath).
· He is also challenging the constitutionality of the so-called "USA Patriot Act ". Patriot Act I with Patriot Act II, would give the US government the power to literally strip any American of citizenship if declared 'an enemy combatant', i.e., political opponent of the government.

The most 'newsworthy' item
The most newsworthy item the Australian newspaper could come up with was that one alleged terrorist visited Australia, which appeared in The Australian's 22nd September, 2004 article; "9/11 mastermind's Aussie visa" by one Martin Chulov. Judging by other revelations of Mossad's activities in this part of the world, one suspects Australia is 'crawling with spies and double agents'!
But how many Australians know of Stanley Hilton's headline grabbing claims? They are breathtaking - and worrying.

An American married to one of the highjackers
One of Mr. Hilton's witnesses, an American woman, has declared under oath, that she was married to one of the hijackers and she knew about seven of the others. Mr. Hilton has gathered some very interesting documents and memoranda, including documents from several of those advisors around Bush, namely Wolfowitz, Wormser, Feith and Perle. "And they actually wrote these memos several months before 9/11, in which they fervently wished for a 'Pearl Harbour type incident' to give them the shock value that would enable them to ramp through their agenda," he said in a radio interview.

The witness formerly married to one of the alleged highjackers says
'Al Qa'eda' is just a word. "Essentially these Arab hijackers were double agents. That is, they were operating inside the U.S. for ten to fifteen years in "cells". Some of them used the term al Qa'eda -- they've used other terms. Al Qa'eda is just a word. That means nothing. You could call them the Muslim Brotherhood, the Army of God, they go by all sorts of names."
But that what they are is a series of cells that have been aided and abetted by the U.S. Government. The truth appears to be these men were double agents. In that they nominally appear to be Arab fanatics. But one of the points that she stressed is they are really not Muslims. They are more interested in Playboy than in the Koran. These people drink. They are very secular. They are not the fanatical Muslim zealots that Bush would lead us to believe. They receive regular payments from the U.S. Government. They have been recruited by the CIA, FBI, counter-intelligence, and so-forth and paid money and allowed to exchange information with U.S. government agents about various activities going on.

Three were trained at U.S. Naval Air Station
Something that everybody wants to ignore is that three of the hijackers, at least, were trained at Pensacola Naval Air Station not at a local airfield - on the base, by the government, at least.

The lawyer claims highjackers still alive
Now we find out that eight of the hijackers under names we heard are still alive in the Middle East, on television doing interviews.
There are many obstacles being put in the way of Mr. Hilton to prevent this case coming to court.
Further details are found through ><


Americans are now waking up to the nightmare situation Bush and his cronies (and Howard and Blair…ed) have created in Iraq. The following letter appeared in the Opinion column of The Cornell Daily Sun, 21st September, 2004.

Re: "Why We Went to War: A Re-Explanation," Opinion, Sept. 15
"After reading Jamie Weinstein's simplistic justifications for a blatantly misguided war in Iraq, I have to ask myself, has he looked at the news recently? The same day as his column, (other) newspapers reported that Iraqi insurgents had killed at least 50 more innocent Iraqi citizens. Just another day and another statistic in the new, free Iraq. Can you imagine the response if more than 50 Americans were killed in a day?
Every day, many more Iraqis die. Innocent citizens -- men, women, children, mothers, grandmothers -- journalists slaughtered live on Arab television -- blown up by suicide bombers who never attacked or even existed before the U.S. occupation. Blown up by U.S. assault helicopters firing missiles into crowds.

Killed for their own liberation, for democracy, for what?
And Americans are constantly dying too -- now over 1,000 dead soldiers and counting. Add that to the more than 12,000 Iraqis, and George W. Bush has accomplished quite something in his presidential tenure. How many thousands more will die for his lies?
This war in Iraq, where Bush declared, "Mission accomplished" 16 months ago, is a nightmare. With this unjustified, "miscalculated" war, he has actively recruited and created more terrorists in Iraq and abroad. He has turned his back on the global threat of al-Qaida, and he has turned his back on America. Iraqi opposition to and hatred of Americans grows while Bush and Weinstein spew partisan rhetoric. Contrary to Weinstein's conclusion, the world is not a safer place.
One last thing: it was not "our" decision to go to war. "We" did not go to war. Bush misled us into war. He lied to the world. He lied to you, and he keeps lying every day while innocent Iraqis and Americans continue to die.
Garrett W. Meigs, Cornell, USA.

Bush's war needs troops
Young Americans will be intensely interested to learn from The Charleston Gazette, 22/9/04, that "President Bush may seek a military draft, or mobilize more of the National Guard and Army Reserve, to obtain enough combat troops to wage his bogged-down Iraq war, (after the coming presidential elections…ed). Two bills pending in Congress would launch a new draft for all young Americans ages 18 to 26, both male and female, with no college exemption. Also, a new border agreement with Canada is designed to prevent young Americans from fleeing northward to elude the draft."


from Paul Fromm Toronto. September 17, 2003.

"I told you: Some day we're going to get a live witness from CSIS," lead defence lawyer Peter Lindsay told me triumphantly as we broke for lunch on Thursday. Mr. Justice Pierre Blais had just ruled that former CSIS operative Peter John Farrell, now a teacher with the Toronto Catholic School Board, would have to testify. Two and a half days of explosive revelations about the spying activities of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) on non-violent dissidents like Ernst Zundel, concluded today.
The hearings were marked by dozens of objections by CSIS lawyer Murray Rodych and Crown Attorney Donald MacIntosh. Former CSIS boss Mr. Justice Pierre Blais, now the judge conducting the CSIS certificate review of Mr. Zundel, blatantly ran interference for Canada's spy agency and its oversight body the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, dubbed by the witness as a 'paper tiger'.

The judge repeatedly restricted questioning of former CSIS operative and now whistleblower John Joseph Farrell. At times, the restrictions, always made in the name of "national security", reached the level of the ridiculous. Mr. Lindsay was restricted to material in Andrew Mitrovica's book Covert Entry: Spied, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada's Secret Service. Then, he was restricted to questions on words quoted from Mr. Farrell, Mr. Mitrovica's main source.

At one point, he asked to confirm that a meeting had taken place between Don Lunau, Mr. Mitrovica's CSIS control, face to face in the underground parking lot of CSIS's Toronto headquarters, and that he had been instructed to intercept Max French's mail; French being a friend of then Heritage Front leader Wolfgang Droege, without a warrant.
"National security," Mr. Rodych intoned. "It would reveal CSIS's methodology." One wondered whether Mossad or Red Chinese Intelligence would be greatly surprised to learn that, on serious occasions, a control would meet an operative face to face? Nonetheless, the former CSIS boss agreed that Canada's national security was on the line and disallowed Mr. Lindsay's question. A few minutes later, Mr. Lindsay read the passage attributed to Mr. Farrell confirming just that.

For a whistleblower, Farrell was a strangely reluctant witness. Yeomen's efforts to quash his subpoena made strange bedfellows of usual opponents. On September 14, John Norris of the leftist law firm Ruby & Edwardh made extensive submissions to quash the subpoena of the formerly mouthy whistleblower, who, it turned out, was miffed at CSIS over back pay that he felt was owed him after a nine year career swiping people's mail for the snoops and doing other dirty tricks. Now, as co-counsel Chi-Kun-Shi pointed out to me, Ruby & Edwardh have had a running battle with CSIS. Firm founder Clayton Ruby went all the way to the Supreme Court in his effort to get his files from CSIS. The firm has represented Jaballah one of the Arab security certificate cases in several go-rounds with CSIS.
Yes, there they were, Norris from the supposedly anti-CSIS firm, in friendly consultation with CSIS lawyer Murray Rodych and, at one point even making objections suggested to him by Mr. Rodych.

Interestingly, on September 16, after Mr. Justice Blais has given his decision to compel the reluctant Mr. Farrell to testify, there was another secret hearing during the extended lunch hour. We can only imagine what was conveyed by the Crown and CSIS. However, when Peter Lindsay asked; "Did it concern Mr.Farrell?" former CSIS boss Judge Blais responded: "I will never answer about these secret proceedings." So, there!

Mr. Farrell, 36, a tall, sturdy handsome man, with gray jacket and black trousers was accompanied each day to court by author Andrew Monrovia. The lanky journalist sported a short sleeved black muscle tee-shirt and had the disconcerting habit of appearing to be constantly leering or grinning. His presence was unusual as he too had ferociously fought a subpoena to testify and comment on his biting accusations against CSIS. At one point, his facial gestures outraged Judge Blais who demanded: "Do you have any concern with your body language? You made efforts not to testify." "I was exercising my right to free speech," Mitrovica answered.
Furious, Judge Blais exploded: "I am not asking for your comment. I will not tolerate this. It is not a show."

Among the important revelations extracted from the former CSIS operative, who frequently had memory lapses, are the following:
* He was involved "for years, on and off," intercepting Ernst Zundel's mail for CSIS.
In 1999, shortly after going public with his revelations about corruption and dirty tricks in CSIS, his laptop computer with detailed notes of his CSIS contacts and activities, as well as written notes, "went missing from the apartment of a friend," where they'd been left for safekeeping.

Warned off opening parcels
His control, Don Lunau, warned him to avoid opening parcels from a Vancouver P.O. Box and warned him about the danger of an incendiary device that might be sent to Mr. Zundel. In May, 1995, a lethal pipebomb was delivered from that Vancouver address to Ernst Zundel, thus strongly suggesting that CSIS knew the bomb was coming.
* Mr. Zundel was the only person whose mail Mr. Farrell intercepted that was the subject of a danger warning from Mr. Lunau.

As the examination went on, Mr.Lindsay was harassed by continuous objections, as MacIntosh and Rodych popped up and down with their "objection, national security" refrain. Judge Blais restricted him to narrow questions about CSIS and SIRC as they related to Mr.Zundel. Wider observations from this 9-year veteran about CSIS lawlessness were ruthlessly stifled. Accusing Mr. Lindsay of wasting time, Judge Blains announced: "The questions are unacceptable. I am not here to make a case against CSIS. I'm here to see whether the certificate is reasonable. I will not let you make a case against CSIS."

The long suffering Peter Lindsay pointed out: "Other witnesses have been allowed to express opinions on SIRC when they're positive. On April 29, when Mr.Rodych was questioning Mr. Stewart, he asked, 'Do you know SIRC to be an independent body.' 'Yes,' he was told and he called SIRC's The Heritage Front Affair Report, 'a balanced assessment of SIS investigation of the rightwing.'"
"I'm not going to re-comment," Judge Blains snapped, "Stop making that type of comment when I'm making a ruling. If you do it again, it will be all over," he threatened. "This is waste of time."


A $350 million class action lawsuit was filed on September 15, 2004 in United States District Court in San Francisco, California, case no: C 04 3872. This class action racketeering (RICO) lawsuit was filed against the NutraSweet Corporation, American Diabetes Association, Dr. Robert H. Moser and John Does 1-50. Plaintiffs maintain that this lawsuit will prove how deadly the chemical sweetener aspartame is when consumed by humans.

Donald Rumsfeld named
Contained in the lawsuit is the key role played by current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld in helping to get aspartame pushed through the FDA. Back in the 1980s, Rumsfeld was the President and CEO of Searle who originally owned the patent on aspartame. Plaintiffs maintain that Rumsfeld used his political muscle to get aspartame approved by the FDA despite objections of many FDA health researchers and negative studies. According to spokesman attorney Britt Groom from Idaho, this lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Mr. Joe Bellon of Concord, California.

The lawsuit contains the following counts
1. R.I.C.O. (racketeering charges)
2. Unfair Competition
3. False Advertising
4. Consumer Remedies Act
5. Fraud
6. Breach of Warranty
7. Breach of Merchantability
8. Filed as a Class Action representing the People as a whole and Joe Bellon's personal injuries as well.

According to the press release issued on this RICO lawsuit
"On or about September 8, 2004 an affidavit was signed describing the initial third world studies and the health hazards of aspartame. These studies conducted in 1983/84 by the J.D. Searle Company were translated to English from Spanish by a translator in 1984. The "double blind" studies showed conclusive evidence that aspartame caused severe health problems and even death to the exposed study group. According to the Affidavit, the doctor directing the studies has been missing since the approval of aspartame in 1984. The affidavit also describes how the affiant was directed by J.D. Searle officials to destroy all records of the studies - including filed notes and/or translations - possessed by the affiant. The affiant describes in detail how the translations were forwarded upon completion to J.D. Searle corporate offices in Illinois."

This is not the first law suit of its type filed
This isn't the first lawsuit filed alleging that aspartame is hazardous to the health of humans. The National Justice League filed three other lawsuits on April 26, 2004, in three separate California courts. The defendants in those lawsuits number twelve and all produce or use the artificial sweetener aspartame as a sugar substitute in their products.

Defendants in those lawsuits include
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Bayer Corp., the Dannon Company, William Wrigley Jr. Company, Walmart, ConAgra Foods, Wyeth, Inc., The NutraSweet Company, and Altria Corp. (parent company of Kraft Foods and Philip Morris).
This lawsuit charges the defendants engaged in unlawful acts of "knowingly and intentionally using the neurotoxic Aspartame as a sugar substitute in the manufacture of Equal, while knowing that exposure to Aspartame causes among other diseases/symptoms:
abdominal pain, arthritis, asthma, brain cancer, breathing difficulties, burning eyes or throat, burning urination, chest pains, chronic cough, chronic fatigue, death, depression, diarrhoea, headaches/migraines, hearing loss, heart palpitations, hives (urticaria), hypertension, impotency and sexual problems, memory loss, menstrual problems or changes, nausea or vomiting, slurring of speech, tremors, tinnitus, vertigo and/or vision loss."

The lawsuit also states
"Further, Aspartame disease mimics symptoms or worsens the following diseases:
Fibromyalgia, Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Lupus, Diabetes and diabetic complications, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's Disease, birth defects, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Lymphoma, Lyme Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Panic Disorder, Depression and other psychological disorders."

Further allegations include
"G.D. Searle denied knowledge of/or involvement with the initiation, design or performance of the study. Yet, the false results were submitted to the FDA like the rest of the 150 G.D. Searle studies (on aspartame and other products), bearing a Searle Pathology-Toxicology project number. Both Dr.Waisman and G.D.Searle were responsible for the study design. A number of false statements were made by G.D. Searle, including that reported the animals were unavailable for purchase for autopsy after the termination of the study."
Defendants in this lawsuit continue to maintain that aspartame is safe for consumption. Aspartame is found in more than 5,000 food products and all soft drinks sold in the United States.


Have you finalised your arrangements for the League's Annual New Times Dinner and Seminar in Albury NSW for this year? Speakers such as Jeremy Lee of Queensland and Wallace Klinck of Canada will be there. Roy Gustard is speaking on Clifford High Douglas' visit to Sydney in 1934. Bookings for the New Times Dinner, with payments, $32.50 per person, to be sent to Australian League of Rights, Box 1052, GPO Melbourne as soon as possible. For those who want to book in advance for the Seminar, it is $20 per person.
Don't forget there is a Divine Service and Action Conference on the Sunday morning.


"Wallace Klinck will speak in the Heritage Bookshop, 2nd Floor, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne at 1.30pm Wednesday, 6th October. He will update Melbourne supporters on Social Credit activities in Canada. Make the effort to come and hear him.


The Launceston Conservative Speakers' Club are pleased to announce Mr. Jeremy Lee will be their guest speaker at the October meeting. Fresh from the League's National Weekend Jeremy will be keen to meet up again with his many Tasmanian friends.
The meeting is on Friday, 15th October (please note the change of date) and the venue is the Max Fry Memorial Hall, Gorge Road, Trevallyn. Commencement time is 7.30pm. Title of his address is: "The Light is Dawning".


"A Race Against Time: Racial heresies for the 21st Century," edited by George McDaniel. What does the future hold for the West? Must our Civilisation give way before the waves of Third World newcomers? It is increasingly clear that race and civilisation cannot be separated; that only the people who created a culture can sustain it.
Price: $45.00 includes postage.

"Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions since WW II," by William Blum.
The West has been soundly conditioned to react Pavlovianly to a number of psycho-political terms; 'swear words' such as 'communist' or 'fascist', terms intended to conjure up mental pictures from Stalinist purges to slave-labour camps. A 'Them' agin 'Us' reflex.
"Them" can mean a peasant in the Philippines, a mural-painter in Nicaragua, or a legally-elected prime minister in British Guiana - but all, somehow, presented as part of the same monolithic conspiracy; all in some way, a threat to our Way of Life. William Blum has done a mammoth service to his people by listing the destabilising, revolutionary activities of the U.S. Military and the CIA, from China in the 1940s to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Price $40.00 posted.

"Responsible Government in a Free Society," by Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs. What are Christians to think about the centralisation of power? How do we go about regenerating our society? It is one thing to be aware of the problems now besetting us. It is another thing to present some constructive solutions. In this little gem Dr. Dobbs deals with the historical understanding of the responsibility of the People and 'government'.
Price: $7.00 posted.

"Republic? More Power for Politicians," by Dr. David Mitchell.
As we face the latest push for 'a republic' it is worthwhile to read again Dr. David Mitchell's booklet explaining the foundational principles of our system of government. It provides a simple guide to the philosophical and historical background of Australia's governmental structure.
Price: $5.00 posted.

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