|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
5 June 2009 Thought for the Week:
“According to Douglas and Orage, the effect of the report (Labour and Social Credit, 1922) was to reinforce the capitalist status quo…
- - Frances Hutchinson and Brian Burkitt in “The Contemporary Relevance of Clifford Hugh Douglas” The Social Crediter. Winter 2008, www.douglassocialcredit.com
“Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has warned the Obama administration against adopting further socialism, saying Russian history clearly proves it is a recipe for failure.
- - Putin: Obama “Idiot” For Adopting Socialism : Dhimmicrats http://762justice.com/category/110th-congress/dhimmicrats/
IT IS FREEDOM OR IT IS NOT! WHICH IS IT TO BE?
by Wallace Klinck, Canada
Originally the planners tried to conceptualize what should be produced and consumed by the population and they attempted to insert this data into input-output tables.
Of course, predictably, the task became so complex that the five-year economic plan fell increasingly and hopelessly behind schedule.
I approached the professor afterward and asked, "Professor (Skoda, his name, if I remember correctly), does it not seem to you that it is the supreme arrogance for a small group of people to sit on a mountain-top and try to conceive what should be produced and consumed by all the people of a nation?" To which he replied, "Yes, when you think about it, it is."
The dangers to human life and freedom of centralized policy control over economic activity far exceed any expression of individual preferences by consumers at large.
One must remember that the insane quest for survival on the steepening treadmill of debt currently drives industry and society as a whole into an increasing obsession with production and sales in a futile attempt to borrow, produce and consume our way out of financial debt… which increases disproportionately with every genuine advance in production efficiency.
Social Credit to the fore…
Being less pressured by the mere task of financial survival, they would have more time for genuine reflection and development through discriminating thought processes of more refined judgement and moral or ethical principles.
We must provide an environment of economic security which affords all citizens a genuine opportunity to develop and grow in their personal intellectual, spiritual and moral stature. They need freedom of choice in order to develop such attributes.
Planning for them merely suppresses their individuality and latent talents - which serves the ends of the financial tyranny under which we all now labour, live and die - a tyranny which seeks primarily a compliant, de-cultured, de-spiritualized mass world proletariat. One must always bear in mind that in Social Credit we enter into a different conceptual and practical world of awareness and experience."
THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS, NOT A BILL OF RIGHTS!
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The argument against this is simple. This unelected body must not be trusted with such an absolute power because the historical record shows that judges and lawyers cannot be trusted with such power. The League of Rights has championed the case for a decentralised basis to power, a pluralism of checks and balances.
GOD AND LIMITS OF SCIENCE
by Brian Simpson
Atheists rejoice in quoting such statistics. They shouldn’t. According to most past atheists, the advances of scientific rationality that would and should have led to the end of faith as religion, evaporated in the burning sunlight of scientific truth. But this hasn’t occurred. In fact, the paradigm cases of religious irrationality (for the atheist and scientific materialist), Pentecostal and Evangelical protestant churches are flourishing. Bad economic times are likely to lead to more people coming through their doors – but not, we think – the rented church halls where atheism meetings are held.
In his recent book, “Why Us?” (Harper Collins), James Le Fanu discusses the greatest scientific discoveries of our time: the unlocking of the genetic code and the neuroscientific understanding of the human brain. These fields, according to scientific materialists, promised to eliminate the ‘ghost in the machine’ and to produce a purely materialistic and mechanistic account of the world without God, spirit, mind or soul.
But the discoveries in genetics have revealed that diverse organisms are essentially identical as far as DNA goes. Form and morphological variety is not accounted for by DNA alone. Likewise, neurophysiology has yet to solve the problem of consciousness.
It is the lack of these concepts which have ultimately philosophically impoverished our sciences. Materialism has served as a blinker that has narrowed the vision of science.It is time for that blinker to be removed so that God can once more be seen by the once-blinded, scientific eye.
TIME TO PUT SOME OF THE BLAME ON THE THIRD WORLD
by James Reed
Missing from this discussion is a racial dimension: that most of the growth in human numbers that threatens to overwhelm the planet is in the Third World. Also missing is recognition that immigration is environmentally destructive because it merely makes people with less of a ‘carbon footprint’ into high emitters.
Although I seldom agree with columnist Christopher Pearson, he is right about the “bloated legacy” of Robert Menzies. Menzies’ expansion of the Australian University sector was an absolute disaster that led to intellectually inferior and many D-grade academics being given tenure.
THE HYPOCRISY OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS
by James Reed
And, according to David de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild banking family, in his “Global Warming Survival Handbook” (The Australian, 1/5/09, p.13) we should put on jumpers before turning on the heater.
THE CRISIS AND COST OF DIVERSITY
by Brian Simpson
By that time blacks will represent 25.38% of the world population (blacks were 8.97% in 1950). A press release by the US National Policy Institute (7/4/08) says that the coloured race “and their governments will be looking for elbow room and the diminished presence of whites in Europe and especially in the relatively wide open spaces [of] North America will provide such an opportunity. Countries like Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and Russia can be expected to be pressured to accept collectively hundreds of millions of refugees from India and sub-Sahara Africa.”
Already there is considerable evidence that multicultural and multiracial societies face problems of social cohesion – and this is from mainstream social scientists alone. Leading sociologist Robert D. Putnam, writing in the Scandinavian Political Studies (Vol.30, 2007) concluded on the basis of his American research, that in the short term “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital.” In “ethnically diverse neighbourhoods” residents of all races tend to “bunker down.”
“Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.” In the longer term, Putnam believes, immigration and diversity does not have these disadvantages but his arguments for this are weak, being based upon past cases of assimilation. But the West has never faced the onslaught which it faces today. The disadvantages of immigration and diversity noted by Putnam are confirmed by a more recent study by the National Policy Institute: Cost of Diversity (October 2008) which concludes that the US has become a “Tower of Babel”.
Similar conclusions have been reached in a study of the Melbourne situation: Ernest Healy, “Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion in Melbourne” People and Place, Vol.15, 2007.
The ramifications of all this are frightening to say the least.
Thus, if we want our ideals to survive, we must immediately take a stand on opposing further immigration. If Australian could turn back the rising tide, other Western countries may also get the backbone to resist.
OVERLOAD AUSTRALIA TRAGEDY: IMMIGRATION
by James Reed
Mark O’Connor and William J. Lines in “Overloading Australia” (Envirobook, 2008, do a good job of outlining the environmental case against immigration – and the population increase for Australia. This book does go a bit beyond other such environmental critics because it deals with the new class and their manipulation of the immigration issue. There is not much here that League writers haven’t said, but hearing these things said by people of a different political slant to me is good.
Of course, O’Connor and Lines are politically correct and as expected are soft on the refugee issues. Really, if global warming, and all that, is occurring, then we should be following right wing environmentalists like Garrett Hardin and advocating a lifeboat ethics, where all immigration to Australia ends. That is the sort of environmental critique I would like to see.
GREENIE LAWYERS : CASH REGISTERS TO START SINGING?
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Merely creating a ‘market’ does not magically solve a real world problem, although people often think that it does because the ‘market’ is ‘god’ for our capitalist society.
At some point, if greenhouse gas emissions are a problem (I don’t know if they are or not), someone has to make the cuts. Does this mean that Obama is going to stand up to ‘big oil’?
It seems unlikely that Obama will make a stand against ‘big oil’. The New York Times saw Obama as a presidential candidate reversing much of what George Bush stood for. But recently a New York Times editorial lamented that Obama seems to be staying with Bush policies such as indefinite military detention for those suspected of terrorism (cited The Australian 24/3/09, p.11). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
NAVIGATING THE FAMILY LAW REEF
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Hirst is heavy on the Child Support Agency:
It is often complained, by men who have been divorced, that it is difficult to meet their commitments. The ex-wife gets the old family home and they have to establish a new home while paying child support. This is where you need to carefully check out the law and regulations. It is my belief, not advice, that if the man establishes a new relationship and remarries – make sure the new wife has a house of her own!* – the threshold income for assessment will alter, as it will with new batches of kiddies. (*Do I denote a touch of cynicism here Ian?... Editor.)
Check out the Child Support Agency website or have a look at the Act. There may be many legal ways of arranging one’s affairs so that one can start again, especially if the ex-wife is denying one access to children. I believe that on Newstart or Austudy, support payments could be as low as $79 a month, but again check the matter out for yourself.
Men facing these financial difficulties need to get expert legal advice and such advice need not break the bank. Men’s support groups can refer you to kindly lawyers who whilst not working for free, are at least fair enough to give you sound advice. In principle, all of this information can be ascertained by a legal appointment and some internet study. Men have often come out poorly because they simply have not done their homework and legal research. They need to treat their case seriously if they are to have a hope of defending their interests.
This position is confirmed by some recent articles:
There has been a good outcome for men from the Howard government’s Family Law Amendment Act (Shared Parental Responsibility Act), which introduced a rebuttal presumption of ‘equal time’ parenting. Mothers still get the majority of orders in their favour, but the situation has improved since John Hirst’s essay.
The moral of the story is that one in the end needs to legally fight back, not only in family law matters but on all issues of legal concern. Nothing beats a good legal defence. This of course may not be possible because of the expense of lawyers, but a person of average intelligence can now use the internet to research legal matters. One does not have to remain defenceless and ignorant of the law.
My aim is not to offer legal advice, rather a personal opinion in this article, but do strongly suggest that suffering men obtain it – i.e., legal advice.
A STRANGE LEGAL ARGUMENT
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The law was changed because of the widely acknowledged problem of women using false claims of domestic violence to discredit men. Could it be that domestic violence allegations are down, not because of this section, but because in reality domestic violence is rarer than feminist ideology proposes that it is?
Editor’s comment: Could it be that women now think twice before making ‘untrue allegations’ or ‘untrue denials’ because they may lay themselves open to such matters as perjury? Could it be that is why such allegations are less?
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|