IN A LEAGUE
OF HIS OWNby James Reed
The day that
I had dreaded had arrived: a phone call from Adelaide from Mrs. Betty Luks telling
me that the great League of Rights man, Eric Butler was dead. There is a strange
sadness which comes from the passing of a truly great person, a sadness quite
unlike the passing of a loved one. It is a sense that someone has sacrificed so
much, who fought the good fight so hard, is no longer here and that the torch
has now been passed on to us. Eric Butler,
following in the footsteps of another great man, Major Clifford Hugh Douglas,
saw Western Christian civilisation as under threat. The forces of darkness and
decay manifested in various forms throughout the 20th century, and of course,
today. But in general the threats were made against the freedom of the individual
and the fundamental Christian values which brought forth the philosophy, art,
law and culture of the West. Whether the forces of decay, decadence and despair
went under the name of communism or feminism - or today, the more trendy globalism
- the goal is the same - our enslavement and ultimate elimination from the face
of the earth. Major Douglas saw this threat
and so did Eric Butler. The social credit tradition sought, and still does strive,
to oppose the levelling, culture-crunching effects of globalisation by giving
the alternative vision of the economy which preserves sanity. Social Credit though
is more than just an economic theory - it is a world view or coherent philosophy
of life. Douglas said this, but the tremendous
achievement of Eric D. Butler, which I believe rightfully, gives him credit to
being a leading world public intellectual, is that Eric breathed life, real life
into social credit. Whether it be the everyday event, or the historically spectacular,
Eric in his insightful writings clearly and thoughtfully gave a social credit-based
account of this reality. His approach to life and thought was one of earthy, pragmatic,
realism - shorn of the nonsense and snobbery that comes with a university education.
A far better, more valuable education was the university of life, which was Eric's
teacher. Thus as a young man he rode his bike
countless miles to speak with people at various meetings. Through tireless practice
he developed a remarkable oration ability. It was truly a pleasure to listen to
Eric Butler give a speech. The ability to literally spell-bind audiences with
thoughtful, searching and insightful speeches that precisely nailed down the real
issues with no fuss and bother always impressed me. Listening to Eric speak on
tape is of course magic, but having been there at the time, the real magic was
to see the great man in action. Eric Butler
was a public speaker of the highest calibre because he was an intellect of the
highest calibre. By this I don't mean in any narrow IQ sense: I mean in a real
life experience sense. Over lunch with him one day in Melbourne I was on about
my pet theme of the rise of feminism and the decline of manhood. He addressed
my meandering remarks with a story about his youth. He said that as a young man
he used to go to the bush and work with a farmer lugging bags of wheat on to a
truck. How many young blokes today could do that he asked? A simple homespun truth
captured a profound philosophical truth about our plight. Eric
has left me a hundred stories like that, that will be with me until my time comes.
I could go on and on for pages in praise of Eric Butler. But in a few concluding
remarks I will merely say that the spirit of this good, courageous champion of
that which is right and noble will remain as a living inspiration for those who
love freedom and truth. Goodbye,
dear, dear friend - it was an honour to have known you.
Requiescant in
pace |
A KNIGHT
OF THE SPIRIT by Betty Luks
The great
man Eric Butler aged 90 years has passed away. All his friends are sad at his
passing, but there is also a great appreciation for having known the man. The
question I ask at his passing: "What difference did my association with Eric Butler
make to my life? For myself, he was instrumental
in changing the direction of my life, revealing aspects of the Christian faith
I had never thought of, and helping me understand some aspects of the social credit
vision as first articulated by Clifford Hugh Douglas.
But, most of all, his
work and life challenged me to look closer and deeper to the teachings of Christ
and the influence of the Christian Faith on the stream of history from whence
we come - the British stream of history. From
early youth Eric had read all the known historians but it was the work of Clifford
Hugh Douglas that stimulated him to search for a more realistic approach to history.
"History," wrote Douglas "is crystallised politics. History is not just a series
of disconnected episodes concerning the birth of kings, wars and other events";
and "the policies are the manifestations of underlying philosophies." [1]
Douglas' writings prompted Butler to study the importance of the underlying
philosophy of the Christian Faith. Douglas had insisted we must all get a right
relationship between "the mind and things". Douglas had outlined policies of a
realistic Christian Faith, stemming from the philosophy inherent in Christ's teachings
as recorded in the New Testament. Reality
is all One Piece, both the things seen and unseen:
Too many people thought
the League, and Eric Butler in particular, had made a cult figure of Clifford
Hugh Douglas. That is because they couldn't - or wouldn't - grasp the truth, the
glimpses of Truth, to which Douglas directed them.
L.D. Byrne, a colleague
of Clifford Douglas could write: "Divine Authority is manifested in Divine or
Natural Law, the law which governs Creation - the law to which the stars and planets
are obedient, the Law which governs all forms of life, the structure of matter
and the nature and behaviour of light. Man endowed with free will must seek and
conform to that Law - that Canon of Rightness as the late Major Douglas described
it - if he wishes to achieve harmony within the environment in which he
finds himself, both in personal life and in the society which he creates." Man
is free to ignore or flout the Divine Law and thereby cuts himself off from God
and elevates to the focal point in his life his own object of worship - be it
power, race, wealth - there are many gods in this day and age. Butler saw these
truths and spent the rest of his life warning his fellow Australian:
Whether
from his own choosing or by default, he "brings disaster upon himself because
he has alienated himself from the source of Life and Creation and laid himself
open to the destructive forces of Evil. The evidence of this is provided by the
growing chaos of our time." [2] An
appalling conceit:
Many a time when I accompanied Eric on a speaking tour,
I observed whilst seated in the audience, the teacher, the lawyer, the politician
and/or the journalist sneeringly pooh-hoohing his words and warnings. They, in
their incredulous conceit could not accept that we, as Australians, were flouting
this Canon of Rightness, and were on a road to disaster. Who, in fact, wanted
God? They were educated persons. Messages
are now pouring in acknowledging the passing of Eric Butler and his lifetime's
work, including many from within what is broadly termed 'the freedom movement'.
There are those who promote an 'Australian nationalism', 'monetary reform', 'a
sovereign Australia', etc., but have not yet grasped the breadth and depth of
Christian spiritual understanding from which Eric Butler was 'drinking'. I can
only encourage them to look closer and deeper. An
'Australian nationalism' could mean anything from National Socialism to a nation
controlled by Monopoly Capitalism. There are many varieties of 'Monetary reform'
circulating around the world, but not necessarily based on Douglas's proposals
and with his underlying Christian beliefs and philosophy.
Just as was written
of Douglas, the same is true of Butler:
"Douglas's attitude toward the
relationship of the individual to the group is based, both implicitly and explicitly,
on a Christian anthology…The individual soul is the substantial reality…the association
is merely the doing of something by individuals." [3] To
Whom much is given… much is required…
I did not see Eric Dudley Butler
as a 'saint', in fact, at times he was quite an 'abrasive' personality and in
his younger days did not suffer fools gladly - but mellowed over the years. And
no one else but his wife Elma could have kept up with the demands made by his
lifestyle. I saw him as a great man because he had remained faithful to those
small portions of the greater Truth stemming from Christ's teachings. Douglas,
having 'glimpsed those small portions', explained in finer detail for those who
were hungry to know. Douglas referred to them as belonging to the "Canon
of Rightness" inherent within Creation. (We were told, "Heaven and earth
will pass away, but My words will never pass away.")
Eric, having grasped
the revelation of Douglas, spent the rest of his life traipsing around this great
wide land, first by bicycle, then motor bike, then later in his trusty battered
Toyota Crown car, always encouraging his fellow Australian to seek those truths
- and apply them.
By his words "I am going to save Australia" I
understand it to mean: 'to help make Australia whole(some)'.
I finish with Eric's own words:
"Christianity's alleged failure is that of
individuals who failed to grasp the message of real freedom which Christ brought
and to take Christ's advice. The genius of Douglas enabled him to present the
true nature of both democracy and Christianity. Douglas provided the key to the
door which must be opened to enable the individual to enter the kingdom. But that
key must be turned by the individual with the knowledge and the will to do so.
The future of Christianity now depends upon those who have grasped the Truths
- the glimpse of Reality - dis(un)covered and presented by Douglas."
References:
[1] "Releasing Reality," by Eric Butler 1979.
[2]
"The Sword of the Spirit," by L.D. Byrne 1973.
[3] Essay
- "Power and Freedom" by Michael Lane 1999. |
THE DIGNITY AND THE DISMALby
Nigel Jackson
Further Notes in Defence of our Monarchy It
is a commonplace of political commentary that, as regards constitutional change
in Australia, most citizens do not place a high priority on resolving the debate
between monarchists and republicans. Despite this, an apparent alliance between
Big Business, Big Politics and Big Media seems determined to force a republic
on Australia, regardless of the fairly decisive result of the 1999 referendum,
and regardless of the interests of most Australians. Their most frequent mantra
is that an Australian republic is 'inevitable'. As this was chanted repeatedly
before the 1999 referendum in vain, it has lost a little bit of its persuasive
gloss; but it is still being regularly announced in the major media, no doubt
in an attempt to hypnotise uncommitted folk and dispirit fringe monarchists.
Something
that suggests, however, that the Big Republican Alliance (BRA) is not really so
confident is the fact that major newspapers like The Australian and The
Age, avowedly republican, continue, as before, to publish a disproportionate
number of opinion articles favouring a republic. One suspects that the BRA is
well aware that the monarchists possess superior arguments and that loss of the
Australian Crown is not in the interests of most Australians. A level playing
field on the opinion pages of our major dailies would soon make this embarrassingly
obvious to a sufficient number of citizens to stymie republicanism in the next
referendum - one which the BRA can hardly afford to lose (as denying a double
rejection of a republic and calling for a third referendum within a short period
of time might seem too brazen to too many ordinary Australians and lead to the
asking of very awkward questions indeed).
The eightieth birthday of Her Majesty
the Queen was an ideal time for the major media to show magnanimity by inviting
monarchist spokespeople to contribute opinion articles celebrating not only Her
Majesty's long and illustrious life but also the institution of the Australian
Crown. Both The Australian and The Age (in Melbourne) muffed the
opportunity. Not only that, each published attacks on the Queen! Nothing shows
more clearly the wilful bias of our pro-republican major media; and nothing has
declared more obviously the inherent pusillanimity of republicanism itself. For
monarchy and republicanism are not two options of equal moral and spiritual weight.
They represent fundamentally different beliefs about the nature of Man and the
universe within which he lives.
Thus, in defending the Crown, monarchists
are supporting not only a superior constitutional structure but a truer understanding
of human nature and destiny. Hereditary monarchy is a hierarchical social and
political organisation in which authority comes down from God, through the Monarch
and his or her sacred vows during the coronation ceremony, to the subjects of
the realm. These subjects, therefore, have a constant reminder and encouragement
to lift their own gaze upwards to the Monarch and to God above. Republicanism
usurps divine and royal authority by seductively offering power to the people
(an analogous seduction to that of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden). It pretends
to be democratic but in fact is the tool of elites bent upon the selfish assumption
to themselves of power, wealth and worldly prestige. II
In The Age on the eve of Her Majesty's birthday (20th April) Graham
Smith, campaign co-ordinator for Republic, the UK movement for an elected head
of state, wrote under the headline 'The Queen should abdicate'. Smith falsely
asserted that it is unacceptable for H. R. H. the Prince of Wales to assume some
of the duties of Her Majesty. Smith depended on a ludicrous comparison of this
situation with a prime minister passing part of his work to his son. Constitutional
monarchy, of course, being based on heredity (one of its strengths), is fundamentally
different from the roles of elected presidents and prime ministers. It is appropriate
for Prince Charles to represent his mother more often, since the experience will
better fit him to rule when (God willing) his own reign comes.
Smith also
objected to the alleged lack of political impartiality of Prince Charles. Here
he was foolishly confusing two very different royal roles. A Prince of Wales has
a freedom to speak which the Monarch does not. Prince Charles has proved through
his many spirited and adroit public speeches to be one of the most articulate
Princes of Wales in British history; but it can be confidently assumed that he
will adopt a different approach to state affairs when on the throne.
A third
canard advanced by Smith was the alleged unpopularity of the Prince. He relied
on opinion polls of dubious reliability and neglected to note that any real unpopularity
is largely a media creation dependent upon the regular circulation of misinformation.
One suspects that the BRA would like to stage coups upon Her Majesty's death to
prevent the assumption of power by an allegedly 'unpopular' Prince. The BRA has
good reason to fear the astuteness, the patriotism and the intelligent traditionalism
of Prince Charles, once he rules. As for Prince William, he currently draws to
himself enormous popular good will, which will be hard for the BRA spin doctors
to erode, so long as he avoids mistakes. The millennium was thought to be one
possible point of entry for republicanism; the transition from Her Majesty to
her successor is perceived as another, after which there may be no similar advantageous
moment for half a century or more.
Desperate for arguments, Smith even resorted
to the suggestion that former Crown dominions like Australia (which are still
fundamentally British in make-up and nature) should follow the lead of Caribbean
members of the Commonwealth in ditching the monarchy when Her Majesty dies! As
though lions should copy mice!
Smith was no doubt correct in stating that
'an Australian republic would give a huge boost to the British republican movement.'
There, surely, is the real motivation of his tirade - and of the BRA attempt to
destroy the Australian Crown. First us; later the British Crown. And why? Population
control by unrepresentative and semi-secret rich elites is almost certainly the
true answer. III
In The Australian
on Her Majesty's birthday (21st April) Barry Everingham (a republican obsessive)
published an astonishing attack on the Queen over her alleged behaviour at the
time of the death of Princess Diana.
This was roundly rebutted in the Letters
column (22nd-23rd April) by one Mark McGinness, writing from Dubai in the United
Arab Emirates. McGinness pointed out that Her Majesty had behaved magnanimously
at the time by at once ordering that a plane be sent to Paris with the Prince
of Wales, that the body of the Princess lie in state in the Chapel Royal and that
there be a full state funeral. No attempt to rebut McGinness has yet appeared
(29th April, at the time of writing).
The Age published a letter by
one Alan Lawler of Fairfield (22nd April) who rightly chastised the ungraciousness
of Smith's article. However, Lawler stated that he is 'a lifelong republican'
and later added: 'That Australia should become a republic with an Australian head
of state appointed - and removed - with a two-thirds majority vote of both houses
of Parliament is a foregone conclusion that John Howard is simply delaying.' The
Age undoubtedly received strong responses from monarchists to Smith's article,
but none of any substantial length was published.
Later, however, The Age
published an opinion article at least partially sympathetic to monarchy ('The
monarchy is a soap opera, and that's its strength' by Aron Paul, 27th April).
Paul is a politics tutor at La Trobe University who is writing a book about Australians'
relationship with royalty. It was not possible from his piece to determine whether
he is a monarchist or a republican, but I suspect the latter - in which case its
publication (with its anti-royalist headline) is a flyer for another pro-republican
work.
Paul pointed out that republicans are politically unwise 'to use the
unpopularity of individual royals to advance their cause' and 'to peg their sails
to the rhetoric of "an ageing Queen with an unpopular successor" '. He provided
a series of reasons why in Britain the transition from Her Majesty to her heir
is likely to receive strong popular acceptance. He did hold out hope to Australian
republicans by claiming that, in comparison to Britain, the monarchy has greatly
declined 'in the rituals of Australian nationhood'; and he challenged Australian
monarchists to find a means of 'symbolic renewal' of the monarchy here and a new
linking of it 'to an evolving national story'.
In conclusion, we may note
that both newspapers felt constrained to publish criticism of their ungracious
opinion articles in their letter columns. They do not appear to have changed their
practice of largely omitting opinion articles by fervent monarchists, however.
The enormous struggle to change the Australian constitution continues, and
monarchists must answer the ongoing media war of attrition against the Crown by
an active and ongoing campaign to persuade a greater number of ordinary citizens
to actively work to defend our Crown. Perhaps each monarchist reading this
article may care to send copies of it to five or ten fellow-citizens - and perhaps
his or her members of Parliament. |
FABIAN
REPUBLICANISM : BEWARE!by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The latest strategy of the republicans is to have up to three indicative referenda
prior to the holding of a constitutional referendum under section 128.
The
first referendum poses the question of whether voters "wish to replace the Monarch
of the United Kingdom with an Australian head of state". The second referendum
will ask whether voters approve a codification of the powers of the head of state
and the third referendum will canvas methods of choosing and dismissing a head
of state.
Notice that the first referendum question simply begs the question
against Constitutional Monarchists who claim (rightly I believe) that the Queen
is an Australian 'head of state'. As well, other Constitutional Monarchists claim
(also rightly) that we do have an Australian head of state : the Governor General.
The Australian system has two heads of state ; the Governor General when the
Queen is not here in Australia and when the Queen is in Australia, the Queen is
the Queen of Australia. The Queen is essentially the symbolic head of State whilst
the Governor General is the effective head of state. In any case, the Monarch
of the United Kingdom is not the Monarch of Australia : only the Monarch of Australia
is - and, we already have an Australian head of state. The
Fabian strategy of the inevitableness of gradualism has worked well for the globalists
in their strategy to turn Australia, racially and ethnically into an Asian nation,
and ultimately a colony of China, with, in the longer term, a Chinese constitution.
It is being applied by Republicans now to break down our remaining links with
Australia's past. These links must be destroyed so that Australia can be remade
anew as a Asian nation in the New World Asiatic Order.
It is ironic that republicans
yap on about Australia having a "foreign" head of state when "Australia" through
an undemocratic immigration policy has become an alien nation. FOR
A FULL COPY OF THE NEW TIMES SURVEY POSTED DIRECT TO YOU SUBSCRIBE FOR
JUST AUS$25.00 P.A. |
