26 November 2004. Thought for the Week: "The
Common Law of England is the only great system of temporal
law that came out of the Christian centuries
this there can be no doubt, that it was for the good of
the whole world that one race apart from its neighbours,
turned away its eyes at an early time from the fascinating
pages of the Corpus Juris and, more Roman than the Romanists,
made the grand experiment of a new formulatory system
Those few men who were gathered at Westminster round Patteshull
and Raleigh and Bracton were penning writs that would
run in the name of kingless commonwealths on the other
shore of the Atlantic ocean; they were making right and
wrong for us and for our children
"Christian Philosophy in the Common Law" by
Richard O'Sullivan, K.C., 1947.
"A voracious appetite for power: Only great conceit
could inspire a dream of armed world hegemony. The ideology
of benevolent American empire and global democracy dresses
up a voracious appetite for power. It signifies the ascent
to power of a new kind of American, one profoundly at
odds with that older type who aspired to modesty and self-restraint."
Conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, 2004.
FREEDOM IS A SPIRITUAL NECESSITY
by Betty Luks
Over twenty years ago, the League published an article in
its journal "The New Times", in which the organised
Christian Church was taken to task for ignoring what was happening
to our Christian civilization (Vol. 44 No. 10, October 1983).
The exceptions to this lack of interest and guidance among
the Church's leaders being those 'sheep in wolves' clothing'
who were promoting the Marxist collectivist social doctrines.
The Christian philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, had said that
the elevation of means into an end was a deadly sin; in which
case, practical Christianity requires that man's political,
social and economic activities (i.e., the means) are directed
towards serving God's purpose for man (i.e., the end). For
this purpose, freedom is a spiritual necessity, because it
permits the individual to make free choices. Without free
choices the individual is little more than an animal.
The League acknowledged it was the Christian
Church which had helped create the social and political climate
in which constitutional safeguards of the rights and freedoms
of the individual evolved, but it took the 20th century Church
to task for failing abysmally to give Christian guidance at
a time when it was most sorely needed.
A burning issue which required a Christian
How could God's abundance in the 20th century be placed at
the direct disposal of the individual? The means to this abundance
was first set in motion by the 19th century Industrial Revolution,
and further abundance "pressed down and flowing over"
by the subsequent 'bursting forth" of the Technological
and Automative Revolution. With the result, this Productive
Revolution made possible an expansion of real freedom on a
scale previously unknown and unimagined.
The distributive system
As the means of distributing this abundance in a modern 'money'
economy is the financial system, a realistic financial policy,
rooted in the Christian philosophy, was desperately needed
to counter the Marxist social doctrines. And it was the failure
to evolve a realistic financial policy which enabled the forces
of revolution to erupt into the open as a result of the First
Early Christian Church
A study of early church history reveals the leaders attempted
to heed Christ's warning that it was impossible to worship
both God and Mammon. They even had a concept of a 'just price'
as distinct from the fixing of prices by the Oriental system
of haggling in the market place, and a 'just price' was promoted.
A few even grasped the evil inherent in permitting private
individuals and/or private institutions to create a community's
money supply - and then allow them claim it as their own.
Several far-sighted church leaders were amongst the critics
opposing the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694
and the introduction of that nation's first "national
World Council of Churches filled the
But during the violent and destructive 20th century the traditional
Church tended to ignore politics - until the World Council
of Churches (WCC) was established, on the basis of a Marxist
philosophy. The tragedy was, those leading the World Council
of Churches appealed to those Christians who felt that the
Church should be doing something practical about the plight
of the world. The WCC with its underlying Marxist philosophy
cleverly filled the vacuum.
Failure to promote and defend 'free
During the Great Depression years, supporters of a genuinely
free enterprise system failed to put forward constructive
financial policies, with the result large numbers became convinced
that Marxism offered a hope for the future. It was this failure
which led to the recruiting of the many influential traitors
who welcomed the Second World War as a major step towards
establishing some type of a World State.
Growth of collectivist Marxist philosophy
in the Christian Church
The growth of the Marxist collectivist philosophy inside the
Christian Church was demonstrated in Australia during the
1980s with the "Social Justice" statement endorsed
by representatives of the Anglican, Uniting, Catholic Churches
and the Australian Council of Churches. For those informed
Christians, a reading of the document entitled, "Changing
Australia", created the impression of having read
it all before - in the Communist press. Not a word was written
about the greatest evil of all, the robbery of the individual
and the nation by the credit (debt) monopolists. Neither was
there mention of the Australian constitutional revolution
which was proceeding apace, with the promoters nakedly seeking
to centralise all power.
So far from criticising the centralisation
of power as being anti-Christian, the impression created upon
reading the 1980s "Social Justice" document, was
that further centralisation of power was desirable.
The abuse of power
But at least the "social justice" document made
it possible for those informed Christians to offer constructive
criticism, to draw attention to basic questions which the
document ignored. It also provided the opportunity for discussion
concerning the correct role of the Church in relationship
to the abuse of power at the expense of the individual. But,
that was over twenty years ago and the organised Churches
have continued to decline in authority and numbers.
The decline and disintegration now
The decline in the authority of the Church now occupies the
earnest attention of the Church's own leaders and coincides
with the disintegration of our once Christian Civilisation.
But, the disintegration is not going to be halted by the idea
a Christian society can be regenerated by the increase of
the power of the State, the Multinational Corporations, the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund nor the United
Before those who claim to speak for the Christian Church make
any more pronouncements concerning Christianity, economics
and social issues, they should be asked to provide answers
to such questions as:
· What is the true purpose of the production system?
· If technology and automation, i.e., the discovery
and application of God's truths in the physical world, make
it possible for a decreasing number of people to produce enough
for all, why is "full employment" a desirable objective?
· As money is in essence 'a licence to live', why should
these licences be issued to the people, by private people
and private institutions, as an interest-bearing debt - to
be repaid, with interest, to those private persons and institutions
who have gained the legal power to do so?
· Why does the Church NOT condemn the theft of that
which rightfully belongs to the individual, the real credit
of the nation, which is its productive capacity and production?
THE ALIEN EU 'HUMAN RIGHTS' IDEA
Roger Scruton explained in The Spectator
(United Kingdom) 16th October 2004
"Common law rights are not secured by declaring them.
They are secured by the procedures that protect them. And
these procedures must be rescued from the state, and from
all who would bend them to their own oppressive purposes.
That is exactly what our common law jurisdiction has always
tried to do. Although the (1688) Bill of Rights declared some
of the rights of the British subject, it was, in doing so,
merely rehearsing established procedures of the common law,
and re-affirming them against recent abuses. In particular
it upheld the principle contained in the mediaeval writ of
habeas corpus - a principle that is not upheld by the
Code Napoleon, and which is still not enforced in Italy or
If we compare the history of modern Britain
under the common law with that of Europe under the civilian
and Napoleonic jurisdictions that have prevailed there, we
will surely be impressed by the fact that the jurisdiction
which has so persistently refused to define our rights has
also been the most assiduous in upholding them. This is because
it recognizes that rights define the limits of power, and
that these limits must be enforced by the citizen himself,
through the procedures of justice, rather than by the state,
through some all-comprehending and in the event all-authorising
Another way of saying that rights define
the limits of power is to define rights as freedoms. I have
a right to peaceful occupation of my home, in the sense that
I am free to do so, and any attempt to impede me is an interference
with that freedom; against which I can summon the courts to
The common law is really an instrument for upholding such
freedoms, by resolving the conflicts they generate. It is
based on the assumption that one person's right is another
person's duty - the duty not to cross the line that the right
Socialist planners and statist theorisers
Under the influence of socialist planning and statist theories
of the law, another idea of rights has been imported into
modern systems of justice - the idea of rights not as freedoms
but as claims. My right to something, in this view, is not
a freedom that others must respect, but a claim that they
must fulfil. Of course, rights in contract and tort are like
this. But that is because they arise from positive relations
between people - relations which create those rights from
the raw stuff of human action, but which do not create them
universally, for the very reason that they arise from the
history of the particular case.
A large and dangerous assumption
To suppose that there are 'natural' and therefore 'human'
rights which are also claims against others is to make a large
and dangerous assumption, one that would certainly not have
been upheld by Locke or Kant or the founding fathers of the
American Constitution. To think of human rights in this way
is to fill the world with vague and unfulfillable obligations,
and therefore with vast and irresoluble conflicts.
Freedoms upheld by Common Law gravely
Here is an example: the European Convention on Human Rights
tells us that everybody has a right to a proper education
and tries to define what a proper education might be. In signing
up to the Declaration our government wisely said that this
right should be qualified by the budgetary constraints that
might make it difficult to fulfil. But that is just another
way of saying that proper education is not a right, since
there is no overriding duty to provide it. 'Ought' implies
'can', after all, and it is meaningless to talk of a right
to something that no person has a duty to provide.
By defining rights as claims, the Convention (and following
it, our own Human Rights Act) has introduced a crucial vagueness
into the judicial system.
If something is a right, then it must
be provided; but if it cannot be provided, what can the courts
decide when this right is the focus of dispute? If you think
about this - and about the 'rights inflation' that we are
witnessing in every area of the political process, as people
see the benefits to themselves of rights which don't have
to be paid for by reciprocal duties - then you will surely
come to see that freedoms upheld by the common law, but never
defined by it, may actually be more threatened than enhanced
by the attempt to put them down on paper.
The U.K. gypsy population provide
We should not be surprised, therefore, at the extent to which
long-standing compromises and consensual solutions are jeopardised
by the Human Rights Act. The repeated attempt by gypsies to
claim exemption from planning laws illustrates the problem.
Thousands of people claiming gypsy or 'traveller' status have
recently immigrated from Ireland, where strictly enforced
legislation confines gypsy parks to places where they will
not threaten the amenities of other residents. Incoming gypsies
approach impoverished English farmers in order to buy land
scheduled for agricultural use. They take possession, scrape
away topsoil, put down concrete and install the infrastructure
required for an American-style trailer park. The council serves
a planning contravention notice, and, thanks to the Human
Rights aspect, the subsequent legal battle can be fought through
court after court, to the point where eviction becomes difficult
Planning regulations versus 'human'
rights = social friction
In one instance, at the village of Cottenham near Cambridge,
the incomers have achieved a population of 800, creating unmanageable
problems of waste, noise, pollution and crime, and an all
but unmanageable source of social conflict. Local residents
have obeyed planning regulations in the expectation that these
regulations will be impartially enforced. They have typically
put all their savings into their home, knowing that its value
will reflect their work and the amenities safeguarded by the
Overnight, therefore, their savings are wiped out, since no
one will buy a house adjacent to a gypsy site. It is easy
to see, from this case, that planning law is a vital part
of our social capital, since it underpins the principal savings
of our workforce. But it cannot be easily enforced against
gypsies. Moreover, the rights offered to gypsies, because
they are 'human' rights, trump the merely conventional rights
offered by the laws on planning.
This is the most disturbing feature of
the human rights idea, that it permits unearned privileges
granted by the state to extinguish rights that have been painfully
paid for by the citizens themselves. The consequence is a
deep suspicion of the whole human rights agenda in the minds
of ordinary voters.
Human rights law, which was supposed to be a weapon in the
fight against racism, has become a powerful source of racial
We should draw the lesson from the gypsy case. When negotiated
settlements are cast aside, social conflict soon emerges.
And social conflict, as the French Revolution shows, can quickly
escalate to the point where rights are no more than a memory."
CANADA'S CREEPING LEGAL TYRANNY
Canadian visitor to our shores, Mr. Wallace
Klinck, gave a background briefing and update to the plight
of revisionist historian Ernst Zundel as he continues to fight
for his freedom in Canada. Mr. Zundel has been in prison for
just on two years, although no charges have been laid in that
He has committed no crime in Canada. He is being held in prison
on the basis of a 'Security Certificate' which is issued by
a Cabinet Minister based on his 'opinion'. He has been denied
his most basic rights; he has been denied the supplements
he uses for his health needs. We understand he has been denied
the use of a pillow to sleep on, and the use of a chair to
sit on. He has been placed in solitary confinement. In fact,
although he has committed no crime in Canada he is being treated
worse than a common murderer.
He has been denied the right to call
witnesses. The presiding judge in the case before the court
was formerly in charge of the Canadian Intelligence and Security
Agency. Now presiding over Mr. Zundel's hearing he refuses
to recuse (disqualify) himself on the basis of bias. And the
Canadian Human Rights Commission has officially said truth
is no defence!
As Wallace Klinck noted, it shows the degree to which the
legal system in Canada, once a common law country, has been
compromised. Canada is entering a legalistic tyranny. And
Ernst Zundel's battle is on behalf of all Canadians - if they
only knew it.
EUROPEAN UNION"S 'SOVIET RIGHTS'
In polar opposite contrast to traditional British common law
rights, the EU Constitution states:
Article 1-7: "These rights shall be exercised in accordance
with the conditions and limits defined by this Constitution
and by the measures adopted to give it effect."
It adds in Article II-52: "Any limitation on the exercise
of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must
be provided for by law".
In other words, in the Eurocrats' worldview, rights are "recognised"
by the, "charter," meaning they come from government.
And, those rights may be limited as the rulers deem necessary.
(Remember "What the 'charter' gives today, it can take
Starting with this fatally flawed premise about rights, the
EU Constitution fraudulently claims: Article 1-3, that it
will, "promote peace ... and the well-being of its peoples,"
by offering "its citizens an area of freedom ... where
competition is free and undistorted."
Such cosmetically appealing objectives
are the preamble packaging for a mammoth 300-page soviet-socialist
manifesto that follows. If ratified, the EU Constitution would
regiment Europeans' lives down to the most private levels.
Article ll-21, states "any discrimination
based on any ground such as ... sexual orientation shall be
prohibited." Churches and organisations that teach homosexuality
is wrong, will find themselves in violation of EU law. Landlords,
who refuse to rent to homosexual 'couples' will be prosecuted.
(For similar developments already happening)
Article II-23: empowers the EU government to interfere in
employer-employee relationships, by enforcing measures that
ensure "equality between men and women ... in all areas,
including employment, work and pay." It also calls for
"the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for
specific advantages in favour of the under represented sex".
That could mean affirmative action for the continent.
The EU seeks to involve itself in
In its declaration regarding Article III-2 the Constitution
proclaims "the Union will aim in its different policies
to combat all kinds of domestic violence". Regarding
welfare and regulatory measures, the EU leaves no stone unturned:
Article II-34: "recognises and respects the entitlement
to social security benefits and social services ... (for)
everyone residing and moving legally within the EU."
Article II-35: "Everyone has the right of access to preventative
According to Article II-37 "a high level of environmental
protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment
must be integrated into the policies of the EU and ensured
in accordance with the principle of sustainable development".
Article m-193: proposes to "develop international measures
to preserve and improve the quality of the environment and
the sustainable management of global natural resources, in
order to ensure sustainable development; [and] promote an
international system based on stronger multilateral co-operation
and good global governance". That would mean the management
of all the planet's resources in a world government under
the United Nations. ...
Essential reading: "Australia
2000: What Will We Tell Our Children?" by Jeremy
Lee. Jeremy identified the twin evils of totalitarianism -
Communism and Super-Capitalism and the political agenda they
both promote. The eventual control of the world's food, fibres
and minerals by 18 UN commodity boards? He explains to Australians
why their resource-rich nation has been bankrupted, has lost
its financial and political independence and has been systematically
betrayed by its political 'leaders'. $20.00 posted from League
AUSTRALIA'S PARLOUS STATE
In his address to the National Seminar,
Jeremy Lee painted a grim picture indeed of Australia's economic
and financial position, despite the Liberals 'sexing up of
the figures' for our 'consumption'. The following is a summary:
Government debt has been reduced by the flogging off of our
national assets such as, the Commonwealth Bank, our forests,
waterways, electricity companies, ports and harbours, airports,
etc., etc. And by transferring the debts on to the backs of
the private sector.
But taxation has not been reduced as
a result of government debt going down. Taxes are the highest
in our history.
Since Howard came to government nine years ago:
Private debt has hit an all time high and personal debt has
Families are now paying 50% more for healthcare, childcare,
housing and education.
When Howard came to power, average household debts were 50%
of household income.
In the nine years he has been in office, household debts have
risen to 160% of income. The average debt per household is
now just on $100,000.
Jeremy suggested we try to imagine what
would be the costs in human terms should interest rates be
raised just 1% - when household debts account for 160% of
household income!!! Even the politicians are scared to raise
Australia's 'nearly greatest' treasurer
The claims by Australia's 'nearly greatest' treasurer, Peter
Costello, were also examined in the light of the alarming
figures Jeremy presented.
Costello keeps assuring us our economy is 'strong' even though
these days we don't produce much ourselves. We mostly live
on imports, and the more we import the more the foreign debt
is 'marked up on the slate' for future generations to pay
back. When Howard first came to power Australia's foreign
debt was around $190 billion, it has increased to just on
$400 billion. This means the debt increases at the rate of
$5 million every sixty minutes. Our 'nearly greatest' treasurer
proudly reminds us our economy is worth $800 billion.
What he doesn't tell us is that the ASSETS OF THE BANKS have
reached the astronomical figure of $1.2 TRILLION!!!
"How," asked Jeremy, "can the banks' assets
be 50% HIGHER than ALL THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY?"
With Australia's Household Debt now standing
at $760 billion and her Foreign Debt reaching $400 billion,
this means Australia is now one of the small number of nations
whose debts have increased past the $1 TRILLION mark.
ISN'T IT WAY PAST TIME THIS NATION UNDERWENT A 'REALITY CHECK'?
The annual Basic Fund is now open and we
look to our loyal supporters to once more give generously. While
the League really does operate on a 'shoe string', it does have
financial commitments which it must meet. It can only do so through
your giving to the annual Basic Fund. Please don't let us down.
Decide to send a generous contribution today! The current figure
SOCIAL CREDIT -- HANDING ON THE BATON
Bill Daly from New Zealand attended the
recent Canadian Rougemount Social Credit Congress and sent us
the following report:
"It was quickly apparent that the clergy from the impoverished
world have a surer and deeper grasp of the relevance of Christian
social teaching to the practical world than what we in the West
are used to. The special significance of this international conference
is better appreciated when it is realised that some dioceses in
predominantly Catholic countries, like Mexico and the Philippines
sometimes have populations not much less than the population of
New Zealand, where the bishops and priests exercise considerable
moral and cultural influence.
I have lost faith in anything useful coming from the churches
in the West - at least in the foreseeable future. But the clergy
from the Third World countries at this Canadian Congress had a
real appreciation and interest in the social order without a hint
of the corrupting influence of socialism or political correctness."
MISSING EDITIONS OF "THE NEW TIMES"
Who can help? Do any of our older supporters
have copies of the following editions of The New Times? We have
undertaken a huge task of scanning on to computer the printed
copies of The New Times journal and find we are missing Vol.23
No.22, November 1st, 1957 and Vol.23 No.23, November 15th 1957.
If anyone can help us with copies please send them to P.O. Box
27, Happy Valley SA 5159.
LETTER TO M.H.R.
To: Catherine King, MHR, P0 Box 626,
Ballarat Vic. 3350
"I thank you for the enclosure of copy of 'Comments on
Intergenerational Report, 2002-03'. The experts who write
these comments are masters of obfuscation. One paragraph,
however, is perfectly lucid, but with which I strongly disagree.
Referring to participation in the workforce of men in the
45-64 age group, "the report only projects a marginal
increase over the next forty years. With healthier ageing,
employment beyond age 65 could also be a future prospect.
"Beyond these social changes, over such a long period
of time, it is well within the bounds of policy potential
that incentives for early retirement that pervade the system
at present will be reversed and become incentives to remain
in the workforce."
The comment, and presumably the report,
is preoccupied with raising productivity. Productivity, which
was the darling of the late Billy Snedden when leader of the
Liberal Party, can be defined as: "The process by which
more production is obtained from an existing workforce or
the same production extracted from a smaller workforce."
Both of these should be anathema to the Labor Party.
In the former, we are producing more and more goods which
can only be sold by exporting them and/or increasing consumer
The latter process will increase unemployment which will increase
consumer debt through credit cards, etc.
The increasing consumer debt is a manifestation
of the point I tried to make in my letter of October 21, that
the system does not generate sufficient purchasing power to
buy all it produces. The 20/80 society is already with us.
The concept was first espoused at Mikhail Gorbachev's State-of-the-World
Forum in San Francisco in 1995 at which it was agreed that
20 per cent of the global workforce could produce all the
needs of the world's population. The rest would live in grim,
This fact is not immediately obvious.
It is masked by the fact that many of the existing jobs have
no existence in reality. They produce nothing towards the
material well-being of the world population. Among these people
are the majority of economists. By trying to raise productivity,
and by encouraging people to remain in the workforce beyond
55 (even lower as the concept is accepted) we are doing a
severe disservice to school leavers attempting to break into
a career. We are further disadvantaging the latter by embracing
globalism. (emphasis added
Ron Fischer, Ballarat, Victoria.
SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB
The next meeting of the Sydney CSC will
be held on Thursday evening 25th November, 2004. The last meeting
for the year is an Open Night, where you are invited to have your
say for five minutes. You are to advise the Chairman on arrival
of your subject. Questions may be asked at the end of the session.
The venue is the Lithuanian Club, 16 East Terrace, Bankstown.
Bring a friend for the first time and the entrance fee of $5.00
will be waived. Books will be on display for sale from the Heritage
PLAN YOUR READING FOR THE COMING HOLIDAY
"A Race Against Time: Racial
heresies for the 21st Century," edited by George
McDaniel. What does the future hold for the West? Must our
Civilisation give way before the waves of Third World newcomers?
It is increasingly clear that race and civilisation cannot
be separated; that only the people who created a culture can
sustain it. Price: $45.00 includes postage.
"Killing Hope: US Military &
CIA Interventions since WW II," by William Blum.
The West has been soundly conditioned to react Pavlovianly
to a number of psycho-political terms; 'swear words' such
as 'communist' or 'fascist', terms intended to conjure up
mental pictures from Stalinist purges to slave-labour camps.
A 'Them' agin 'Us' reflex. "Them" can mean a peasant
in the Philippines, a mural-painter in Nicaragua, or a legally-elected
prime minister in British Guiana - but all, somehow, presented
as part of the same monolithic conspiracy; all in some way,
a threat to our Way of Life. William Blum has done a mammoth
service to his people by listing the destabilising, revolutionary
activities of the U.S. Military and the CIA, from China in
the 1940s to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Price $40.00 includes