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

25 March 2005. Thought for the Week: "Democracy is the root of power, not judgement. It is power which should be drawn from the elector's will, not judgement from his intellect. That is the common ground where, in real fact, men do meet. It is in our aspirations, our objectives, our ruling policy that we find unity. The mind of each one of us is like a stream cumbered with the refuse of the uncomfortable times in which we live. But underneath, the stream is always flowing to the sea. All of us alike, whether housewife or student, business man or labourer, want for ourselves the same results, the freedom to do this or that, security as an atmosphere for those activities, and the use of "plenty" as the solid base on which these may persist.
The root of power is there, in the public will, and it is the function of the elector to express that power in a demand for the objectives he desires - for, as Douglas puts it, the results"
"The Emergence of a Dynamic" by Hewlett Edwards in "The Fig Tree", September, 1936.


by Ian Wilson, LL.B.
The Dangers of Internet Publication:-
"It is our right as relatively powerless
and anonymous human beings to criticise
the rich and powerful, a right of which
we should not be deprived."
- Terry Lane, Australian Journalist.

A truly free and democratic society must have a free press. The Charter for a Free Press, adopted by the Australian Press Council states:
- Freedom of opinion and expression is an inalienable right of a free people.
- A free press is a symbol of a free people.
- In a truly democratic society open debate, discussion, criticism and dissent are central to the process of generating informed and considered choices.
- It is the responsibility of the press to protect the people's right to know and to contest encroachments upon that right by government, groups or individuals.

The orthodox presses across the Western world hopelessly fail in this so-called calling of preserving free speech. On the contrary, numerous writers, both of the left and right, have seen the establishment media as merely the propaganda wing of the ruling elites.
An article by Eric Beecher, "Trust Us, We're from the Media", The Independent 3-9/10/04, states that in a series of Roy Morgan opinion polls, a majority of the Australians sampled say that the media is unreliable in using "facts" and "invade people's privacy unnecessarily."
A poll conducted by RMIT University found that 80 per cent of journalists and editors sampled admitted that they are Left-wing and that media proprietors "use their outlets as vehicles of influence."
Beecher says that people are cynical about the media because "much is either wrong, distorted, exaggerated or nuanced out of reality."

Even so, the establishment media faces a problem of its own - defamation. The very limited role which this media plays in presenting the truth is constrained by Australia's defamation laws, which are quite strict relative to the United States.
Australia lacks an explicit Constitutional right to free speech by contrast to the United States First Amendment. The Founding Fathers felt that common law traditions would protect the traditional rights inherited from English legal traditions, primarily the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. But such rights were always constrained by the law of defamation which originally was devised as a tort to protect the reputation of noblemen.
The High Court of Australia in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] 189 CLR S20 found an implied Constitutional right to freedom of communication on matters relating to politics and government, based upon the Constitutionally grounded system of representative government. Unfortunately this gives us no "private rights" but only places a limit upon parliamentary and executive power to the extent necessary for the operation of representative democracy.
Unlike the US First Amendment, this does not protect free speech in the media, literature or art.
Consequently Australian defamation law is used as a political weapon by the rich and powerful who typically have something to hide: it is a shield for rich crooks. It is often said that defamation law protects the poor and weak from the tyranny of the press: it does not. Defamation law is for the rich because only they can afford the massive costs associated with defamation suits which usually take years to be decided.

The Federal government is at present attempting to present uniform defamation laws for Australia. However the basic problem posed by defamation and media power is not addressed by this legal reform. How can freedom of speech be preserved - or more cynically established in Australia? How can the weak be protected from the tyranny of the media? Those are important questions which need to be addressed.
The view of this writer is that a truly free press needs to be created by breaking up the media monopolies and allowing the free flourishing of the internet. The internet must be a free trade zone in ideas.
The law of defamation needs to be abolished and replaced by a tort (a legal "wrong") of malicious falsehood: the intentional or reckless statement of known falsehoods about persons (living only and not corporations) calculated to cause harm and which causes harm. The onus of proof of all elements of the tort is squarely upon the plaintiff's shoulders.

In the remainder of this essay I will focus on one important aspect of freedom of speech - freedom of the internet.
We will focus upon one vitally important High Court of Australia decision which has had a major impact upon Internet publication: Dow Jones and Company v Gutnick [2002] 194 ALR 433. This is a case of defamatory material about an Australian plaintiff published on the Internet, a case does not need to be made where the "centre of gravity" of the publication lie, but the plaintiff could sue in the Australian home court. This in effect has forced the restrictive domestic defamation laws of Australia upon the whole world.

Joseph ("Joe") Gutnick is a well-known Australian Jew. He has been very successful in the diamond trade - giving him his nickname "Diamond Joe".
Dow Jones is the US publisher of The Wall Street Journal and also of Barrons Magazine. Barrons often contains pieces of investigative journalism. An article entitled "Unholy Gains" in Barrons implied that Diamond Joe was involved in improper business dealings with Nachum Goldberg. This US Jewish figure had been gaoled in the US for money laundering and tax evasion. In total 305,563 hard copies of the article were published but only 14 were sold in Victoria where Diamond Joe lives. The article was available on the website to 500,000 subscribers, with 300 of these being in Victoria. Dow Jones had its server in the United States.
The action before the Victorian Supreme Court Gutnick v Dow Jones [2001] VSC 305 was before Justice Hedigan. Geoffrey Robertson QC, civil rights lawyer and star of the TV series Hypotheticals defended Dow Jones. Robertson argued that "the imposition of liability on the basis of the place of publication occurring in the place of downloading would have a serious "chilling effect on free speech". Such a rule was too narrow for the information age.
These arguments were rejected. Gutnick won. Dow Jones then appealed to the High Court.
The High Court upheld the decision of the trial judge. In the case of internet publication, the damage to reputation is done at the place where the person downloads the material.
The leading judgement was delivered by Gleeson C.J., McHugh, Gummow and Hayne J.J. but even the leftist Kirby agreed.
The dispute in Gutnick was about the place of the publication of the defamatory statements. The "choice of law" to be applied i.e., Australia or the US, is governed by the law of the place of the commission of the tort. Dow Jones argued that on public policy grounds it was preferable that the publisher of the Internet material be governed by the law of the place where the servers are located. Otherwise publishers would be obliged to consider every law of every jurisdiction on earth, which would destroy Internet publishing.
The high Court disagreed. Further they rejected the single publication rule of the United States. In most US States a single communication and only one action for damages is possible. Not so in Australia: each communication constitutes a separate cause of action. Thus for a continuous electronic medium, like the Internet, there can be in principle an infinity of causes of action.
Nothing prevents a plaintiff attempting to use litigation as a political weapon to crush an opponent.

The argument of the High Court was based upon the 19th century case of Duke of Brunswick v Harmer [1849] 117 ER 7S. In that old case the Duke sent a servant to by a back issue of a newspaper where years before he had been defamed. The limitation period for an action of defamation had long passed. However the English court held that the sale constituted a new tort and the time now ran on the point of sale. Such a rule was debateable even in the 19th century and is an absurd one to adopt in the digital information age. It means that electronically retrieving allegedly defamation information normally outside any limitation period, would enliven the tort of defamation. This will have a major impact upon libraries and information data bases. The rejection of a single publication rule could lead to an explosion of suits.
The High Court failed to understand the unique nature of the Internet. They viewed downloading as similar to receiving a radio or TV broadcast. In this case there is transmission from a locality to a receiver. The Internet does not work like that. The information seeker actually electronically visits the source computer and takes back or downloads data. Geoffrey Robertson was right in his original argument that downloading is essentially a form of "self publication", much like taking a book from a library.
Instead of a book, what is taken is a package of data. Downloading then is a form of "self publication". That is one reason why downloading, say child pornography, is an offence among other things.

The decision in Dow Jones v Gutnick is too recent in legal terms to assess its existing impact. The consequence of the decision is that publishers of material on the Internet which could be defamatory to Australian based (potential) plaintiffs need to carefully consider whether the material is defamatory under any of the existing eight defamation laws. If the Australian decision is followed elsewhere Internet publishers could be liable for defamation actions in a large number of countries across the globe and under different systems of defamation. The international media rightly greeted the Gutnick decision with alarm.

On the bright side the United States is reluctant to enforce foreign defamation judgements because of its First Amendment protection of free speech. It is possible that if Dow Jones had dug in their heels and if they had no Australian assets, they could have held out against the Australian judgement: US courts may not have enforced it.
Nevertheless Internet publication now has to take this decision on board. As Australian writers, in exposing our own batch of traitors, crooks and shady characters (and no corporation or person mentioned here is included in that designation) we must always be conscious of defamation and slap-suits used to silence us.
Now it seems Australia's oppressive legal culture has been forced upon the rest of the world!


by James Reed
Well, what is the value of an Australian life? Not much according to the Indonesian sentencing Abu Bakar Bashir, the mastermind behind the Bali bombings. Bashir received 30 months gaol for his part in the conspiracy that led to the death of 88 Australians and 202 lives overall.
The death penalty is given to those who attempt to smuggle drugs into Bali but murder 202 people (most non-Indonesians) and you are "all smiles".
The Indonesian government is expressing its contempt for Australia - but what else is new?

One idea which is 'doing the rounds" on the world-wide-web is that Iran's real threat to the American empire is that Iran is planning to set up an international oil exchange in the Euro currency rather than the American dollar. If the world prices crude oil in the Euro, America being a net importer of oil will face disaster. Iran's move will be war declared on the Socialist Warfare-welfare State of America. This is an interesting hypothesis which may or may not be true. Its main proponent is William Clark and material be found on the Lew Rockwell website (via Google search) for readers with Internet access.

Following the swearing in of the new Senate in July this year, the Federal Government will possess control of the Senate. Perhaps the most significant action Government will take is to use its majority of Senators to force through the full sale of Telstra.
To prevent the sale, we must use the only social mechanism we have to act legitimately, morally and SOCIALLY DYNAMICALLY; we must convince a majority of the 76 Senators to defeat the sale by legislation. This will require about 4 or so Liberal/National Senators to vote against the demand of their respective Parties - TO, IN FACT, DO WHAT IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IN PARLIAMENT - REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA.
But the people must exercise that moral and socially dynamic power by informing their political representatives they DO NOT WANT TELSTRA SOLD.
There is an increment, a benefit, a powerful social force, WHEN WE COME TOGETHER AND INSIST OUR WILL BE DONE.
Australians need to act NOW, they need to exercise the legitimate social power their forefathers provided for them through the Parliamentary System; by making their will known to their Parliamentary Representatives. It is clear, the majority of Australians - DO NOT WANT TELSTRA SOLD.
Over the last 15 years or so, the people of Australia have watched with increasing frustration Governments sell off our infrastructure built up over the last century by our forefathers. Whether the assets be schools, hospitals, roads, ports, airports, railways, Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, our electricity systems, gas, water supplies .... The list is endless; as are the politicians' promises of "better services and lower prices", and the inevitable, predictable adverse results.
The worst piece of political stupidity is the bloody-minded determination of the Liberal Party to sell the remaining Federal Government owned 51% of Telstra despite the evidence available from previous sell-offs of either State or Federal Government assets and the original 49% of Telstra.
"Telstra" is an example of Government's fundamental role of providing the National infrastructure for the health, welfare, prosperity, and safety of the people of Australia.
In times past, we had Governments that built roads, ports, airports, police forces, medical services, education facilities and so on. Each of these Government instrumentalities functioned as separate DEPARTMENTS. Thus the infrastructure of our Nation developed. Modern-day Telstra is nothing more than the evolution of the old Post Master General's Department that delivered communication services to the people of Australia.
The Government claims that following its recent electoral win and in particular, control of the Senate, that the people of Australia have for the fourth consecutive time, endorsed the complete sell-off of Telstra as demanded by the Liberal Party.
There has never been any serious debate about privatising Telstra! Very few people have any real knowledge of the Company, what it delivers, the services it provides to Australians spread across millions of square kilometres, nor the revenues it contributes to our National Treasury.
All that we have heard is the Liberal Party mantra of "privatising Telstra":
All we have heard is that, "Telstra should be opened up to competition and that competition will improve its service delivery." That "Government should not be involved in service delivery" - DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICE DELIVERY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF GOVERNMENT!

What are the facts? The financial facts of Telstra should be understood by all Australians:
The Government shareholding in Telstra is valued at approximately $3,250 million at $5.00 per share.
That is the current value the taxpayers of previous generations of Australians have left us as a National Asset. It is not money contributed recently by us TAXPAYERS.
Telstra returns Federal Government two revenue streams that total $3,500 millions annually. Government receives approximately $1,750 millions from taxation and a further $1,750 millions from its dividend stream
Thus, it should be obvious that Telstra is giving Government a financial return of something like 12% on the infrastructure built by past generations of taxpaying Australians - based on today's share price.
So what does $3,500 Millions divided by 20 million Australians represent?
It represents $175 PER YEAR for every man, woman and child living in our Nation. That's not quite 50 cents per day per person every year. Alternatively, if we divide $3,500 millions by the days of the year we get $9.6 MILLIONS PER DAY, EVERY YEAR, THAT TELSTRA IS PAYING THE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Barry Wakelin, M.H.R. for the seat of Grey, South Australia, told a recent Pt. Lincoln City Council meeting there are approximately 10 million taxpayers in our Nation, and that they pay approximately $14,000 per person.
When challenged about the financial consequences of selling Telstra he responded with the remark that an extra $300 or so per Australian taxpayer represented "only a 2% or 3% tax increase and was thus of little consequence".
That the remnant staff of Telstra do their very best to provide good service to all Australians is well known despite the delays and frustrations that occur. That Telstra staff numbers have been savagely slashed in the name of "efficiency" is well known. Thousands of Australians have lost their Telstra jobs as with other "privatisation examples." And we now wonder why our young cannot gain apprenticeships as we busily encourage "skilled immigrants" to come and fill skilled vacancies.

But let us consider what Telstra has done in an emergency:
On 11th January this year, there was a catastrophic bushfire that burned across Lower Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. It killed 9 people, destroyed thousands of livestock, 80 farms, several thousand kilometres of fencing and, of course, Telstra's infrastructure.
Most of Telstra's poles, wires, communications towers and general infrastructure were destroyed.
Telstra's response was to immediately issue every Telstra-disconnected family with a mobile phone using their established home phone number and with a period of extended free dialling. It could not have done more to assist fire victims.
By comparison, Austar, a private pay TV company, sent letters of demand to people who had lost their entire worldly possessions to immediately repay Austar $300 for the loss of their reception equipment. It is true that Austar has since rescinded this action, but fire victims are now receiving legal letters of demand from a debt collection agency. One wonders what would be the reaction of a fully privatised Telstra. One suspects it would probably be similar to Austar's actions.

What about Lifeline?
Or we can consider Telstra's sponsorship of Lifeline, the telephone assistance system to help people facing life crisis situations. Telstra has for some years provided free phone access to Lifeline. Two years ago, Telstra advised Lifeline that it would cease sponsoring free calls towards the end of this year and that it would consider sponsoring some other community body.
Lifeline made public its pending financial cost burden with resultant negative public criticism of Telstra.
It is one of life's ironies that the chief proponent of selling Telstra, John Winston Howard, the Prime Minister, publicly suggested to Telstra that it "reconsider its decision not to support Lifeline."
Thus, we have the spectacle of the "chief-seller" using his clout to instruct the company in the way it should conduct its business! Surely Mr. Howard should understand that if he sells Telstra he will not be able to influence its activities "in the National interest".
The point to grasp is that Telstra delivers major community benefits that a fully privatised Telstra will cease to do. Whilst there is Government control of Telstra, Government can instruct Telstra what should or should not occur.

The dividend stream:
If one considers the capacity of Telstra to deliver cash assistance from the dividend stream it pays Government, the benefits are enormous. Consider the Asian tsunami. All Australians would endorse the Government's actions in delivering $500 million in aid and $500 million in interest free loans to the people of Aceh over a 5-year period.
Just remember, Telstra delivers the Federal Government over $1,500 millions in dividends annually. The retention of Telstra, together with a commitment to use the DIVIDEND STREAM to undertake humanitarian or environmental reconstruction gives Government instant colossal financial clout.

Telstra - Australia's "Fairy Godmother":
Truly, Telstra is Australia's Fairy Godmother" - 50 cents per day, per Aussie, must be worth defending. The Liberal/National parties will definitely sell our asset unless we take steps to defend Telstra.
There is only one way to save Telstra.
We MUST get at least 40 Senators across Australia to vote to refuse to sell Telstra. PLEASE, SPEAK TO YOUR FRIENDS, CONTACT SENATORS YOU KNOW, CONTACT YOUR STATE POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES. WE MUST urge the protection of Australia's "Fairy Godmother" - Telstra.
Just remember, if Telstra is sold, every man, woman and child will need to contribute 50 cents daily for the rest of our lives to make up the financial shortfall flowing to Government from our "Fairy Godmother".


We can all draw on the 'social credit' of our communities when we come together on an issue or a task. What about you becoming involved at your own local level by organising an action group? There are many matters that need attention, with constructive policies.
The TELSTRA CAMPAIGN is an effective means of demonstrating the latent social dynamic of each and every Australian elector.
Target those Senators in your own state who would put Australia before their party - if they had enough support from the Australian people! Send for your supply of "Telstra" flyers. Addresses on back page of Bulletin.
Prices include postage & handling: 5 copies $3.00; 10 copies $5.00; 50 copies $15.00

Hasco's Peoples' Poll: Another initiative from the Queensland folk. The Poll is run by volunteer teams in a growing number of Queensland centres, as a service to voters, consumers, political representatives and the media. For further information: Hasco Inc., P.O. Box 642, Nanango, Qld. 4615. Ph: 07 4163 2160.

Constitutional Property Rights Committee:
Farmers and graziers entangled in the 'environmentalist' nightmare, make contact with Councillor Bevan O'Regan and find out what he is doing. Write to him at Narrabri, NSW 2390.


Wednesday, 30th March, 2005 marks the 100th meeting of the Launceston Conservative Speakers' Club and we plan to make it a special night.
We shall be contacting many of our past Guest Speakers and Supporters informing them of this landmark and thanking them for helping us to reach our 100th.
Our first Guest Speaker (August 28th, 1995) was the Hon. Neil Robson, a Member of the Tasmanian Parliament for 15 years - including holding Ministerial portfolios. He was also our first Patron, but unfortunately is unable to be with us for our 100th meeting.
Mr. Robson's topic was "Some absurdities in the Government system," and he also spoke on credit creation by the banking system. He was a former bank clerk! The evening's proceedings were recorded by the late Tom Fielder who came to Launceston especially for our inaugural meeting. We meet in the Max Fry Hall, Gorge Rd., Trevallyn at 7.30 pm.


The League's CD was launched at the Victorian Lunch/Seminar on the 19th March, 2005. Phew! Two years in the making. The CD covers over forty years of On Target plus a bonus - a selection of essays by Clifford Hugh Douglas and Eric Dudley Butler. SEND FOR YOUR CD COPY NOW! The League Book Shops and Veritas Publishing are handling it.
What an excellent tool for research and what a wonderful gift to your children and grandchildren - Forty Years of Australian history at their finger tips. $30.00 posted from all League Book Services and Veritas Publishing Company.


"The Money Trick"
Creating money 'from nothing' is the banking fraternity's greatest 'black magic' trick -- ever! Learn how your home-loan is created from nothing; learn how we, the people, produce all the wealth, all the goods and services, while the banks produce all the debts! Learn why Governments are on a 'debt roller-coaster' -- and why under such a fraudulent system, debt and tax increases are inevitable. Learn about Paul Keating's betrayal of the Australian people when he opened our nation's doors to 13 foreign banks. Learn why John Howard toadies to the American establishment! But most of all learn what to do about it!
Price: $13.00 posted.

"How to Kill a Country" by Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon & John Mathews.
Australians have been sold out by their so-called political representatives for far too long. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement with the United States of America must be the last straw. This book by three Australian academics discloses the devastating trade deal our so-called political representatives and bureaucrats have made with the Americans.
Price: $29.95 posted.

"Land Rights - Birth Rights" by Peter B. English.
Peter English was early on the scene, conducting an exhausting investigation into the 'land rights' issue and asked who are the real players and what are the benefits the majority of Aboriginal Australians would receive?
Price $15.00 posted.

"Red Over Black: Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights" by Geoff McDonald.
Geoff McDonald systematically sets out the chilling story of the Marxist manipulation of the Aboriginal land rights movement. If you want to fight to retain this nation for all Australians it is essential reading.

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