|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
11 May 2007 Thought for the Week:
"How can the process of accelerating centralisation be stopped? Only when sufficient informed individuals learn how to associate together to use their social power to impose their will upon their political institutions, insisting that the policies of the Money Power be broken.
It is certain that the formation of more political parties merely assists the Money Power to extend its control of the people. Putting marks on pieces of paper every few years, without doing anything else, only serves to help legalise the policies of the centralisers."
Eric D. Butler in "The Money Power Versus Democracy," 1940, reprinted 1975.
ERIC BUTLER AND THE IMMORALITY OF CENTRALISED POWER
by James Reed
There is a cover on a book about science that I once read which had a scientist breaking through the surface of the earth (i.e. reality) to glimpse the gears and levers that ultimately move the universe. That sketch accurately describes Eric Butler's philosophy as well. Required reading for this week is a little booklet "The Moral Implications of Centralised Power".
I have heard some young social crediters criticise Eric for the part he played in the 1944 Powers Referendum. Wouldn't a nationalisation of the banks have produced a social credit economy? Eric rightly saw that this drive was based on a totalitarian philosophy of centralised power and, as Lord Acton observed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. The Attorney-General at the time, Dr. H.V. Evatt, a Fabian Socialist, was a good example. Further, social credit is about decentralisation of power, and bank nationalisation is a movement in the opposite philosophical direction.
So, what is wrong
with the centralisation of power, of "new world orders"? Why fear them? We should
fear them because these forms of social organisation stifle human freedom, individuality
and creativity. Thus they are contrary to the law of life and the natural law
- God's law.
Democracy tends to break down without a great deal of local self government to create healthy citizens. Centralised power though makes robots out of citizens and becomes a vast social machine, too vast for an individual to survey. That is the philosophy of power. Eric contrasts it with the Christian philosophy of love which affirms individual worth, value and dignity. In a nutshell, that is what is wrong with the philosophy of centralised power : it enslaves and dehumanises both us and the controllers. And that is what the League continues to fight against.
of Eric Butler's magnificent booklet, "The Moral Implications of Centralised Power"
are available from all Heritage Book Services. Price: $8.50 including postage.
ERIC BUTLER, YES; BOB SANTAMARIA, NO!
However on the dark side there is an anti-Anglo Saxon strain running through the Mannix-Santamaria stream of politics. They didn't like a WASP Australia and they did their bit to end it through immigration. Along with Arthur Calwell they wanted to bring in more Catholics whatever their colour. That ideology produced the multiracial/multicultural Asian Australia that we have today. It negates in one sweep any good work they did. Sorry Santamaria fans, it has to be said. Do you recall all of his pro-immigration pieces? Race didn't matter for this Italian, only Catholicism.
The pieces always were the same. Australia has teeming Asian masses to the north. We are underpopulated. *So increase immigration (from Asia) or they will come anyway. Santamaria repeated this type of article many times over the years. It became standard copy. Beyond this though, as Michael Sexton has recently analysed Santamaria and Mannix were anti-democrats. ("A man and his dogma : In 1950s Australia, democracy and devout Catholicism made for an uneasy mix, writes Michael Sexton." The Weekend Australian 14-15/4/07 p.28).
Santamaria in 1952 said that the birth of the liberal democratic state was one of the great evils of modern history. Whereas Eric Butler saw the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy as a major human achievement, both Mannix and Santamaria rejected it. Would things have been different for them if democracy was a creation of the Irish or Italians, rather than the Anglo Saxons? In any case, this rejection of fundamental liberal principles puts Santamaria and Mannix in the centralised power camp. Would both have gone for a new world order with the Pope as world emperor?
For me, this is a philosophical and theological perversion of the true spirit of Christianity. The rejection of centralised power goes, I think, to a rejection of centralised power in the Church as well. That is why I am not a Catholic, although my family has been. Thus I acknowledge the good work which B.A. Santamaria did, but I see his centralism as contrary to the true spirit of freedom that Eric Butler defended. Eric Butler then, in my opinion, was the better intellectual.
In the context of the above it is worth reproducing a section of a flyer the League
produced and circulated widely in the early 1960s.
His Excellency was addressing a layman's dinner in Ballarat, Victoria on November 20th, 1961 ."
For those with access to the internet, view the following important articles on the Race/Culture/Nation section of the League website: "Civil War in Australia" and "Racial Treason".
'THE DISMISSAL' AND THE ROLE OF SIR JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN
by John Brett
"[The] most forgotten
about incident in the whole affair concerns the role played by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
Sir Joh [had]arrived in Melbourne late to attend the Liberal-Country Party Coalition
meeting to discuss the withholding of Supply.
Joh's response was immediate:
think people like Dennis Shanahan, (The Australian journalist
be asked, 'Why do they ignore the massive amount of material written by those
who were there'?
But we should be ever thankful
for these Knights of our realm, who did their duty so honestly and conscientiously
and left us their account of this pivotal point in our history.
John Brett continues: "The 'Dismissal' revival reminded me of a pile of Queen and Constitution brochures I had in the cupboard. These were the remnants of thousands we distributed tramping around the streets of New England towns in 1973. We seem to have forgotten 1974-75, which was the year that Whitlam was laying the foundations for his republic, to be thwarted at every crucial step by Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
won that round Joh:
Whitlam appointed Vince Gair a DLP senator for Queensland as Ambassador to Ireland,
Joh knew Vince would ordinarily be the last person Whitlam would give the job
to, so what was he up to? With Gair out of the Senate, Whitlam hoped to gain control
with an ALP candidate. Gair neglected to resign from the Senate on the last day
available to him, so with less than 12 hours to accomplish it, Joh had all the
writs for the Queensland Senators in the coming senate election issued. Whitlam
was furious, Joh had foiled him again and not for the last time.
Queenslanders voted Whitlam out:
The 'Loans Affair' and Whitlam's scheming:
At 8 am on the morning of the 14th, Whitlam rang the Governor General to inform him of this unusual meeting, requesting that the absent GG should sign the minute of the meeting. He would despatch the document with a courier, who arrived at Admiralty House about 9am on the morning of the 14th. A temporary loan of this magnitude for the very dubious reasons stated by Whitlam, fortunately was to remain embedded in the GG's memory.
could safely bet David Smith, (now Sir David) would not forget this unusual meeting
and its purpose became obvious nine months later. If ever political events cast
their shadows before them, this "Loans Affair" is surely one of the darkest shadows
in Australia's political history, just as today there are other shadows being
cast. Or should it be caste?
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practice to deceive".
9/11 INVESTIGATION: EVIDENCE PROVING THE UNTHINKABLE?
by Jeremy Lee
But cracks are appearing in the façade. Channel 10 in Australia showed the film "In Plane Sight" by David von Kleist, who was the main guest at the Inverell Forum in March. Channel 10 was attacked by Michael Danby in Parliament for showing the film.
No other mainstream media in Australia
has even hinted that there could be another side to the story. But the mounting
evidence won't go away, and keeps growing in intensity.
Latest polls in the U.S. show more than 50% of the people believe 9/11 was an 'inside job'. Desperate attempts are being made to stereotype them as "kooks" and "conspiratorialists". But the story keeps getting bigger, with military leaders, State Department officials and even Congressmen finally speaking out.
Now several newspapers are putting out articles in Canada. How soon will the official silence break in other countries - and finally America? This story was also carried in the Edmonton Sun - implying a certain tolerance for these stories on the part of the management of that group. Both are subsidiaries of the "Sun Media Corporation", part of the Quebecor Group.
Further information: https://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Gleeson_John/2007/04/18/4055849.html
HOW THREE MILLION GERMANS DIED AFTER V.E. DAY
review by Nigel Jones appeared in The Telegraph (UK) 18/04/2007:
"Giles MacDonogh is a bon viveur and a historian of wine and gastronomy, but in this book, pursuing his other consuming interest - German history - he serves a dish to turn the strongest of stomachs. It makes particularly uncomfortable reading for those who compare the disastrous occupation of Iraq unfavourably to the post-war settlement of Germany and Austria.
MacDonogh argues that the months that followed May 1945 brought no peace to the shattered skeleton of Hitler's Reich, but suffering even worse than the destruction wrought by the war. After the atrocities that the Nazis had visited on Europe, some degree of justified vengeance by their victims was inevitable, but the appalling bestialities that MacDonogh documents so soberly went far beyond that.
first 200 pages of his brave book are an almost unbearable chronicle of human
suffering. His best estimate is that some three million Germans died unnecessarily
after the official end of hostilities. A million soldiers vanished before they
could creep back to the holes that had been their homes. The majority of them
died in Soviet captivity (of the 90,000 who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000
eventually came home) but, shamingly, many thousands perished as prisoners of
IRAN, ISRAEL AND THE HOLOCAUST
Now there is talk of a "Second Holocaust" based on Iran's nuclear destruction of Israel. But a nuclear Iran will also have a chilling effect on Israel's economy and foreign investors will jump the ship before disaster strikes.
A recent poll found that 27 per cent of Israelis would leave Israel if Iran went nuclear. However a nuclear Iran would motivate Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to also acquire nuclear weapons. Libya, in turn, may also enter the nuclear arms race again. Contemplate the Arab nations with the bomb and be afraid!
These Jewish scholars conclude that the Iran Holocaust Conference is also a prelude to the destruction of the Jewish state. Thus, all that is left is for Israel and the U.S. to go to war against Iran, now.
However these scholars do not ask, what if the attacks fail to knock out the nuclear facilities: won't Iran see it as a moral mission to retaliate against Israel with nukes? Iran then is a real threat to Israel, and only by somehow destroying the Ahmadinejad regime can they obtain safety. If I were a Jew living in Israel, then I too would be getting my business affairs in order so that I could immigrate to the United States, or maybe the land 'down under'.
IMMIGRATION PROVING THREAT TO BRITAIN AS SINGLE NATION
Immigration may be threatening Britain's status as a country, it has been claimed. A pamphlet by social policy think-tank Civitas said the UK may already have reached a "tipping point" where it can no longer be regarded as a single nation. David Conway, the author, said that if Britain has become a "nation of immigrants" it could lead to political disintegration.
booklet said: "Those for whom this country has been a model of tolerance and freedom
cannot but have cause for deep concern about the seemingly reckless pace and scale
on which immigration has recently been allowed to proceed.
Mr Conway, a senior research fellow at Civitas, disputed a claim made by the Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 that "everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant".
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|