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

16 March 2006 Thought for the Week:
"Hitler can be beaten; Russian Communism with its soulless materialism and ant-heap idealism can be beaten;
American Financial Domination can be beaten; but they can be beaten only by the preservation of our National British Culture
and by the expression of those ideas of independence which are peculiarly ours."
- Eric Butler in "The War Behind the War," written in the 1940s.

"Economies come and go over historical time. What survives is that which is basic - fundamental - to the heart of man.
And that is why the fight to save our race - the genesis of the creative well - is also fundamental."
- James Reed in "Science and Fundamentalism," New Times Survey March, 2006.


by James Reed
John Howard and Peter Costello have recently been "talking tough" on multiculturalism. Muslims should assimilate and accept Australia's core values or not come here. This tough talk was used to defuse the One Nation "threat" back in 1998. The illusion is created that Howard is actually "on side" and is doing something about the immigration problem.
Sure he is: this new world order man is replacing European Australia by Asian/Oriental Australia.

The Muslim intake in the annual immigration figures has steadily increased under Howard. When Howard was told (he had to be told?) that in 2003-2004 the overseas-born population rose to 24 per cent and the European portion of the immigration total crashed below 50 per cent Howard said: "Really? I think what it demonstrates is that we have run a truly non-discriminating immigration policy." (The Australian 20/2/06, p.1)

This article says that this is the first time that the European share of the immigration total was below 50 per cent. This is not so. Many articles in this journal (for an extended argument you should not miss out on a New Times Survey pack of three issues on immigration) have cited evidence that under Howard Asian immigration has been over 70 per cent for many years. We now have a Yellow Australia policy, as it has been called. John Howard is continuing Paul Keating's quest to move Australia out of the West and recreate her as an Asian colony.

The great difficulty which an anti-immigration movement faces under Howard is that many people seem to think that Howard's opposition to Asian immigration was sincere or that he still (secretly) holds to it. He doesn't. Howard - contrary to a recent Newspoll which saw him as Australia's best Prime Minister - is our worse. I would prefer "the greatest loser" than a continuation of the Howard regime. Maybe then people would wake up in fright to what has been happening to this country, their minds cleared of the "Howard illusion".


by James Reed
Liberal MP Danna Vale touched the same racial raw nerve that Pauline Hanson touched: Australian (Whites) are "aborting ourselves out of existence." She points out, following the demographics of Europe, that Australia will ultimately be taken over by the "fast-breeding Muslims." The editorial of The Australian 15/2/06, p.11 responds to Vale by arguing that the country is experiencing a "mini baby boom" with our fertility rate (net reproduction rate) at 1.77.

In 2001 it was 1.73 and at present is higher than Italy, Japan and Germany. However this is a fallacious response as all of these nations have a replacement level of fertility - and so does Australia - at 1.77. A figure of about 2.3 is needed to replace the population. Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone rightly pointed out that Australia's immigration programme draws heavily on non-Muslim countries. Again true but irrelevant. The Muslim component of the intake has steadily risen under Howard. The intake is primarily non-White - at least 70 per cent of the intake has been Asian for most of the time of the Howard regime. John Howard is Mr. Asian Immigration.

So what Vale is saying: that Whites in Australia are facing racial oblivion, is true. Angela Shanahan (The Weekend Australian 18-19/2/06 p.23) says that ANU demographer Peter MacDonald estimates that Islamic women have at least 40 per cent more children than average : making the Islamic net reproduction rate 2.68 compared to 1.7 for the general population. Thus there are almost double the number of children in Islamic households than in the general population and this high fertility continues into the second generation. Natural fertility - rather than immigration alone - is the major cause of the expansion of Muslims in Australia.

In 1981 there were 76,800 Muslims in Australia, but by 2001, numbers had increased to 281,600, constituting 1.5 per cent of the Australian population and rising. Muslim women marry younger and have children sooner than most other groups, which also increases the Muslim growth rate. Thus as a matter of statistics, Muslims will eventually take over Australia given the present immigration rate of other groups.

The "bleeding hearts" in the "Letters to the editor" columns welcome the elimination of the Anglo/Christian population as just "evolution". Perhaps they deserve to live under Sharia law, now. Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable for the ordinary person to believe that the racial variety on the streets of today would be Australia's future. And the elites - from Arthur Calwell to John Howard - have succeeded.
Have a guess what they have in store for the next fifty and a hundred yeas?

Australians need to understand the elitists' goal of diluting the racial mix of the Australian people in order to fit us into their New World Order. Three issues of the New Times Survey are being offered for the price of one:
· "Racial Treason: From White Australia Policy to Yellow Australia Policy":
· "China-Threat: Yellow Peril Revisited";
· "It's Time: For a New Anti-Immigration Movement in Australia".
NTS Special Pack available from Box 1052 G.P.O. Melbourne, 3001. Price: $3.00 posted.

by Peter Ewer

The US has justified its military adventures across the world for over a century on the grounds that it is bringing democracy to the world. It is therefore hypocritical for the US to dismiss the results of the popular elections which gave a landslide victory to Hamas in the Palestine occupied territories. Although President Bush and Johnny Howard both said that their rejection of Hamas was based on its policy of the elimination of the State of Israel, Hamas had dropped that policy from its manifesto prior to the election. Hamas had also declared a ceasefire on their terrorist operations in March 2005 to pursue the electoral process.

Shahram Akbarzadeh, senior lecturer in global politics at Monash University has recently pointed out (The Australian 30/1/06, p.8) that Islamisation is a product of US policies: "It is often forgotten that the US had a direct role in the consolidation of Islamism in the Middle East because it was seen as an effective bulwark against Soviet influence during the Cold War. US support for the Afghan mujaheddin was instrumental in their success.
In the Palestinian occupied territories, Israel saw in Hamas a useful indigenous challenge to the appeal of the exiled Palestinian Liberation Organisation. Hamas emerged and grew in the Gaza Strip as an Israel-sanctioned Islamic self-help community organisation. Now Islamists are biting the hand that fed them."
That is the trouble with hypocritical practices - at some point they turn around and bite you. Democracy can be a damned nuisance to global hegemony.


David Flint, Convenor, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy writes:
Mr. John Paul, the political scientist predicted before the referendum that the republicans would be incapable of magnanimity in victory, but utterly sulphurous in defeat. In the NSW Legislative Council, the Labor government arranged that the "Perjury Bill" - to remove the requirement that our politicians swear allegiance to their Sovereign - be rushed through all stages on the night of Tuesday, 7 March 2006 The Bill is ostensibly a private members bill. It is hardly that. The government lacked the courage to declare it its own, even trying to ensure the minimum of media attention to the debate. Obviously intended to precede the Royal Visit, and unable to deliver a republic, the tactic was an infantile attempt at an insult to their Sovereign. The majority of republican politicians are obviously not prepared to respect the people's decision, and will be most unlikely to let the people vote on this. The Reverend Fred Nile's valiant attempt to require that both the new "pledge of loyalty to the people" and the Oath be required was defeated. The third reading was passed 21:14. The votes cast were: Ayes: Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Dr Wong Noes: Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Pairs: Mr Costa Mr Gallacher Ms Fazio Mrs Forsythe.

David Flint continues:
The action of the NSW government to rush through a bill, ostensibly a private member's bill, to remove the oath of Allegiance for New South Wales politicians, just as The Queen is to arrive in the State, can only be assumed to be a calculated snub. Worse, it is yet another step in a power grab to limit the politicians' accountability to the people.

Only last year we obtained confirmation of what we had long suspected - that the decision to eject the Governor from Government House in 1997 (and to downgrade the position to a part time one to be filled on that occasion unconstitutionally by the Chairman of the Law reform Commission ) was not only that dubious one announced at the time, to return the house to the people.
As we noted (27 November, 2005) Mr.Carr now says that one lesson from the dismissal was the "potentially corrupting role of the vice-regal office". He then admitted this was the reason he had decided the NSW Governor would not live in Government House. In other words the reason the Governor was thrown out was to diminish the office, and weaken any discretionary power the Governor might have over an errant Premier.
Mr. Carr also that the "reserve powers" that Sir John Kerr used in 1975 to dismiss the Whitlam government did not exist. Sir John held that it was unconstitutional for a government to attempt to govern without a grant of supply from the Parliament, which is fundamental to the Westminster system.

As I said [at the time] Mr. Carr's argument that the reserve powers do not exist would have amazed the great Labor leaders, Curtin, Chifley, Evatt (who even now is still a leading authority on them) and Mr. Carr's illustrious predecessor, and subsequently Governor-General, Sir William McKell, as well as Paul Keating and Gareth Evans who spent vast amounts of time trying, unsuccessfully, to codify those very powers.
Mr Carr claimed the trappings of vice-regal life had drawn Sir John Kerr to the "delusion" that his role was to exercise real power rather than serve as a ceremonial figurehead.
He said: "Living in the gilded cage of Admiralty House and Government House at Yarralumla, being attended on by security chiefs, ambassadors and visiting heads of state, created the illusion in this man that the paper role of Governor-General had a reality."
The reason the Oath of Allegiance is to be abolished is for the same reason the Governor was thrown out - to diminish the office. It is to weaken the discretionary power the Governor, as the representative of the Crown, might have over an errant Premier. It is an attack on the Crown as the constitutional guardian.

For this reason the republican politicians would not accept a compromise proposal by the Rev Fred Nile to keep the Oath of Allegiance and add the new pledge. So the Oath is to be replaced by a meaningless pledge to Australia and the people of New South Wales.
The point is that under the pledge, the people cannot discipline an errant government.
If the politicians were genuine, they would give the people a right of recall. This would involve a certain number of people being able to petition for a recall election. This exists, for example, in British Columbia and California where in 2003, Governor Gray Davis was recalled over mismanagement of the state budget.

This NSW bill is more than a snub. It is part of a campaign to weaken the constitutional guardian, the Crown, with a view to making politicians even less accountable.
It constitutes an attack, a calculated attack, on the checks and balances of our constitutional system.


by Tom Barnes
In On Target (24/2/06) I wrote about the ethnic violence in Sydney's Lebanised southwest. As a footnote to that article I note that according to The Australian (15/2/06) that former Premier Bob Carr was told about the Lebanese crime problem and the inadequacy of police resources to cope with it two years ago. As NSW premier he chose to ignore the warning. John Doran, then a NSW chief of detectives investigating crime in Sydney's southwest, wrote to Carr in February 2004 about the lack of police resources to deal with Lebanese organised crime. The Opposition Leader Peter Debnam said that Detective Doran's letter "confirms the arrogance of the NSW Government and their determination to continue denying the serious crime problem we have in Sydney."

The politically correct ideology that migrants and ethnics are golden people who can do no harm but only enrich the otherwise boring, racist Anglos, has led to Sydney riots. The academics responsible for perpetuating these myths are really aiders and abetters of this organised crime situation and in a decent and sane society, should be prosecuted along with the rapists, drug pushers and other thugs. Those creating a false culture of guilt, which is then used to brainwash society - and especially school children - must be made to be accountable for their actions.


by James Reed
Once upon a time when I looked at photographs of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his silly, toothy grin, I was reminded of the grinning Joker from the Batman comics. Today the grin has gone and Blair is grim rather than grinning. Much like Batman. Unlike Batman, Tony Blair doesn't fight for truth, justice and the British way - he just lies. The Independent on 16/2/06 published evidence of how Blair manipulated the so-called "threat of terrorism" to suit his government's agenda and party advantage. Are you surprised? The research was done by journalist Peter Oborne ("The Politics of Fear (or How Tony Blair Misled Us Over the War on Terror").

Thus in early 2003 the government claimed that they had failed a terrorist ring planning to use the deadly poison ricin in a chemical attack in Britain. At the time the government was seeking public support as it was preparing to attack Saddam Hussein. No such ricin was discovered in the flat of the alleged terrorists. Likewise the claim that in April 2004 that there was a terrorist plot to bomb Old Trafford Stadium on match day was a "complete fabrication". And of course, there are more lies. Peter Oborne concludes that these lies have led to a "collapse in trust" which "has come about because few people now believe what the Prime Minister, the security services and the police tell us about security matters".
Where are you Batman? The Joker is on the loose again!


Robert Fisk, while in Australia to promote his latest book, "The Great War for Civilisation," was interviewed by the ABC's Eleanor Hall in The World Today, 6/3/06. Following is a snippet from that interview.
"Robert Fisk says that in his three decades of reporting from the Middle East he's never seen it more dangerous, and that he's certain another major crisis, possibly even another September 11, is coming."
Robert Fisk: Now, we used to have this phenomenon in Algeria, when I was covering the Islamist government war there, and it took a while before we realised that they were policemen and they were soldiers. In other words, they were being paid by the authorities.
These were not [ordinary] people, there's not a huge wardrobe factory in Fallujah with, you know, 8,000 policemen's uniforms, waiting for the next suicide bomber. It's not like that. What we've got is death squads, and some of them are clearly working for government institutions within Baghdad.
Eleanor Hall: So you're saying there are death squads, there's chaos, but it's not civil war?
Robert Fisk: Well, it's certainly chaos, and it's certainly death squads. But I don't regard this as a civil war at the moment. As I said, somebody wants a civil war. I mean, if you really try hard and you kill enough people you may be able to produce this.
Eleanor Hall: So somebody wants a civil war?
Robert Fisk: Yes.
Eleanor Hall: You must have some clues about who.
Robert Fisk: I don't have. I have suspicions, I don't have clues. I spend a lot of time, when I'm in Baghdad, trying to find out who this is and what this is. Clearly, the Interior Ministry have been torturing people to death, and clearly the Interior Ministry have people who do operate death squads.
But you've got to remember something, that a very prominent figure in politics, and a close friend of the United States, was accused just before the first elections of executing, quote, "insurgents," unquote, in a police station, a police station I know very well.
This was reported in Australia at the time. I suspect the story is true. I think he was a murderer, and he was working for the Americans, and he was a former CIA operative, as we know. I'm not saying the CIA are doing the death squads and this is an American plot - no, I'm not.
But I think that there are all kinds of tendencies and fractures within the current authorities, who all live in the green zone in the former Republican palace of Saddam, surrounded by American barbed wire and American protection.


Subject: Detention of British Historian David Irving

Dear Austrian Ambassador to Canada:
I was shocked and dismayed to note that the prolific British author and historian David Irving has been arrested and detained in Austria--while responding, apparently, to an invitation of university students in Vienna to deliver an address in that city. This surely has got to be an outrageous, totalitarian and anti-intellectual act which is difficult even to comprehend in the light of normal historic civilized Western value and protection of freedom of speech, assembly and academic/intellectual enquiry. What is Austria attempting to do--completely destroy its credibility as a free and "democratic" nation? This is incomprehensible.
In our part of the world we have developed under British common law and parliamentary principles mechanisms to prevent the state with its overwhelming resources relative to the individual from using its powers to repress comment and criticism from citizens--indeed, it is considered to be a civic responsibility to subject politicians (and nearly everything else) to searching scrutiny and criticism.
I believe the Roman senator Cicero declared that "Politicians were not born; they were "excreted".
While this may seem somewhat exaggerated, there can be no doubt that politics is immensely subject to corrupting influences. Certainly, I do not need such elements or the state telling me what to think--and if they attempt to suppress the non-violent exchange of ideas in a professedly "free" society, that is exactly what they are attempting to do, because if the citizen is denied knowledge acquired from a free flow of information and opinion, he or she can never come to a satisfactory or correct understanding of whatever issue is involved.
This sort of hypocritical action makes a complete mockery of the sacrifices for which our people allegedly made ultimate sacrifices in two World Wars--a mockery, indeed, of the very meaning and essence of human life.
Over centuries, the British seemed to develop an understanding of the value of free enquiry and the need to separate and limit power and authority in government institutions.
The Germans seemed historically weak in this tradition--and it certainly appears that they may still have not learned this lesson. The fact that some individual or institution thinks or believes that they are right and can therefore impose their views on others by force does not guarantee that they are in fact either right or incorruptible--or justified in making such imposition.
Only God, being the author of all things, could make such a claim. Does this suggest that the Austrian state claims to be God? If so, I can only regard such a position as stupid and/or hypocritical and sacrilegious in the extreme. Talk about extremism!
I certainly have never heard David Irving suggest that anyone should be prevented from freely expressing their opinions on any subject. Precisely what is the Austrian Government so afraid of? Do they regard their own citizens as immature fools who cannot be trusted to draw intelligent conclusions from information with which they are presented. Shame on Austria!
I was there once and had a very pleasant time--not knowing what totalitarian statutes were contained in their legislation. Under the circumstances, I am afraid that I would not care to visit again such a country which seems to have so little basic respect for the individual person. For God's sake, end this disgraceful spectacle!
Free Irving with a humble apology and let him carry on with his legitimate responsibilities and activities as a historian and author--and do the honourable thing by letting the rest of the world assess his views as they freely choose to do. And declare to the world your reasons for so doing.
Repression is what leads inevitably to social instability--not the freedom to think independently along with other citizens. If your citizens lack the maturity to be trusted with freedom to exercise their mental faculties, then the only way in which they ever can be trusted is by being given an opportunity to practice living in the context of freedom and civilized tolerance, whether in agreement or not, of the right of other individuals to express their ideas without fear or harassment.
Perhaps I am naïve --but I really expected more of Austria.
Sincerely, Wallace Klinck, Canada.

**: Have you written to the Austrian Ambassador to Australia expressing your abhorrence at the imprisonment of David Irving? Maybe now is the time to do so? You could take some cues from Wallace Klinck's letter.
The Ambassador's name and address in Australia is as follows: His Excellency Dr. Hans Demel Ambassador, P.O. Box 3375, Manuka Canberra ACT 2603.