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 response
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 World War.

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 debt".

World Council of Churches filled the vacuum
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 enterprise' policies
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 so evident
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 Nations.

BASIC QUESTIONS
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 France.

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 doctrine.

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 my aid.
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 defines.

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 threatened
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 example
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 or impossible.

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 law.
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 discrimination.
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 time.
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 away tomorrow!"…ed)
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 family matters
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 health care..."
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 Book Services.

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 doubled.
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 interest rates.

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'?

BASIC FUND

SOCIAL CREDIT -- HANDING ON THE BATON

MISSING EDITIONS OF "THE NEW TIMES"

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 debt domestically.
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, hand-to-mouth poverty.

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…ed)
Ron Fischer, Ballarat, Victoria.

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

PLAN YOUR READING FOR THE COMING HOLIDAY SEASON

"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 postage.