THE SPIRIT OF FREEDOM

by Betty Luks
Politicians are constantly referring to the 'democracy' they wish to impose upon us - a 'democracy' never defined but constantly aimed for. For those who do not know British-Christian history; a history which has been 'shoved down the memory hole' by modern education systems, it might come as a surprise to know that that which they now vaguely think of as 'democracy', is a quite different concept of the freedom of the Individual as once understood.
Clifford Hugh Douglas wrote that stripped of all the variables, there were really only two philosophies in the world. One claims that all power and authority (from God) comes from within each and every individual. "The Kingdom of God is within you.". This was the Christian basis of social development. The other philosophy claims that all power and authority comes from some place else; it could be the Party, the State, the Money Power, Big Business or even the Church, etc.

Writing over one hundred years ago in "The Affirmative Intellect", Charles Ferguson who well understood the vision the Christian Church of old had sown within the souls of men, could proclaim: "The social ideal of the modern world was born out of the bosom of the Church… for the quintessence of the old Catholicism was simply the attempt to establish a great social order, not by external authority and the compromise of interests, as in the "kingdoms of the world," but through the purification and the concurrence of wills.
In the last analysis, there are but these two possible forms of social order -- there are these two opposite and contradictory conceptions of the sanction of social law. The sanction, the force of the law, is either outside of mankind or it is within. Either it is in the nature-of-things and the arbitrary will of God, or else it is the will of the people -- the heart's desire of humanity.

The idea that the will of the people could be the source of social law was born into the world with great travail. It was for ages difficult, even impossible, to conceive such an idea. The wills of the people seemed so shallow and weak, or else so irrational and contradictory. But Christianity is the discovery of the infinite depth of the human will. And so for nearly two thousand years it has been possible to imagine that a multitude of men … might be brought to desire and to will, with steady insistence, things that are beautiful and just. The Church of the Middle Ages stood as a provisional plan of such a social system.

In the midst of a world-order based upon an opposite principle of the external law - the Church wrought into concrete forms and the solid structures of institutions, the democratic ideal. It was a marvellous achievement -- this magnificent rough-sketching of a new world in the oppugnant materials of the old. In the sixteenth century the idea of the social law as proceeding from the sanified and consentaneous wills of the people was fairly born into the secular world.
The Church had poured its vital store into the lap of the nations. It had breathed out its very soul of liberty in the breath of the modern spirit. And for four hundred years democracy has wrestled for the spiritual order -- for the sovereignty of the human ideal -- in the open arena of the secular world..."
With such an understanding of the Christian revelation Ferguson could declare: "If there be only a God of Sinai and no God of the Soul of Man, certainly we are in a way to find it out with cost…"

THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT AND THE TRUTH

by Betty Luks
I am always grateful for the ground-breaking work of those who went before us in the League and Social Credit movements, and the legacies they left us - especially their record of what was happening at the time in their own field of endeavour, e.g., politics, religion, education, etc.
Geoffrey Dobbs' words of warning in "What is Social Credit," came to mind whilst reading Kevin Donnelly's new book, "Why Our Schools Are Failing".
Geoffrey insisted it is necessary to go deeper than the surface of politics as seen in the Party contest and to realise that the Left-Right confrontation is itself an essential part of a policy of division and conflict. We must always keep in mind the World Revolution is being worked out in stages in the English-speaking world. Geoffrey reminded his readers the terms Left and Right in the political sense had a revolutionary origin, which is still implicit in its current usage, though the origins have now been lost to view.

After the French Revolution the legislative assemblies in France and elsewhere were seated in a semi-circular arrangement, the more enthusiastic vanguard of the revolution being on the Left, the more solid, critical and cautious rearguard on the Right - but all were revolutionaries, or at least had to go along with the revolution. No one opposed to the revolution, even if he survived and was left at large, could take any part in the Government; any more than could the Monarchists in republican France, or the pro-Shah party in Iran, or the pro-Hussein party at present in Iraq.
"That," says Geoffrey, "is what revolutions are about: the total elimination of the Ancien Regime and its traditions, making an impassable gulf with the past."

The Menzies Research Centre holds the copyright to Mr. Donnelly's book, and republican Malcolm Turnbull has written a foreword in which he expresses the concern so many parents would identify with, the concern about the politically-correct, dumbed-down academic standards observed throughout government schools today. It sent me back to the work of former Victorian teacher and writer Jean Wallis. Jean was sounding the warning bells in 1984 in "Chaos in the Classroom", and then again with her updated "The Disaster Road", published in 1986. She wanted to alert Australian parents to the revolution then taking place in the schools, a revolution already preparing the children for the New World Order.

'Conservatives' were in power
Much to my astonishment, Mr. Donnelly, in 2004, thinks the problem originated with the Left-wing of politics. But a little calculation soon reinforced my belief that the forces for the revolution were set in motion within Australia when the so-called 'conservatives' were in power.
After WWII, the 'conservatives' dominated federal politics for many a long year, and were responsible for firmly setting within Australia's education systems, the United Nations' UNESCO agenda. The Commonwealth Government, not the States' Governments would have sent Australia's first representatives to the United Nations to attend the international UNESCO meetings around 1948.

Jean Wallis referred to Dr. Alan Barcan, Associate Professor of Education, University of Newcastle, NSW, who in 1971 had sounded the alarm:
Changing Educational Objectives in Australian Schools:
"In the last few years a startling change has come over the curriculum of studies in Australian schools. This change involves changes in educational objectives and changes in the quality of education, but it also has implications extending beyond education and involving deep-rooted elements in our cultural traditions.

The Fabian Socialists with their leader Gough Whitlam didn't come to power till 1972, and even then only till 1975! It was 1983 before they regained control of power. But for most of the time when the changes to our education system were taking place, a 'conservative' federal government was in power in Australia. If they were so concerned about the 'startling changes' that had 'come over the curriculum of studies in Australian schools' which 'extended beyond education' and involved 'deep-rooted elements in our cultural traditions', why weren't they sounding the alarm bells to the Australian people? They weren't 'concerned', because they too were becoming internationalists as well as centralists, but worked more by stealth than openly.

The idea and plans for the destruction of the Ancien Regime of Western Christian Civilisation and the setting up of a New World Order go back a long, long way.

THE BENCHMARK TESTS

In 1996, concerned about the failed academic standards, the then federal education minister, David Kemp, introduced the benchmarked tests for Year 3 and 5 students. But, according to Alan Robson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of West Australia, pressure to achieve academic success has led some primary schools to ban poor performers from sitting the tests. (The Australian 1st June 2004.)
Prof. Robson said he knew of a small number of schools that had moved to bolster their test results by advising some of their poorest performers to stay at home on the day of national literacy tests.

We don't know whether the good professor has any better solutions to the struggling education system -- after all, he must also be a product of that very system -- but we also wonder about John Howard. Politically, John Howard is an internationalist and a centralist; he may pay lip service to our two-thousand years of tradition and culture but his actions have spoken louder. For Australians to understand just how far we have been taken down the road to the New World Order, Jean Wallis' 1986 book, "The Disaster Road" needs to be read along with Kevin Donnelly's new book, "Why Our Schools Are Failing". Younger Australians will then begin to understand for themselves just what a fundamental philosophical change took place in education all those years ago, the results of which they are the 'fruit'.

WE ARE GOING FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO DEBT

Politicians would have us believe that under the present financial debt-system, we are more successful when, as a sovereign nation, instead of creating and managing our own money system, we borrow more and more money from overseas' sources, and as our debts go higher and higher, we are supposed to believe, we are more and more successful.

David Uren, Economics correspondent for The Australian 2nd June, 2004 wrote: "Australia's current account deficit climbed to $12 billion in the first three months of the year. The current account, which captures trade in goods, services and investment income, shows we spent $52.4 billion on total imports, but earnings from all exports reached only $40.4 billion. The gap was largely covered with $7.7 billion in net borrowing from overseas, with the result being that the foreign debt climbed to a record $373.8 billion. The current account deficit was equivalent to 6.1 per cent of Australia's GDP, the highest level ever recorded.
Although the deficit suggests that Australia's economy is still growing rapidly, the Reserve Bank board, which met yesterday, was considered certain to hold interest rates steadily.

Treasurer Peter Costello said the deficit was the result of strong growth in imports, which were consistent with a strongly growing economy. With demand slowing domestically and the world economy picking up, those figures should improve, he said. He confirmed the deficit would subtract 1.3 percentage points from GDP growth for the March quarter, which is released today.
Labor treasury spokesman, Simon Crean said Australia's economic credibility was being eroded by the record foreign debt and a current account deficit that now had been over $10 billion for six consecutive quarters. "The figures mean that economic growth is still being driven off the credit card, not net exports," he said.
(What would Simon Crean have us do? Does be really believe if we export more and more and import less and less, we would, in reality, be richer and richer?)

THE GROUND CERTAINLY HAS 'SHIFTED'

The following copy of an editorial in the American Jewish paper "Forward" is of interest to students of Jewish power and influence in that country.
C.H. Douglas once wrote along the lines that the setting up of the state of Israel would eventually prove a 'mistake'. People would observe the direct outworking of the Jewish philosophy… the philosophy of the 'one-way street'. No longer is the 'antisemite' smear working for them and they are having to rethink their strategy. Here is another powerful group unhappy that George Bush has 'botched the job' in Iraq. Calling it a war for Israel gaining legitimacy...Not anti-Semitic...

The Ground Shifts" May 28, 2004
https://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=200405271238
The ground shifted this week, subtly but critically, in the ongoing debate over the role of Israel in America's Iraq policy, one more step in the growing insecurity facing Jews and the Jewish state in the wake of the Iraq war. As recently as a week ago, reasonable people still could dismiss as antisemitic conspiracy mongering the claim that Israel's security was the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq. No longer. The allegation has now moved from the fringes into the mainstream. Its advocates can no longer simply be shushed or dismissed as bigots. Those who disagree must now argue the case on the merits.

What changed this week, most importantly, was the entry into the debate of the very respectable Anthony Zinni, the retired Marine general and former Middle East mediator. Appearing on CBS News' "60 Minutes" last Sunday, Zinni said it was "the worst-kept secret in Washington" that a group of neoconservative thinkers had pushed for invading Iraq in order to make the Middle East more democratic - and safer for Israel. "Everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do," Zinni said. And in saying it, he changed the terms of the debate. He is not one to be waved off.

Saying Zinni has a right to his views is not the same as saying he's right. For our money, the idea that a small group of bureaucrats and ideologues effectively hijacked American policy and cooked up a war is simplistic. Those who sought to topple Saddam Hussein believed he was a threat both to Israel and to America. Nobody was more committed to removing that threat than George Bush. Whatever else may be said of Bush, he has a clear vision of the world - perhaps too clear - and he has been consistent in acting on it. He may be driving America's ship of state "over Niagara Falls," as Zinni put it, but he's doing it with his eyes open.

The notion that invading Iraq was a neoconservative scheme, foisted on American policy-makers for Israel's benefit, has been simmering just beyond the borders of acceptable politics since the Bush administration began visibly preparing for war in the winter of 2003. Though popular in Europe, the notion was articulated in this country mainly by long-time critics of Israel who could easily be dismissed as conspiracy theorists. The Israel link was mentioned repeatedly in the major media - "Meet the Press," the Washington Post - as an idea that was in play, but virtually no mainstream figure would admit to believing it.
Most of America took the administration at its word that the drive to war was motivated - rightly or wrongly - by a belief that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction and had ties to Al Qaeda. And here is the other shift in the debate. The collapse of the two main justifications for war - the weapons and the Al Qaeda link - has left Middle East democratisation as the one believable motive. Once that was established, it was only a matter of time before the Israel question resurfaced.

Zinni is the second major Washington figure to make the accusation publicly this month. Senator Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat with an unfortunate history of ethnic slurs, said much the same thing in a newspaper essay May 6 and was roundly attacked for it. Both the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee accused him of resurrecting age-old "Jewish conspiracy" myths and demanded that he retract his statement. Instead, Hollings rose on the floor of the Senate on May 20, and repeated his charge.

Zinni went public the following Sunday. He didn't have the bully pulpit of the U.S. Senate, but he had something at least as powerful: credibility. A genuine Pentagon star, Zinni is a former chief of the U.S. Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. He also served as President Bush's special Middle East envoy in the winter of 2002 and 2003, overseeing Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy during the months that Washington was preparing for war in Iraq. He's not merely theorizing about how American policy was formed; he was there.

The truth is, of course, that Zinni is partly right - but only partly. Securing Israel was one of the war hawks' motives, but not the only one, probably not even the main one. Saddam's regime genuinely threatened the stability of the region, as the United Nations Security Council had unanimously agreed the previous fall. Other threats were growing in seriousness, not least Al Qaeda, which had struck in September 2001 and was seeking to expand its reach. Then, too, the ideological predilections of the Bush administration - particularly its moral absolutism and its suspicion of international agreements - hampered its ability to interpret these threats and shape an effective response.

More than any other, it is that last factor - the administration's unilateralism - that has most coloured perceptions of Israel over the past year. By going to war before he had exhausted all diplomatic options, by failing to assemble a genuinely international coalition, by failing to line up moderate Arab support as his father did in 1991, Bush set in motion a catastrophic chain of events that has left the world less stable than it was before. The threat of terrorism has increased, not declined. Movements that were separate and distinct before the war - Iraqi Baathism, Al Qaeda fundamentalism, Palestinian nationalism - are making common cause more than ever, becoming the global threat that we had imagined them to be. Jewish institutions around the world have been forced to fortify themselves like military installations. And in the midst of all this stands America - alone against much of the world - with Israel by its side, more alone and threatened than it was before.

Rep. Nita Lowey told the Forward this week that because of Bush's policies, Jews are less safe than they were. Stating that fact doesn't lessen the responsibility of those who threaten and attack Jews. It merely acknowledges the staggering ineptitude of the administration in meeting those threats. Bush surely didn't mean to make things worse, but that's what he did. And now the greatest irony: As Americans become bitter over these catastrophic events, they may yet vent their anger on the oldest scapegoat of all.
The line between legitimate debate and scapegoating is a fine one. Friends of Israel will be tempted to guard that line by labelling as antisemites those who threaten to cross it. They already have begun to do so. But it is a mistake.

Israel and its allies stand accused of manipulating America's public debate for their own purposes. If they were to succeed in suppressing debate to protect themselves, it only would prove the point. Better to follow the democratic path: If there is bad speech, the best reply is more speech. Besides, the fight already may have been lost. Exposing antisemites can be an effective weapon when it succeeds in shaming the bigots, or isolating them. These days, as we learned from Mel Gibson, those who stand accused of antisemitism seem increasingly able to portray themselves as victims - as Hollings and Zinni already have done.
It is not Israel's enemies but its friends that are isolated. That's another thing that's changed. If this was a war to protect Israel, then heaven shield us from our protectors."

LAW PROFESSORS WANT TO CALL US EXECUTIVE TO ACCOUNT

As reported in last week's O.T. it would appear the CIA has launched a coup against Bush and his cronies. Mark Ruppert, editor of FromtheWilderness.com claimed the CIA coup has "become an urgent priority as a number of deepening global crises 'threaten their master's interests'." The following article appears to back up the claim.

"Harvard Law Professors Urge Congress to Review Interrogation Policy and Hold Executive Branch Accountable," Harvard Law School News, 16th June 2004:
A group of more than 450 professors of law, international relations, and public policy - led by Harvard Law School faculty members - today sent a letter calling on the US Congress to hold accountable, through impeachment and removal if appropriate, civilian officials from the top of the Executive Branch on down for policies developed at high levels that have facilitated the recent abuses at Abu Ghraib. The letter also calls on Congress to take primary responsibility for any policy on 'coercive interrogation' employed by the United States.

In asking Congress to assess Executive Branch accountability, the letter says: "a growing body of evidence indicates that the abuses practiced on detainees under American control are the consequence of policies developed at the highest levels in the months and years immediately preceding the scandal." It argues that prosecution of lower level personnel "while necessary, is clearly insufficient."

In asking Congress to take responsibility for reviewing coercive interrogation policies and practices, the letter notes that "official U.S. policy now involves use of coercive methods that are morally questionable and that may violate international and domestic law." It further states: "....any decision to adopt a coercive interrogation policy and the definition of any such policy, if adopted, should be made within the strict confines of a democratic process.... [B]asic principles and policies regarding human rights must be defined by a representative and accountable body acting in transparent and deliberative fashion."

Elizabeth Bartholet, one of the Harvard Law professors organizing the letter effort, stated: "The letter arose out of our concern that some of the most fundamental issues raised by these abuses were getting lost in the debate. The use of torture and related extreme coercive techniques goes to the heart of our understanding of our nation, its culture and values. If we take seriously our democratic system, any decision to use such techniques must be made by Congress as the representative body, rather than by Executive Branch officials working in secrecy."

Christine Desan, another organizer, stated: "As the letter emphasises, there can be no doubt that the acts of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison constitute violations of both the domestic and international legal obligations of the U.S. and its agents. Executive Branch officials have admitted as much."
Henry Steiner, director of Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program, said: "The policies adopted and the abuses to which they led have hurt not only the immediate victims in terrible ways but also the credibility and effectiveness of our country's efforts in Iraq and elsewhere."

U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy held a press conference in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate his support for its demands. "The soldiers responsible for these atrocities need to be held accountable. But they were not responsible for setting the policy," said Kennedy. "We need to know what orders and guidelines they were given, and where those policies originated. No one should be immune to questions, including the President."

The letter has been signed by 56 law teachers at Harvard Law School, including former Dean Robert C. Clark, and Professors Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, Lani Guinier, Detlev Vagts and Frank Michelman. It has also been signed by leading experts on international relations, public policy and constitutional law across the nation…" The letter has also been signed by members of the Faculty of the Tufts University Fletcher School. It has been signed by a total of 481 members of university faculties across the nation, from more than 110 schools in 40 different states. It has been sent to all members of Congress and of the relevant Congressional committees.
The letter and the list of signers as of June 14 is available at www.iraq-letter.com
Letter sent to the United States Congress regarding recent human rights issues in Iraq."

Editor's note: But surely the Harvard Law professors don't expect us to believe they knew nothing of the CIA's policies of intimidation and terrorism around the world stretching back to the early part of the 20th century -- and more recently in East Timor?

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 'ONE-WAY STREET' -- AGAIN

The Brits are not too happy with the Yanks 'at ground level'. Rod Liddle of The Spectator 19th June, 2004 has brought up "the scandal of the new extradition arrangements that allow the US to snatch British citizens, but leave IRA men safe" in the 'good ol' US of A'. ("One law for the Americans, another for us").

When George Bush's government drew up a list of proscribed terrorist organisations, or organisations which raised funds for terrorists, Noraid, the American-based organisation which raises funds for the IRA, was notably absent - so too was the IRA. The list consisted of various murderous and wacko Peruvians and Tamils and Columbians who were found to be "personae non gratae, along with a whole bunch of Arabs, as you might expect," he wrote, but for the good ol' US of A, "Noraid and the IRA were just tickety-boo."

Mr. Liddle ponders, "…maybe it's that the US government did not wish to estrange the millions of its countrymen who, for reasons which entirely elude" him, "gain a certain sort of pleasure from pretending to be Irish and complaining loudly about 'centuries of Briddish Opprussion'."
"Or, then again," he muses, "maybe the US government just couldn't give a monkey's about terrorism carried out against its most stoical and unwavering ally. Because there's terrorism, you see - and terrorism."

Hmmm… we must look again at the groups the Howard government has proscribed. Are there any organisations which raise funds for terrorists, such as an Australian-based organisation which raises funds for the IRA" And what about the IRA, is it on the list?

Mr. Liddle's article raises some worrying questions for this country. He explains the U.K. 2003 Extradition Act with the USA "is strictly a one-way street. For the Americans there is not the slightest interest or inclination in returning to Britain people who really are fugitives from justice; people who have allegedly committed serious crimes on British soil against British interests and indeed continue to do so in exquisite safety from their stateside havens." It is only six weeks since a United States court ruled it would be unsafe to deport a man suspected of being implicated in the murder of two British soldiers at an IRA funeral. This fellow fled to the USA and is still enjoying his freedom because they don't trust the British to give him a fair trial.

"Perhaps," thought Liddle, "they are right. It is hard for us to view the IRA objectively… The countless years of the most bloody violence have been corrupting for all of us, right to the soul of our criminal justice system...." But, as he points out, that is exactly the way in which the United States is now perceived - worldwide. How does the rest of the world know that any of those now accused of 'terrorist activities' will get a fair trial in the USA? Will they be seen as 'innocent until proven guilty'? And surely that is the big question the lawyers of the two Australian detainees at Guantanamo Bay keep asking!

QUEENSLANDERS NEAR MOOLOOLABA TAKE NOTE

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB, ADELAIDE

NATIONAL WEEKEND

BOOKS, BOOKS, BOOKS

"WHY OUR SCHOOLS ARE FAILING" by Kevin Donnelly. Mr. Donnelly's book is a good read, as long as the reader is aware he approaches the subject from a neo-'conservative' Left-Right position. There is the Left, there is the Right and then there is Truth. $25.00 posted.

"THE DISASTER ROAD" by Jean Wallis. Mrs Wallis exposed the deliberate and sustained assaults on the traditional values-system that was once at the core of Australian education. Copies of this little masterpiece are still available. (Read it along with Donnelly's book.) $18.00 posted.

"CULTURE OF CRITIQUE" by Prof. Kevin MacDonald: For good measure, Prof. MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" is very helpful as an up-to-date ready-reference which traces the 20th century sources of this revolution in the western world. $65.00 posted.