|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 November 2011 Thought for the Week:
The mass-production of "superfluities", degradation of agriculture and wasteful industrialism have been supported by a largely silent clergy. For Massingham, frugality is a Christian virtue, "while the choice for man has definitely become his mastery of money and the machine, or their mastery of him" (Massingham 1943: 195). Referring to Tawney's “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism”, Massingham notes the "Tudor clash between Christian morality and economic interests":
Theology surrendered to ethics, ethics to economics, and man followed suit from a spiritual being to an economic animal. The terms of surrender are indeed explicitly set out by the Tonnage Act of 1694, by which the king handed over his prerogative in the issue of money to a private interest in the newly created Bank of England. Thus the Bank of England took precedence of the Church of England by relieving economics of Christian supervision and giving it into the charge of itself (Massingham 1943: 103).
- - “The Tree of Life: Reclaiming a Rich History”, Frances Hutchinson, University of Bradford, UK
AN ECONOMY FOR REAL PEOPLE AND THE PLANET
Video Vandana Shiva:
She speaks about the illusions of our economic system and globalisation: "Money used to be a medium of convenient exchange. It was never meant to be worth something in and of itself. It was a promise to pay the bearer... we have to come back to the economy of real goods and real services. The more we can remove money from our lives the more we will have real prosperity." She speaks about the current economic system going further and further out of whack with reality. "You can multiply money fictitiously, but a tree will only grow at it's own pace and the false growth of the economy is destroying the real growth of the planet, of people and culture."
She further underscores her point about destructive globalisation by talking about the 200,000 Indian farmers who have committed suicide since Monsanto came to India. That number is from 2006, and counting. Watch:
IT WILL BE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO PAY IT BACK: GREEK PM IS RIGHT
Plebiscite on Greece’s ‘bailout’: Plebiscite on Greece’s ‘bailout’: The headlines were screaming at the Greek president. He wanted to put the matter before the people before placing the nation further and further into the clutches of the money lenders. One would have thought that was the way to go in a genuine democracy. Do the Greeks have the power to take back and create their own money system? According to the latest news, it seems the dark forces have forced him to ‘reconsider’ having a referendum of the people.
The latest news is “Democracy’s birthplace won’t get a vote on the EU deal” Andrew Bolt – 4/11/201:
THE EUROCRATS’ RESPONSE? THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF DEMOCRACY!
"Financial crisis: Eurocrats are terrified of democracy" - Telegraph 3/11/11 11:45 AM
I wish I could convey the sheer horror that his proposal provoked in Brussels. The first rule of the Eurocracy is “no referendums”. Brussels functionaries believe that their work is too important to be subject to the prejudices of hoi polloi (for once, the Greek phrase seems apposite). Referendums are always seen as irresponsible; but, at a time when the euro is teetering on the brink, Papandreou’s proposal was seen as an act of ingratitude bordering on treason.
Across the palaces and chanceries of the continent, Euro-elites closed ranks. Nicolas Sarkozy’s spokesman described Papandreou’s announcement as “irrational and dangerous”, Angela Merkel’s called it “irritating”, Silvio Berlusconi’s “negative”. Such phrases, in the mouths of government officials, suggest purple, choking rage.
The Athens establishment lined up with them. Antonis Samaras, the leader of New Democracy, vowed – with splendid disregard for his party’s name – to prevent a referendum “at all costs”.
Australians would do well to take note of their own prime minister’s call for Australia to boost its contribution to the IMF to keep the global financial system from teetering over the edge. What is needed is a Responsible Government in a Free Society!
AUSTRALIA FOR SALE! (WHAT! HASN’T IT BEEN SOLD YET?)
by James Reed
The Foreign Investment Review Board essentially doesn’t exist as millions of dollars float away offshore. And the Northern Territory (a state) beats even South Australia with a proud 24% of foreign ownership. Right on, NT!
ON PLAYING THE MANNE
by James Reed and Brian Simpson
The claim by Paul Kelly that Manne “throws truth overboard” (The Australian, September 14, 2011) in the case say of the stolen generation claims of genocide, is understandable in the context of the theoretical inadequacy of his work. Thus as one letter-writer to The Australian put it, Manne “during his tenure as editor of Quadrant… was obviously obsessed with his perception that the bulk of English speaking settlers who arrived before World War II – and their descendants – were morally delinquent in not sharing his concern with the horror of the Holocaust…
Neither Manne, nor The Australian deal with the core issue that topics such as Asian immigration, multiculturalism and multiracialism are essentially now “out of intellectual bounds” and The Australian certainly does not permit any challenge to the new politically correct status quo. Even the issue of the limits of population growth, let alone economic growth, is seldom mentioned in The Australian and to our memory, Dick Smith is the only one to have published an article in recent times criticising immigration-fuelled population expansion in The Australian. Manne could have developed a critique of The Australian from this basis, but on the immigration/Asianisation question he seems to take the same politically correct line as The Australian. We therefore take the view that the bitter Mane vs The Australian debate is pretty much a family feud.
FACEBOOK AND THE RISE AND FALL OF IQ
by Peter Ewer
Maybe these brain areas would be even bigger if normal-to-normal facial communications occurred rather than the alienated cyber-communications of today. If those scientists are right who see solar activity frying electronic circuits in 2012, then a lot of young people will go over the edge of sanity. What life would they have after texting? Of more interest S. Ramsden (et. al.), “Verbal and Non-Verbal Intelligence Changes in the Teen Brain”, Nature doi:10.1038/nature.10514(2011), found that IQ is not stable across one’s life and for adolescents can vary by as much as 20 IQ points.
Adolescents tested by the team had brain scans via a MRI. It seems that the human brain and IQ can change in response to learning events. As I see it, with the present dumbing-down that is occurring in our education system, in a few years, many of our teenagers would have reverted to the level of base savages, perhaps ultimately drinking blood out of a skull! (Grumpy old men of the world unite!)
ASK THE ASIAN PHILOSOPHER SOUTHPHOMMASANE
by Peter West
So are we then given the jurisprudence of constitutional law or an analysis of “best served”? Are we told why we should be “nationalists” in this sense rather than internationalists – for even if (falsely) the Queen is regarded as “British” (she is our Head of State, both British and Australian, so the premise is false) – then why not have a “foreigner” as monarch? Doesn’t that symbolise migrant Australia?
In fact Southphommasane appeals to radical nationalists such as Henry Lawson, which is ironic because Lawson opposed Asians coming to Australia. But passing over that, Southphommasane says that “Australian republicanism” has stalled because it … continues to be defined by its anti-British flourishes”. Rather, a republic should be a “popular government for the common good… an anti-despotic, balanced and representative form of self-rule”. Well, if that is what is needed Tim, how about binding Citizen’s Initiated Referendums as a real test of democratic maturity?
PAUL KEATING: A GIFT TO THE MONARCHIST CAUSE
by James Reed
Nigel Jackson (The Australian 21 October 2011, p.15) admirably summed it up: “The monarchy offers us a unifying image of glory, dignity and nobility, as well as reminding us of the wisdom and heroism of past generations over 11 centuries”.
Keating has locked republicanism into a “headless egalitarian” direction and as such has actually contributed to the monarchist cause. He has illustrated – forcefully - that republicanism represents anti-British sentiment.
CHILD SACRIFICE IN AFRICA: ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY
by Peter West
UNBEARABLE WEIGHT OF DEBT: SOCIAL CREDIT AND “FILTHY LUCRE”
by Peter Ewer
Having no sooner seen that gem forecast I came across Joseph Heath’s" Filthy Lucre: Economics for Those Who Hate Capitalism", (Scribe, Melbourne 2009). Heath is a philosopher at the University of Toronto and has written three other economics-style books: The Rebel Sell: Why the Culture Can’t be Jammed (with Andrew Potter), Communicative Action and Rational Choice and The Efficient Society. Filthy Lucre attempts to debunk economic myths on both the Left and the Right and as far as it goes, Heath does a relatively good job. But not so when we come to the question of credit creation.
First, although not mentioning the A+B theorem of Major Douglas, he says that it is impossible for consumers to lack “the means of payment” to purchase all of the consumer goods which have been produced and he brings John Stuart Mill to his defence. According to Mill: “Those who think so, cannot have considered what it is which constitutes the means of payment for commodities. It is, simply, commodities. Each person’s means of paying for the productions of other people consists of those which he himself produces. All sellers are inevitably, and by the meaning of the word, buyers. Could we suddenly double the productive powers of the country, we should double the supply of commodities in every market; but we should, by the same stroke, double the purchasing power.” (p.203)
The same idea was espoused by the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say and has come to be known by the orthodox economic clergy as Say’s Law: “goods constitute the demand for goods”, “supply creates its own demand,” “supply is demand”, all because the seller of one good is the buyer of some other good. In criticism, the seller X of a good G1 may or may not be the buyer of some other set of goods H1, H2…H12. It is logically fallacious to conclude that supply therefore creates its own demand. Supply and demand even in terms of orthodox neoclassical economic theory are conceptually distinct and have sui generis laws (allegedly).By way of a counterexample consider a 19th century hide-seller in the American frontier, who is largely self-sufficient but sells some furs to stockpile money “just in case.” In no stretch of the imagination is “supply equal to demand” in any non-tautological sense.
There can be too much of all commodities, so that, contrary to Mill and Heath, consumers lack the means of purchasing all commodities on the market. Mass production using machines, robots and cheap Asian labour (Chinese prison slave labour if necessary) has resulted in a flood of commodities whose means of production is disconnected from the salaries of consumers. A sale price is put on items cheaply produced, which is not related to classic supply and demand concepts, but to what the capitalist thinks the market can bear and what he can get away with. The megaprofits are made and the surplus commodities junked. The rubbish bins of the megashops are kept firmly locked.
Heath, to his credit, admits that banks do not “actually take the money that is deposited and put in a vault somewhere down in the basement. They turn around and they lend it to someone else. This person either spends it or puts it in another bank, which turns around and lends it to someone else. The only reason this process doesn’t continue indefinitely is that banks have to put aside a certain percentage of each deposit [known as the in “capital adequacy ratio” of fractional reserve banking, although Heath does not use these terms] in order to make sure they have enough cash on hand to cover withdrawals.” (p.205) To his discredit, Heath then says that Major CH Douglas founded “the somewhat nutty “social credit”” movement based upon a fallacious understanding of the relationship between savings and credit.” (p.205)
On the contrary, nothing that Heath has said justifies his typical mainstream economic remarks about social credit. But for a refutation, consider a rejection of orthodox banking for a “green economics” position. Ted Trainer in "The Transition to a Sustainable and Just World", (Envirobook, 2010) says about the creation of credit ex nihilo by banks that “the process whereby it is done in our economy is outrageous, farcical and incredible… The most astounding part is that after the banks have created the money they are allowed to own it and to lend it back and get interest on the loans. This is just the same as getting a printing shop to print out bus tickets and then allowing it to own the bus rides the tickets represent, that is, to sell the tickets for bus rides and keep the money received.” (p.66)
Not only is this socially and morally wrong but as the social credit movement has shown, all new money entering the economy is coated in debt that has to be repaid in interest. This creates an infinite regress of debt and ultimately the unbearable weight of debt that much of the world struggles under. Among other things, social credit aims to liberate us from this suffering world of debt.
SURE, SORT THE ASYLUMS ONSHORE: THE JAMES REED WAY!
by James Reed
Let these poor oppressed people – as the Left at unis describe them – have the homes of the chattering class. And let them have the uni places that would have gone to the chatterers’ children. See how strongly refugeeism is supported when the bleeders have to pay a cost!
LETTER IN THE PRESS
The Editor, The Ballarat Courier 30th October 2011:
- - Yours truly, Ron Fischer Sebastopol Victoria.
JUST HAD TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FOR A GOOD LAUGH…Ed
Email received from old friend:
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|