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



By Kirsty Walker, Political Correspondent

GORDON Brown faces fresh Tory pressure for a referendum on the new EU treaty yesterday after William Hague described it as 'overwhelmingly' similar to the old constitution.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary published research showing that only ten out of the 250 proposals contained in the document rejected by French and Dutch voters had changed.

He suggested the 'unreadable' treaty had been designed to confuse the public and accused the Prime Minister of trying to push it through on the 'quiet'.

Mr Hague warned that once MPs return from Parliament's summer recess they will have only nine working days to debate the treaty before it is signed off by Mr Brown in October.

His party boosted its campaign for a referendum by publishing a pamphlet entitled The EU Treaty in Plain English.

Mr Hague accused Labour of handing sovereignty to Brussels as the treaty creates a powerful EU president and foreign minister.

He said Britain is losing vetoes in some 60 policy areas including transport, energy and migration and warned that new powers are being handed to the, European Commission, Court of Justice and Parliament.

Mr Hague added that a little-noticed 'ratchet clause' in the treaty would allow the EU to abolish vetoes in almost all other areas. Member states would simply have to 'notify' MPs of what was happening.

He said: 'There has been limited public debate about this issue and it is important for people to have a clear understanding of it. The plan all along has been to keep the substance and change the presentation.

'The EU treaty is overwhelmingly the same as the EU constitution. It is in large measure and predominantly the same thing with the same effect. I think in a way Gordon Brown wants to get this out of the way with as little public attention as possible. Certainly they want to get it through on the quiet.'

Attacking the document's complicated language, Mr Hague cited a passage which says: 'As far as the content of the amendments to the existing treaties is concerned, the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC will be integrated into the TEU and the Treaty on the functioning of the Union, as specified in this mandate. Modifications to these innovations introduced as a result of the consultations held with member states over the past six months are indicated below.'

Mr Hague explained: 'That is really taking everything that was agreed in the European constitution and using it as a starting base for the treaty.'

In another passage, the treaty says: Articles 29 to 39 of Title VI of the EU Treaty, which related to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and to police co-operation, shall be replaced by Articles (111-257 to 111-264 and 111-270 to 111-277) of the Treaty on the function of the union.'

The Tory pamphlet paraphrases this as: 'EU judges will now be able to rule on EU agreements over criminal justice and policing.'

In Labour's 2005 general election manifesto, Tony Blair had promised voters a referendum on the EU constitution that was eventually shelved that year.

Mr Brown has refused to hold one on the new treaty after insisting that the Government had protected its four 'red lines' on tax, human and social rights, foreign policy and benefits.

However, Mr Hague pointed to a stream of remarks from prominent EU leaders admitting that the new treaty is the constitution by a different name.

Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has said that '98 per cent of the content' of the old constitution has survived.

Mr Hague denied that the Tories are returning to an 'old agenda' or playing to the party's disaffected Right-wing by focusing on Europe.
'This cannot be the Conservative Party returning to an old agenda when a referendum was promised in the last Labour manifesto,' he said.

He added that an EU treaty referendum would be key to the Conservatives' general election campaign if an early poll was called by Mr Brown.


1 Everything that was in the EU Constitution is in this Treaty, unless it specifies otherwise.

2 The EU Constitution's name has changed and it is now much harder to understand, but the content has stayed the same.

3 Instead of nation states taking it in turns to chair the EU, a new President will be in charge of the EU's agenda. He is also supposed to speak to the rest of the world in our name.

4 The EU will have a foreign minister. He will chair foreign ministers' meetings, have his own diplomatic service and will even, under some circumstances, speak for us at the UN Security Council. Our own voice in the world will be less important.

4 We have been given guarantees about the independence our foreign policy, but they are not legally binding. In fact, they may be all but worthless.

6 For the first time, the EU will be able to sign treaties on our behalf In Its own right.

7 By various back door legal routes, we could see EU judges deciding more of our laws, particularly over asylum laws and criminal justice system.

8 Every surviving national veto outside defence could be abolished without the need for a new treaty. Instead of the rigmarole of an Intergovernmental conference and a bill in parliament, vital national vetoes could be dropped after only a short debate in parliament.

9 The EU gains more powers over a long list of policies. These policies include most of the 60 odd areas where the new treaty would abolish national vetoes. Some are relatively unimportant, but others are not, such as energy and professional qualifications.

10 EU judges - who have a strong record of using the EU's rulebook to Increase the EU's powers - will now be able to rule on EU agreements over criminal justice and policing. If Britain no longer opts into new laws in this area it would no longer have a veto to block damaging changes.


Englishmen need to be reminded of their own cultural and historical heritage from which we drew to establish our own Commonwealth of Australia.


by Hewlett Edwards

"The Fig Tree," 1954

There is a saying among the south sea islanders: Know the roots and you will know the tree. Know the tree and behold! It will answer to your cultivation.

History is the endless record of experiments; a series that cannot be broken and of which there is never complete specification nor adequate separation from a multiplicity of similar operations. The movement of events cannot be arrested for examination and analysis, history shows and must show approximation upon approximation. Within itself each event appears to be complete and completed, it cannot be undone; but, as a part of a series which is one whole, what is so indeterminate as an isolated event? It seems conclusive, yet it is always moving on to fresh conclusions.

It is in this difficult complexity that policy is crystallised and becomes history in which men of understanding as well as of action have erected signposts for the use of their successors. To illuminate one of these is to select that particular incident or aspect as being of a significance exceeding that of a thousand other happenings which might have been chosen. He who writes history, chooses history.

This group of ideas clusters round the word Constitution:

One such signpost firmly erected in early Christian days was the Athanasian Creed. This draws attention to the threefold nature of reality, and sets forth ideas which, perhaps necessarily, were in advance of common usage. This incomprehension was extravagantly illustrated in the major controversy of those days, for amongst and throughout the wars, revolutions, plagues, pestilences and famines of early Christendom, in which individuals and nations were racked, shaken and overwhelmed; throughout these confusions ran the thread of a controversy in which an idea was not so much pursued, as eventually discovered.
This was the idea, or group of ideas, which clusters round the word constitution in its social and political connection. The content of this controversy concerned the veridical relationship between Pope and Emperor; between Authority and Power.

In this discussion, argument was continued by canonists and legists for more than a millennium. From the first, the problem seems to have been envisaged in limited perspective as a simple struggle for power between the Papacy and Empire; but even in a thousand years, neither party attained complete domination although both came near it.
Out of the strife, however, came extensive results though these were not those consciously aimed at. To a high degree, Canon Law and Roman Law stand as memorials to this disputation, truly notable monuments, though inconclusive as solvents of the constitutional issue.
The controversy was the thread along which the rival disputants groped towards ideas and institutions which could satisfy both spiritual and temporal requirements.

The lawyers and theologians were bent on realising a dualistic Constitution

In the sixth century, Justinian confirmed a strategy already adopted when, in his Novellae Constitutiones, he said that the mercy of God had bestowed upon mankind the two greatest gifts, the sacerdotium and the imperium, the one ministering to the divine and the other presiding over and caring for the human.
Following this directive, the lawyers and the earlier generations of theologians were bent on realising the strict separation of Church and State according to the ideal of a dualistic constitution. In this, success appeared to have been attained when in 800 A.D. the Pope, assuming spiritual leadership of the world, crowned Charles V of France Emperor, with temporal Headship.

But Charles' Empire did not survive his life, and all was again in confusion. In the tenth century the position was reversed, and we find Otto the Great, a German Emperor, crowning and deposing Popes from 963 until his death. Nothing was settled. Indeed, by this time, the political content of the Middle Ages had become one long quarrel turning upon this question of constitutional ascendency.
By the thirteenth century all was again changed. Dualism became heresy, and all effort was turned towards a unification of control, the concentration in one person of Power and Authority. It was Alanus, an English monk, who, writing in the decade following 1200 A.D., originated the view that the single head of medieval polity for matters both spiritual and temporal, was the Pope.

The establishment of "what touches all should be approved by all":

To the medieval mind, absolute government was the only possible form of government, and although the democratic derivation of a Prince's powers was closely canvassed, a democratic share in central administration was neither thought of nor discussed.
This did not prevent the establishment early in the thirteenth century of the principle that 'What touches all should be approved by all', while, later in the same century, canonist scholarship demanded that representation should have full power to consent to the ordinances of the King in Council.

Again, it was laid down that, wherever a matter of faith was disputed, laymen as well as clerics were to be consulted. Discussion on such points was a lively interest and the consideration and adoption of constitutional principles was perennial. In England, theologians were active in the general disputation; while English lawyers worked out the typically inductive system of the Common Law. This was a development parallel to Roman Law, both originally being in part derived from the endeavours of the Church Fathers to perpetuate and establish in legal form the moral teachings of the Gospels, interpreted as Natural Law.

Following this idea, it was held that liberty was derived from Natural Law and therefore seemed immune from human restriction. Later this was evidently found inconvenient, as liberty came to be regarded as a 'mundane benefit' of which anyone might be deprived by a Prince of the Church. It was upon this argument that slavery was recognised and Magna Carta was discredited by the Church (Innocent III).
Both Roman and Common Law were concerned with the temporal aspect of human relations, whereas Canon Law was focussed upon the spiritual aspect of the individual and carried greater prestige and dignity. While Roman legists depended chiefly upon argument and deduction from scriptural texts (Mosaic and New Testament), the emphasis in Common Law was upon circumstances and conditions then obtaining.

Reality is Threefold, not Unitarian, not Dualistic

The conversion of the Emperor Constantine early in the fourth century marked the emergence of Christians from a long period of persecution and martyrdom. Authority, in the persons of the Elders of the Church, was no longer oppressed, but stood in an unfamiliar - indeed in an unknown - relationship to Power as personified in the Emperor. Whatever the earliest contacts may have been, it is known that about twelve years after the attainment of this unique position Constantine called together the leaders of the Church in a Council at Nicea (A.D. 325), which indicated on the highest and most authoritative plane, fundamental principles bearing on this very predicament.
A strong directive was issued making clear a position which had long been obscure, and in so doing promulgated verities - discovered rather than devised - which must be observed by those who would go with and not against the nature of reality.

Reality it was stated, is threefold; not unitarian, not dualistic; a Mystery best described as Three in One. This was the Nicene Creed recited at the second session of the Council, where the young Athanasius distinguished himself. The elaborate Athanasian "Confession of our Christian Faith" became current later.

The modern world is not without instances of flagrant evasion of obvious truth. To us it seems extraordinary that the principles enunciated should not have been related to the predicament experienced; that the Creed should not have been seen to have its political analogue precisely suited to immediate - and difficult - circumstances.
It must have seemed, if only for a brief moment, that Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power were at one; and the realisation that there was no precedent governing their fruitful co-existence must have followed quickly. The Council of Nicea did not specifically consider the principles upon which Authority and Power might together work out the spiritual and material advancement of the new Christendom, but in the Creed it stated them.

Reality is threefold, and that idea, as developed in the (Athanasian) Creed, must to the extent of man's capacity, be reflected in his institutions. But there is no trace of any attempt to grapple with this problem, instead, the unique opportunity was allowed to pass and political society slide back into just another phase of contending parties. Or was it inconspicuously propelled?

Such must have been the background of that age-long quarrel which turned its back upon the Athanasian thesis, making a prolonged excursion into dualism and turning at last towards centralised autarchy. For papalism did not remain satisfied with spiritual leadership, and, failing to distinguish between Authority and Power, the supremacy of the Pope was taken far into the temporal sphere.

This direction, pursued over generations, built up the stresses and pressures which prefaced the 'Reformation'; an explosion in which papal absolutism was broken into fragments which, Sysyphean, sprang to the same monopolistic ideal (e.g. in Henry VIII of England and Phillip II of Spain).
With this catastrophe, the controversy between the protagonists of Pope and Emperor ceased to be a focal issue. The prolonged endeavour to force action which was against the nature of reality shattered the polity in which it existed, as in the end it will shatter any polity in which it is tolerated.

Rejection of the tripodal (trinitarian) framework - the only framework which fits man and society into the universe - has, in its later course, exalted 'Totalitarianism', 'Communism', and now an oncoming Luciferianism salutes and summons the 'Atomic Age'.

Conjunction of Authority and Power made apparent the third member of the political triad:

The most significant and fruitful facet of this historical perspective is that, despite the following of many false trails, the trinitarian idea was not to be always or completely denied, as is to be seen in the unfolding of the English constitution.

The formative period was in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when English law was administered by the ablest and best men of the Kingdom; it was then that the emerging principles of Common Law were being shaped, Canon Law performing the function of a bridge connecting legal process with ethical and theological discussion.
During that period, the argument between the Papacy and the Empire was mainly dualistic (it was certainly not trinitarian) and yet in England at that time the conjunction of Authority and Power made apparent the third member of the Political Triad - the Common Law with all that followed it.

Directional inspiration plus executive action only exist by virtue of their issue, or content. THE THREE ARE ONE. In use they can and must be distinguished, but they can never be separated.

King John failed in this. He did not distinguish but tried to combine Authority, Power and Law in his own person; and, in this violation of well-understood but largely unformulated principles, he brought the constitutional issue to a head.
The Barons at Runnymede may not have realised fully the part they played: but they played it. They stood as an embodiment of the people of England, all England; the outcome and incarnation of the inter-locking activities of Church, King, and People; and their purpose was to bring the King to recognise his limitations in this threefold structure by the implementation of the rights of the other parties. Magna Carta was the sign and confirmation of this.

It was a truly English document, containing neither explanations, argument nor reasoning. Of the seventy-nine clauses it contains, only five are in abstract terms; four are administrative; seven lay down sanctions and the other sixty-three directly concern the settlement of specific cases.
It is a lesson in what not to say. These decisions fixed established custom, binding the law back to then current usage.
Upon ground so secured was cultivated a comprehensive organism of many parts which sustained the King's Justice, Canon Law and the Common Law including in the Inns of Court, virtually a university.
For more than three-hundred years this organic relationship developed, reaching its climax in the life and person of Sir Thomas More. The thread of this fruitful continuity was broken by Henry VIII whose absolutist ambition and determination to transcend the law, which More resisted, led to the great Chancellor's execution in 1535. With his death, the Law Reports which were a continuous record of the being and becoming of the Law, fluctuated and then ceased.

It is true to say that the English people with their customs, characteristics and achievements sprang out of and exist because of the adequacy of this trinitarian setting - though something was lacking or we should have it yet.
In 1535, the current induced by these conditions was immensely strong and neither Henry nor Cromwell and their like could do more than check or divert the flow. But the tide had turned.

The disruption of the Common Law and the undermining of the Constitution has taken another three or four hundred years, and still continues, as has been shown by such distinguished lawyers as Lord Acton and Lord Hewart. Major Douglas summed it up " ... we now have the merest shell of a Constitution, Single Chamber Government dominated by Cartels and Trade Unions".

Constitutionalism must have a relation to the Universe

Consider then these signposts of the past: the Gospels, the Athanasian Creed and Magna Carta. Although so widely different in content and expression each is a crystallisation of the same policy, which has become history. It is this history which we must cultivate; Christian charity (caritas) in which to live and grow, Athanasian (Greek) penetration of reality as the guide to growth, and British determination to secure results.
These also are one in our Constitution but that Constitution has been crippled and made impotent. For its restoration, another crystallisation of policy is needed.

In the opinion of Douglas:

· "Constitutionalism must be organic; it must have a relation to the Universe.
· "…the restoration of the supremacy of Common Law, the removal of encroachments upon it, and the establishment of the principle that legislation by the House of Commons impinging upon it is ultra vires is an urgent necessity.
· "It is necessary to provide individuals, as individuals, not collectively, with much more opportunity to judge political matters by results, and to be able to reject, individually and not collectively, policies they do not like…"
· To crystallise these directives into history is to bring substance to things hoped for and to provide evidence of things to come: it is the establishment of the threefold Constitution as a production unit of truth and freedom.

Acknowledgements are made to the following sources:

Medieval Popalism by Walter Ullman, J.U.D., F.R. Hist. S.;
Christian Philosophy in the Common Law by Richard O'Sullivan. K.C.;
Realistic Constitutionalism by C.H. Douglas.


Wall-to-wall republican governments

Source: Taken from An Opinion Column from the national convenor of


Kevin Rudd may well have inadvertently made the prospect of a one party nation an issue in the coming election.

What is disturbing is not the prospect of wall-to-wall Labor governments. Rather, it is the prospect of wall-to-wall governments firmly committed to fundamental constitutional change the people have clearly rejected. Of the major parties only Labor is so committed. Although founded by that great constitutional monarchist, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, the Liberals have somehow managed to make this a conscience issue, while the Nationals remain solidly monarchist.

The consequence is that even with a republican prime minister,the Coalition will be divided and not vote as a bloc. On the other hand, it is doubtful that the monarchists in the Labor Party would be allowed a free vote. Rather, it is likely thatthey would be compelled to follow the party line.

In this context, Kevin Rudd's recent intervention in support of a republic was as unexpected as it was unwise. He clearly has not done his homework on the question. How else can would this conservative Labor politician observe that he is "relatively relaxed" about the prospect of a republic in which the president is chosen by the electorate? No other conservative politician of any standing is. This statement was reckless.
Equally unprofessional is the Labor Party's continued outsourcing of the detail of this issue to the declining republican movement.
This is even more curious when it is remembered the movement is headed by a Liberal candidate in the coming election.

More importantly, by his introduction of the republican issue into the electoral debate Mr. Rudd has raised to theforeground the fact that since 1986, the powers of the state and federal parliaments acting together seem to be absolute and without limit.

It is not so much that they can they raise the GST - the Federal Parliament could do this alone if it so wished, just as it could
change the Flag without a popular vote. Mr. Keating and Mr.Beasley planned to do precisely this before they lost office, and
Mr Howard's subsequent amendment to the Flag Act could be repealed by a determined government with the numbers and the
requisite discipline.

Our seven parliaments acting together could, on the very best legal advice available, not only bring in any sort of republic
without a referendum, it could also abolish the Senate, turn the states into regions, extend the terms of the politicians to five
or seven years or more, subvert the judiciary and gag the media.

Only a determined High Court could stop this, and there is no guarantee of that. Now no one is saying they are going to all or
even any of this. But by raising the prospect of change to some sort of republic, Mr Rudd has handed control of the introduction of this issue to his opponents.Once it is on the agenda, the electorate may begin to wonder whether any party should have this power. They may ask
whether the temptation to do something will be too strong?

Would the parliaments ignore the peoples' will as, say, the Queensland Parliament once did over the abolition of the upper house?.