|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
4 November 2005 Thought for the Week:
"The Church speaks out for liberty and authority at the same time She does not demand the sacrifice of either, but tries to conciliate and to bring them in harmonious accord with each other, by basing herself on the principle of the suppletive function of the State, a fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable. This means that in the first place, the greatest liberty possible - legitimate liberty, of course - must be left to private enterprises, individual or associated, and that State intervention must be resorted to only when such enterprises prove themselves unable to attain their particular ends become detrimental to the general interests of all, or when the direct promotion of the common welfare is concerned
To the individual, first of all, must be left the greatest liberty and initiative possible. Then in order to make up for his incapacities, appeal must be made in the first place to the family group, then to a group of greater dimension, professional or others, for everything that is beyond the power of domestic society; and finally, the State will be called upon to undertake the tasks which these larger organisations themselves are unable to accomplish, especially those directly concerning the common welfare
If it (Social Credit) vigorously reacts against the individualistic capitalism of the trust magnates of money and credit, it most strongly accentuates the social character of economic life and, particularly, of the monetary system, we see in that nothing properly socialistic We may be magnificently social without being socialistic. Such is the case for the Crediters."
George-Henri Levesque, O.P. in "Social Credit and Catholicism," 1936.
I DON'T TRUST YOU EITHER, KIM
DUMBED DOWN OR WHAT?by James Reed
The NSW Higher School Certificate exam in "Advanced" English, held on Thursday 20 October 2005 dealt with Shakespeare's King Lear and the poetry of W.B. Yeats. Yet sitting alongside the classics was another "text" for children to analyse: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's (ATSIC) website. ATSIC was abolished by the Commonwealth government in March this year but the NSW Board of Studies ensured that the site remained up for this year's exam - after all, good brain-rotting propaganda takes time to prepare and our youth must never be given a second to recover from White Guilt chronic fatigue.
The Australian 21 October 2005 quotes Dr. Spurr, a senior lecturer in English at the University of Sydney who said that ATSIC would be as surprised as the rest of us as "Their purpose presumably was to promote the indigenous cause, not produce literature".
But that is actually the purpose of much of the "Arts" today - not to preserve Western civilization, but to bury it.
While I detest The Australian newspaper, it is good to see that even they have taken a stand against "postmodernism" (= anti-West) philosophies in education. But they want to resist this dumbing down to maintain Australia's role in the Asia Pacific economy, for today even slaves must be educated.
Nevertheless The Australian's crusade against postmodernism has a spin-off benefit for us, the lovers of our race and defenders of freedom.
RALPH L. DUCK TO THE RESCUEby James Reed
"The Nature Cure of Our Social Disorders," by Ralph L. Duck published in 1958, was a small book ahead of its time. The nature cure is a personal and individual message that says simply, "The individual is told that health cannot be obtained by drugs and injections: it cannot be bought. It can only be 'earned' and that only by supplying the body with its needs - a balanced diet, of posture, of exercise and rest, of protection from the elements and by a balanced mind. Health can be insured in no other manner."
Duck recommended a "return to nature," but not in the sense loved by some greenies. A return to nature involved a reality check, a living within natural laws and limits. Within the broad social credit movement, Duck said that with modern technology genuine human needs, not merely artificially induced consumer wants, could be satisfied with one hour's work per week. Even if this was too optimistic, the working week could well be cut in half. There is no need for people to live on a technological treadmill working even longer hours.
He quoted the socialist George Bernard Shaw who said: "Compulsory labour, with death as the final penalty, is the keystone of socialism". Those in support of Howard's workplace reforms, should chew on that.
Social Credit's National Dividend would end the threat of socialism forever, as people would no longer be wage slaves and would have the dignity of some secure private property.
Healing many sicknesses which threaten individuals could be dealt with by curing larger social diseases such as the financial system. Orthodox conspiratorial finance is the major disease of the modern world. Bankers have the power, Mr. Duck observes "of life or death, able to loose or withhold the means of life". This situation indicates that there is "something wrong with our social bloodstream".
The Social Credit movement attempts to humanize the economy and put economic life back into the control of people rather than controlling them.
To paraphrase Christ, the economy was made for man not man for the economy. As C.H. Douglas said in "Economic Democracy": "Systems were made for men, and not men for systems. And the interest of man which is self-development is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic".
Mr. Duck concludes: "Until money is subordinated to the law and is made a servant, the means to restore the governing of production and distribution to the people, the consumers - and they themselves are rightly submissive to the prime Law - health cannot be released nor can society be whole". May the thoughts of Ralph L. Duck survive many a Thanksgiving Dinner.
APPEAL TO THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
The following email has
been widely circulated. Tony Pitt of Queensland has sent a copy to the Governor-General
asking him to act on the - if true - alarming matter.
LETTERS:Remember South Africa - and the rule of law, The Age, October 25, 2005:
"J. M. Coetzee has just drawn our attention to the parallels between Australia's proposed security laws and apartheid South Africa's destruction of the rule of law in that country. Like Coetzee, I lived through the process in South Africa and I now teach about and research it.
In 1948, the government there started with the basic British system protecting civil liberties through the courts. From 1950 the erosion of the rule of law began, under the justification of opposition to "communism" (from 1950) and "terrorism" (from the early 1960s).
In 1950, the government took the power to ban both organisations and individuals as "communist" (on the word of the minister, with no court involved); from 1963 it gave the police the power to detain people without trial or court intervention (initially for 90 days, then for 180 days, and, from 1982, indefinitely); and it created new capital offences of "sabotage" (from 1962) and "terrorism" (from 1967).
What this resulted in was progressive abuse of these powers by the security police. Successive ministers of justice and law and order gave the police whatever powers they demanded; the courts refused to intervene to prevent the abuses. By the 1980s, large sections of the security police were effectively responsible and accountable only to ministers who made no attempt to rein in their abuses.
The result was appalling human rights abuses on a large scale - all justified as part of the "war against communism and terrorism".
What the South African experience showed very clearly was that police, once given such powers, will demand more and more, and will demand less and less accountability to courts, parliament, government and the public at large. Many Australians wrongly comfort themselves with the belief that everything that happened in South Africa can be blamed on Afrikaners, and so it can never happen here.
Philip Ruddock sounds increasingly like successive South African ministers of justice and law and order from the 1960s. This is a naïve racial assumption. In fact, Anglo-Saxon police in imperial Kenya and in white-ruled Rhodesia, French authorities in Algeria, Latin American police and military, and Eastern European police show that this is a universal rather than specifically racial characteristic.
Once you give police and security authorities powers that they can exercise without the necessary restraints of the rule of law, they will hang on to them and demand more. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock sounds increasingly like successive South African ministers of justice and law and order from the 1960s in his petulant insistence that his legislation is no threat to civil liberties because it is aimed only at the "terrorist". Australians cannot afford to trust him on this.
Once lost, such civil liberties can be regained - if at all - only at great cost.
Associate Professor David Philips, department of history, University of Melbourne
A timely warning, 14 October 2005: Letter sent to The Age:
"Alastair Nicholson makes some excellent comments denouncing the so-called "anti-terror" laws as a hoax, warning that the Government and its agencies will use these oppressive laws for abuse of power. This is precisely what many civil liberties organisations, including this one, have said again and again.
It provides a danger, not only to Muslims, but to the community in general, because of the wide-ranging application of these laws, and the way they can be abused for political control.
It will create a terrorist state under the guide of 'fighting terrorism'."
Geoff Muirden, Australian Civil Liberties Union, Carlton, Vic.
Racists posing as civil libertarians:
The following response to Geoff Muirden's letter appeared in, The Age, 17 October 2005:
"There is room for disagreement and debate regarding anti-terrorist legislation, but beware of extremist organisations hijacking this contentious issue in order to gain recognition, respectability and media acceptance.
The so-called Australian Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and spokesman Geoff Muirden ("A timely warning", Letters, 14/10) should not be confused with the bona fide Australian Council for Civil Liberties.
The ACLU is in fact one of Victoria's most antiSemitic Holocaust-denying organisations, with a long history of espousing xenophobic views, and with ties to notorious racist organisations, both locally and abroad.
The ACLU was founded by John Bennett, following his expulsion from the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty Victoria) in 1980, after linking his Holocaust-denial views with the council, which made his position untenable.
Meanwhile, Muirden is connected with Fred Toben's Holocaust-denying Adelaide Institute, has written for extremist publications and spoken at far-right functions and forums. It is of concern that use of the name Australian Civil Liberties Union may give this racist organisation undeserved legitimacy in the community."
Annette Gladwin, liaison officer, B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission Inc.
FURTHER TO THE TELSTRA CAMPAIGNReaders will remember Mayor Peter Davis of Port Lincoln wrote that Telstra has a community service responsibility to ALL AUSTRALIANS. Yet, Telstra consistently refuses to honour its responsibilities to isolated rural Australians based on poor financial returns to the Company.
It has stated in its annual reports that it will not invest in assets returning poor profitability.
Telstra advised Cleve District Council in South Australia, no mobile phone tower will be installed at Darke's Peake unless Council enters into a funding agreement. (Why do we pay taxes when we then have to pay again for our public services? ed) Cleve has a population of 1900 people who pay a total $1.4 million in Council rates annually.... Yet the new C.E.O. Trujillo's commencing salary was seven times the total rate revenue of the Cleve Council!
In "Social Credit and Catholicism," mention is made of the social evils resulting from the violation of the right order of a community - as is the case, we believe, of the sale of a public utility, a public service, such as Telstra, into the hands of the individualistic capitalism of the trust magnates known in this day and age as 'economic rationalists'.
Even though the Commonwealth Constitution Act specifically states:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth " Jeremy Lee rightly explains:
"So far, the ALP Opposition and the State Governments have been too timid to stand up for the people. Labor is essentially a globalist party in the Coalition image".
Neither the present ALP nor the Coalition stand for national sovereignty. It comes back to the Australian people to demand results. When the people find that political will within themselves - when their voices are loud enough - when their demands are strong enough - and informed enough - the People will prevail!
But to whom do we make our demands? To whom do we direct our pleas?
Constitutionally it is the Governor-General acting on behalf of our Queen who is charged with the responsibility of applying those checks and balances with his reserve powers to safeguard the common good of the people.
Politicians would have us believe the powers of the Governor-General to act on our behalf are now 'outmoded'. Are they implying those provisions in the Commonwealth Constitution Act are now 'out of fashion'? "Fashion" is something that can change with the seasons, can be discarded as an outer garment may be discarded. Once more they are trying to 'dumb us down'.
When it comes to the Commonwealth Constitution, the provision is there for the People to decide at a Referendum! In a letter dated 15th December 1983 to one of his South Australian electors (then) Democrat senator Don Chipp explained the proposed changes (at the time) to the Commonwealth Constitution Act thus:
· Clause 6 - Royal Assent to Bills Repeals the reference in s.58 to the Governor-General's outmoded power (?) to reserve Bills for the Queen's assent.
· Clause 7 - Disallowance by the Queen Repeals s.59 which provides that the Queen may disallow any law within one year of the Governor-General's assent.
I haven't heard any politicians claiming their powers, which also derive from the Commonwealth Constitution Act, are now 'outmoded'.
Dr. David Mitchell assures us those powers are just as relevant today as when first included in the Act.
The 'ball is now in the People's court':
The ball is now in the court of the Australian people to fight for their rights and demand the Governor-General act on their behalf.
Dr. Mitchell's dinner address on the Constitutional powers and responsibilities of the Governor-General is so important. Make the effort to send away for the tape, what can you lose but your freedom and possibly your nation!
Listen to the tape - and then ACT!
Audio tape available from Mayo Tapes, Box 6, Hahndorf, S.A. 5245 $6.00 posted.
The Governor-General's address is:
Government House, Canberra, ACT 2600.
The letter could be something along the lines of the following:
Your Excellency, You Sir, under the Commonwealth Constitution, have the power to disallow the sale of the peoples' public utility Telstra and we appeal to you to do so; as one of your predecessors did. Without putting this to a referendum, the Coalition politicians are acting unconscionably, in total disregard of the people's wishes. I appeal to you, as the guardian of the people rights, to act in accordance with the people's wishes and halt this vandalism. Not to act would could be construed as a dereliction of duty and could place you, in the public's eye, as but a cipher of the political parties.
Yours sincerely, a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,
DR. DAVID MITCHELL SAYS: I am hearing all sorts of strange ideas. I see in the Constitution the Governor-General is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
I hear it being said, "How ridiculous", the Governor-General would not know the sharp end from the blunt end of a Naval ship, or of a machine gun. How could he possibly be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; what a ridiculous idea.
He has no military training and in any case, he hasn't been elected, why should he be able to control the Armed forces?
My friends and fellow citizens of Australia, it is very important indeed, that the Governor-General be Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, not only ceremonially but actually.
You see, theoretically the Parliament, (for simpler, not correctly using the word Parliament), could, if it had control of the Armed Forces, use the Armed Forces against the people of Australia.
While still Commander in Chief, if the Governor-General says, no you can't, then the Government of the day cannot use the Armed Forces against you.
Doesn't that mean the Governor-General can use the Armed forces against us? No, he can't, and why not, because the Parliament holds the purse strings. He cannot pay the soldiers or sailors, or the airmen one cent, nor can he provide them with rifles, bullets or even food.
The Parliament controls the military forces of this country through the purse strings.
This is a protection for you (more checks and balances ed) and there is a proposal to remove that protection.
SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUBPlease be advised that our next meeting on Thursday Evening 24th. November (last for the year), will be held at the Russian Club at Strathfield. This venue is close to the Railway Station and has the benefit of a Bistro open for evening refreshments. Strathfield is central to all Sydney suburbs, and it is hoped that this will stimulate the interest of supporters from the Northern and Eastern suburbs.
OUTSTANDING NEW BOOKS"The Radical Prince," by David Lorimer.
This "practical vision of the Prince of Wales" has to be one of the most positive and constructive books published for quite some time. It provides an overview of Prince Charles' ideas on ecology, organic agriculture, holistic health, religion, education and much more. It offers ideas for local communities to begin the regeneration processes if they don't want to die out all together. You may not agree with all of the Prince's projects but, as one reviewer put it: "If you are not afraid to think and to deepen your understanding of a man who may one day become King, this is the book for you." It is highly recommended and would make a wonderful Christmas gift. Price: $37.00 posted.
"Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7," by Ernst Zundel.
Australians let us all beware, for our systems of Anglo-Saxon-Christian Law have been dangerously white-anted by an alien philosophy. Through the brave efforts of Ernst Zundel, a 'politically incorrect' political prisoner fighting for his freedoms, it is finally dawning on more within the Western World that in Canada a judge of the Federal Court can listen to secret witnesses and secret evidence, look at documents, listen to videos - anything at all - but, the accused and his lawyers will not be told the names of these witnesses, cannot test the documents for forgery, editing or anything else. And Truth is no defence. Yet the judge's decision is final! It cannot be appealed or reviewed by a higher court, not even the Supreme Court of Canada. Read for yourself. Price: $25.00 posted.
"Terror Laws: ASIO, Counter Terrorism & Threat to Democracy," by Jenny Hocking:
Detention without charge, indefinitely? Organisations banned without trial? Children kidnapped off the street, strip-searched, and interrogated without charge? Those things don't happen in Australia you say? Wake up Aussie or you are in for a rude awakening! Our once jealously guarded civil and political rights - freedom of expression, freedom of association, protection from arbitrary detention, the right to independent legal advice - have been deceitfully and cunningly tossed aside in the name of the "war on terror". Jenny Hocking traces the growth of Australia's internal security organizations to the powerful 'counter terrorism' networks that now reach into every corner of our lives. Price: $43.00 posted.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|