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

24 June 2011 Thought for the Week:

Challenging the fundamental nature of the financial system: It was Douglas who said that Keynes had a first-rate mind, the best that money can buy. This obviously was not intended as a compliment--at least from a Social Credit perspective. Douglas also observed that the statement of Keynes was pretty well an unqualified admission of the validity of the Social Credit analysis.
When it comes to policy however there is an irreconcilable chasm between the two schools. For those who think that the purpose of economics is to create "employment" the Keynesian policy makes sense because as Douglas stated, the present system is nearly perfect in providing work and it will continue to provide "work" of an ever-more unnecessary and destructive nature to the ultimate ruin of civilisation.
Whatever Keynes's inner thoughts may have been, he failed to follow up with a logical and socially beneficial solution to the problem he posed, and continued his career serving the British Treasury without challenging the existing financial orthodoxy to become wealthy by means of voluminous personal trading in that arena, presumably with the advantage of inside information.

- - Wallace Klinck, Canada 2011.

In the present social world of today, the question, “What is Money?” is greeted with puzzlement. Of course, everybody can recognise money. We all get it and spend it. From the moment the first breath is taken until the very last is expended, no day passes without some vital consideration of where the money is to come from, and where it needs to go.
It is like saying “What is air?” to a mammal, or “What is water?” to a fish. In the man-made social context of the money economy, money is something with which we live, and move and have our being. Yet we have very little understanding of what money is. Is it a very useful tool? Or is it an all-powerful master?

- - Editorial The Social Crediter, Vol. 87, No. 2 Summer 2011.  


Piers Akerman, writes in The Sunday Telegraph 12 June, 2011: “It is a matter of record that no one from the Gillard-Green-independent government (or its predecessor) has ever debated climate science with any of the many eminent scientists who have studied the dubious claims made by the scandal-tainted IPCC, which appear to be the basis for the hysterical statements made about rising temperatures and sea levels.
Nor have any of the tame scientists trotted out by Fairfax or the ABC taken up the challenge offered by those who are prepared to stake their professional and scientific reputations on their knowledge of climate science. Instead, the Australian National University hides behind ridiculous claims its climate scientists have had to be secured in special quarters due to death threats from those who have alternate views.

The ANU's claims were shown to relate to two idiotic messages sent over a five-year period and were so irrelevant they were not even forwarded to the police. Over-reaction by the ANU or an attempt to provide a propaganda diversion to an embattled Labor government? Either way, the actions of the ANU were totally inappropriate for a university that should have as a core principle the desire to promote thorough research in the most transparent atmosphere.

Claims of settled science without evidence-based research are as meaningless as policy produced without evidence-based debate. The Productivity Commission's long-awaited report is a parcel with this sort of nonsense… The government's argument for a carbon dioxide tax is as threadbare as that offered by actors Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton. It is no more than a specious attempt to garner some faux moral superiority. Unfortunately, this obsession of the inner-urban elites now threatens the economic security of the nation. It demands the fullest scrutiny, not a rubber stamp from acquiescent government appointees and Labor's media Fifth Columnists.”  


Letter in the Press: Sir, Craig Emerson's article in The Australian (May 7, 2011), "Sky won't fall from a carbon price", smacks of desperation in quoting John Howard twice. No mention was made of the scientific rationale for the carbon tax, which is understandable as the Earth is exactly the same temperature it was 30 years ago. Mr Emerson and the other Howard-quoters who have graced those pages completely misunderstood the Howard ploy. While he declared himself as an agnostic on global warming, Mr Howard systematically built the global warming bureaucracy that we have today. When he had control of the Senate, he did not roll back the Australian Greenhouse Office or the Renewable Energy Target Scheme.

The last dark deed of the Howard Government was the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in October 2007. This is the auditing basis of the carbon tax. His plan was to get the auditing system bedded down, then start taxing. Labor's carbon tax would be a couple of years behind schedule if Mr Howard had not laid the bureaucratic foundations for it.

As we rationalists at the time found, Mr Howard had no interest in the science of climate. To his mind, climate was serving a higher purpose, which was to bring forward the day that Australia adopted nuclear power. As such, he was a second-rate Machiavelli. He did not trust the Australian people to make that decision for themselves, and he did not trust his cabinet colleagues enough to tell them either. The evil that men do lives after them, and in Mr Howard's case that is a possible future in which Australia does not have a cement industry, a steel industry, oil refining, a multitude of other industries and, most importantly, a synthetic liquid fuels industry. That is the Howard legacy that many of us are toiling mightily to avoid.

- - David Archibald, City Beach, WA: “News Weekly” 28 May 2011.


According to the Northern Territory News, the “Export ban costs $100,000 a day”:
“It is costing close to $100,000 a day in feed and dead freight costs for cattle stuck in the Darwin region export yards after the ban on their trade to Indonesia.” The Federal Government has announced a six-month live cattle export ban.

Darwin-based South East Asian Livestock Services (SEAL) has 4000 head in the Noonamah export yards and two chartered ships waiting in Darwin Harbour. National Livestock Solutions director Linton Batt said the company had 70 head at Berrimah as it had sent a shipment before the ban came down. Mr Batt said 99 per cent of his company's income came from the Indonesian live export trade.
"The reality is the issues can be fixed," he said. "What remains to be seen is the political handling of the situation because it has become a political issue now."

Adelaide River's Cedar Park export yards owner Nick Thorne said there were about 5000 head waiting there and Wellard spokesman Cameron Morse said he had about 1000 head at the Santavan export yards about 40km south of Darwin.

SEALS manager Dean Ryan said it cost $20,000 a day to feed the cattle. He said the company had cancelled contracts with stations for more cattle. He said it also usually cost between $US15,000 and $US50,000 a day in "demurrage" or the cost for having chartered cattle ships and not using them.
Mr Ryan said live export accounted for 70 per cent of his business and while it was early days he hoped to export the cattle elsewhere or get them on to a station. "But basically because the world knows that Australia is not exporting to Indonesia the world price is haemorrhaging by the day," he said. "If the Government told the NT News you were not allowed to sell newspapers to anyone in Australia what would you do?
The Government reacting with a knee-jerk decision to suspend the trade is driven by an emotional backlash by bleeding hearts in the city which has torn the heart out of rural Australia."

NT Cattlemen's Association chief executive Luke Bowen held talks with the NT Government Primary Industry Minister Kon Vatskalis yesterday. He said the association was looking at establishing an industry helpline to keep people up to date.”

Comment: Maybe, just maybe, the intent is to “tear out the heart of rural Australia”. After all, we are now being fed the idea the whole world is heading towards a food shortage. It looks like ‘Mother Nature’, constantly violated by modern ‘science ‘ and the global rapists, needs a helping hand in bringing the shortage about.  


from Scot Braithwaite:
Dear Sir, I must introduce myself. My name is Scot Braithwaite and my life has basically revolved around live export since I was 10 years old. I was unloading cattle boats in Malaysia at the age of 13. I have worked for all the major cattle companies including as a Head Stockman in the Northern Territory. I have a degree in economics from the Queensland University and I personally have sold more than 1.5 million head of cattle into Indonesia since 1991. I am presently employed as the marketing manager for Wellard rural exports. I am writing to you after the Monday program to say that although I abhor the treatment of the animals shown in the video, your one-sided approach to the subject and the possible effect of that of a ban on live exports is too big a price to pay for a report based on the evidence of an organization that’s charter is to shut us down.

I have the following points to make:
I would like to have the same time as those who denigrated my life to show you the other side of our industry. To show you what is really going on. In Australia there used to be thing about “A fair Go”. You have gone with images provided by one person followed up by your investigative journalist who spent a week in Indonesia. Your report makes out that close to 100% of Australian cattle are treated as was shown on TV.

1. The ship that appears in the footage “for less than 30 seconds” is a vessel that cost tens of millions of dollars to build. We have had 3 separate media groups sail with this ship and it can in no uncertain terms be described as best in class. The Wellard group has another 3 vessels of the same standard with another 2 being built in China. This is a total investment of 400 million dollars to ensure that livestock exports from Australia are undertaken at the utmost levels of cow comfort and animal welfare.

2. The feedlot that was filmed was given a 10 second view. This feedlot is without a doubt world class. Your viewers should have at least had the opportunity to view large numbers of cattle eating and sleeping comfortably in a fantastic facility. This company has in addition moved to kill all his cattle through stunning system that he has control of. This owner has spent 20 years of his life in the industry, has built his business from nothing, has done all that is required of him from an animal welfare point of view yet your reporter makes no mention of these things.

3. Within a 3-HOUR DRIVE OR a 15-Minute helicopter there are another 3 world-class facilities. All three feedlots, including the one filmed, are at, or better than, what can be found in Australia. The cattle being fed, and the ration being fed, leads to a lot less animal health issues then a similar size operation in Australia. One of these facilities is operated and owned by a large Australian pastoral house. They had no mention in your supposed unbiased report. The operation is run by a North Queensland man, who, through his absolute dedication to excellence has built a feedlot and slaughtering system that his company, the industry and himself, can be very proud of. The system is closed, all the cattle are already killed through their own abattoir. They import 20-to-25,000 cattle a year. They have been doing this for at least 5 years. Why should they be shut down? For what reason could anyone justify closing this operation down, especially without even bothering to look at what goes on.

4. The other world class feedlots that could have been investigated with a 3-hour ride in the car are owned by a large publicly listed Indonesian company. In all, they have on feed 50,000 cattle and import about 120,000 cattle a year. They have recently built an abattoir (the one that was briefly shown on the program). They built this 2 years ago, as they knew that modern methods must come to Indonesia and they were willing to make the investment to make it happen.
The total investment from these 3-feedlotters alone in infrastructure and stock is over 100 million dollars. Add to that the hundreds of millions that Wellard have recently invested in ships and do you really believe that these people would leave the final product to a murderous bastard with a blunt knife? They not only have tried to ensure the welfare of the animal but have made investments to make the changes all along the chain.
These people deserve to have their side of the story heard. If the system is not perfect, and it isn’t, they have the wherewithal and the incentive to make it happen in a very short time. These 3 importers who have shown a commitment to everything good about animal production, handle 45 % of total imports.

The other major issue that was not covered was the social responsibility that all feedlotters in Indonesia practice. Their operations are in relatively isolated poor areas; the feedlots provide employment opportunity, advancement through effort, and a market for thousands of tons of feedstuffs grown for the cattle.
My understanding is that 8000 people are directly employed by the feedlots and over 1,000,000 people are reliant on the regular income made from supplying corn silage and other feedstuffs. This is not made up, it is fact. It can be easily checked. I will bet my 1,000,000 farmers against the 1,000,000 signatures on the ban order.
It is very easy to sit in your comfortable chair and criticize but is it really worth the human cost to ban something that can be fixed and fixed reasonable quickly? That is Sumatra.

In JKT there is the largest privately owned abattoir that kills about 4-to-6000 heads a month. It is a well-run facility that has no welfare issues. In addition it was working on getting a stun system in place well before the 4 Corners report. No photos from here, yet this is another who has been doing the right thing and who will lose his business if the trade is banned.

A Private Bone to Pick with the Program: Where can Their Case be Heard?
The largest Importer into Jakarta, has also built a slaughter facility in the past 12 months. It has not been commissioned yet but can be made ready within a month. They also have a private bone to pick with the program. As was not reported in the show, abattoirs in Indonesia are operated by any number of individual ‘Wholesalers”. They control the space, and the manpower kills their number for the night and then hand over to the next team.

In any one night 8 to 10 separate operators can be using the same facility. In the case of the footage of the head slapping the camera panned to the cattle waiting and the tags of AA, Newcastle Waters and his company were made very prominent. Yes, they were there but the team that handled was different to one being filmed. They protest, that their crews are well trained, no head slapping occurs and very large and sharp knives are used to ensure a bloody but quick end. I have no reason to doubt them because I have seen a lot of their cattle handled at point of slaughter and their crews are well trained with immediate results. Where can their case be heard?

I have watched literally thousands of cattle slaughtered in the boxes in Indonesia. Yes there are problems, as there are at every point of slaughter on every type of animal in the world, but 98% of the cattle I watched killed was quick and without fuss. Why is there not one shot of what happens 98% of the time? The shots of outright cruelty are totally unacceptable and the slaughter of cattle is still gruesome and confronting but is not as prevalent as portrayed in your report. Yes it does some times happen but it is the exception not the rule. And we are already taking steps to improve the system and we have the ability to ensure all animals are stunned in a very short time.

Yes there are a couple of operators who in the short term will not be able to handle the new way. But they will be dropped, no commitment to stunning, no supply. No negotiation. There are also a number of operators privately owned who were, to all intents and purposes, doing the right thing. They were asked to supply through the boxes and they have. They will be asked to only supply through a stunning FACILITY and they will. They have far too much invested in the whole industry over many years to not do as we ask.
I am asking for a fair go. You have been expertly manipulated. Hear the actual other side of the story let the Australian public see both sides. I am happy to make all the arrangements. This is too important to let sit with the images you portrayed on Monday without recourse.


by James Reed
In the light of John Pasquarelli's “Immigration Policies Should Look Back to Calwell”, The Australian, May 9, 2011, p.16, the issue needs to be sorted out of Arthur Calwell's place as a nationalist or an early internationalist prototype for Keating, Hawke and Fraser. First, Pasquarelli's case:
According to him Arthur Calwell “the country's most successful and patriotic immigration minister” became “increasingly aware of the splendid human material to be found in the refugee camps” and between 1947 and 1952 – 181,700 refugees entered Australia. For Pasquarelli, Calwell painted assimilation by contrast to multicultural- ists like Keating, Hawke and Fraser.

Actually, Calwell was an early multiculturalist. A Labor Fabian Socialist and Irish Catholic he did not particularly like Anglo Saxon Australia. His immigration policy in fact was directed to bringing in a multitude of alternative ethnicities while he proclaimed the Britishness of the migrants. While other countries were developing atomic weapons for defence, Calwell spoke of “populate or perish”, saying that Australia's defence required more people. Clearly, if the man was not a fool then he must have had an agenda.

Support of Race Vilification Legislation:
Add to this his support of race vilification legislation decades before ethnic lobby groups got this through, his support of the UN and 1951 Convention on Refugees, and you have a prototype of Keating, Hawke and Fraser.
Sure, Calwell wrote a lip-service defence of the White Australia Policy in “Be Just and Fear Not”, but this I believe was mere words. His actions were to undermine White Australia. The multiculturalists in their immigration books look on Calwell very positively, and this as well should make one highly suspicious of Pasquarelli's celebration.

For me, because Calwell set us on the road to ruin, I see him as even worse than Keating, Hawke and Fraser. As a matter of fact our immigration policies are looking back to Calwell and that's the problem.  


by Chris Knight
Egypt's Christians are a minority living in a Muslim society. While the West celebrates some sort of “new Egypt”, murders of Christians continues as Micah Halpern points out (“Coptic Christians Slaughtered in Egypt as World Looks Away”, The Australian, May 16, 2011, p.16)

As he notes over a period of a few days, more Christians are killed in Egypt by Muslims than people killed in Syria and Libya. Churches have been blown up and burnt. While this goes on, Halpern points out, Obama has given Egypt an extra US$1 billion to deal with the economic crisis. The US, drunk on its own ideology thinks that a ripple of democracy will spread across the Islamic world. Wanna bet? Mr Hussein Obama?  


asks Peter West
We have been holding our breath waiting for Queen Julia to solve the boat problem. Now she unveils her solution: a refugee swap. Malaysia will get 800 of our boat people and in turn we take 4000 declared refugees! You do the sums. For all of this bother it would have been better to have simply kept the boat people and farmed them out to pinko, lefty lawyers and uni types to care for.

But “better” has nothing to do with it. Government decisions now are based on how many Asians can be squeezed into Oz. We are in a state of emergency and urgency, to extinguish ourselves. Thus in answer to my title question, the maths taught at an Anglo Saxon middle class school in the 1960s were good but the politics picked up on the rise to the top of the heap are the problem. 


The Legal and Ethical Ramifications by Ian Wilson LL.B.
There has been concern expressed by many that the execution of Osama bin Laden has violated either international law or US national law, or both. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said that justice was not done in the case of the “killing of an unarmed man”. Islamic and some Jewish leaders felt that the unarmed bin Laden should have been captured and faced trial as a war criminal (The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 2011, p.20). International lawyer Geoffrey Robertson was also critical. The killing was extra-judicial. Or was it?

For one thing the US has the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Act which authorises the US president to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organisations, or persons” who aided in 9/11. International law also permits such a response if the host nation gives consent and providing the host nation is willing to deal with the problem. Now, the US national law could be found to be illegal by non-US countries, as after all, it is just by fiat that the US says that it is legally permitted to do this. As for whether Pakistan was willing to co-operate – from the information available it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion.

No doubt, debate will continue for some time. Even if the US did act outside of “the law” there will be no consequences because at that level of power politics the “rule of law” is just a phrase. What determines right is might, power is all. I am no defender of bin Laden and am glad that he is gone. Nor do I follow conspiracy theories about 9/11.
However, nor do I hold to the almost mystical view that some conservatives have about the “rule of law”. That ideal is needed as a mythology to keep the natives within a society in their place. Nations, and those with the power to do so, do pretty much what they please. There will be no legal ramifications from bin Laden's execution.

And ethics? Well the philosophy professors are free to write about that until the jihads come home.  


by James Reed
Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly's “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say” (WND Books) says what I wish I was able to say about the insanity of feminism. You see, things have gotten so bad now, as the authors detail, that men are no longer able to criticise feminism even among conservatives without being instantly portrayed as anti-women.
The classic image of male/female relationships has been inverted and perverted by feminism and focusing on the United States (but the same analysis applies right across the West, including Australia), the authors document feminist brainwashing and propaganda right across the public and private domain.

The universities, in particular, are drenched in radical feminism right from positive discrimination in employment, to entrenched Women's Studies and Cultural Studies departments. The role of communist ideology, especially in influencing early feminists such as Betty Friedan, is also mentioned. The authors totally reject feminism, which they see as a disaster for both women and men and advocate the rediscovery of womanhood – modesty, the abandonment of casual sex, the reestablishment of family life and children. That is indeed the way to go if humanity is to survive.  


by James Reed
Think about this in the context of the destruction day-by-day of Australian industry and agriculture, of jobs for our youth, of sky-high male youth suicide... International Women's Day 100th year. The papers have generally run the theme...yes, advances, but it is only the beginning and we want more. More equality. Does that mean higher rates of female youth suicide? Does that mean the elites are not content to have over 50% in some university courses such as law, but want 100%?

A decade or so ago, there was some sort of opposition to the march of feminism by conservative groups. There was an argument that the traditional family should be preserved. But I have noticed that even the conservative side of politics is giving up on this one, or worse, implicitly accepting the enemies' position on this topic. Civilisations have collapsed when the natural social order has been radically disturbed in this way.

Like so many “noble” experiments, this one is clearly designed to serve the interests of global consumer capitalism and destroy the Northern European (Nordic) race in one foul swoop. Thus in 100 years there will be no 200th celebration of International Womens' Day, anymore than there is such a celebration of these liberal icons in say countries in the Horn of Africa. On the business-as-usual scenario, the world will be like the worst of these scenarios of “the coming anarchy”.  


The South Australian State Weekend will be held on 13th and 14th of August 2011.
The Seminar and Dinner will be held on the Saturday with the Seminar continuing into the Sunday. We are delighted that the Chair of the Social Credit Secretariat Dr. Frances Hutchinson has agreed to participate.
This will be a major event and will be filmed for wider distribution. Do make the effort to get to it. Further details will be published as they come to hand.

The National Weekend: The Annual New Times Dinner will be held on the Friday 23 September and National Seminar 24th of September. Don’t forget the Divine Service and Action Conference on Sunday 25th.
Place the dates for the full weekend in your diary NOW. Confirmed guest speakers are Pastor Chris Field and his son Christopher. Hands up those who have viewed Christopher’s DVDs on youtube. Go to google, type in Topher and his films will come up.
Pastor Chris Field (senior) was evicted from his home, not because he was behind in his mortgage payments but because he wanted to know who received his payments. In other words, he wanted to know who held the legal deeds to the property and mortgage. Another case of MERS, but this time here in Australia?
Accommodation: The Bendigo Motor Inn, gave us very good service last year so we are pleased to return to The Bendigo Motor Inn, 232 High St. Kangaroo Flat.
To book your Accommodation: We don’t have to pay a deposit in advance this year and all room payments are made to the Motel. Bookings can be made now and payment made at the Seminar : Phone 1800 032 941 to make your booking:
Book now to get a room on street level. The cost of double rooms (double bed and one single bed) is Friday $99.00, Saturday $125.00 and Sunday $99.00, less 10% for our group. There are two rooms with more beds.  

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