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

29 October 2010 Thought for the Week:

“…It is hardly surprising then that the decision of the Director of Military Prosecutions Brigadier Lyn McDade to charge three Australian special force soldiers has been received with surprise, incredulity and outrage. ..”

- - Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

“...There is another matter which is obscured in this DMP scheme, but has far more serious implications than anybody has seen fit to draw to our attention. It concerns the legal principle we once enjoyed, where the ordinary citizen was presumed innocent until guilt could be established, beyond any reasonable doubt. While not mentioned in our constitution it is implicit. Beyond that it came to us through our system of Common Law.
Now all that could ignite a year-long debate amongst the legal people who have a vested interest in having the water muddied - just as long as they are being paid. They no longer protect us, but certainly protect their own legal financial interests. Avoiding that debate, we need to focus on the system of law that this DMP foreshadows, and it is not confined to the Defence Forces. Its pedigree is at least 2,000 years old; we once left it behind where it was found.

The "Soviet system" we speak of is presented as benign through the mainline media, but there is no "Rule of Law" in Soviet or Communist systems, their enlightened leaders are all above the law until they are thrown into prison. Worse, their systems presume the peasants are all guilty until the DMP decides that they are innocent. Only the leaders are deemed innocent, until they stumble on the truth. Unlike our Common Law system, witnesses and evidence are not required with this version of the Soviet system. The DMP collects what evidence they need for their purpose of prosecution, not information or facts that may negate his objective, there being no military enemies in their sphere.

The midnight trial of Christ under this Soviet system is the perfect example of what is being foreshadowed for us.

Just imagine in this Afghanistan case, where the DMP here in Australia is going to collect and import witnesses and evidence from Afghanistan years after the event! Then with one foot in the door, the civil DMP will emerge on "The successes of the military DMP". We must stop blindly wandering down this disastrous path.

On this very matter Sir Owen Dixon warned graduating law students in 1970 at Sydney University. He told them, "never let that happen here". It seems he wasted his time and breath, for the local Soviets are up to their ears in it.

We must find somebody who can see further than these deceitful politicians and can help us. Somebody out there - besides those imposing this on us - must know how the Soviet system works. We have enough of their refugees here, surely some are game enough to speak out. If not – we will see you all in Moscow!

- - -John Brett, Toowoomba Queensland  
“Mending a Mortgaged World” -- Watch Jeremy Lee on:  


by Betty Luks
No matter what the latest ‘crisis’, Australians are finding that an alien system of law is now imposed upon them. Welcome to the U.N. New World Order!

David Flint, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy wrote of the prosecutions instigated by the Director of Military Prosecutions against three Australian soldiers.
He wrote: “It is hardly surprising then that the decision of the Director of Military Prosecutions Brigadier Lyn McDade to charge three Australian special force soldiers has been received with surprise, incredulity and outrage…
Military justice:
Military justice must necessarily differ from civilian process. For most of the life of our armed forces, prosecutions were conducted before courts martial. But after a Senate Report which was highly critical of the process, an Australian Military Court was created in 2007. This was found to be unconstitutional in 2009, so courts martial were reinstated temporarily until a constitutionally valid military court under the Federal Court could be established.
But what remained of the 2007 bundle of changes was a separate and independent Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP), one so designed that it is more powerful than the high command. It is being said that the reason for the prosecutions has been to pre-empt a threat of prosecution before an international tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC). If this is so, there would be a good argument to withdraw from the Rome Convention which established the ICC…
Just imagine if such a position had existed in the Second World War. Had prosecutions been launched whenever civilians were inadvertently killed, the AIF, the RAN and the RAAF would have been rendered impotent…”

Where were you Professor Flint, the White Ants started gnawing away 20 years ago

The real intent was to open up our legal system to International Law: Our young soldiers are about to find out what was the real (long-term) intent of the ‘war crimes’ legislation. By the changes in the legislation – no longer could those charged under the Act plead they ‘were following orders’. The revised War Crimes Act, Part III -War Crimes, No16 put an end to that. “No defence of superior orders” reads: “16. Subject to subsections 6 (2) and 13 (2) the fact that, in doing an act alleged to be an offence against this Act, a person acted under orders of his or her government or of a superior is not a defence in a proceeding for the offence, but may, if the person is convicted of the offence, be taken into account in determining the proper sentence.”

The League was there at the time
Maybe the good professor didn’t follow the prosecution of the first Australian War Crimes trial in the early 1990s - but I did. Along with other League folk concerned with what the political parties were going along with, I, and my little band, protested outside the Magistrates Court for the first five days of the committal hearings.

We carried placards reading: “War Crimes Trials are SELECTIVE : Is HAWKE going to charge JAPANESE ‘WAR CRIMINALS’? : another read “WAR CRIMES LEGISLATION CONTRARY TO OUR TRADITION OF COMMON LAW.

At the time the League wrote:
“These men are faced with charges that are alleged to have occurred in another country and tried by people who could not possibly understand what it was like in those situations and conditions. The war crimes legislation is morally wrong. It was accepted under our system of Common Law, that we do not try a person for an alleged crime that was not criminal at the time and in the place when the alleged act occurred.”

Spare us the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth ... please
As for Tony Abbott, please spare us your words of concern for our soldiers. Your political party is just as much to blame for where Australia’s soldiers are at the moment as is that other party that sold us out long ago. Let me repeat what Eric D. Butler had to say about the Ahern government in Queensland when it sent a delegation to Paris to appeal against the Hawke government’s listing of North Queensland as a World Heritage area. Our Aboriginal folk need to be reminded of this bit of history.

He wrote in the “Intelligence Survey” June 1988:
“What a spectacle; an Australian State government, allegedly representative of independent Australians, literally grovelling before the strange assortment of bureaucrats responsible for the World Heritage Commission, pleading that they will heed their requests. If Premier Ahern had an ounce of statesmanship, he would ignore the World Heritage Commission and convene an immediate conference of Premier Greiner of N.S.W. and Premier Gray of Tasmania, to plan a national campaign to tell the Australian people of the real purpose behind World Heritage listings; to surrender Australia’s constitutional heritage. I realise of course that this would mean also confronting their federal colleagues who have participated in the surrender of Australia’s independence via international conventions.” (emphasis added…ed)

So, what about it Professor Flint?  


“Why does the ABC publish such Leftist tosh?” asks Andrew Bolt, 20 October, 2010. ABC Journalist David Chibo in “Why Australia fights” gives his reasons – and Andrew Bolt doesn’t like them:
“The Australian Senate will this week hold an enquiry into the perpetual war that has become Afghanistan, and cost 21 Australian soldiers’ lives, led by the Greens who will query the Labor Government’s goal in prosecuting the nine-year war in Afghanistan. The Liberal Opposition will close ranks with its Labor opponents, at least on this one issue, and ensure that the true goals and purpose of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan remain shrouded in mystery.

To even mention that the US and its allies are in Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden, or to deny Al Qaeda a base, or to instil democracy and human rights, or even support the US alliance would insult the vast majority of my readers, and be as useful as defending a belief in the Tooth Fairy. What then is the true reason for Australia’s illegal war in Afghanistan? Australia, like the other mercenary nations in the table, is in effect behaving as a “broker” for the “World Banker”. In return for its military support, Australia was rewarded with the coveted FTA much to the benefit of its corporate interests, which can be found in the Australia United States FTA Business Group (AUSTA).

Key members include Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd, Westfield Holdings, the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, BHP Steel, Visy (Pratt Industries) and Southcorp…” Read more here:


- your selfish lifestyle! Social Credit or Bust! by James Reed:
Some articles are informative because they give us a glimpse of what the new world order ruling elites have in store for us. Professor Stephane Garelli, “First World May Need to Rediscover Frugality”, The Australian, October 6, 2010, p.40, tells us that the bubble of affluence has burst. He says: “The market only understands “big money” and part of the truth of “big money” is that the “real” “debt of nations is deeper than reported”. In fact, for most Western economies this debt level is three to five times their GDP and growing. The US national public debt, adding in Medicare and social security, tips the scales at over $US 105 trillion. Forget ever paying that off: compound interest will ensure that. Such is the global financial treadmill.

There is also now a South-South bloc which lies south of a diagonal between Moscow and Mexico which is eager to reach and surpass the level of affluence of the First World. I note that the environmentalists never criticise these coloured folk for wanting to consume like the West. (“How can we, even if the planet dies, that would be racist…Better the planet dies…”) Garelli’s concluding paragraph is food for choking on: “In the end, the next recession will be the real moment of truth for advanced economies and businesses and governments better be ready for it. An ageing population used to a standard of living increasingly subsidised by state aid and public borrowing abroad may be in for a harsh reality check with a reduced standard of living.

What would happen, economically, politically and socially if emerging economies decided to close the money tap? Advanced economies have never been so vulnerable. They are now in dire need of a new solid economic model and they may have to rediscover frugality.” The way forward, as I see it, is social credit, a form of national/local economics that completely avoids the absurd debt paradoxes mentioned by Professor Garelli. The threat of the undermining of our lifestyle and the adoption of Third World poverty should be an incentive to implement this much-needed economic revolution. It’s social credit or bust.  


Social credit is a study of economics and the social order which will enable you to explain why the words quoted below are farcical. The words are spoken by an orthodox economist seeking to persuade a potentially rebellious population that there is no viable alternative to global corporatism:

“Suppose a party of people were wrecked on a desert island, what do you think would be the first thing they’d do? Obviously they would look around for a man with money to employ them in gathering fruit. If there were no capitalist among them, or if he didn’t see his way to make a profit out of the business, they would all remain unemployed and starve to death, no matter how fertile the island might be.

"If therefore we want to have plenty of employment, we must give every possible incentive to entrepreneurs – encouraging them to get as much of our money from us as they can, so that they can spend it on employing us to make more for them.”

Eimar O’Duffy, “Asses in Clover”
Jon Carpenter Publishing 2003, p 246-7) Read about "Julia's Secret State" 


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Herald Sun conservative columnist Andrew Bolt is the latest to face the law of the Racial Vilification Act. A group of Aborigines have been offended by two columns he wrote last year which claimed that light or white-skinned people who identified as Aborigines was part of a “whole new fashion in academia, the arts and professional activism”. The choice of Aboriginality for such people “can seem almost arbitrary and intensely political”.

These people are recognised as “Aboriginal” by a “combination of descent, self identification and communal recognition”. To defend against a claim of racial vilification it needs to be shown that the alleged vilification occurred on racial grounds as the basis of the claims made by Bolt was lack of Aboriginality. Arguably a mere lack of some quality or an absence is insufficient to meet the threshold of constituting a racial quality, so no vilification occurred.

The Bolt case is very interesting from a legal and jurisprudential perspective. I am eager to see how the arguments are put. If arguably vilification occurred, the reason for it is not based on race, ethnicity etc. Bolt then, arguably is not making a “racial vilification” as I see it. Beyond this, of course, are other more technical defences.  


by Peter West
B. Hussein Obama, who campaigned as a devout Christian during the US Presidential elections, has alienated many of the Christians, especially conservative Christians who voted for him. A Pew Research poll found that 42% of white evangelicals did not know what religion Obama practiced (The Australian, October 6, 2010, p.10).

Many believe that he is a Muslim. Of course Obama practices the religion of Obamarama; the belief in the specialness of himself. It seems that the Democrats, in a bid to keep Obama in office, are considering the legalisation of marijuana (The Australian, October 7, 2010, p.10). This apparently, will bring the young out to vote. But wait – will it really? Won’t the dope-heads be too stoned on illegal dope to drag themselves to the polling booth? Obama will then be the pied piper of pot!  


by James Reed
Here is some good news for our side of politics and the struggle. Research published in the October issue of the highly respected medical journal Liver Transplantation has found that belief in God improved patients’ chances of not dying. This is part of a vast amount of scientific research indicating that religious belief helps people survive illnesses.

I hypothesise that religious belief, especially Christian faith, is necessary for surviving this terrible battle against the Satanic new world order. At worst, we must outlive our enemies to waltz on the ashes of the ideologies (The Advertiser, October 2, 2010, p.3)  


-- except for the Christian, by Chris Knight:
The opening of Parliament saw Julia Gillard watch the standard Aboriginal smoking ceremony. Australia’s first Muslim MP was sworn in, standing alongside a Jewish MP. Gillard said:
“friends, this welcome to country affirms a striking truth in the life of our nation – words and symbols matter” (MPs Come Together to Represent a Nation Rich in Cultural Diversity”, The Australian, September 29, 2010, p.5).

Yes, symbols matter in our multicult of culturally diverse, richness, richness, richness! Perhaps that is why our feminist treasures, the PM and the GG Quentin Bryce, skipped church, also an Australian tradition. You see, the Christian heritage doesn’t matter for the new class. All cultures must be cherished – except for the Christian. 


by Brian Simpson
Remember John Howard, ex-PM, a man with a continuing “love for Israel” (The Australian Jewish News, September 2, 2010) to rival even Bob Hawke’s love? I will give you a hint. He is the small balding man who took away our guns and began a massive Asian migration program which ironically led to massive numbers of Asians in his electorate and the loss of his seat? Has he learnt anything? Apparently not. Speaking in Washington about the Islamic terrorist issue he said that some had confused “multiracialism” and “multiculturalism”.

Multi-racialism was something Howard was a “passionate believer” in: migrants must be taken on a non-discriminatory basis. Multiculturalism Howard opposed because he saw the need for migrants to adopt the dominant culture. For this various ethnicists called him a “racist”.
Howard’s division between multiracialism and multi-culturalism is a false one. Race does matter and it is races that create cultures. Dilute the dominant race by migration and soon the culture changes. Add enough migrants and there will no longer be any people or culture to assimilate with. Beyond that, racial divisions can be even more nasty than cultural divisions.

Have those crusty old conservatives out there stopped seeing Howard as “on our side” yet? Multiculturalism and multiracialism are more dangerous to a people than terrorism because they mean the end of race, perhaps the ultimate “terror”.  


by James Reed
Keith Preston, “Totalitarian Humanism and Class Theory” (September 29, 2010, uses the expression “totalitarian humanism” to refer to what many call political correctness or cultural Marxism. Elsewhere he characterises this doctrine as follows: “Totalitarian humanism is a derivative of the classical Jacobin ideology that loves an abstract and universal “humanity” so much that its proponents don’t care what has to be done to individual human beings, or particular human cultures, in order to advance their ideals.” (“The Ideology of Totalitarian Humanism”)

Lurking behind all of this is that great villain of centralism, the belief that collectively should prevail over specifity and particularity, belief in the superior virtue of the global over the local. As Preston says: “Totalitarian humanism is a war on sovereignty. It is a war on the sovereignty of individuals against arbitrary and coercive authority, the sovereignty of organic communities against the centralised leviathan, the sovereignty of nations against global entities, the sovereignty of history, tradition and culture against prescriptive and prohibitive ideology”. Opposing totalitarian humanism is social credit and Christianity, the chief negations of satanic centralism. Both assert the worth and dignity of free individuals against the Leviathan of the iron cage of the State. 


This fellow Kevin Bracken certainly has the courage of his convictions. ABC Online: “The president of the Victorian Trades Hall has sparked outrage after controversially claiming the September 11 2001 World Trade Centre attacks were a conspiracy, not the result of terrorist activity. Kevin Bracken, who is also the secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, sparked a flood of angry calls after calling into ABC talk-back host Jon Faine's program this morning.

"I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny," Mr Bracken said. "In my mind the buildings were imploded." Faine thought the call was a hoax. "I challenge you to a public debate," Mr Bracken said. "Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire. I stick to scientific fact."

American scientist Steven Jones Ph.D. is asking “What in the world is high-tech explosive material doing in the dust clouds generated of 9/11/2001? Ever heard of ‘Nanothermite’? Anyone interested enough to look at what some scientists are saying about the 9/11 Twin Towers tragedy should get the DVD on ‘Nanothermite’ from the Heritage Book Services, $10.00 plus $2.00 postage. More here:

** Maybe you need to read this man's claims. 9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public [Voltaire]


Kevin Bracken and 9/11: To the Editor of The Age, 21st October 2010.
The ritualistic denunciations of Kevin Bracken for his comments on the September 11 attacks ('News', 21/10) have about them a totalitarian flavour of political correctness. There is a significant body of opinion worldwide that the US Establishment has engaged in a cover-up of the true causes of the events; distinguished figures have provided detailed arguments and evidence. Ignoring their theses or insulting them is an inadequate response. Thus, claims that the attacks were 'unambiguous' in nature is nonsense; and the suggestion that Mr Bracken's remarks were 'offensive to the families of those who died in 9/11' is preposterous. It would be good to see a re-examination of the whole controversy in our major public forums of discussion.

- - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave Victoria  

To the Editor, New Zealand ‘Herald’:
Sir, This is not a criticism, rather a suggestion. Outgoing mayor Mr Banks says he doesn’t believe in holidays. I suggest he have a deeper think about that. The word derives from holy day and means to enjoy feasting in honour of a saint or religious event, rest from normal routines and recreation. And re-creation means just that; a chance to revive, rest, think and reconnect to the things and people we love. Some historians says that before modern times the English enjoyed up to 150 such holy days a year – and we think we know how to party. This was, of course, before the invention of modern economics with its calvinistic beliefs about work and justification of money debt.

- - Bill Daly, Glen Eden New Zealand, 17th October 2010.  

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