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

17 August 2007 Thought for the Week:

"No one has ever seen Society, or heard it, or felt it. Each of us apprehends it only in fragments, and then what we are actually able to give our attention to is a separate instance of association and its result. For example, 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 the rope, a moveable platform, a superintending officer, a stopwatch and a victim. Inquiring into the antecedents of these things one sees books, schools, churches, fields in which hemp is growing, factories, the instruments of carpentry and joinery, wig-makers, watchmakers, and homes and so on…"

- - Taken from "The Elements of Social Credit : Course of Lectures," 1946.


by Brian Simpson

"In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people - a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really "universal" and "culture-neutral" because it has long ceased to have any real culture of its own." -- Samuel Francis, 1947-2005.

Here in Australia we don't have columnists in the largely Murdoch-run media like the late Samuel Francis. Although Francis did not criticise the financial system he was an excellent critic of US immigration and multiculturalism. In particular he saw US conservatives as working, intentionally or unintentionally, to undermine the American nation.

Peter Gemma is editor of a tribute to Samuel Francis' defe3nce of American nationalism, "Shots Fired : Samuel Francis on America's Cultural War," (FGF Books, Vienna VA 2006). The book collects Francis' columns, essays and speeches. Uniting all of these pieces is a belief that a nation is a people "bound by blood, place and history." For Francis society is "a contract between the dead, the living and the yet unborn, and its proper ordering, its government as well as its social arrangements, should reflect its concrete, historical institutions, manners and memories." Take away such bonds and society soon dissolves into a war of all against all, as Thomas Hobbes once put it.

But there has been a revolution and the government no longer serves the interests of the American people. Neo-con republicans differ little from Democrats who have the same centralist one-word agenda. "The people and forces now in power in this country - in government, the culture and Big Business - are the enemies of the real America and the real civilisation of the West."

Francis believes that the elites rule more through the influence of culture than through the control of production (i.e., economics and finance). This is, I believe, an error of the book, where Francis accepts the philosophy, unintentionally, of enemies from the left such as the Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Clearly both the cultural domain interacts and depends upon the economic and the economic in turn upon the cultural.

Social Credit has always had a non-reductionistic, sensible holistic view of social structure. The American critics are, for my taste, too much under the influence of liberalism and methodological individualism. Nevertheless this is an excellent book, well recommended for all concerned about the survival of western civilisation and our race.


by Ian Wilson LL.B:
It has been said before : Australia is an elected dictatorship. Now former Federal Court judge, Murray Wilcox QC has said it as well. Wilcox, speaking to the Law Society of the ACT in May 15, 2007 slammed the Howard government over its proposal that funding for the States would be contingent upon the States introducing performance-based pay for teachers, as well as also transferring their product liability powers to the Federal government.

Murray Wilcox observed that the Commonwealth has been using finance to influence State policy for years, but now the practice is accelerating, indicating "serious deficiencies in the quality of our democracy." He said: "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."

Wilcox suggests that these deficiencies in our democracy can be addressed by measures such as having the Speaker of the House of representatives resign from his/her party, increasing the use of "conscience votes" in Parliament and strengthening the distinction between Commonwealth and State powers. On the latter issue, Wilcox did not address the centralist philosophy which has gripped the High Court of Australia since its creation. Ask yourself why, time after time, based on the most flimsy of arguments, centralist judgements have always been delivered? I conjecture, for one reason or another, the Courts have not been sufficiently separated or insulated from the culture of politics. Public policy considerations - typically of a centralist nature - have held the day.

The answer is political decentralism and devolution of powers as C.H. Douglas, L. Kohr and E.F. Schumacher have all observed. (My thanks here to James Reed).
To begin this process it is vital to break up the power of the political parties. Party power politics is inconsistent with representative democracy, for the representative's primary loyalty must be to the party, not the electorate. Our legal system is only as good as the general society which we have.


by James Reed
How to explain the madness of the human condition?

Example 1: economic globalisation. One would have thought that a "developing country" like India, with so many people literally dying in the streets would never have a labour shortage problem. But now India is bringing in cheap Mexican labour for its software industry! So how to explain the pattern : where does Mexico get its cheap labour from for its development and so on? Eventually we have to be the new Third World. But wait Mr. Rootless Cosmopolitan - how does that impact on the global conspiracy for our racial elimination? Oops, didn't think that far ahead…

Example 2 : Third World development. The new nation of East Timor, would, one would think be busy addressing issues such as health and poverty - but - defence planners want an army, navy and air force, all with real big missiles. This is to protect Timor Sea oil and gas interests as well as illegal fishermen. Well the former should be protected by the capitalist nations that benefit, and the latter requires only a second hand boat from Australia and a few rifles from the 1996 Howard gun-grab (remember?).

Example 3 : the USA wants to install a network of missile defences in Eastern Europe to shoot down missiles that may be launched from Iran. Naturally enough, Russia doesn't think too highly of this and Russia may point its own missiles on European targets. President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with The Times, 5/6/07 : "It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond."

And it gets better : "This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other … increases the possibility of unleashing nuclear conflict." It seems that these grim, constipated men, living on saturated fat and alcohol, are never happy unless they are threatening everybody with nuclear annihilation. Iran does not have missiles with the range, so the threatening nuclear war will be all for nothing, if it happens.

To lift another quote from the good Red President :"Is it not sort of funny? It would be funny if it were not so sad." I'm laughing myself to death, slowly.
Police in Britain have found that unruly behaviour is strongly positively correlated with the full moon. Inspector Parr of the Sussex police speculates that magnetic forces may influence people's psyches and he wants British academics to investigate (The Australian 7/6/07 p.8). As for me, I will stick with the Christian explanation of original sin to explain the crooked timber of humanity and the flaw in the human gem.


by James Reed
Well the Rudd crisis has been and gone and is now almost forgotten. Rudd's wife Ms.Therese Rein had engineered the underpayment to 58 employees her company had inherited when her business took over another company, because she moved the employees from a general award to individual contracts. Nothing illegal about that - it's good Liberal Party law. Oops.
Her husband is opposing Work Place Relations.

Not to worry, just make it a feminist, personal issue - rather than one of political consistency - and all will be well with the opinion polls. And it was. My favourite quote came from Therese, where she said that if Kev had pressured her to sell her multimillion dollar business he would be "sleeping on the couch". I'd take the couch, ouch!
Now that is the type of woman who will soon be the de facto prime minister of Australia, our own Hillary Clinton. It makes one think we will almost miss Janine (was that her name?) Howard when Howard goes. Kev has said he will have no trouble saying sorry to the Aborigines. I guess he has had plenty of practice at doing the ritual at home.

We are going to have interesting, politically correct, times ahead. Even Paul Keating has emerged from the shadows to walk once more in TV land, giving his version of how Labor can bury us, even faster than Kev.


by D. West
A product of politically correct genetic engineering: "It was a warm May day when Jessica Rudd, 23, married Albert Tse, 28, at the Anglican Church Grammar School Chapel in East Brisbane." (The Weekend Australian 7-8/7/07 p.17 Magazine.
Seated at the wedding was Julia Gillard, no doubt aiming to be, one of these days, Australia's first feminist Prime Minister in the future Asian republic of Australasia. It is a really good time to be alive, isn't it? And, knowing Prime Minister Rudd's desire for us all to be good citizens of the greater Asian sphere, I am taking my first staggering steps at learning Mandarin (which Rudd speaks) and forgetting English literature.

Under the great Rudd, the visions of Paul Keating will be realised. And, speaking of Paul… Knowing that John Howard is on his last leg, that great Irish Australian Keating is there once more to tell us that John Howard is a dangerous nationalist! Yes, the man who did even more than Paul to make Australia into an Asian republic is a nationalist! In Paul's speech given to the Sydney Film School on 11 July 2007 ("PM's Arid Nationalism," The Weekend Australian 15-15/7/07 p.29), Paul the philosopher tells us that nationalism is even more exclusionary than racism. Now would that mean that nationalism is even more exclusionary than a variety of racism such as … anti-Semitism? Did Paul the great think it through that far?

The American equivalents of Rudd-Gillard are Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, Democratic White House hopefuls. It doesn't really matter which one becomes president of the US, because both will do a good job of continuing the destruction of the American nation, pushing on from the horizon set by the Bush family.
Both Clinton and Obama, to make migrants and ethnics happy, voted against making English the official language of America. And both for voted for giving illegal aliens social security benefits. Know the tune? All the rest can be hummed along with.

So the next stage in the operation will be cultural: The average punter has been bashed by the Right on the right side of his/her head for too long. It is time for a change of pace. Now the left side of the head gets a good work-over for god knows how many years. And down civilisation goes again.
And then it will be time for the Right fist to address the right side of Everyman's head again. No wonder there is no change : Everyman after a few centuries of this has few functioning brain cells!


by Brian Simpson
The US marketing machine is moving off at full speed promoting "black" Democrat presidential candidate Barak Obama as the right man to take the place of George W. Bush. Obama being "black" is pushed as a "trailblazing" figure, who "represents the future". And what is that future?

White Americans are not told, but anyone with a grain of demographic knowledge can see that the future of America is one where whites become a minority in the next few decades. This apocalypse will happen faster than any so-called global warming or environmental meltdown.
White Americans, like Australians, are expected to not merely passively accept this fate but embrace it as a moral imperative. Barak, however, is not "black" as such but of mixed race, a black father and a white mother and his father was not what used to be called a "Negro". He cannot claim to have an ancestor who was a slave - and that could be his downfall among American "Negroes". Black is not just black, however much the spin doctors package it.

Barak has been said to be "handsome" and "fresh". If one looks at his face as one would a Hollywood plastic surgeon, couldn't a non-racial critique be made of jug-like ears, pointy chin and smallish head? If the debate is put at the level of beauty, rather than moral integrity, that is precisely the sort of considerations one is led to.
Will the American political debate ultimately get down to the level of a beauty contest? What a way for America to go! Australians take note of what is happening in and to America - it is happening in and to Australia as well.


by James Reed
Forgive me for the choice of metaphor, but it naturally comes to mind. Plagiarism is the big no-no in academia - it is the most obvious form of territory invasion. As with all savage animals, this form of territory-invasion is punished in the most violent of ways: death. Whereas apes and insects would be content to drive off the would-be invader, the academic animal bears its fangs and fights "to the death".

The death in this case is the professional death of the academic. But plagiarism is widespread in academia. It is well known foreign students frequently pay to have essays written and assignments done. Sometimes fellow students sit in for a payer during examinations. Higher degree theses by foreign students are often so poor in English that other students and language professionals are paid to "panel-beat them into shape".

Plagiarism in this case is institutionally supported - anything to keep the milk from the cash cows flowing. Self-plagiarism is also common in academia. Here lazy academics pass off their old work for new work.
One study published in the "International Journal for Educational Integrity" found that six out of ten academics self-plagiarised. (The Australian 6/7/07 p.29) Perhaps that explains why we have to refute the same nonsense, over and over again.


Taken from David Flint's Opinion Column:
"Governor Arthur Phillip, commandant of a gulag? Extraordinary republican claim. Two stories caught my attention recently. One was an extraordinary claim by Malcolm Turnbull that Australia under the British was a gulag, which is demonstrably false and a slander on that good man, Captain Arthur Phillip. The other was a story headlined, "Scandal hits Argentina poll."
This summed up Annabelle McDonald's report in The Australian's report on 21 July, 2007 on yet another sorry story about this South American nation.
The two themes are very much related, as I shall endeavour to show.

The Argentinean report was that just as the first lady Senator Cristina Fernandez launched her bid for the presidency the day before, a fresh corruption scandal hit the centre-left Government. Two ministers in the government of Senator Fernandez' husband, President Nestor Kirchner, were under a cloud. The Defence Minister Nilda Garre was to be questioned over her alleged role in possible tax evasion over government weapons sales. And the Federal Court ordered the seizure of the personal assets of the disgraced Economy Minister Felisa Miceli who had been forced to resign in relation to accusations of corruption. $US64,000 ($A 73,000) had been found in her parliamentary office bathroom.

Under the Argentine's constitution, Presidents are not allowed to stand for more than one consecutive re-election. The candidature of the President's wife is seen as an attempt to circumvent this and to keep the Presidency in the Kirchner family. Parallels are being drawn, as you can imagine, with the candidature of Senator Clinton.

So how does this relate to Mr. Turnbull's assertion that Governor Arthur Philip was the commandant of a Gulag, that is, a Soviet or indeed Nazi style concentration camp? Before answering that, let me make one point about Australia and Argentina, both of which were settled by European powers.

When we federated in 1901, Australia and Argentina were the world's richest countries on a per capita basis. Today Australia remains one of the world's richest countries. She has always been a democracy and has played a significant role in the defence of freedom and democracy in the world. She lost more men in the First World War than the United States of America. For most of both wars, Argentina was a neutral. Argentina has endured terrible dictatorships, she is the only country to fall from the first world to the third, and her armed forces have been notable mainly in interfering in politics and snuffing out the people's freedoms.

Now why is this so? A former economics minister in the Menem government spoke about this on an ABC's Four Corners programme in 2002. He said the two countries were similar but with one important difference: "Australia has British institutions. If Argentina had such strong institutions she would be like Australia in ten or twenty years": "The Twilight of The Elites," 2003, pp 42-45.

The difference is not result of 'chance':
The difference in our two countries is not the result of chance. It flows from the fact that we had the good luck to be settled by Britain, who brought to this country from the very moment of the foundation of the colony in 1788, the precious institution of the rule of law along with the Crown. The British soon gave us self government under the Westminster system. Rather than opposing Federation, they proposed it first. They facilitated it when we decided it was time. They accorded us independence the very moment we asked for it.

So I was surprised to read that Mr. Malcolm Turnbull, the Environment and Water Resources Minister has said that "It is hard to believe ... in our prosperous country, that we were once a gulag, a gulag of the southern seas, a hell on earth."
According to a report in the West Australian of 1 August, 2007, Mr Turnbull announced that eight convict sites on the National Heritage List would form part of a bid for world heritage recognition of Australia's convict past.
We suspect that Mr. Turnbull has come to the entirely mistaken conclusion that the colony was a gulag from his republican uncle, Robert Hughes. As we have said several times in this column, and most recently on 27 March, 2007, to speak then of the colony as a gulag, as republican Robert Hughes does, is completely wrong. The Soviet Gulags were the most brutal lawless concentration camps for political prisoners. Even under the broadest definition, few convicts sent to Australia could be called political prisoners. More importantly, the British brought the rule of law to Australia from the very foundation of the colony in 1788. The Governor, Captain Phillips came with a Charter of Justice, which unlike the provisions of the Soviet Constitution, was actually applied. To say Australia was a gulag is a terrible defamation of that great man.

Just consider one example:
A civil action very early in the life of the colony was brought by convicts against a ship captain for theft. The captain was defended on the ground that at common law felons could not sue. The court required the captain to prove that the complainants were indeed felons. This he could not, because the records were in England. The action was allowed to proceed.
Can Mr. Hughes or Mr. Turnbull give us a similar example of litigation by prisoners in a Soviet or Nazi gulag, particularly one where the Soviet or Nazi judges upheld the prisoners' assertions? Of course they can't. The penal colony of New South Wales was one of the most successful experiments in criminal rehabilitation the world has ever seen. The rate of recidivism, or return to crime, was extraordinarily low, as far as we can tell.
The slander on Phillip and the British that New South Wales can be equated with a Soviet or Nazi gulag should be withdrawn before it is taught in the schools - if it is not already being presented as the truth.

Editor's comment:
I have read that in England in those harsh times, many folk resorted to stealing just to survive. As a result of the Enclosure Act, whereby the common land found in every village was, in today's parlance, 'privatised'. Families who had been on the same land for generations were forced off, resulting in loss of livelihoods. Many a convict sent to the colonies was of the yeoman class of England. The very backbone of the nation. They were made of sterling British character!


Before he became President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said in a 2004 interview : "Should I remind you the visceral attachment of every Jew to Israel, as a second mother homeland? There is nothing outrageous about it. Every Jew carries within him a fear passed down through generations, and he knows that if one day he will not be safe in his country, there will always be a place that would welcome him. And this is Israel."

According to the Australia Israel Review (June 2007, p.22) "It is well known that Sarkozy's mother was born to the Mallah family, one of the oldest Jewish families of Salonika, Greece… In Greece, several family members became prominent Zionist leaders… To this day, many Mallahs are still active Zionists around the world."

Should we infer from Sarkozy's metaphors and use of the term "visceral" that the fear of anti-Semitism is carried in the social DNA like a kind of race memory? Or is the fear an environmental thing, passed from generation-to-generation by social learning? Where does this anti-Semitism come from? What is the ultimate cause? Interested? Want another viewpoint?

For further reading consider the following publications:
§ "Facts are Facts," by Benjamin Freedman $14.50 posted.
§ "The Controversy of Zion," by Douglas Reed $37.00 posted.
§ "The Zionist Factor," by Ivor Benson $17.00 posted
§ "The Quest of Zion," by Jacqueline Rose. $43.00 posted.


Germany since 1951 has paid about $61.8 billion in reparation payments to Israel and victims of the Third Reich. German firms have paid out about $49 million in compensation to wartime forced labourers. Now, children of the survivors of the Holocaust are filing a joint class action to receive funds for psychological treatment of "second generation" Holocaust survivors.

This has the potential to generate an infinite regress, where Germany, if it survives, will be paying the Holocaust generations - forever. Thus in 2,000 years time there could there not be generations who still suffer psychologically - for could not the hurt of generation 2 be transferred to generation 3 and so on? There is no reason why reparations should ever end by the logic implicit in the reparation demands.

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