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 May 2007 Thought for the Week:

"Nobody has ever seen Society do any of the things which Society is commonly said to do. When anyone has been said to be a witness of the vengeance of Society, inflicted upon one or more of its members, what was actually seen was a hangman, a rope, a support for a rope, a moveable platform, a superintending officer, a stopwatch and a victim… No one has made it clearer than Douglas in the third Chapter of 'Social Credit', and elsewhere.
In the work cited he says:-
"One of the first facts to be observed as part of the social ideal… is the elevation of the group ideal and the minimising of individuality, i.e., the treatment of individuality as subordinate to, e.g., nationality. The manifestations of this idea are almost endless… the national idea, the class or international idea, the identification of the individual with the race, the school, the regiment, the profession, and so forth… The shifting of emphasis from the individual to the group, which is involved in collectivism, logically involves the shifting of responsibility for action…. The individual killing of one man by another we term murder. But collective and wholesale killing, we dignify by the name of war, and we specifically absolve the individual from the consequences of any acts committed under the orders of a superior officer… "

- - Hewlett Edwards in "Elements of Social Credit," 1946.


from Felicity Arbuthnot:
As presented on Australian TV, PM Tony Blair's 'swansong' was a grand affair, and there appeared to be genuine regret at his approaching departure from politics. Surrounded by the party-faithful at the Trimdon Labour Club in his Sedgefield constituency he was enthusiastically lauded as he out-performed his usual public media performances. But all was not as it seemed. British journalist Felicity Arbuthnot (Global Research) presented her readers with a far different view: She wrote:

"As Blair announced his departure (allegedly, finally pushed, by a finally desperate Party after his support for the bombardment of Lebanon) David Keogh, a parliamentary researcher and Leo O'Connor a journalist, were jailed for six months for their part in passing a classified paper to an anti war M.P., detailing, allegedly, a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair, on the 16th April 2004, when, it is alleged, they discussed the bombing of Al Jazeera, in US ally Quatar. The truth tellers [were] jailed and - so far - those who have done nothing but the opposite, walk free.

Sir Roderick Braithwaite, former Senior Advisor to Blair wrote (2nd August 2006, Financial Times) that there were senior diplomats in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and those in the Ministry of Defence who: 'would not be too upset if (Blair) was tried as a war criminal.'

There was a lone cheerleader for Blair in London, on Friday, Iraq's 'President' Jalal Talabani, who hailed him as a 'hero' - but, as others in the corrupt puppet government, the British and US troops are all that stand between his head and his shoulders.

Anti war MP George Galloway, who hosts a radio programme, told his listeners on Trimdon day, that he had ordered an eco friendly car and told the dealer to paint it black: 'The colour of Blair's heart'. On the same day BBC Radio 5 did an unofficial poll of the reactions of their listeners. Seventy two percent of their comments were summed up succinctly by one listener, who emailed : 'Good riddance.' "

Felicity Arbuthnot's full article is placed on the League's website under section "On Target Britain," titled: "Tony Blair but don't break out the champagne just yet".


by Peter West
Why so much concern from writers in this journal about multiculturalism-style issues? Why not full-power social credit and economic issues? Well, it is of course true that monetary reform is the key to our ultimate survival, but in the short term, survival is the key. If there is a 'conspiracy' - or even an open war against White survival, then unless this issue is understood and addressed, then all of our social building efforts may only be for the benefit of those who inherit our world once the dust settles, perhaps the Chinese or fundamentalist Islam. I don't think this is what Major Douglas had in mind.

The media has devoted a reasonable amount of space to Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe as he attempted to secure his political power until he is 89 (he is presently 83). This attempt has involved "stacking" the central committee which makes presidential nominations, as well as arresting, beating and torturing opposition activists. And - bingo - Mugabe has been re-endorsed as presidential candidate for the 2008 one person/democracy "election". Bob the Mug has even denounced his vice president Joyce Mujuru, also known during the "liberation war" by her non de gurerre as "Spill Blood".

"Spill Blood" complained about Mugabe's "paranoid delusions," which is putting it mildly. The country is already living with daily economic chaos, with little food and fuel available. Sanctions and international condemnation of Mugabe came, not from the allowing of blacks to kill White farmers, but sadly from the crackdown on political opponents. It seems anti-White racism is to be internationally accepted. Mug has told the West to "go hang" and no doubt he could show us how. Meanwhile the leaders of the Southern African Development Community, leaders of 14 Southern African countries expressed its "solidarity with the Government and the people of Zimbabwe" ("African Leaders Want Mugabe Sanctions Lifted," The Weekend Australian 31/3/-1/4/07, p.13).

They wanted sanctions, imposed by the West lifted. They did not explain how one could have solidarity with Mugabe, and also those he tortured: talk about two bob each way! But of course, ultimately, their solidarity was with Mugabe and not the mythical 'people'. Many of these countries also have appalling human rights records, and now, following the racial principle (oppose Whites, support Blacks) they are endorsing a dictator to continue to torture and kill, mostly Black folk, but some Whites too. As Janet Albrechtsen, one of the few Australian journalists to take Mugabe to task has said: "His leadership… seems to have inspired a unique African racism, blacks killing blacks… ethnic cleansing was part of Mugabe's political repertoire."

Another journalist, UK "gay activist" Peter Tatchell (cited to give an illustration on the extent of the problem) wrote in The Independent (cited The Australian 27/3/07 p.15): "Large sections of the liberal and left opinion have gone soft on their commitment to universal human rights. They rightly condemn the excesses of British and US government policy but rarely speak out against oppressors who are non-white or adherents of minority faiths. There are no mass protests against female genital mutilation, forced marriages, the stoning of women and gender apartheid in the Middle East."
"President Robert Mugabe has massacred more black Africans than P.W. Botha in South Africa. In contrast to the global anti-apartheid movement, there are no world-wide protests to support the Zimbabwean-struggle for democracy. Why does a black tyrant murdering black people merit less outrage than a white tyrant murdering black people?"

A good question from a "gay activist," apart from accepting the standard liberal-left nonsense that Botha "murdered" blacks. Consider South Africa today under black rule. The Australian Beacon (TAB) (Issue 20, 2007 p.5) reports on "Operation White Clean-up", which is a plan by the police and army to eliminate all White people on the death of Nelson Mandela. The ANC slogan coined by ANC Peter Mokaba, "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" was found by the South African Human Rights Commission not to be hate speech, but an expression of "the constitutional right to free speech." (TAB p.12).

But image the different response if Afrikaners started chanting "Kill the Xhosas, kill the blacks," at the next funeral of a white farmer and his family murdered by blacks. In South Africa, attacks on white farmers continues unabated. Since 1994, the year the ANC took power, 1,334 white farmers, farm workers and their families have been murdered.

According to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, these farm murders are "the final stage of the revolution" (cited The Australian Beacon p.12).


by Brian Simpson:
Philippe Legrain's book, "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them" (Little Brown, 2007) is yet another book in support of all the great myths of the immigration lobby. For Legrain immigration is so great a benefit that opposition requires psychological explanation. For Legrain, basically all nations are racially polyglots if one pushes far enough back into time. So at one point he asks, "to what extent is Britishness even relevant nowadays." For Legrain taking even low-skilled people in, is no problem at all. Nor is the threat of terrorism a worry in relation to Islamic immigration.

Rather than going through the boring process of citing authorities to refute the "economic argument", the "ageing argument", let's go another way.
Legrain's arguments against ethnicity apply equally to non-White nations and to Israel. Israel by his logic should forget about ethnicity, etc., and take in say, 30 million Africans, 100 million South East Asians, just for starters! Remember: It is one world, ethnicity doesn't count, and there are no environmental limits to growth. Repeat the same experiment for Japan and China. If they do it, then we can consider going down the Legrain line.

Oh, and why not move a few hundred refugees to Mr. Legrain's own house? Won't that improve his productivity? Further, if population increases are so good, then why not keep the potential migrants in their home country - or how about us moving en masse to the standard migration countries? Legrain's thesis is incoherent.


by James Reed
Geoff Gallop, former West Australian premier and now director of the Graduate School of Government at the University of Sydney ("Freedom Based on Tolerance," The Australian 4/4/07 p.36) also re-circulates tired old arguments for multiculturalism. He of course recognises that multiculturalism has its critics, but for him, multiculturalism is based upon democratic values such as equality and human rights. Really? So when did a vote take place on multiculturalism? Would Anglo Australians in 1945 have let it all happen if by time travel they could see the streets of Melbourne and Sydney today? What about the democratic values of Anglo-Australians to have chosen not to embrace multiculturalism?

In an article by Katherine Betts and Michael Gilding ("The Growth Lobby and Australia's Immigration Policy," People and Place vol.14, 2006), the authors discuss the power of a pro-immigration lobby based around housing, land development and construction. These authors deal with the impact of this lobby on the Howard government in 1996 to 1999. Nevertheless it is clear that this lobby has been strong throughout the entire post World War II period, and after 1947 has been increasingly dominated by ethnics. It is now a self-perpetuating machine that has been long out of control.

If the immigration problem cannot be dealt with, forget about solving the economic problem and creating a social credit world. Immigration ties us to globalisation and breaks down the national unity necessary for resisting the new world order.


by Peter West
James Reed should look on the bright side: it would appear that Asian-born voters will decide the fate of John Howard at the next election, according to multiculturalist George Megalogenis (The Australian 27/2/07 p.11). Whilst Howard held the seat of Bennelong in 1996 by 10.2 per cent, he now holds it by just 4 per cent. In electorates next door, the new-coming Asian migrants, whom Johnny Howard has let in, in record numbers (whilst hoodwinking sleepy conservatives that he is doing something about immigration), are voting for the party that looks after them even better - Labor.

Asian immigration has transformed Howard's seat from a safe one to a marginal one. Demography and the racial mix will play a big part in ending the career of little John.

In comes something even worse - the ABCish, ever politically correct Maxine McKew, and of course, a party of clones. But will Kevin Rudd and the girls really be worse?
I personally look forward to the end of the Australian neo-con experiment. During this time our people went to sleep. The anti-immigration movement was destroyed. Howard used illegal immigrants and a so-called 'tough policy', to divert attention from an immigration programme that was over 70 per cent Asian some years. So let the Howard illusion end. Let Rudd and company hit us with the "Left" fist now - because we need it.

Let independents answer the call and may what remains of our Australia, vote for them against the hollow men and women of the new world order. Bring it on !


by James Reed
I agree with Peter West that we should look forward to the end of John Howard. However Mandarin-speaking pro-China Rudd may be a worse Asianiser than Howard.

One of the iron laws of social decay is that Australia's PMs get progressively worse.

As bad as Keating was, Howard is worse because he gave to superficial viewers the illusion of being on-side. Rudd will move Asianisation into Chinese-isation. Even some in the media are nervous about these prospects (e.g., Dennis Shanahan, "One-Man Band Rudd Risky as China's Mate," The Australian 13/4/07 p.14).

Rudd will be our first Chinese PM and will lay the foundation for Australia being a colony of the New Chinese empire. That is where Asianisation ends.


At last some prominent Australians are speaking out on the centralist, dictatorial, arrogant stance by John Howard and his cronies in power. The Age (Kenneth Nguyen 16/5/07) reported on what former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox QC recently had to say on the matter:

"Australia is increasingly an "elected dictatorship", former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox, QC, declared yesterday, in a speech lashing the Howard Government for muscling in on state governments.

Mr Wilcox, speaking to the Law Society of the ACT yesterday, slammed recent Federal Government announcements that funding for the states would depend on the states introducing performance-based pay for teachers and transferring their product liability powers to the Commonwealth.
"It seems inherently wrong that, without any constitutional or parliamentary mandate, the Commonwealth should overrule state and territory ministers and officials in respect of management issues within the latter's constitutional domain," Mr Wilcox said.
"There is nothing new about the Commonwealth using its financial muscle to influence policy in areas outside those assigned to it by the Commonwealth. However, the practice seems to have accelerated in recent years."

Mr Wilcox had numerous suggestions for improving what he described as the "serious deficiencies in the quality of our democracy", including: § Strengthening the distinction between Commonwealth and State powers.
§ Developing a tradition whereby the Speaker of the House of Representatives resigns from his or her party, as has long occurred in Britain's House of Commons.
§ Increasing the use of "conscience votes" in Parliament.


by Peter West
Imagine if a student today, for a Ph.D. thesis produced a TV comedy that had a go at Jews, Blacks, Asians, homosexuals, international bankers and/or financiers? Imagine the outrage generated by a thesis "Laughing at Jews". Or to vary the example, a TV comedy "Laughing at Muslims". After all, a little while back just a few cartoons almost resulted in global jihad. But a thesis being done at the Queensland University of Technology "Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains" made it past the university ethics committee. The TV comedy has two disabled men trying to interview locals in a country pub and their mental disability leads to them humiliating themselves. (The Australian 11/4/07 p.3) This is supposed to be comedy.

This work was criticised by two academics John Hookman and Gary MacLennan ("Philistines of Relativism at the Gates," The Australian 11/4/07 p.33) as showing the end results of the relativism of "post-modernism" which, like a bad smell, filters through cultural studies. The alternative lies in embracing aesthetic and moral values.

There is nothing to be gained by childish satire which takes on vulnerable people in our society like the disabled. It is really poor taste, even though in a liberal democracy one should - in principle - have the freedom to do it. What is more interesting is when satire and humour are turned against the truly powerful and the real rulers of society. But we don't see our funny men and women having the guts and brain power to do that, do we?


From David Flint's Opinion Column:
There is a suggestion in the Discussion Paper on the Northern Territory becoming a state which introduces a totally unnecessary issue, one which could completely distract the voters (The Australian, 10 May 2007). If as a result, a quasi republican model is put to the people in a plebiscite, the vote will be, at least in part, about republicanism and not whether there should be a new state. This is in no one's interest.

The suggestion is a revolutionary one:
that there be no governor to represent and exercise the powers of the Australian Crown. This is against the letter and spirit of the Australian constitutional system, and against the interests of the people of the Northern Territory. It is difficult to understand why the authors of the Discussion Paper have introduced this red herring. After all they admit that the people of the Northern Territory (as with those of all states and 72% of federal electorates) in 1999 rejected the best model the republicans could devise, and one which had overwhelming media, political and celebrity support.

The Federal Constitution assumes the existence of a governor in each state.
The Australia Acts of 1986, which are in the nature of constitutional documents, specifically mandates the existence of a governor in each state to represent the Sovereign. And it was with good reason that state governments of all parties for years fought successive federal governments until the principle that the governor was appointed by The Queen on the advice of the premier was finally accepted, a matter recorded with hitherto unknown detail by Dr Anne Twomey in her recent book, "The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors."

Republicans want 'poodle' governor?
The governor is no ceremonial figurehead, but an important check and balance, providing leadership above politics. Removal of the Crown from a state constitution would turn any replacement into either another politician or a poodle of the premier. The absence of any check and balance in the person of an administrator appointed by the Governor-General in the ACT has demonstrated the dangers of this, for example, in the Bruce Stadium financial scandal which an administrator would have averted.

Those advancing the cause of a new state do not need this ideological republican distraction. ACM will put in a submission expanding on these views.

If those in authority are so misguided as to put up a quasi republican model for the people's decision, they will only have themselves to blame if this quasi republican model were to become an issue, or even the principal issue in the vote, rather than whether there should be a new state. If they persist with this red herring, the ideologues could well sink the project


In an article by Richard Cook titled "An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the United States," he explains that "at the end of 2006, the total debt in the United States, including household, business, and all levels of government, the financial debt, was $48.3 trillion US dollars."

My computer thesaurus tells me:
- a Trillion is the figure 1, followed by 18 zeros and would look like this: 1,000000000000000000.



The most powerful and productive nation in recorded history:
Bearing in mind we are talking about the most powerful and productive nation known to recorded history.

Tto get some idea of the debt structure in America he explained it thus:
"This figure is 50 per cent higher than the sum of all personal wealth held by the entire population of the United States --- and 38 per cent higher than the value of all publicly-traded US companies."
It sure is well past time there was monetary reform!

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