|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
2 April 2010 Thought for the Week:
The Blessings of Holy Week to All our Readers
The Law of Love: “You, MY FRIENDS, were called to be free men; only do not turn your freedom into licence for your lower nature, but be servants to one another in love. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'
- - St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians 5: 13-25
SERFDOM VIA THE SOCIAL SERVICE STATE
Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, wants to take the control of Australia’s Medicare System away from the States and centralise it in the hands of the Commonwealth Government. So? What’s new?
Lou extracted two sections from the essay and they are reproduced on the League’s website in the Political Democracy section under “Nationalising Australia’s Medicare”. Study it carefully gentle reader and ask yourself if this is still not the intention of the Labour-Socialists.
“The exploitation of the Social Service idea to sap the independence of the individual and to help bring him under centralised control has always been a major aspect of 'Socialist’ technique. The Labour-Socialists are at present stressing the importance of their National Health and "Free" Medicine Schemes...” Eric D. Butler 1949.
IT IS ABOUT ONLY ONE THING - GINORMOUS GOVERNMENT
Journalist Mark Steyn should be congratulated for his clear thinking. It’s a pity the ‘conservative’ journalists in this country don’t have the same ability. Or is it because, for all their ‘blah’, the Australian versions fit his description of an American ‘republican’ ‘conservative’ and even ‘democrat’ equivalents. Where are the warning bells for this country? Our own Prime Minister is busy on the campaign trail selling his brand of Collectivist Health Care – and barely a peep from the so-called freedom-loving ‘conservatives’ whether in journalism or politics!
Labor’s WWII 14 Powers Referendum
Now on to Mike Steyn: The Dakota Beacon March 5, 2010.
In most of the rest of the western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (Let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative”). The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-centre parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.
Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic. Less than three months ago, they were stunned at the way the Democrats managed to get 60 senators to vote for the health bill. Then Scott Brown took them back down to 59, and Republicans were again stunned to find the Dems talking about ramming this thing into law through the parliamentary device of “reconciliation”.
A year or two back, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing north of the border by taking me to the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, a number of outraged American readers wrote to me saying, “You need to start kicking up a fuss about this, Steyn, and then maybe Canadians will get mad and elect a conservative government that will end this nonsense.” Makes perfect sense. Except that Canada already has a Conservative government under a Conservative Prime Minister, and the very head of the “human rights” commission investigating me was herself the Conservative appointee of a Conservative Minister of Justice.
Makes no difference. Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists – sometimes hardcore Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily “compassionate” statists, but always statists.
Republicans (Liberals/Nationals ?) are good at keeping the seat warm:
Indeed. Look at it from the Dems’ point of view. You pass Obamacare. You lose the 2010 election, which gives the GOP co-ownership of an awkward couple of years. And you come back in 2012 to find your health care apparatus is still in place, a fetid behemoth of toxic pustules oozing all over the basement, and, simply through the natural processes of government, already bigger and more expensive and more bureaucratic than it was when you passed it two years earlier. That’s a huge prize, and well worth a mid-term timeout.
I’ve been bandying comparisons with Britain and France but that hardly begins to convey the scale of it. Obamacare represents the government annexation of “one-sixth of the US economy” - ie, the equivalent of the entire British or French economy, or the entire Indian economy twice over. Nobody has ever attempted this level of centralized planning for an advanced society of 300 million people. Even the control-freaks of the European Union have never tried to impose a unitary “comprehensive” health care system from Galway to Greece. The Soviet Union did, of course, and we know how that worked out.
This “reform” is not about health care, and certainly not about “controlling costs”.
WOMEN, THE LAW AND FEMINIST DOGMAS
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
However, the available evidence indicates that women are happier in marriages with traditional division of labour rather than this sort of politically correct egalitarian (or even matriarchal) arrangement. Research by Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock, two University of Virginia sociologists, involved a sample of 5000 couples drawn from the second wave (1992-1994) of the US National Survey of Families and Households.
Writers such as our own James Reed who sees some sort of conspiracy of feminists bringing down Western civilisation, should follow up this research (W. Bradford Wilcox and S.L. Nock, “What’s Love Got To Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Equality,” Social Forces, vol. 84, March 2006).
IAN WILSON DID ASK - "WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?"
by Betty Luks
The Australian League of Rights insists on the fundamental importance of the Rule of Law and stresses the value of our system of Common Law protecting the rights of the individual, etc. The League’s objectives have not changed in all the years of its existence and are restated in every New Times Survey issue. But what was so inspiring was the gleam of light focussed on the history of the practical application - which is the ‘key’ to our understanding of our own history – of the 2nd Great Commandment, “love your neighbour as yourself”.
C.H. Douglas challenged his readers many years ago when he wrote:
Can it not be said the Law of Love is just as much a Law of the Universe as is the Law of Gravity and the observance of both is for our own individual benefit as it is for our neighbour’s? The real, the organic history of the English-speaking peoples can be rightly understood only in the context of the Law of Love. It is not a Law to Love but a Law of Love.
A note of caution here, we mustn’t make the mistake of looking back through recorded history and imagining people thought and acted as does modern man. Not only does realistic history reveal the slow evolution (growth, development) of systems and institutions but also the slow evolution (growth, development) of the whole man himself.
Morality reduces to Law:
Further essential reading: “Christian Philosophy in the Common Law” by Richard O’Sullivan KC. (Photocopy) Price: $7.00 plus postage. “Responsible Government in a Free Society” by Geoffrey Dobbs. Price: $6.00 plus postage. “The Essential Christian Heritage” by Eric D. Butler. Price: $2.00 plus postage. “The Just Tax” by Geoffrey Dobbs. Price: $4.00 plus postage.
OUR FOREIGN AID HELPS... WHO?... IS THAT RIGHT?
Thanks go to Andrew Bolt and his blogspot for the following – Sunday, March 21, 2010:
The ACTU has collected $147,000 for a campaign to educate workers on the Rudd Government’s international development aid program. Another $150,000 has gone to the Oaktree Foundation, founded by former young Australian of the Year Hugh Evans, for 1000 young people to travel the country educating the public about poverty alleviation and the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. The foundation was part of the 2007 Make Poverty History campaign and during that year’s election Mr Evans said it was planning a “full-scale” campaign urging people to support Labor’s position on foreign aid. Other winners include a program to bring Australian and Afghani youth together, via the internet, for an arts project showing they understand poverty and a rickshaw ride for 400 from Queensland to Tasmania.
Under the new rules, 10 per cent of Ausaid’s Australian NGO Co-operation Program’s budget can be spent in Australia on awareness campaigns. “Awareness campaigns” is what they call this propaganda and sponsor-my-fun now. Contemptible. Utterly contemptible.
Update: Reader ‘Boy on a Bik’e says your aid dollars are indeed lifting some people out of poverty: AusAID - have a look at their annual report, in particular TABLE 10: AUSAID SES EMPLOYEE SALARY RANGE, 30 JUNE 2009.
Comment: Isn’t it well past time the people took back their right to contract (bargain) with their leaders on the percentage of their increase (their disposable income) they will pay for the administration of ‘government’? Better still, in this age of physical abundance with the introduction of the social credit proposal for a National Dividend for ALL and a Price Subsidy (as implemented during WWII) to eliminate price inflation - ALL would live well! And we would all have leisure time - even though our governments and bureaucrats think it is for them alone.
For those with access to the internet: Google in ‘Social Credit Wikipedia’ and you will find a most comprehensive explanation of the various aspects of Social Credit. Definitely well worth downloading and having your own copy to study. A number of social crediters keep a watchful eye on the site to ensure it is not ‘corrupted’.
WAR AID - AND THE STUPIDITY
by James Reed
It goes to show the stupidity of the rock philosophy message. Seduced by the cacophony of loud music, brain cells stretched to breaking point and language and logic dulled by meaningless, repetitious lyrics – the music world lives in a separate reality from the real world. If only it was the wealth of the rock stars that was lost, not the money of the people who followed these fools.
SOME REASONS FOR BEING GLAD (STILL)
by Peter Ewer
THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF PETER SINGER
by Brian Simpson
An internet search uncovered a book review by Peter Singer entitled “Heavy Petting” (Nerve, 2001). There he argued that our horror about human/animal sexual relationships arose from the unfounded religious notion that humans were distinct from and superior to animals.
My apologies for raising an unpleasant topic but I think this issue really does show very starkly the differences between Christian philosophy and a materialist one which just sees us humans as animals. If we go down the materialist road then we are ultimately faced with the sort of conclusions that Peter Singer reaches. As an atheist he has done us the service of showing the absurdity of the materialist world view.
IMMIGRATION AND THE SUFFERING OF STUDENTS
by James Reed
The Universities clamour for more immigration. But the reality is, as a Thai student put it in a letter to The Australian (17/2/2010, p.25) that “it is common knowledge among those who work in the sector that tertiary education has become a degree factory, providing certificates as a gateway to residence but rarely a path to employment.”
THE GOOD NEWS IS - WOMEN WANT TO BE WOMEN!
by James Reed
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|