|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
7th September 2012 Thought for the Week:
John Bunyan and Eric Butler: In the second part of “The Pilgrim’s Progress” these are the words Bunyan puts into the mouth of Mr Valiant-for-Truth when he knows he is at the point of death: 'I am going to my fathers, and though with great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not repent me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am. My sword, I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage, and my courage and skill to him that can get it. My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought his battles who I know will be my rewarder.' They are words that Eric Butler could well have spoken when he was at the end of his life.
It was Eric's fate to find himself called to a lifelong contest with mighty and ruthlessly unscrupulous political powers. He was a warrior-pilgrim seeking to defend the British culture and civilisation into which he had been born, with its high valuation on sacred tradition, royal dignity, the rule of equitable law and the freedom of the individual subject. He laboured for decades knowing that not only would he not receive due recognition for his services, but that he would die one of the most persistently vilified men in Australia. He never flinched and he never complained.
It has been a privilege for me to fight for his vindication as a war veteran and honourable gentleman in the face of the latest scurrilous attacks upon him. I am glad that the Australian Press Council has done Eric some justice, if not as much as I would have liked.
- - - Nigel Jackson, 28 August 2012
IT’S A MATTER OF ONE’S PHILOSOPHY
by Betty Luks
For me, the key words were “Mr Butler’s views were inaccurately portrayed as primarily anti-Semitic when in reality they were principally concerned with public service from a Christian orientation…”
Butler, the student of history and his introduction to Social Credit:
Philosophy and Policy: Stripped of the variables there are only two basic philosophies: being diametrically opposed, they give rise to conflicting policies.
Centralism: The first philosophy conceives of all power arising from a point outside, or external to the individual. This philosophy gives rise to policies calling for a certain type of organization. The individual is looked upon merely as an instrument, or tool, of power wielded by someone else. This is the essence of all forms of totalitarianism whatever the label: monopoly capitalism, communism, socialism, facism, nazism, zionism.
Eric Butler wrote: “The philosophy of centralised power always produces the same destructive results. It is a false philosophy because it conflicts with Reality, one important aspect of which is the nature of individuals. The inevitable result of more and more centralisation of power is more and more compulsion.”
Freedom: The Second Philosophy is One of Freedom for the Individual: “It conceives of a social organisation that provides the basis of that rather awful freedom, where a man becomes responsible to God for his own development and achievements. “The Kingdom of God is within you.”
Policy of Centralism: The Bank of England and 1694: One of the most important events in modern history was the setting up of the Bank of England in 1694. It was with that legislative act that the monetary policy of the English people was changed without them knowing it. The ancient prerogative of the King to create and administer the nation’s money system was handed over to a private concern – the Bank of England – and the beginnings of the national debt. The private banking system, by its control of the monetary mechanism of every nation, controls every aspect of social life. This is a tyranny! Eric Butler wrote of the background history of the Bank of England in “The Enemy Within the Empire”...This was an act of unforgiveable betrayal on the part of those involved in 1694.
Christians were told: “The love of money (Mammon) – that is, the preference for money, in terms of personal advancement, above all other considerations - is the root of all kinds of evil.” There is another saying from among the south sea islanders: "Know the roots and you will know the tree…"
Social Credit, Policy of Freedom: Jesus said “WOE unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You tithe mint and anise and cumin, but have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy, and social credit, these you ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. You blind guides, which strain out the gnat and swallow the camel."
It is faithful dealing between man and man that is fundamental to all human relationships, including those between individuals within a nation. We were promised there are benefits to be had, there are fruits resulting from such faithful dealing. There is an increment to be had
from the association, if it is based on ‘faithful dealings’.
Social credit and the Three-Fold Commonwealth:
2. In the Economics/Finance fold, we associate to provide for the material wants of life--food, clothing, shelter and services, such as transport, sanitation, water supplies and roads, etc.
Social credit teaching insists the huge production now streaming forth from the Economic System doesn’t belong to any one class or group. Yes, the worker receives his wages and the manufacturer his Just Price, but when the needs of the people have been satisfied, why produce for production’s sake?
3. It is in the Cultural/Spiritual fold that the individual naturally strives to develop and fulfil himself in such activities as Religion, Sport, Arts, Learning, Community Service, etc. In this field his associations are generally most satisfactory because the correct principles of association are observed.
For a Policy of Freedom to be incarnated, (i.e., “it is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things as yet unseen!), Political Democracy must first be made to work. Our political representatives must be brought to realise they are the People’s servants, not their masters.
This is what Eric Dudley Butler was about. He spent a lifetime travelling the length and breadth of this great land, teaching, encouraging his fellow Australians, and fighting for, their freedom to choose. From what I know of Phillip Adams’ background (a former communist party member) he did not share Eric’s philosophy. In fact the two philosophies were and are diametrically opposed.
*** Important DVD: Social Dynamics with Eric Butler and Jeremy Lee. Full definition $10 + $3.00 postage.
THE QUESTION OF JULIA
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
In my opinion as a legally trained person, there is no evidence meeting the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” that Gillard did any wrong doing in a criminal sense or in any legal sense. I am sorry to disappoint readers and I have no love for Gillard myself, but I do love the rule of law and the fundamental principles of common law justice, and that is the conclusion that a think a hypothetical reasonable person would reach.
The allegations that Gillard was acting inappropriately are based solely on suspicions that she did not open a file on the establishment of the Association because she had something to hide. I find this is a crazy argument. Examining closely the 1995 Slater and Gordon transcript (The Australian 22 August 2012 p.11) gives no evidence of this. Gillard did not open a file and The Australian journalists have made much of this.
But, for many firms it is standard practice not to open files for work done for existing clients pro bono i.e., without charge. (The Australian 22 August 2012 p.1) In any case, the mere existence of a client misusing a legal structure which a lawyer has created happens all the time. It alone does not imply any wrong doing on Gillard’s part. This is so even if the client was her then boyfriend.
With all the tens of thousands of words written on the Gillard issue I am surprised that no-one, until now, has not mentioned the legal folly of doing work for partners and relatives. Legal ethics does not preclude it, but it certainly should. It is not wise because if something goes wrong it starts to look like a conspiracy. Gillard made a professional mistake doing this work in the first place, but that was her choice.
What then remains? There is the allegation about Gillard receiving funds for her property renovations. Going over the 1995 transcript I don’t see any evidence of this. Slater and Gordon is a leading law firm and in 1995 was just as highly regarded in the legal world as they are today. The 1995 interview contains a detailed probe on this issue. They requested receipts from Gillard and I assume that the firm got them and conducted their own investigation. Gillard had also dealt with a claim that there existed a receipt with respect to renovation work done at her home, linked to AWU WRA funds. This was a “rumour”, and in any case, even in the “rumour” the AWU WRA refused to pay. Gillard said that while she, at the time, could not categorically rule out that there was anything at all paid for by “the association … the union or whatever” she could account for everything from her receipts. To date nobody has presented solid evidence that she did not do this. This is the key point of this issue.
Finally, there is the issue that Gillard knowingly created a “slush fund” – her own words. (The Australian 24 August 2012 p.1) – for her boyfriend and his mates to draw on, to fund their own elections. This was allegedly contrary to the stated objectives of the association. Well, what follows from this? Even if she did know about these intentions, she did the legal work. The operation of the Association was not Gillard’s concern as a lawyer. It was those who chose to use the Association as a “slush fund” that were acting contrary to the stated objects of the Association. Again, Gillard cannot be got on this point.
To sum up, as much as I personally hate to say it, from a legal point of view, even in terms of legal ethics, Gillard did nothing wrong. We may have our personal suspicions but that it irrelevant. What matters in the law is cold hard facts. Those who believe that Gillard broke the law need to come up with evidence.
This research on my part took up a fair slice of the week, but I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise because everybody deserves a fair hearing. Some on the net claim to have “the full story” that will cause a Government to fall”. If you have this, come forward because the time is ripe now. If you want this government to fall, supply hard evidence not rumour and suspicion.
THEY IDENTIFIED WITH THEM THEY WERE NEVER OF THEM
by Betty Luks
The question to Douglas was: "Is this a peculiarity of a factory producing weapons in time of war, or is it true of every business?" He investigated further (he was not only an engineer but also a cost accountant) and found that in every case the total costs always exceeded the sums paid out in wages, salaries and dividends.
The Delusion of Super Production
In the 1930s an American group known as The Technocracy put out some very interesting data which Douglas, founder of the Social Credit movement, studied. He said it was: interesting, useful, and, in the main, correct; but didn’t tell engineers and social crediters anything they didn’t already know.
While Douglas was most interested in the data provided by the group, he cautioned people about accepting the form of organised proposed… As distinct from the facts,” said Douglas, “the policy didn’t differ in essence from the policy associated with Fascism, Soviet Communism or Rationalism - which at the time was the Bank of England's particular brand of industrial reorganisation for Great Britain. Douglas’ proposals were savagely attacked by the Fabians of the day. The Labour party declared that social credit was not compatible with socialism. Better to have Marxist policies, of which at the time, the Soviet regime was a good example, than look into Douglas’ proposals of a National Dividend for all.
Enter the Fabian Society
These people – the Fabians and their ilk - identified with the workers – but were not of them. They used the working people as an instrument for the gaining of power. They were really not interested in resolving the conflict between the Employers and the Workers. They wanted a monopoly over Labour. For them, better Revolution than Resolution.
An Aside: If you follow the thread of this Technocracy Group, you’ll discover the thread can be traced down the years to the Global Warming issue, Climate Change, Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading – and next? Carbon Currency!
CAPITALISM, EMPLOYMENT AND THE CULT OF ETHNIC DIVERSITY
by Brian Simpson
This is not about celebrating diversity and the usual multicultural soft-sell. Let us suppose that a space ship with 50 trillion blonde, blue-eyed workers landed outside of Sydney. Each Nordic white worker would fill any job a capitalist had, no matter how degrading. They would work for less than any human, maybe for nothing. Would the capitalist continue to mouth off about diversity? If blonde workers were so cheap and numerous that they could be used literally as bricks in buildings, if there were so many workers that fat capitalists struggled to light their cigars for lack of oxygen, would diversity matter? No! It would not, only numbers count!
The claim that an aging population requires more migrants has been refuted by academics many times, but it keeps getting repeated. Migrants age too. Older workers will need to have a place in the economy. The article does not critically reflect upon whether racial diversity is helping business.
THE CASE AGAINST ‘FREE’ TRADE
by Brian Simpson
The game is rigged and set-up by the state capitalists with foreign governments subsidising their exports, and blocking American imports. Fletcher notes that the Congressional Research Service located 751 types of barriers to US exports. Such manipulation means that only about 15 per cent of world trade is “free” in a textbook sense. Value-added taxes are used by foreign governments as a form of protectionism.
Fletcher doesn’t support autarky or self-sufficiency but wants genuinely free trade. But the classic Ricardo argument is only valid if a mass of assumptions are met, such as no capital mobility or externalities. These assumptions arise as an inevitable part of globalisation, which is by definition about the free movement of capital and goods, which invalidates Ricardo’s comparative advantage argument for free trade. Globalism thus undermines free trade thus creating unfree trade!
WHERE ARE THE MORAL POLICE WHEN A MACHETE-WIELDING MINER NEEDS THEM?
by Peter Ewer
While the media could not resist saying that white police in the past had fired on protestors, the police gunning down the miners were mostly black. Now, where are the white liberals in the West protesting about this? Of course, since whites are not involved, it is for them not an issue. The moral police only police the behaviour of the whites.
GLAD PASSING OF THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS COSMOPOLITAN IDEOLOGY
by James Reed
Over the seas to Australia: “Offshore Students Told Not to Come” by immigration officers. (The Australian 22 August 2012 p.29) “Immigration officers are sabotaging Australia’s education marketing overseas, rejecting would-be students, and suggesting they are better off taking courses in their home countries.”
LETTER IN THE PRESS
“Seniors in the office” is not a cause for celebration. (The Courier August 20). Only a couple of weeks ago a television current affairs program ran a segment on youth unemployment in which it was claimed that unemployment among eighteen to twenty five year olds was as high as 39 per cent in some areas such as Broadmeadows. Do the people who want to work on into their dotage have any empathy with those trying to get a foothold on the employment ladder?
- - Yours truly, Ron Fischer Sebastopol Victoria.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|