5 February 2016: Thought for the week: An Eye for Eternity: An Introduction to William Blake.
Touching that mysterious place in each of us where the material and spiritual meet – where the worldly strives with the otherworldly, and time and eternity vie for our attention – Blake is a man for our time. And few writers are better suited to introduce us to his life and work than Malcolm Muggeridge.
“We are all endlessly looking for reality even when we try not to, or think we are not. This applies particularly, of course, to poets, artists, mystics – even, in their own way, to philosophers and scientists. Though we pursue fantasy, never more so than today, the soul’s only true sustenance is reality, which even in the most adverse circumstance it somehow finds, just as a seed falling on a rock-face somehow finds the tiny crack where it can grow.
Of no English poet and artist is this more true than of William Blake (1757-1827). Born as the Renaissance world was coming to an end, he was profoundly distrustful of the intellect as a means of finding truth, and of science as a means of exploring it. Though he was the first, and perhaps the greatest, of the romantic poets, he lived to abominate the spirit of romanticism and all the license and disorder it involved…”
- An excerpt from 'A Third Testament' presented by Malcolm Muggeridge
DAVOS ELITE WORRIED ABOUT ‘FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION’
Euro News Reports: Technocracy and technocrats are about to kill millions of jobs, driving people into poverty. It is ironic that the 2030 Agenda promises decent jobs for everyone and to reduce poverty everywhere, while at the same time promoting the 4th Industrial Revolution. However, technocrats do not care about people, but only about advancing technology. This will eventually lead to a huge demographic downturn as populations face attrition. In the chill of Davos, Switzerland this year, World Economic Forum participants are concerned about innovating responsibly. Research related to the conference theme ‘Mastering the 4th Industrial Revolution’ warns that increasingly high-tech changes threaten to eliminate millions of people’s jobs.
International entrepreneurial leadership guru CP Gurnani admits: “I am frightened because we are going too fast. Are the changes too exponential? (Have the) architects of this revolution - if there are any architects - planned for societal changes? Have we planned for human capital enablement? Have we planned for security?”
Nineteenth century steam revolutionised first transportation then factories (Industrial Revolutions I and II), then last century digital technology overtook analog (the ‘Third Industrial Revolution’).
Our correspondent Sarah Chappell presented the core questions: “The World Economic Forum has described the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a tsunami of technological advances that will transform our economy. But what of the impact on the labour market? Where will the work come from for all those people now doing jobs that will disappear as they are replaced by machines?”
Policy makers are looking at worst-case scenarios of technology making people’s skills obsolete, economically devaluing them. Major developed and emerging economies are at risk, with the greatest pressure on the lowest wage-earners, warns UNI Global Union General Secretary Philip Jennings. “Let’s look at the scale of the problem that is in front of us: we already have 200 million people unemployed; half the world’s workforce is surviving on just a couple of dollars a day, and they are classified as in the informal sector. If you put on top of that this digital revolution that is taking place and the impact on jobs and all the statistics we see are alarmous (sic).”
The challenge is to ensure that new technologies benefit the greatest number of people, so that the ‘revolution’ is peaceful.”
MIGHT THE ABUNDANCE OF THE KINGDOM YET SAVE US? asks Wallace Klinck of Canada
Those who are politically active appear to have been infected with the fatal delusion about the universal brotherhood of man and the religion of equality which all translates into unconditional “tolerance” of virtually all things both good and evil - a tolerance that eliminates the need for qualitative evaluation. Everything goes and we are considered “bigots” if we attempt to take a stand for quality because it “discriminates”. It is madness which translates into a blueprint for destruction.
Again, I hold the so-called Christian Churches largely to blame because they have taught a transcendent rather than an incarnate form of religion while allowing an incompatible and hostile counter ideology with its accompanying perverse incarnation of policy to fill the vacuum left by the smug Christian clergy whose words have become regarded as irrelevant because at best practically ineffectual.
Who would take seriously a system purporting to be “Christian” which lives with and condones debt-slavery, usury, poverty in the midst of actual or real abundance, constant war making and every other sort of abomination?
An alien presence has occupied our institutions of education, teaching that Christian beliefs are responsible for all of these fabricated and engineered failures and that guilt must be assigned to the “pseudo"-belief system which is wrongly blamed for bringing them upon us.
Enter opportunistic cultural Marxism with its spurious doctrine of “equality” as the new religion which will redeem us and for which we must abandon all rational and moral thought.
I recently saw an alleged statement by a German government official saying that the only reason for which Germany exists is for the State of Israel. I understand that in Britain the “Holocaust" is the only compulsory subject and that they are experiencing difficulty in finding enough teachers qualified to instruct in the subject. Now we are informed that Donald Trump is courting arch-Zionist Ted Cruz, with official Zionist blessings, as his "running mate" in the upcoming American elections. So what has changed? American and European Culture in general have obviously chosen a course of self-inflicted suicide.
Don’t expect our institutions of higher and lower learning to be of any assistance in the matter. They have long been white-anted with the enemies of Christian thought who have done their Pharisaic work of sabotage very effectively.
Perhaps our only hope may be when the consequences of the evil policies of our present rulers have become so transparently and obviously destructive, and painful, that this may generate a return to reason appropriately moderated by Love rather than “Equality”- with an ensuing genuine counter-revolution. One thing stands out as a possible obstruction to their policies: the inexorable march of labour-displacing technology which will inevitably render the existing costive financial costing and distributive system non-functional. Might, as C. H. Douglas predicted, the Abundance of the Kingdom yet save us in spite of our own blindness and bovine stupidity?
We will either devise a sound distributive economy in a free society or we will have imposed upon us a tyrannical system of direct administration -
essentially communo-fascist and Technocratic-dictatorial in nature.
LABOUR-DISPLACING TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCIAL COST-ACCOUNTING by Betty Luks
Wallace Klinck touches on “labour-displacing technology and financial cost-accounting” in the article above. We know from the website statistics that there are many readers who are looking at what this all means. Papers such as The A+B Theorem by A.W. Joseph are being constantly downloaded. http://alor.org/Library/Joseph%20AW%20-%20The%20A%20B%20Theorem.pdf
There is nothing new in the discussions taking place in Davos
The so-called ‘problems’ were summed up so well by Elizabeth Gaskell in her novel “North and South”. This is a portrait of life experienced by the various strata of society during the second wave of the Industrial Revolution, (1830-1850's), a period concerned not so much with invention as with organisation of industries.
The story line: Old Money and Privilege, (the South-Helstone) is represented by Dissenter and former
priest (Hale), New Money and Manufacturing (the North-Milton) by Master of cotton mill (Thornton) and the Working Class by Committee/Union/Worker (Higgins) in the battle for better living conditions and wages.
In the film story, the mill owner Thornton visits London's Great Exhibition of 1851, and was enthralled to see the products, the new inventions, and the machines brought together under the one roof, from all over the Empire. He was heard to say:
"Technologically, we are the envy of the world - if only there was a mechanism to let us all live together, to take advantage of the great benefits that come from industry".
He lamented: "We can bring back Marmosets from Mozambique, but we cannot stop Man from behaving as he always has", believing the answers to "the problems of the cash nexus between Worker and Master, would be for future generations to find".
Cash Nexus? Wages, Costs of production? Prices in the market place?
Because we have the benefit of hindsight, we can pick up the fault in the novelist's reasoning. Thornton, according to the author, seemed to think it was a moral problem rather than a practical problem. Thornton would have us believe, the ‘problem’ is insurmountable because it originated within human nature, and is usually summed up thus: "It is because of man 's greed".
Were they Saints or Sinners?
With changed attitudes on both sides, (i.e., a change of hearts) working relations would have been on a more friendlier footing, but, even if the Master was the most benevolent of men, and/or the Worker the saintliest of workers, their best behaviour (human nature at its
best) would not have resolved this particular problem for manufacturers in the Age of the Industrial Revolution.
It took another fifty years, along with the right circumstances and the experiences of C.H. Douglas, prior to and during World War I, to “uncover” the key to the problem. And we have yet to grasp its truth if we are ever going to release the people's real credit so that all may enjoy the fruits of the plant of this civilisation!
"The KEY to this particular problem, " said Douglas, "is CREDIT! "
But how so? Douglas the practical engineer and cost accountant turned his attention and skills to a resolution of the economic/financial problem.
NEARLY 200 YEARS LATER – WHAT HAS CHANGED?
Wallace Klinck received a request for financial assistance from a correspondent:
I have an urgent update on the campaign to expand protections for salaried workers. Last year, Daily Kos was part of a large coalition that directed more than 300,000 public comments calling on the Department of Labor to increase the overtime salary threshold from $23,660 to $50,440 - something which would help over 13 million American workers.
We thought we won when the Department of Labor agreed to the rule change. But we were wrong. Republicans in Congress are trying to kill the new Department of Labor rule before it ever takes effect by using an obscure tactic to run out the clock on the Obama administration.
Daily Kos has a plan to run an emergency campaign on this issue, but we never budgeted for something like this so early in the year and we need to raise $10,000 right now to get it done.
Can you chip in $5 right now to help Daily Kos secure victory on overtime expansion?
To which Wallace responded:
Attempts to solve the economic dilemma by increasing wages is foredoomed to failure.
Wages are a cost of production which must, by accounting convention, be recovered in full from the consumer. All workers are consumers. “We will give the workers wages of which they have never dreamed and take it all away through rising prices”. We do not need increased labour costs in production. In fact, to the greatest extent possible, we need to eliminate labour costs through greater efficiency achieved through technological advances, e.g., automation and artificial intelligence.
The existing price-system is not self-liquidating: it does not have the means of liquidating the costs of production because prices include charges brought in from previous costing cycles which create costs but not, as do wages, salaries and dividends, purchasing-power in the same costing cycle.
We attempt to overcome the resulting deficiency of consumer buying power by incurring an ever-greater mortgage of future income by contracting loans from banking institutions. These loans are created as new credits (not advances from existing deposits) and are used to make more-or-less immediate purchases, and are cancelled when the receiving business repays its original production loan, or allocates some of the funds to reserve account, from when it can never again be purchasing power - except by issue for new production, having a complete new set of additional financial costs.
Because capital charges are included in consumer prices the deficiency of actual effective purchasing-power becomes relatively greater as we replace human labour as a factor of production with new real capital, i.e., technology.
We need more effective consumer income but it is futile to attempt achieving it through any means, such as increased wages, that actually increase financial costs and prices.
The idea that increasing wages is a solution to the economic enigma, is based on the mistaken idea that the employer receives more than that to which he or she is entitled - at the expense of the worker and the illogical conclusion that increasing wages will rectify this hypothesized inequity. The fact is that over ninety per cent of businesses actually fall into bankruptcy.
The main problem is a financial cost-accountancy error which charges the consumer with capital depreciation but fails to credit the consumer with capital appreciation. We should have increasing incomes independent of paid work and rapidly falling consumer prices.
By claiming ownership of the credit, which they create and lend, the banking institutions have literally appropriated the communal capital, which belongs not to the banks but to the community. We need to replace the enormous volumes of “money” created by the banks as consumer and public debt, by debt-free issues of effective consumer purchasing-power which when spent liquidate previous costs without creating equivalent new charges against future earnings.
We need:
(1) National Dividends payable as a right of inalienable inheritance to all citizens, and
(2) Compensated (Falling) Retail Prices—all to be financed out of a creation of debt-free credits.
If ordinary citizens attempted to do what the banks are doing they could expect to serve a sentence to lengthy incarceration. Why do we tolerate this outrage? Ignorance, primarily.
Finance is an abstract subject and most people are inclined to think in concrete terms - making them easy victims of those who are skilled in abstract thought and the art of legerdemain. Money is simply accountancy and should reflect reality. We simply must get our figures correct.
There are two fundamental problems with our economy:
1. The core problem is technical in nature and it is the world’s system of pricing, or more specifically its cost accounting; whereby the costs of the goods and services we produce are generated at a faster rate than the wages, earnings and dividends with which to purchase them – in other words, there is a shortage of money with which production can be consumed.
2. The second problem is actually caused by the technical problem. The essence of the problem is that consumption and production serve banking when it should be the other way around. This technical flaw affords the banking system its opportunity to invert the proper relationship that should exist between money and the production-consumption activities of society by offering to fill the gap with more debt-money.
The solution to this problem is really quite simple:
1. We need to do simple accounting to 1) compute costs and 2) specifically break out wages, earnings and dividends in all businesses.
2. Have those businesses remit those accountings – much like a tax return today.
3. On a national basis we aggregate those numbers to compute the gap between cost of production and money available to consumers.
4. We must pay that gap out as a national dividend on a basis of apportionment and provide incentive to consume instead of save with a compensated price.
The essence of the framework is to provide an economic system that efficiently provides for the equitable consumption of all that a nation produces for the benefit of both consumers and producers.
In Canada
We are now being told here in Canada and in recently prosperous Alberta that we should be prepared for an extended painful period of economic contraction. Our human and natural resources have in no way become diminished or depleted and are as available as ever.
The price of oil has fallen dramatically making the input cost of domestic production substantially lower. Yet in some inexplicable manner we are expected to believe that we must accept a lower standard of living.
Such is the state of “economics” as currently it is taught. Perhaps even more inexplicable is the apparent willingness of a supine and uncomprehending population to accept such contradictory and irrational argumentation and the economic hardships which accompany it, hardships having no basis in reality whatsoever.
It is of course a classic example of the real economy being subordinated to the financial system - of the supremacy of financial legerdemain (sleight of hand-ed) over reality.
Oliver Heydorn’s exposition elaborates on the subject in considerable detail for those who might wish to enhance their understanding beyond basics.
I recommend it.
For the Aboriginalists, the Left and others Australia Day, January 26 is "Invasion Day". You can read about this political position at sites such as "Creative Spirits" (Creative Spirits.info) and leftist John Pilger "Australia's Day for Secrets, Flags and Cowards", at John Pilger.com.
The argument is that what Australians call "settlement" on a land regarded as terra nullius, or unoccupied, was really an "invasion" and that there was a war of sorts between the Aborigines of the time and the settlers. This argument of conquest was not considered by the High Court in the Mabo case, who deal with the strawman terra nullius argument. However I note that conquest was accepted by nations at the time (hence equating to international law) as a legitimate way of states acquiring territory. The conquest of the Aboriginals, if it did occur at that time, and the Left doesn't consider, their native title was extinguished and they became subjects. This in fact had happened to the Anglo-Saxons in 1066, being conquered by the Normans, descendants of the Vikings. It has been the way of the world.
The real politics of the world is of course ignored by the Left who have a politically correct morality which they would seek to impose on us.
But the guilt associated with "Invasion Day" is never taken to its logical conclusion. Even the Leftoids are invaders. Shouldn't they divest all of their ill gotten gains and leave this country, so that Aborigines can return to their tribal existence?
Of course if everybody did leave, the Chinese would quickly move in. There would be no more of this talk about "invasion".
The Institute of Public Affairs commissioned a survey about Australia Day which found that over 90% of people are proud to be Australian and 80% believe that Australian history is something to be proud of. As well 85% thought that Australia Day should be a day of celebration and 92% thought that Australia was a better country than most others.
So it is going to be difficult to change Australia Day to Invasion Day. And if they did, I would heartily celebrate the "invasion" which created our great nation.
INFERNO - The Day Victoria Burned
Foreword
On February 7, 2009, 173 Victorians perished, most burned to
death, in a state that makes an ostentatious fetish of protecting
public safety. Victorians accept stiff fines for driving just a few
ticks over the speed limit. They cannot ride bicycles without approved
mandatory helmets, nor can tradesmen go about their business
unless they are wearing iridescent vests. In restaurants, requests for
bags are likely to be rejected because of concerns about legal
liability.
Cutting the road toll, preventing head injuries, reducing the
incidence of food poisoning — all the above measures, we are told, are for the common good.
But protection from bushfires? These massive and regular destroyers
of life and property have avoided the sort of attention lavished on
day-old sushi. When the day that has come to be called Black Saturday
finally ended, the Victorian government, government agencies and
emergency protocols came under the most intense scrutiny, a scrutiny
that saw Justice Bernard Teague’s Royal Commission make 51
recommendations for change, with one guiding direction, “to enhance
the protection of human lives”.
The rote response from those in authority was about looking forward,
not looking back; February 7 was, they said, a unique event, nobody
could have foreseen it. But none of these words rang with the faintest echo of common sense and experience...
WHO TOLD STATE LEADERS TO ADVOCATE A REPUBLIC? by Ian Wilson LL.B.
All state and territory leaders - except the Western Australian Premier (who is a Republican) - have signed a document supporting creating a republic. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a founding member of the Australian Republican Movement has said: "My commitment to Australia having an Australian as head of state is undiminished", but he is waiting until the end of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, or until he can get rid of the conservatives in his politically correct party.
The argument made by Republicans is that to be "independent" we need an Australian head of state. It is a strange argument, based on soft nationalism, made by the same folk who support mass immigration, multiculturalism, Asianisation and Asian capitalist supremacy/foreign investment. They do their best to make Australia global not independent. Hence the Republican movement is insincere from the ground up and is really about destroying traditional Australia and creating further tyranny through the elimination of our freedoms.
THE MYTH OF THE 'HEGELIAN DIALECTIC': It is actually 'Marxian Dialectic' by Chris Knight
I would have enough money for a holiday if I had a dollar for every mention I have seen of the so-called Hegelian Dialectic. Those who write about this have a vague idea that the work of German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) influenced Karl Marx, who "inverted" Hegel’s teleological view of history (based on Spirit, self-understanding and development), to produce a materialist teleological dialectics, resulting in the Communist society.
The standard use of the "Hegelian Dialectic" idea is to describe how the Elites create a problem then roll out their solution/synthesis.
For example: Thesis: create wars for the New World Order to generate millions of refugees. Anti-thesis: demographically swamp Western nations producing a nationalist backlash. Synthesis: use the iron fist of the military to create order by eliminating freedoms, ringing in World Government.
This triad is a valid way of understanding, but it is a Marxian strategy, not Hegel’s. The thesis, anti thesis, synthesis triad is not found in Hegel's work, but originated in the work of German idealists philosopher Johann Fichte (1782-1814) and later in Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
A Wikipedia article, “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel”, which you can readily access says that the description of Hegelian Dialectics in terms of "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis" is not accepted by Hegelian scholars.
Another Wikipedia article "Dialectic" says that Hegel did not use the term "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis" and the only place where he did mention them is in his lectures on the history of philosophy where he criticises Kant for having "everywhere posited thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis".
Hence we should abandon using "Hegelian Dialectic" and instead use the correct terminology "Marxian Dialectic". It adds to our credibility to be historically correct.
('Marxian Dialectic' -ed) ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE MONARCHIST FRONT
There has been a call by a member of the Canberra council of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy calling for the resignation of Professor David Flint.
We believe that this is a republican ploy attempting to show great division amongst monarchists and our national chairman has therefore made a statement which is included below.
Firstly, there is no split between the Australian Monarchist League and Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. It is true that we are different organisations and have a different emphasis, but see nothing wrong in that. We reject the statement that we are ‘rival organisations’. In fact, we hold Professor Flint in the highest of regard and believe that he plays a major part in the debate on constitutional change.
Secondly, the Australian Monarchist League in no way focuses: “too much on the celebrity status of young royals like William and Catherine”. Whilst it is true that we welcome visits by Her Majesty the Queen and members of her family and play a large part in mobilising crowds together to cheer visiting royals as well as handing out thousands of Australian flags at our own cost, we are essentially an educational and lobby group and most of our time is spent on that purpose.
We are a monarchist organisation whose purpose is to retain the Crown in the Australian Constitution. We believe that our system of constitutional monarchy best protects the freedom and democracy of the Australian people. We hold that, in Australia, the Queen is a part of our Constitution, not the Constitution a part of the monarchy.
Philip Benwell
National Chair, Australian Monarchist League
Press Release from the Australian Monarchist League: THE REPUBLIC OF THE ELITES
It seems as though what some media call “the red bandanna wagon” is moving full steam ahead towards a referendum in 2020, which is just four years ahead. The momentum, of course, being the media personality, Peter FitzSimons.
We have seen failed politicians jumping aboard, then businessmen, then celebrities, then all State premiers but one and now yet another Australian of the Year.
We have seen the media being unashamedly used by FitzSimons to propel his campaign forward and to promote membership of the Australian Republican Movement and his change.org petition.
The only opposition seems to come from the youthful officials of the Australian Monarchist League, an organisation without much funding but with plenty of grit and determination.
However, in a country where there are around 16,000,000 voters, this wagon train replete with elites, most probably meeting in the republican hunting ground of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, is not carrying the people with them. There is no move amongst the general population. In fact, there is not one person out in the streets carrying a placard calling for a republic. Only words from politicians and celebrities and money from wealthy businessmen.
In fact, the declaration signed by all but one of the State Premiers is more likely to turn people away from supporting constitutional change because the entire system of constitutional monarchy is based on blocking these very politicians from assuming total and absolute power and authority.
The people are not fools. They know why so many politicians want to do away with the strictures placed on them by having to answer to the Crown, which always represents the people.
The very model being proposed by Peter FitzSimons is to make a head of state subservient to the Parliament. The same model that was rejected in 1999 and for the very same reason that people do not want to give more power to politicians, it would be rejected in 2020 were such a referendum to be held at that time.
Furthermore, the comments of Lieutenant General Morrison, newly appointed Australian of the Year: “It is time, I think, to at least revisit the question (of a republic) so we can stand both free and fully independent amongst the community of nations" is indicative that whilst he may have been a competent army officer, he has little or no understanding of our constitutional arrangements. The fact is, we are “both free and fully independent”. Australia decides its own pathway in the world and if we were not “both free and fully independent” how else could the people, not the Queen, nor the British Parliament and not even the Australian Parliament have decided in 1999 whether to retain the Crown or move to a republic. It was the people and none other than the people of Australia, who voted.
These elites, who obviously think they know better in rejecting the will of the people, will find, after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on another referendum, that the people are not the fools they take them for.
ADVANCE AUSTRALIA WHERE? by Paul Zanetti
Sadly the Australian Of The Year award has lost all meaning to millions of Australians.
It has become a disconnected politically correct tool existing only for one purpose - to advance progressive grand standers and social causes, instead of reflecting the best in quiet achievers, the real heroes of our country.
The Australian Of The Year award has become a caricature, a parody, an exercise in hypocrisy, diminishing its own worth. It used to mean something.
Instead of rewarding the best of us, the Aussie gong is now a means for promotion of social engineers and fringe attention seekers who don’t practice what they preach. Politicians will jump on board to be seen to be hip, but someone should tell them 'hipsters are a laughing stock to most of us'. People without self identity, who leap onto the latest cause - or fad - to be accepted by, or popular to, other empty shells.
While real Australians go about their lives, serving their community, getting kids to school, heading to work, producing, creating, serving, fixing, building, manufacturing, inventing, caring, life saving, fire fighting, volunteering, transporting, loading, packing, mowing, cleaning, selling, buying, cooking, painting, welding, trimming, lifting, accounting, measuring, grading, driving, drilling, hammering, joining, engineering, drafting, in short, living in a real Australian society with meaning and purpose…we have an empty underclass fixated with themselves. The rest of us actually have to be productive to make a quid. We create, we make, we fix, we serve, we do…
The latest charade is the Australia Day Council’s most recent example - the 2016 Australian Of The Year recipient, David Morrison, the former Chief of the Army (June 2011 until retirement in May 2015)...
During his time, Morrison admitted, the army became notorious for its systematic culture of sexual abuse and misconduct...Instead of dealing with it properly from within... Morrison decided to read a speech written by his personal adviser and speech writer, record it and upload it online...What ads to the irony is that David Morrison’s award as Australian Of The Year was for a speech (about-ed) “unacceptable abuse”, written by a person whose own “online abuse” has led to the army itself making a $25,000 settlement offer to the victim.
And that’s why this year’s gong is a farce… This could go a long way to explaining the cultural dysfunction at the top. (emphasis-ed) Read further:www.zanettisview.com
TRIBUTE TO AMMON BUNDY– (Oregon USA)
From what I have heard, Stewart Rhodes (Oathkeepers-ed) does not get along with the people he is leading. I have heard from people who know him and they don't like him, say he is a dictator. I want to know what is going on if anyone can tell me. Is Rhodes with the Establishment in this confrontation? I have heard Ammon speak and I like what and how he says it. I agree that the BLM (Bureau of Land Management-ed) must be backed down. I also have heard that the defending patriots have the backing of the people in that area and that Oathkeepers is saying they don't.
BLM wants to destroy the ranching industry, no doubt about it... Don Hank
Tribute to Ammon Bundy by Vicky
Watching the events of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Headquarters unfold has been nothing if not an incredible learning experience and based upon that, my conclusion is that Ammon Bundy’s act of civil disobedience was a courageous act by a great man. He called the world’s attention to U.S. government agencies that engage in criminal behaviour behind the shield of government force.
In his treatise on Civil Disobedience (1849), Henry David Thoreau wrote:
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth, – certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil, but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.
Thoreau was writing about slavery but aren’t the ranchers living under the tyranny of an agency that engages in criminal behaviour living in slavery too? The particular conditions of the enslavement matters not, to the slave.
Ammon Bundy and the occupiers at Malheur put their lives on the line to be a counter-friction to stop the machine and whether anybody agrees with me or not, I will always have the utmost respect for them for doing it…
My preliminary conclusion is that the Department of the Interior and BLM are implementing the UN Bio Diversity Treaty that was defeated by Congress. To look at the story from the perspective of one man or one family is to miss the bigger story of the criminal conspiracy to put American ranchers and farmers out of business so the land can become part of the wildlands corridors.
The criminal behaviour of the BLM makes sense in that context whereas it makes no sense within the context of managing land for multiple use for the benefit of the American people. The only way to stop this level of criminality in our government is for us all to become the counter-friction and I hope we do because if we don’t, America will be lost.
Our government has been captured by a cult of radical “environmentalists” who are really communists and marxists behind a green mask as Rosa Koire has described it. They are using environmentalism and the fraud of “climate change” to impose a totalitarian system of control...
So what are we to do? Just let it happen? Shall we leave our children and grandchildren a country in which they will be totally controlled prisoners of a system run by psychopathic monsters and useful idiots? If you are afraid now… what chance will they have in the future?
This is a complex situation to be sure. We need brains. We need brawn. But most of all we need courage. On all accounts, Stewart Rhodes, as a lawyer first and an Oathkeeper second, couldn’t and didn’t deliver and I will not apologize for saying it because the stakes are too high. (emphasis-ed)
IMMIGRATION
Immigration is a hot topic with almost everyone in the community. Scratch the surface of most people and you will get an instant response about immigration. It is too high! It is unsustainable! We cannot expect to provide employment when our own people are out of work!
The reasons continue but many keep their cards pretty close to their chest - they feel sensitive about making remarks in public. Denis McCormack from #Reduce Immigration has provided a means where opposition to immigration can be expressed in an inoffensive way.
It is so simple - just write on the top of your voting form at the next election “Reduce Immigration”. Your vote will not be invalid. You will be getting a bonus vote; one for your MP and the other a message to whoever is elected. The key to success is to get hundreds or thousands of people to do the same thing. The vote scrutineers will not fail to announce the push to reduce immigration if a significant number write those two words on the ballot paper.
Visit “reduceimmigration.wordpress.com” and encourage your friends to circulate the website address.
TPP - KEEP THE PRESSURE UP
Keep the pressure on your MP’s and Senators for a response to the questions on the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). The Bill to accept the TPP will soon be debated in Parliament and it is only right that we have the information in time to determine our approval or disapproval.
Have had some feed-back showing it is difficult to get a response from the MP’s. Stress the need for a reply when you write. A brief letter to the press/editor in their electorate might change their attitude. An election year is normally a time when MP’s and candidates usually try to impress the voters, so keep the letters going.
BASIC FUND: The contributions have taken the tally to just a few dollars short of $6 700. Many thanks for those who have sent funds already. We have a long way to go before we reach our target of $60 000 and it would be nice to reach the target early in the year.
All donations are welcome. Nat Dir.
NATIONAL WEEKEND 2015 DVDS The DVDs of the National Weekend 2015; including The New Times Dinner and the full set of lectures from the National Weekend Seminar are available direct from Doug Holmes 08 8289 0049 - M0421 925 557 for $30 posted.
ALOR.org/News
With the development of new technology, computers can be set tasks that are continued automatically in the background.
In our case we have been able to build a webpage that automatically takes FEED News Sources from around the world. It refreshess every few minutes..
We are currently trialling 17 different sources to produce a single page of News articles which you can find at this URL: http://alor.org/News/index.php
As this task is in its infancy and under a trial basis we would be interested in any feedback that you may provide. - webmaster
By presenting the key economic ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879-1952) in a clear, systematic, and comprehensive fashion, this work constitutes an academic standard of reference for those who wish to obtain a more advanced understanding of Social Credit economics. It is divided into three parts covering Douglas' diagnosis regarding the nature and cause of economic dysfunction in the modern, industrialized world, his prognosis, including an evaluation of the conventional methods of macroeconomic management, and, finally, his remedial principles and proposals. Just as Douglas' analysis goes to the very heart of what is structurally wrong with the financial and economic systems of contemporary civilization, "Social Credit Economics" effectively captures and distills the essence of his economic thought, rendering it more easily accessible to the broadly educated and reflective reader.
Dr. Oliver Heydorn argues that it is high time that all Catholics take seriously and examine closely the economic ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879-1952). By surveying the key principles contained within the Church's social doctrine in conjunction with Douglas' Social Credit proposals and their underlying philosophy, the author demonstrates that (in stark contrast to the dead-ends of Austrian economics and the 'Christian socialism' of 'liberation theology' et al. and the half-way houses of classical distributism and economic personalism) it is Social Credit which most fully merits the support of Catholics as the best alternative to the economic status quo.
‘WHO CALLED THE COOK A BASTARD?’ by C. Stanton Hicks - $13.00 posted within Australia
from: Heritage Book-mailing Service, P.O. Box 27, Happy Valley, South Australia 5159. Phone: 08 7123 7131
This little light-hearted account of the neglected importance of the army cook, aims to alert the man in the street to the fact that Food is Life, and that the preparation of foodstuffs with the least wastage of essential nutrients is fundamental to national health and to the national economy.
Food production has been all too long an item of financial calculation.
It is an integrated biological process calling for a totally different mode of thinking.
Inventing the Individual is a highly original rethinking of how our moral beliefs were formed and their impact on western society today. This ambitious and stimulating book describes how a moral revolution in the first centuries AD - the discovery of human freedom and its universal potential - led to a social revolution in the west. The invention of a new, equal social role, the individual, gradually displaced the claims of family, tribe and caste as the basis of social organisation.
Larry Siedentop asks us to rethink the evolution of the ideas on which modern societies and government are built, and argues that the core of what is now our system of beliefs emerged much earlier than we think.
Social Dynamics
MOV Files
The best of ED Butler
including the
Douglas Memorial Dinner
MP3 Files
As well as the publication of journals
for the dissemination of information, the League publishes and distributes a wide
range of educational books, videos, and cassette tapes. These are available at
meetings, at our Melbourne bookshop or by mail order from the following addresses:
“The
New Times Survey”Monthly journal which assesses important events against the
background role of debt-finance in human affairs, and
the anti-Christian threat of the centralisation of
power. There are in-depth articles on key events and
specific subjects. $30 p.a.
Subscriptions
for both On Target and New
Times Survey is available ONLINE
OR to:National
Headquarters: Australian League of Rights, G.P.O. Box
1052, Melbourne 3001
BOOK/VIDEO/data DVD/CD SERVICE
ADDRESSES
Victoria & Tasmania
Suite 8, Level 9,
118 Queen Street,
Melbourne 3000
Phone 03 9600 0677 Postal Address: Heritage Bookshop
G.P.O. Box 1052,
Melbourne 3001
South Australia
Heritage Book-mailing Service,
P.O.
Box 27, Happy Valley,
South Australia 5159.
Phone: 08 7123 7131
email: heritagebooks@adam.com.au
Conditions of sale: All
Books/Videos/data DVDs/CDs must be paid for in Australian dollars.
For International Postage Rates please contact anyone of the Heritage Book
Mailing Services for quotes OR alternatively purchase online from Veritasbooks
