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

5 April 2013 Thought for the Week:

The Marxists of all kinds know that so long as this type of financial policy is pursued, no genuine co-operation for their mutual advantage is possible between the different members and sections of society. There is the opposite: increasing friction, resulting from the violation of correct principles of association.

The Marxist support for inflation was put very clearly by the eminent Marxist theoretician, John Strachey, the man who had been first a member of the British Communist Party and later a member of the Fabian Socialist Society. In his book, Programme for Progress, Strachey wrote that he had come to believe that inflationary credit expansion policies were 'an indispensable step in the right direction'.

He went on to say, "the fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever-increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control, for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough-going measures of re-organisation."

This frank statement is similar to that of Karl Marx when he was introducing his famous ten points for Communising a State in the basic Marxist text-book, The Communist Manifesto. Marx said that his steps were not an end in themselves, only means to an end. Marx said that while the ten steps 'appear economically insufficient and provisional', they will "in the course of the movement.... necessitate further inroads upon the old social order."

- - Eric D. Butler in Social Dynamics


The latest news from Iceland on the proposals to remove the banking sector’s powers to create and control that nation’s money. Our friend wrote:
“I wanted to send you an update on the Parliamentary proposal of Lilja Mosesdottir no. 239 on the separation of money creation and loan function of the banking system. You might not all know it, but on 4th of March, Ben Dyson of Positive Money (UK) and Richard Werner professor of economics at the University of Southampton, along with Frosti Sigurjonsson and the Chief Economist of the Icelandic Central Bank, Thorarinn G. Petursson, attended a meeting with the committee to testify on the proposal.

Last week the Committee of Economics and Trade of the parliament (Althingi) recommended to Althingi to accept the (revised) proposal.

The revision is that “a committee will be formed to explore the pros and cons of moving the money issuing rights from commercial banks to the Icelandic Central Bank”, instead of research how “the separation of money creation and loan function of the banking system can be achieved”. So research on the pros and cons instead of focusing on how this change can be achieved. Following is the full proposal (my translation from Icelandic), as the Committee of Economics and Trade, has proposed to Althingi to be accepted:
“Althingi proposes that the Minister of Finance and Economics forms a committee to explore the pros and cons of moving the money issuing rights from commercial banks to the Icelandic Central Bank. The committee will complete its work as soon as possible and the minister will report to Althingi on it’s conclusions within a month after it completes its work.”

In the text for support, the majority committee states:
It is important to look into if these ideas can be seen as reasonable for Iceland. Also, the majority committee states that it is important that specialists estimate different alternatives in these matters (e.g. the Chicago Plan and Positive Money system) and utilize as possible the research and knowledge already exists on the matter.
Furthermore, the majority of the committee acknowledges that this involves a fundamental change in the financial and monetary system and the monetary policy, and therefore it is unlikely that this will be executed unless thorough academic research and evaluation of the execution of the changes take place, as great interest are at stake and it is therefore important to proceed with caution in these matters.
Many reviewers of the proposal put emphasis on the fact the committee should be allowed more time before concluding on the work.

The voting on the proposal (“Aðskilnaður peningamyndunar og útlánastarfsemi bankakerfisins” - no. 239) is number 47 in line of the parliament.

But there is a large obstacle – a voting regarding a change in the constitution (no 10 in line) and the end is near for the term of the parliament as it was to finish last week. The opposition (by an obstructionism) can hinder the parliament from voting on it, and thereby any other matter on the list. They might decide to end this term (literally) tomorrow, without voting on the outstanding proposals and legislations. In this case, the proposal, along with all other parliamentary proposals, will be dropped at the end of the term.
You can follow the development at

So we‘re close to a breakthrough, but still quite far away. The parties are trying to resolve the dispute regarding the change in the constitution. Let‘s just hope and pray they will be successful. We‘ll at least find out soon enough.

Whatever end, thank you all for your support and reviews. I‘m sure it made a big difference. We‘ll keep you posted on this.  


by Betty Luks
For readers who are not aware of the fact, Social Credit concepts are based on the Christian philosophy. That being so, as the world stumbles from one crisis to another it would seem to me as appropriate to reprint excerpts from the Reverend G.R. Robertson’s March 1936 paper “Fundamentals of Social Credit in the Teaching of Jesus”.

He writes: The Founder of the Christian Faith would have saved both religion and human society from error, and would save them today if we not merely said "Lord, Lord" to Him, but attended more closely to the things He said, and endeavoured more earnestly to act according to them. He did not divide human life into compartments, spiritual and material, religious and secular. God's writ ran everywhere, and God's love was nowhere more apparent than in the rain and in the sunshine. If men and women desired to appear on the right hand of the Great judge, they must learn to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

That this was His prevailing attitude is shown by his favourite quotation from the Old Testament, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," which is the summing up of the prophetic message as opposed to the priestly. An even more striking illustration of His identifying Himself with the prophets rather than with the priests is in the incident of the cleansing of the Temple.

There He quotes from Jeremiah: "My House … ye have made it a den of robbers." Jeremiah said, "Will ye steal, murder, etc., and then come and stand before me in this House which is called by name, and say 'We are saved'? Saved! to do all these abominations? Is this House become a cave of robbers in your eyes?" …

All human life had a material and a spiritual aspect, not separately, but whole. So we ought not to "spiritualise" away His parables into nothingness, but interpret them in terms of human life; the life of His own time certainly, but also the life of all time. If His thought, speech, and action had not supreme accuracy and rightness, the record of them had not survived the centuries.

"Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar; unto God the things which belong to God." Matthew, the inland revenue officer, reports this incident with greater insight and accuracy than either Mark or Luke. When Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar or no?" He said, "Show me the legal tender of the assessment."

Put in this light, the question answers itself. It was Caesar's business to provide people with a just currency, as it was his to provide just weights and measures, and Caesar was entitled to the cost of government; but Caesar was not entitled to any more: "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof."

What is GOD’S currency? What has GOD'S image and superscription stamped upon it? Why, MAN! "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me."

Parable of the Unmerciful Servant:
Caesar was entitled to payment for service rendered, but he was, like other people, only a steward of God's bounty. He was not entitled to issue currency and tax people as if the whole world belonged to him! The parable of the unmerciful servant applies to modern history, with an aptness which is uncanny and almost fantastic.

A debtor, owing the king £2,000,000 (ten thousand talents), is summoned, and, at his own request, is granted a moratorium: he goes out and takes by the throat a man owing him £5 (a hundred pence), saying, "Pay me that thou owest." He refuses to forgive his fellow-debtor. So his fellow-servants tell the king, and the big debtor is re-arrested, and his moratorium is cancelled, "So likewise will My Heavenly Father do unto you if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his fellow."

That is, it is necessary - Divine justice requires that the big debtor be severely dealt with and restrained in order to protect the small ones. Now notice the weird resemblance, even in detail, and the fatal difference in our day:
In August, 1914, a moratorium was declared for all debts above £5! Again in 1931 the Bank of England came to Parliament with a request in the following terms: "It is, in our opinion, in the national interest that we should be relieved of our obligation."

They could not pay; yet they were left with power to make other people pay, to make other people bankrupt, and to press for other nations, provinces, and municipalities to "pay me that thou owest"

Divine Justice would not have forgiven the big debtor a second time: It would have declared his "debts" to be public "credits." One of the effects of our, modern government's refusal to dispense divine justice (the justice of the parable) was that the unwise king (the British Government) had to go bankrupt himself; we defaulted to America.

Our debt to America had been contracted in war-time, when the basis of our credit was the nation's currency, symbolised by the King's head on the Bradbury.  
This was not a false promise to pay gold, but "a sight draft for goods and services in Great Britain: a Government security is a long draft for precisely the same thing." We could pay our debts now on that basis.

(Known as 'Bradbury's Flimsies' the notes can be viewed here....
Eric Butler refers to them in the context of history- "Black Magic of the Money Cult" here...)

Rev. Robertson continues: Then there is the parable of the wicked husbandmen, who refused the owner of the vineyard "the fruits in their season." They stoned and beat his messengers; and when "last of all he sent his son also, saying, 'They will reverence my son,' they said 'This is the heir, come let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' "

Commentators agree that this parable requires very little interpretation. The "heir" is Jesus, Who by and by was crucified. And yet the real point is generally missed, just because we fail to see how close to life it is, and forget Matthew xxv. 40.
Jesus is the Son of Man, the representative Man, Who comes for the fruits of God's vineyard in their season. No man or set of men are entitled to claim the earth and the fruits of it themselves…

But the best our statesmen can do … is to raise the price level and to keep it raised. They still keep the issue of credit in central hands, still assume that the vineyard is theirs, and they continue to kill the heir; for nobody is to have any right to anything except he be a producer and work. The only device which man has yet discovered by which the wealth of society can be distributed is by work for wages in the field, factory or office.

Profound Conception of Democracy:
Two other fundamental ideas of Social Credit in Jesus's teaching are better known, so that causa brevitatis, we merely mention them: His regard of Mammon, the god of wealth, as the deadly enemy; and His profound conception of democracy.
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones: it is not the will of your Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish."

The rich who scorned the invitation were left to themselves, and the marriage feast was thronged with the blind, the lame, etc. Perhaps the most significant gesture towards the democratic idea, God's trust in every man, is the fact that our Lord chose twelve horny-handed sons of toil to be his disciples, and only one of them failed to justify His choice, and allowed himself to be corrupted by finance. (emphasis added…ed)  


The following article was originally authored by Lars Seier Christensen, CEO of Saxo Bank, and posted at his blog at It was carried by Tyler Durden, 17 Mar 2013: here

This Is Full-Blown Socialism And I Still Can't Believe It Happened: “It is difficult to describe the weekend bailout package to Cyprus in any other way. The confiscation of 6.75 percent of small depositors' money and 9.9 percent of big depositors' funds is without precedence that I can think of in a supposedly civilised and democratic society. But maybe the European Union (EU) is no longer a civilised democracy?

I heard rumours about this when I visited Limassol last week, but dismissed them as completely outlandish. And yet, here we are. The consequences are unpredictable, but we are clearly looking at a significant paradigm shift.

This is a breach of fundamental property rights, dictated to a small country by foreign powers and it must make every bank depositor in Europe shiver. Although the representatives at the bailout press conference tried to present this as a one-off, they were not willing to rule out similar measures elsewhere - not that it would have mattered much as the trust is gone anyway. It is now difficult to expect any kind of limitation to what measures the Troika and EU might take when the crisis really starts to bite.

If you can do this once, you can do it again. If you can confiscate 10 percent of a bank customer's money, you can confiscate 25, 50 or even 100 percent. I now believe we will see worse as the panic increases, with politicians desperately trying to keep the EUR alive.
Depositors in other prospective bailout countries must be running scared - is it safe to keep money in an Italian, Spanish or Greek bank any more? I don’t know, must be the answer. Is it prudent to take the risk? You decide. I fear this will lead to massive capital outflows from weak Eurozone countries, just about the last thing they need right now. Even from the EU as a whole, I suspect, as the banking union is in place in most countries already.

Another open question is what will happen to the huge number of brokerages based in Cyprus? There are about 100 or more FX and other brokers currently operating under the relatively light Cypriot regulation. How will this impact the trustworthiness of these many small institutions? What IS the exact impact on the client deposits they might be holding in Cyprus? Will anyone dare to do business with them going forward?

This is a major, MAJOR game changer and the fallout will be with us for a long time to come. I believe it could be the beginning of the end for the Eurozone as this is an unbelievable blow to the already challenged trust that might be left among investors. Talk about a possible own goal.

Market reaction? It must be very good for gold - and for safe-haven countries like Switzerland, Singapore and economically more healthy non-Euro countries in, for example, Scandinavia. I would think the EUR and associated markets will be undermined by increasing lack of confidence when the full implications become clear for investors. This is full-blown socialism and I still cannot believe this really happened. Be careful out there...  


by Betty Luks
First let me say I do not consider Free Enterprise the same as modern Capitalism. Anyone who has looked into the symbiotic relationship between Capitalism and Communism over the last hundred years is not shocked by the story of criminal American Big Business, in league with government authorities and the legal fraternity, using child prison labour for their own greedy ends – even if the story does come out of ‘the land of the free’.

It was a former South African journalist, Ivor Benson, who revealed to the world just what was the significance of a 1980’s Fortune article on “Russia’s Underground Millionaires”! (June 29, 1980). The story, told by no less an authority than a former international law expert in the Soviet Ministry of Justice, one Konstantin Simis, was then resident in the United States.

The State the Owner of All means of Production… Private Enterprise a Crime?
Writes Simis: "Everyone knows that the Soviet state is the monopoly owner of all means of production and that private enterprise is a crime. But the remarkable reality is that in the Soviet Union a great many private enterprises operate at great profit. Indeed, a network of privately controlled factories spreads across the whole country and these factories manufacture goods worth hundreds of millions - perhaps even billions - of rubles (A ruble is currently worth $1.40...)"

“Private enterprise,” he goes on, “cannot for obvious reasons handle items like motorcars and machinery, but must concentrate on items of the kind that most people want and can afford to buy, like clothing, shoes, artificial-leather goods, sunglasses, costume jewellery, recordings of Western popular music, etc…” The New Times, Vol. 46, No. 9 September, 1981

State-owned Enterprises – and State-owned Banks! Tell me gentle reader, having recently read of the obscene wealth of some of China’s present leaders, under a Communist system, have you not asked yourself: How did these people gain their enormous wealth, under a Communist system? What happened to “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need”?  


Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky found dead: The Times of India has reported: “In recent years, the one-time Kremlin powerbroker-turned-thorn in Putin's side fended off attacks on his character and on his fortune - sometimes successfully, sometimes not - in cases that often bore political undertones.”

Boris Berezovsky, a self-exiled and outspoken Russian tycoon who had a bitter falling out with Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been found dead in southeast England. In recent years, the one-time Kremlin powerbroker-turned-thorn in Putin's side fended off attacks on his character and on his fortune - sometimes successfully, sometimes not - in cases that often bore political undertones.

Thames Valley police said Berezovsky's death was being treated as unexplained. They would not directly identify him, but when asked about him by name they read a statement saying they were investigating the death of a 67-year-old man at a property in Ascot, a town 40 kilometres west of London.

A mathematician-turned-Mercedes dealer, Berezovsky amassed his wealth during Russia's chaotic privatisation of state assets in the early 1990s. In return for backing former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, he gained political clout and opportunities to buy state assets at knockdown prices, making a fortune in oil and automobiles. (How did this gentleman gain access to such sums of money that allowed him to buy even ‘knockdown priced’ state assets? Bear in mind the banking system under the Soviets was a state controlled banking system....ed)

He also played a key role in the rise of Yeltsin's successor, Vladimir Putin, but later fell out of favour with the new leader and fled to Britain to seek political asylum in the early 2000s. After coming into power, the Russian president effectively made a pact: the oligarchs could keep their money if they didn't challenge him politically. Those who refused found themselves in dire circumstances. Some were imprisoned, like the former Yukos Oil chief Mikhail Khodorkovsky, while others, like Berezovsky, fled.

In the UK, Berezovsky allied himself with an array of prominent Kremlin critics. Among them was ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who fled Russia with Berezovsky's help after accusing officials there of plotting to assassinate political opponents. Berezovsky, who considered Litvinenko a close friend, consistently denied the allegations….”

Ivor Benson revealed how the capitalists and communists worked ‘hand in glove’ within the Soviet state-owned industrial and banking systems, and Berezovsky, obviously one of the more ‘favoured’ Marxist Mafia, was in ‘the right place’ at ‘the right time’ to score prize state assets with the downfall of the Soviet system.

Get the picture? Does the modern power structure make more sense to you now?
Further reading “The Big Idea” by C.H. Douglas and "Censored History" by Eric D. Butler


by Wallace Klinck
Socialist policy is founded essentially upon the labour theory of value and conforms to a rigid ideology that elevates the primacy of labour. That is, it is conducive to the Work State which is the logical and practical end of the slogan "From each according to his ability."

Social Credit declares "To each according to his ability and the added Beneficence of God and Abundance of Nature which latter, through our growing efficiency in using scientifically the laws of nature, becomes enormously greater than the results achieved by mere human labour." To even imagine that human labour is the creator of all wealth reveals an indescribable arrogant conceit amounting to outright blasphemy. In secular terms it is plainly insane.

Social Credit policy would confer upon the individual economic independence.
This is what the puritanical elements in society - those who would exercise the will-to-power over their fellows, through forced obedience within the group context, fear and hate most of all.
At base this is what underlies the typical hostility and antipathy towards Social Credit of that Puritanism which is the motivating inspiration behind socialism, communism, fascism and all movements which accept and promote power exercised over the individual, whether by an individual or through a collectivity.

Essentially, we are referring here to exploitation of the "mob mentality." Douglas said that genuine democracy would maximise the ability and choice of the individual to contract out of association. This implies the desirability of limited government and is compatible with the importance accorded to the individual by Christian philosophy.  


I think by now, most even semi-conscious people know that private prisons are Big Business in the 'Land of the Free.' But do you know what the fastest growing segment of the prison population of the US is?
Do you have kids in your life who you care about? Children? Grandchildren? Nieces? Nephews? There's a well organized war AGAINST them. We better start a well organized war FOR them.

An extreme example of a common story:
The good news is that these two dirtbag judges are in jail for a long time. (How they lived long enough to make it to court is a mystery to me.) The bad news is that they're just the most egregious players of the system. There's a whole industry of people who make their livings making life miserable for kids. Also consider this...

The cops knew this was going on, the prosecutors knew this was going on, the court officers knew this was going on, the other judges knew this was going on...and they did NOTHING. What kind of people tolerate this rampant criminality in their faces day in and day out. Apparently a lot of cops, prosecutors and fellow judges.

And what about the human garbage that ran the private prison - the people who paid the judges to jail kids. They appear to have gotten off completely scot-free. If they could afford to pay millions in bribes how much to you think THEY made?

Notes from YouTube: Judge Mark Ciavarella and Judge Michael Conahan received over two million dollars selling kids to private jail facilities. Judge Ciavarella was found guilty yesterday on 12 counts of corruption.
Ciavarella ordered a 13-year-old boy to spend 48 terrifying days in a private jail for throwing a piece of steak at his mother's boyfriend during an argument. An honour roll student who had never been in trouble before was sent to the same jail, because she gave the middle finger to a police officer. A girl who accidentally set her house ablaze while playing with a lighter languished in custody for more than a month, forced to shower naked in front of male guards. She was only 10 years old.
Jailing Kids for Profit: Watch here….


by Wallace Klinck
The true desiderata of economic activity as described by Major C. H. Douglas, “These Present Discontents and The Labour Party and Social Credit “(London: Cecil Palmer, 1922).

“The practical object of the whole of the economic and industrial system is to deliver, not “more,” but the right quantity of the right goods to the whole of the people, with the minimum of discomfort to all concerned, the people themselves, i.e., individuals, being the judge both as to quantity and rightness.

After that object has been attained, the productive organisation may legitimately be an outlet for creative activity. At no time is it a legitimate object of the general productive process to “provide employment” for the purpose of distributing wages – to make things which the public do not need, and the makers do not enjoy making, in order that some canon of obsolete theological morality, or the premises of an effete financial system, may thereby be satisfied. Still less is it a legitimate tool of the will-to-govern.”

Further reading: The New Times, December 1975. “Becoming as Little Children” by Eric D. Butler.  


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Spencer Zifrak (“Justices Split on Gender Lines over Tenor of Cleric’s Letters”, The Australian, March 15, 2013, p.30) has reported on the gender line split in the High Court of Australia case of Menis v The Queen (February 27, 2013). The case was concerned with an Islamic preacher sending letters of protest to the widows and parents of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, which denigrated the soldiers.

The Constitutional question was whether a provision in the Commonwealth Criminal Code, which had it a crime to send offensive materials through the post was in conflict with the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.

The male judges saw the provision as going too far in restricting political discourse and hence was unconstitutional. The female judges disagreed and added a dimension that the male judges did not accept, the idea of protesting individuals in their private domain. Restricting political discourse in this way was not contrary to the Constitution they held.

Zifrak concludes that there is psychological research indicating that male and female conceptions of justice differ with men being more formal and women more relational, with a greater importance given to the private sphere.
As I see it, such a public/private distinction is untenable in terms of the law itself because almost everything once “private”, is now subjected to public scrutiny.

The female judges, in my opinion, operated with a legally indefensible category. But, I suppose as we approach 100% dominance of women in law, men will learn to live with such decisions.  


by Ian Wilson LL.B:.
I was pleased to see Endeavour Forum (Newsletter, April, 2013) put in a strong critical submission on the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012. They opposed the Bill in to seeing it as the antithesis of claims to protect rights and equality and they maintained that it presented a direct threat to freedom of speech.

The reversal of the 800-year-old common law presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a “blatant injustice”. The new definition of “discrimination” as “any unfavourable treatment”, which “may offend another person” is rightly seen as so wide and vague as to include political opinions about which a person may disagree.

There is no right not to be offended and “Any expression of an opinion is likely to be offensive to someone who disagrees”. Further, the Bill has the effect of creating “protected” groups who are given special “rights” by the government. This is contrary to equality before the law.

The submission says: “It is incomprehensible that such legislation as the proposed Bill could be seriously contemplated. In fact it is a prescription for a totalitarian police state. It would also be a minefield of litigation.” So true, but as I see it, that remains the goal of the Bill.  


by James Reed
Gillard’s claims to put “Aussie jobs first” and send “foreign workers to the back of the queue” is, of course rhetoric designed to claw back a few working class votes. Judging by articles appearing by the new class in The Australian, the very thought of stopping the flow of 457 visas, makes the capitalists choke.

These visas, like the overseas student scam, are all about bringing in permanent migrants, on top of our already massive migrant numbers. Labor is planning to bring in 129,250 skilled migrants, most Asian, and no doubt almost all of these will stay, generating ultimately chain migration of millions of people. At the present rate, whites will be a minority in “Australia”, or whatever this place will become, by 2030. Some of us will live to see the end of the world as we know it, knowing that we did nothing to stop the rising tide of colour.


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
I have long held that the Australian Human Rights Commission should be abolished. I am pleased to report that Simon Breheny, Director, Legal Rights Project, Institute of Public Affairs, has also said that the Australian Human Rights Commission should be abolished in a January 23, 2013 media release. (Endeavour Forum Newsletter, April 2013).
He said that it does not “defend fundamental rights such as the right to free speech and property. Instead, it selectively defends a human rights agenda determined entirely by the Left.”

Mr Breheny said: “By supporting the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2013, the Australian Human Rights Commission has demonstrated hostility to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. The Commission is 100% tax payer-funded yet it actively lobbies governments for laws which undermine human rights, rather than defending and protecting them. It should be abolished.” Here, here!  


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
I thought that this would happen – “Dr Death”, Indian born Jayant Patel has been acquitted of his manslaughter charge (The Australian, March 14, 2013, p.3). Patel’s council is to apply to the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions to have the remaining 12 charges dropped. This is the conclusion of a series of legal blunders, beginning with hospital administrations foul-ups. Patel had been restricted to practice in the United States, but without any check was appointed Director of Surgery at Bundaberg Base Hospital.

There, he was involved in the medical practices which led to his present legal battle. His conviction was quashed by the High Court because of the prejudicial way the prosecution had conducted its case, essentially charging its argument in mid-trial thus making much evidence already heard, prejudicial. Then, in the present re-trial, the prosecution had difficulties even getting its particulars straight, and was criticised by the trial judge.

My prediction is that Patel will walk free. After that – well, he probably will need compensation for his time in gaol. Will he be given his old job back too?  


by Peter Ewer
Opinion polls, we are told, tell us that “Krudd”, that is Kevin Rudd, is popular with the electorate. Why he is like a local version of the Beatles, going to supermarkets and getting mobbed by “fans”. Can this be the Rudd-a-dud-dud that we know?
The Rudd that abolished the Howard governments’ asylum-seekers policy, allowing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to walk our streets? This was the Rudd who wanted kinder treatment for “refugees” – people who were not displaced people in the 1951 meaning of the Convention, but people who paid to get a better life.

This is not just my opinion – journalist Gary Johns (The Australian, 12 March 2013, p.12) says the same and then goes into a critique of Rudd’s personality, showing that Labor cannot go forward with Gillard or back to Rudd. I agree; as utterly terrible as Tony the Rabbit will be, at least it is a different person to criticise. It is time for voters to pull Labor out of its misery.  


Just Plain Racist! By James Reed.
This year is already shaping up to be a record-breaking year for asylum-seekers, with 1882 boat people arriving so far, a 55 percent increase in arrivals compared to this time in 2012 (The Australian, March 15, 2013, p.3). But the “moral self-indulgence” of the political class on this issue continues with Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young crying “racism”! As Chris Kenny, one of the few voices of sanity in the media notes, “Nothing seems to change the reflex responses. Not the arrival of hundreds of boats, mandatory detention of thousands of asylum-seekers or riots and fires in those centres. Not even, tragically, the death of hundreds of people at sea.”

The government lacks the room to house asylum-seekers and has placed asylum-seekers on bridging visas out into the community without an assessment of security issues. Tragically this has already led to alleged sexual assault of a female university student when asylum-seekers were housed with the students.

When Scott Morrison, opposition immigration spokesman said that the community should have been consulted and police informed about such placements Sarah Hanson –Young said that the opposition was “continuing to vilify refugees, asylum-seekers” and “whipping up fear based on racism.” Kenny rightly observes that it was people like Hanson-Young who had urged the government to dismantle tough border control measures, leading to this mess in the first place. But that’s immigration for you!  


by James Reed
Billionaire James Packer is urging the federal and state governments to cooperate with our beloved universities to massively increase the number of Chinese and Asian students studying in Australia (“Packer in Push for Asian Students”, The Australian, March 14, 2012, p.3). Packer sees education as an important way of creating lasting business relationships.
Packer, by the way never attended university, and by his proposal, only the few rich whites will be able to, because “our” universities are already awash with (foreign) Asian students. As the universities have been underfunded, they need the Asian dollars to get to a basic operating level. However the BS is often voiced by the universities that they create places for Australian students by taking in the foreigners.

It is the same argument used to say that by taking in foreign workers jobs are created for locals. Packer, in backing the universities is backing a loser and should stick to casinos. Overseas student’s costs have risen 166 percent over the last decade, annulling Australia’s so called education advantages relative to the United States (The Australian, March 13, 2013, p.29). Australia, however offers “post-study work rights” which the U.S. does not, which actually means that each overseas student from China and India is just another permanents migrant, taking another Aussie job – oops, no creating thousands of jobs! (If Gillard is right that 457 visa workers take Aussie jobs, then how are student migrants any different?)

Interestingly enough a recent study has shown that contrary to the hype and BS delivered by the university chiefs, the Australian workforce is “over-educated” (The Australian, March 13, 2013, p.31). Around 50 percent of graduates are working in jobs that do not require the qualifications which they have. And what about the mighty migrants?
“A separate study by the Department of Immigration shows poor labour market outcomes in the onshore skilled migrant category recently dominated by overseas students with the Australian university degrees. They were “Far less likely than other skilled migrants to secure full time employment in a skilled job.”

The so-called higher education export bonanza is an illusion. The often quoted $15 billion figure has been challenged by academics such as Dr Bob Birrell, and in any case $15 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to the infrastructure costs of new migrants – about $200,000 per annum for each. These costs are pushed into the future and not publicised, so the capitalists don’t have to deal with them.

At the root of this trouble lies our universities. In 1971, 3 percent of adults attended university; 24 percent did in 2006. Gillard basically wants everyone to attend. In my opinion there couldn’t be a quicker to way to collapse Society than this. The harm already done by the universities will take a hundred years to heal if the bull-dozers went in tomorrow.  


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Alan Tudge, a Liberal MP from Victoria wants the removal of all “race-based provisions in the body of the constitution” in the referendum to “recognise” Indigenous Australians. This indicates that “key MPs in Tony Abbott’s party will push for changes to the Constitution that go beyond the mere inclusion of a new preamble recognising Indigenous Australians” (The Australian, 5 March 2013, p.4). Abbott is quoted as saying that he has told “key indigenous advocates that he sees the delivery of constitutional change as a “legacy issue and he will seek to prioritise it if he is elected prime minister.”

Ten days later, Abbott is reported as proposing to put forward within 12 months of winning office a draft constitutional amendment recognising indigenous Australians (The Australian, March 15, 2013, p.1) If he goes down the Tudge road then he will need to put in an affirmative action advancement clause, creating, essentially two classes of Australians. If he keeps things to just a recognition in a new preamble, the Aboriginal lobby will not be satisfied. What is a rabbit, and a politically correct weak one, to do?

I say: bring it on! Let’s fight this one and defeat it decisively! It could be a good exercise to get a new nationalist movement going. We need to start talking now to deconstruct the sentimentality. What is behind this push is the creation of a politically correct Bill of Rights. Hands off our Constitution!  

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