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

11 May 2007 Thought for the Week:

"How can the process of accelerating centralisation be stopped? Only when sufficient informed individuals learn how to associate together to use their social power to impose their will upon their political institutions, insisting that the policies of the Money Power be broken.
It is certain that the formation of more political parties merely assists the Money Power to extend its control of the people. Putting marks on pieces of paper every few years, without doing anything else, only serves to help legalise the policies of the centralisers."

Eric D. Butler in "The Money Power Versus Democracy," 1940, reprinted 1975.

ERIC BUTLER AND THE IMMORALITY OF CENTRALISED POWER

by James Reed
To be intellectually armed to understand the underlying philosophies at work in the world today, one needs to be educated by reading the most insightful of books. Eric D. Butler (1916-2006), one of the founders of the League of Rights in South Australia in 1946, penned many brilliant, highly readable books that penetrated into the realities lying beneath the surface.

There is a cover on a book about science that I once read which had a scientist breaking through the surface of the earth (i.e. reality) to glimpse the gears and levers that ultimately move the universe. That sketch accurately describes Eric Butler's philosophy as well. Required reading for this week is a little booklet "The Moral Implications of Centralised Power".

I have heard some young social crediters criticise Eric for the part he played in the 1944 Powers Referendum. Wouldn't a nationalisation of the banks have produced a social credit economy? Eric rightly saw that this drive was based on a totalitarian philosophy of centralised power and, as Lord Acton observed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. The Attorney-General at the time, Dr. H.V. Evatt, a Fabian Socialist, was a good example. Further, social credit is about decentralisation of power, and bank nationalisation is a movement in the opposite philosophical direction.

So, what is wrong with the centralisation of power, of "new world orders"? Why fear them? We should fear them because these forms of social organisation stifle human freedom, individuality and creativity. Thus they are contrary to the law of life and the natural law - God's law.
Power is a capacity to impose one's will over others : to make them do things. Some degree of power is necessary for civilised order, but centralised power requires an enormous administrative order and bureaucracy. But the essence of freedom is freedom of choice for individuals, to "accept or reject one thing at a time." As Eric observes:
"Under our present economic arrangements, instead of gaining access to the free time potential, from our industrial progress, we are increasingly robbed of that freedom. The increased knowledge is used to increase our enslavement by compelling us to engage in the type of activity which has produced the environmental pollution and other problems."

Democracy tends to break down without a great deal of local self government to create healthy citizens. Centralised power though makes robots out of citizens and becomes a vast social machine, too vast for an individual to survey. That is the philosophy of power. Eric contrasts it with the Christian philosophy of love which affirms individual worth, value and dignity. In a nutshell, that is what is wrong with the philosophy of centralised power : it enslaves and dehumanises both us and the controllers. And that is what the League continues to fight against.

Copies of Eric Butler's magnificent booklet, "The Moral Implications of Centralised Power" are available from all Heritage Book Services. Price: $8.50 including postage.
"The Money Power Versus Democracy," by E.D. Butler, price: $7.50 including postage.


ERIC BUTLER, YES; BOB SANTAMARIA, NO!

by James Reed
In the context of this discussion about freedom and centralised power, it is interesting to consider the case of B.A. Santamaria, the Catholic intellectual who was also influential at the same time as Eric Butler. Santamaria had as his mentor Daniel Mannix, Archbishop of Melbourne from 1917 to 1963. No doubt both men did much good in combating the communist threat. Santamaria in the latter part of his life did excellent work attacking economic globalisation and economic rationalism.

However on the dark side there is an anti-Anglo Saxon strain running through the Mannix-Santamaria stream of politics. They didn't like a WASP Australia and they did their bit to end it through immigration. Along with Arthur Calwell they wanted to bring in more Catholics whatever their colour. That ideology produced the multiracial/multicultural Asian Australia that we have today. It negates in one sweep any good work they did. Sorry Santamaria fans, it has to be said. Do you recall all of his pro-immigration pieces? Race didn't matter for this Italian, only Catholicism.

The pieces always were the same. Australia has teeming Asian masses to the north. We are underpopulated. *So increase immigration (from Asia) or they will come anyway. Santamaria repeated this type of article many times over the years. It became standard copy. Beyond this though, as Michael Sexton has recently analysed Santamaria and Mannix were anti-democrats. ("A man and his dogma : In 1950s Australia, democracy and devout Catholicism made for an uneasy mix, writes Michael Sexton." The Weekend Australian 14-15/4/07 p.28).

Santamaria in 1952 said that the birth of the liberal democratic state was one of the great evils of modern history. Whereas Eric Butler saw the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy as a major human achievement, both Mannix and Santamaria rejected it. Would things have been different for them if democracy was a creation of the Irish or Italians, rather than the Anglo Saxons? In any case, this rejection of fundamental liberal principles puts Santamaria and Mannix in the centralised power camp. Would both have gone for a new world order with the Pope as world emperor?

For me, this is a philosophical and theological perversion of the true spirit of Christianity. The rejection of centralised power goes, I think, to a rejection of centralised power in the Church as well. That is why I am not a Catholic, although my family has been. Thus I acknowledge the good work which B.A. Santamaria did, but I see his centralism as contrary to the true spirit of freedom that Eric Butler defended. Eric Butler then, in my opinion, was the better intellectual.

* In the context of the above it is worth reproducing a section of a flyer the League produced and circulated widely in the early 1960s.
"Church of Rome's Apostolic Delegate Supports "White Australia" Policy":-
"Opponents of Australia's immigration policy, which ensures that Australia remains a European nation, and which prevents racial friction to be exploited by the Communists and other subversives, falsely charge supporters of the policy with being "racialists" and anti-Christian. It is significant that Churchmen who express caution against altering Australia's immigration policy, receive very little publicity when they give their views. A classic example of this suppression was provided late in 1961 when the Church of Rome's Apostolic Delegate to Australia, New Zealand and Oceania, the Most Rev. Maximilian de Fustenberg, D.D., said it was "wise" for Australia to retain its present immigration policy.

His Excellency was addressing a layman's dinner in Ballarat, Victoria on November 20th, 1961…."

For those with access to the internet, view the following important articles on the Race/Culture/Nation section of the League website: "Civil War in Australia" and "Racial Treason".


'THE DISMISSAL' AND THE ROLE OF SIR JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN

by John Brett
The ABC produced a TV series on Australia's earlier history, including one segment on the 1975 dissolution of the Whitlam government by Sir John Kerr, which was followed by a federal election.
In a letter published in David Flint's Opinion Column, John Brett brings our attention to the role Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen played in those events of 1975.

"[The] most forgotten about incident in the whole affair concerns the role played by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Sir Joh [had]arrived in Melbourne late to attend the Liberal-Country Party Coalition meeting to discuss the withholding of Supply.
On arrival the chairman Malcolm Fraser told Sir Joh, 'They had decided to allow Supply to pass in the Senate and Tony Eggleton was in the next room drafting a statement for the media'. ("Don't you worry about that", Joh's Memoirs, p.136.)

Sir Joh's response was immediate:
'You people must be bonkers.....'. He warned them that if Whitlam stayed we would get his republic, about which Whitlam said, "Whether you like it or don't, I'm still going to be the first president of the republic of Australia, and what's more you can call me Mr President any time you like, because that's exactly what I'm going to be". (Page 107-108.)

I think people like Dennis Shanahan, (The Australian journalist…ed) should be asked, 'Why do they ignore the massive amount of material written by those who were there'?
Furthermore, if these participants are wrong why are they not challenged or exposed by our media intelligentsia? There has to be another agenda somewhere.

But we should be ever thankful for these Knights of our realm, who did their duty so honestly and conscientiously and left us their account of this pivotal point in our history.
Two have now departed in Honour, but to Sir David Smith we can still extend our thanks for his continual fidelity in this affair."

John Brett continues: "The 'Dismissal' revival reminded me of a pile of Queen and Constitution brochures I had in the cupboard. These were the remnants of thousands we distributed tramping around the streets of New England towns in 1973. We seem to have forgotten 1974-75, which was the year that Whitlam was laying the foundations for his republic, to be thwarted at every crucial step by Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

You won that round Joh:
When Joh decided the Federal Opposition was incapable of containing Whitlam, he took a delegation of State Premiers and representatives to London to forestall Whitlam. Meeting in Canberra a few weeks later Whitlam told Joh: "Well, Joh, I've got to admit you won that round, but I must tell you this Joh: whether you like it or whether you don't, I'm still going to be the first President of the republic of Australia… ".
Joh knew that Whitlam's gross arrogance would eventually destroy him at the polls. Australians will not tolerate arrogance from anybody, least of all a politician.

When Whitlam appointed Vince Gair a DLP senator for Queensland as Ambassador to Ireland, Joh knew Vince would ordinarily be the last person Whitlam would give the job to, so what was he up to? With Gair out of the Senate, Whitlam hoped to gain control with an ALP candidate. Gair neglected to resign from the Senate on the last day available to him, so with less than 12 hours to accomplish it, Joh had all the writs for the Queensland Senators in the coming senate election issued. Whitlam was furious, Joh had foiled him again and not for the last time.
It was this failure of Whitlam to get a majority in the Senate that allowed Fraser, with the Coalition majority, to block Supply in 1975 bringing about the dismissal, followed by the landslide election victory to the Coalition and the destruction of Whitlam.

Queenslanders voted Whitlam out:
It was the vote in Queensland that destroyed Whitlam, there were hardly any Labor members left, for all Queenslanders remembered Whitlam publicly calling Joh, "A bible bashing bastard", a "contemptible man", etc., each time Joh outmanoeuvred him.
All this while the Coalition sat on their hands - with Fraser denying the fact that Joh played any part in the dismissal!

The 'Loans Affair' and Whitlam's scheming:
There is no doubt Whitlam's scheming was first discernable on the night of the 13th December 1974. The Governor General and his secretary were in Sydney for a function at the Opera House. The Parliament had risen for the Christmas recess and Whitlam was leaving for overseas next day - the 14th December.
On returning from the Opera late on the 13th, the Governor General's secretary, David Smith, received a message to contact an official in Canberra, who finally was contacted about 2am on the 14th.

Executive Council:
In the absence of the President and Vice President, and without notice, a meeting of the Executive Council had been called on the night of the 13th to approve of the Government borrowing $4,000,000,000 as a temporary loan outside of Australia. This was to become known as the "Loans Affair".

At 8 am on the morning of the 14th, Whitlam rang the Governor General to inform him of this unusual meeting, requesting that the absent GG should sign the minute of the meeting. He would despatch the document with a courier, who arrived at Admiralty House about 9am on the morning of the 14th. A temporary loan of this magnitude for the very dubious reasons stated by Whitlam, fortunately was to remain embedded in the GG's memory.

We could safely bet David Smith, (now Sir David) would not forget this unusual meeting and its purpose became obvious nine months later. If ever political events cast their shadows before them, this "Loans Affair" is surely one of the darkest shadows in Australia's political history, just as today there are other shadows being cast. Or should it be caste?

"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practice to deceive".


9/11 INVESTIGATION: EVIDENCE PROVING THE UNTHINKABLE?

by Jeremy Lee
Ever since September 11, 2001 - the day that unleashed the Afghanistan war and then the war in Iraq - there has been mounting speculation on unexplained aspects of the plane attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. As time has progressed, this speculation has solidified into solid evidence, as more and more scientists and engineers have joined forces demanding the enquiries into the disaster are reopened. But the media in general has ignored the issue in general. The implications are unthinkable - that 9/11 was an 'inside job'.

But cracks are appearing in the façade. Channel 10 in Australia showed the film "In Plane Sight" by David von Kleist, who was the main guest at the Inverell Forum in March. Channel 10 was attacked by Michael Danby in Parliament for showing the film.

No other mainstream media in Australia has even hinted that there could be another side to the story. But the mounting evidence won't go away, and keeps growing in intensity.
Too many things don't stack up, from the evidence of stock market manipulation in the days leading up to 9/11, to the Israeli youth detected celebrating the 9/11 attacks while they were happening, to the suppression of evidence in the Inquiry itself, to the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; all blamed on the Islamic world.

Latest polls in the U.S. show more than 50% of the people believe 9/11 was an 'inside job'. Desperate attempts are being made to stereotype them as "kooks" and "conspiratorialists". But the story keeps getting bigger, with military leaders, State Department officials and even Congressmen finally speaking out.

Now several newspapers are putting out articles in Canada. How soon will the official silence break in other countries - and finally America? This story was also carried in the Edmonton Sun - implying a certain tolerance for these stories on the part of the management of that group. Both are subsidiaries of the "Sun Media Corporation", part of the Quebecor Group.

Further information: https://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Gleeson_John/2007/04/18/4055849.html


HOW THREE MILLION GERMANS DIED AFTER V.E. DAY

The following review by Nigel Jones appeared in The Telegraph (UK) 18/04/2007:
"After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift," by Giles MacDonogh.

"Giles MacDonogh is a bon viveur and a historian of wine and gastronomy, but in this book, pursuing his other consuming interest - German history - he serves a dish to turn the strongest of stomachs. It makes particularly uncomfortable reading for those who compare the disastrous occupation of Iraq unfavourably to the post-war settlement of Germany and Austria.

MacDonogh argues that the months that followed May 1945 brought no peace to the shattered skeleton of Hitler's Reich, but suffering even worse than the destruction wrought by the war. After the atrocities that the Nazis had visited on Europe, some degree of justified vengeance by their victims was inevitable, but the appalling bestialities that MacDonogh documents so soberly went far beyond that.

The first 200 pages of his brave book are an almost unbearable chronicle of human suffering. His best estimate is that some three million Germans died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities. A million soldiers vanished before they could creep back to the holes that had been their homes. The majority of them died in Soviet captivity (of the 90,000 who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 eventually came home) but, shamingly, many thousands perished as prisoners of the Anglo-Americans.

Herded into cages along the Rhine, with no shelter and very little food, they dropped like flies. Others, more fortunate, toiled as slave labour in a score of Allied countries, often for years. Incredibly, some Germans were still being held in Russia as late as 1979. The two million German civilians who died were largely the old, women and children: victims of disease, cold, hunger, suicide - and mass murder…"


IRAN, ISRAEL AND THE HOLOCAUST

by Peter Ewer
Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren, Senior Fellows of the Shalem Centre in Jerusalem have written an interesting essay on the dilemmas that a nuclear Iran poses for Israel. ("Iran Pushes Israel to Invoke Holocaust," The Australian, 29/1/07 p.14).
Yes, in Israel today the Holocaust is being spoken of again "For more than two decades the holocaust was rarely invoked, except on the extremes, in Israeli politics."

Now there is talk of a "Second Holocaust" based on Iran's nuclear destruction of Israel. But a nuclear Iran will also have a chilling effect on Israel's economy and foreign investors will jump the ship before disaster strikes.

A recent poll found that 27 per cent of Israelis would leave Israel if Iran went nuclear. However a nuclear Iran would motivate Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to also acquire nuclear weapons. Libya, in turn, may also enter the nuclear arms race again. Contemplate the Arab nations with the bomb and be afraid!

These Jewish scholars conclude that the Iran Holocaust Conference is also a prelude to the destruction of the Jewish state. Thus, all that is left is for Israel and the U.S. to go to war against Iran, now.

However these scholars do not ask, what if the attacks fail to knock out the nuclear facilities: won't Iran see it as a moral mission to retaliate against Israel with nukes? Iran then is a real threat to Israel, and only by somehow destroying the Ahmadinejad regime can they obtain safety. If I were a Jew living in Israel, then I too would be getting my business affairs in order so that I could immigrate to the United States, or maybe the land 'down under'.


IMMIGRATION PROVING THREAT TO BRITAIN AS SINGLE NATION

Immigration may be threatening Britain's status as a country, it has been claimed. A pamphlet by social policy think-tank Civitas said the UK may already have reached a "tipping point" where it can no longer be regarded as a single nation. David Conway, the author, said that if Britain has become a "nation of immigrants" it could lead to political disintegration.

The 100-page booklet said: "Those for whom this country has been a model of tolerance and freedom cannot but have cause for deep concern about the seemingly reckless pace and scale on which immigration has recently been allowed to proceed.

"As a result of it, the country may possibly have reached a tipping point beyond which it can no longer be said to contain a single nation. Should that point have been reached, then, ironically in the course of Britain having become a nation of immigrants, it would have ceased to be a nation. Once such a point is reached, political disintegration may be predicted to be not long in following."

Mr Conway, a senior research fellow at Civitas, disputed a claim made by the Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 that "everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant".

The author said:
"The view that Britain is a nation of immigrants suggests Britain has always experienced immigration on its present-day scale, which is not the case."

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said:
"This report suggests that the Government's inability to get a grip on immigration or put a limit on numbers entering the UK is destabilising British society. We know that unchecked immigration is putting pressure on housing and local services. Now this report shows that its effects are potentially even more serious."

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