|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 Januuary 2013 Thought for the Week:
Escape from Utopia: In the structure of an organised society designed to serve the individuals composing it, the process by which such apparently irreconcilable ideas as freedom and control, initiative and discipline, independence and organisation, aristocracy and democracy, can invariably be reconciled - as distinct from compromise – involves three sets of ideas which have already emerged into human consciousness, and are in fact applied in a haphazard manner in certain directions, albeit with considerable confusion, overlapping and frustration.
The extraction of these three ideas from the welter of muddle, conflict, love, hatred, enthusiasm and despair, which is our present portion, and their synthesis into the potent liberating principle of reconciliation, constitute the major contribution of Social Credit to the order in progress of humanity.
The first consists in recognising the fundamental importance of individual responsibility for function in any organisation or association of individuals, from a nation to a cycling club or a teashop. The second is the paramount necessity of distinguishing between policy and administration. The third is the theory of the limited objective.
Most successful business undertakings recognise and apply the first idea, which is a categorical denial of the practicability of the concept of "collective responsibility". But the prevailing confusion in regard to policy and administration can be verified readily by examining the definitions of "policy" in half-a-dozen standard dictionaries, bearing in mind that policy and administration are two fundamentally different things.
Policy is concerned solely with what to do, and is primary. Administration is concerned with how to do it, and is secondary. The interests of policy are with ends, goals, aims - with the results that are desired. Administration has to devise and apply technique - ways, means and methods of achieving the results determined by policy.
The objective of Social Credit, then, is to secure decentralisation of policy coupled with centralisation of technique to the extent required for any agreed objective. It is worthy of note that the theory of the limited objective, which is a recognition at once of the changeability of human desires and of the wisdom which "lies in masterful administration of the unforeseen," is already recognised in "flexible" constitutions such as our own, (British) and repudiated in "rigid" constitutions such as that of the United States.
It is the function of democracy to decide policy, and its privilege to change policy, and to reject personnel. It is the function of an aristocracy or hierarchy of experts to administer, to devise ways and means of executing, policy. Thus by a process of trial and error, by learning from mistakes, can mankind progress with order and without rancour.
Social Credit, like all practical science, is a continual experiment. It seeks to ascertain with ever-increasing accuracy what are the desires of individuals, and how best they can be fulfilled. It repudiates all fixed ideas of what is good for people, and seeks to give them the fullest facilities for deciding and obtaining what they want.
- - W. L. Bardsley “The Fig Tree” June 1936
STATE PREMIERS SHOULD NOT TREAT SOVEREIGNTY SO LIGHTLY
From Philip Benwell, National Chair Australian Monarchist League.
The Founding Fathers ensured that the six States retained their sovereign independence within a federated structure. Each State operates under its own constitution. The prime minister is wrong to say there is only one Crown in Australia. Whilst it is the same Crown of the United Kingdom, it is as separately divided between each of the States as the Crowns of Canada and Papua New Guinea are.
Do we not have six State governors, each separately appointed by The Queen and each representing the Crown in their respective States? Our State governors are not responsible to Canberra but individually to The Queen.
Furthermore, change to the Act of Settlement has severe consequences for the Crown and should not be treated so lightly. The rule of primogeniture represents a thousand years of common law and yet our premiers, except that of Queensland, appear willing to dismiss it without due process. It is time that our State politicians took their role seriously and stood up for the sovereignty of the States they represent.
THE CHOICE IS BEFORE US, EITHER WE ACCEPT THE GIFT OF LIFE – OR…
by Betty Luks
In “The Gift of Death”, George Monbiot, in the Guardian 10/12/2012 wrote:
Pathological consumption has become so normalised that we scarcely notice it. There’s nothing they need, nothing they don’t own already, nothing they even want. So you buy them a solar-powered waving queen; a belly button brush; a silver-plated ice cream tub holder; a “hilarious” inflatable zimmer frame; a confection of plastic and electronics called Terry the Swearing Turtle; or – and somehow I find this significant – a Scratch Off World wall map.
Researching her film The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard discovered that of the materials flowing through the consumer economy, only 1% remain in use six months after sale. Even the goods we might have expected to hold onto are soon condemned to destruction through either planned obsolescence (breaking quickly) or perceived obsolescence (becoming unfashionable).
But many of the products we buy, especially for Christmas, cannot become obsolescent. The term implies a loss of utility, but they had no utility in the first place. An electronic drum-machine t-shirt; a Darth Vader talking piggy bank; an ear-shaped i-phone case; an individual beer can chiller; an electronic wine breather; a sonic screwdriver remote control; bacon toothpaste; a dancing dog: no one is expected to use them, or even look at them, after Christmas Day. They are designed to elicit thanks, perhaps a snigger or two, and then be thrown away.
The fatuity of the products is matched by the profundity of the impacts
George Monbiot would do well to study what is known as “The A+B Theorem” where he would discover the key to industrialized nations’ pathological production and consumption, resulting in the destruction of the environment. The A+B Theorem
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICAN MONETARY INSTITUTE (AMI)
“The year 2012, saw a very important development for the advancement of AMI's monetary reform work! You know that HR2990, was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives on September 21st, 2011 by Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland, Ohio, co-sponsored by Congressman John Conyers of Detroit Michigan… You can read the act, with videos, at https://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/HR-2990.pdf .
Then a major development occurred in August, 2012
You can read the paper at
Dr. Kumhof is the first, and only economist to do his duty toward my book, The Lost Science of Money. He did this in a magnificent two sentence review of my book:
ALOR - The River by Michael Lane He writes: "This Technocracy" and was published in the New Age in 1933 ... "Technocracy" was a descendant of the organization founded by Ferguson ...
WALLACE KLINCK RESPONDS TO AMI’S STEPHEN ZARLENGA
Dear Stephen Zarlenga,
"Toil not, your Heavenly Father knows you have need of these things. If God should feed the beasts of the field, the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air, how much more will he feed you--ye of little Faith." "Works are as filthy rags." What is the significance of the multiplication by Jesus of loaves and fishes and his Unconditional distribution of same to his flock?
What is mechanical advantage and the unearned increment of association all about? Just another means to further enslave mankind? Are all the advances and efforts of mankind toward the elimination of human effort as a factor of production to be sabotaged by an artificial and deliberate central governmental policy of creating more work.
"Over time, whoever controls the money system controls the nation", you say:
PRINCE CHARLES’ PLEA: LOOK AT WHAT WE’RE DOING TO THE EARTH
When one reads Prince Charles’ book “Harmony” the reader becomes aware of the Prince’s affinity with Creation and his deep understanding of much of the natural world and forces within it. His concern for the care of the Earth is deeply felt and reaches back into his youth. What I have never read or heard of is his interest or study of the destructive influences, and control, of the Money Power in relation to the Earth. I can quite understand him not entering into that field as he is the son and heir of a Constitutional Monarch and the Monarch’s role within that institution is plainly spelled out.
From the rice farms of India to the prairies of America's corn belt, from the temples of Ancient Egypt to the laboratories of industrial designers, Harmony spans the globe to identify the different ways that contemporary life has abandoned the hard-earned practices of our history, a shift that has spurred a host of social problems.
I sometimes wonder how aware is Prince Charles of the forces that were at play behind the public execution of his ancestor and namesake Charles I. Having said that, I believe he has striven for the quality of life for all, within the limits of his powers, of persuasion, and example, within the hierarchical structure that places such limits on what he can and cannot do.
For the first time, the Prince of Wales shares his views on how our most pressing modern challenges are rooted in mankind's disharmony with nature, presenting a compelling case that the solution lies in our ability to regain a balance with the world around us. For decades, Prince Charles has been studying a wide array of disciplines to understand every aspect of man's impact on the natural world, and in that time he has examined everything from architecture to organic farming to sustainable economics. Now, for the first time, he speaks out about his years of research, presenting a fascinating look at how modern industrialisation has led us to a state of disharmony with nature, created climate change, and pushed us to the brink of disaster.
Mankind must go ‘green’ or die is one more recent public statement by the Prince:
Whether we look at what is happening in the European Union (‘the system’ is considered much more important than the lives of the people), or America’s “Fiscal Cliff”. In every case the financial system is “above all other considerations” in the minds of bankers, politicians and big business, and is leading to all kinds of evil for, and among, the people.
One recent example of the truth of that statement
The young couple, being health conscious and wanting to do what they consider is best for their little one, studied the arguments for and against vaccinations, and have chosen not to vaccinate. See their dilemma? What would you do if the baby was yours?
Further reading: “Health Wars” by Philip Day, who wrote:
MOLLISON, “FINANCIAL STRUCTURES DIVORCED FROM RESOURCES”
I discovered permaculture legend Bill Mollison in a round about way, but am pleased to have done so. In a 1983 Youtube video he warned: We “must do more than just grow your own vegetables”. Noting that "Financial Structures (are) Totally Divorced From Resources" he insisted “We need to examine the roots of the problems of world hunger and resource depletion and make big changes in the prevailing financial system. Hunger is rising, absolute hunger is rising, food's badly distributed, not distributed at all often. The waste of food, the whole deal (is) a shocking situation, it's just inhuman. It's what nobody would intend, and somehow what we've arrived at, and we arrived at it by the erection of financial structures, totally divorced from resources…
We can run away to the bush, build a mud hut and grow ducks in the garden, it's not gonna do it. The coals will still be burnt, the land will still be eroded, and the forests will still be cleared for newsprint if we run away to the bush. So, there's no escape, we've just gotta stop running away, stay where we are and start to face up and fight."
YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A ‘MONEY MAN’ TO SEE THE TRUTH OF IT
Any number of ‘social credit’ discussions take place via the internet and it is obvious some people find it difficult to grasp Douglas’ approach to Economics, Finance, etc.; they appear to be ‘blinded’ by the abstract financial system. During the break my holiday reading took me to Owen Barfield’s 1966 “Romanticism Comes of Age”. I first discovered Barfield through his association with fellow Inklings C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. Although Barfield met with Douglas over the years, his interests took him in another direction. (Have you ever read his “History in English Words”? - it takes you into the realms of human thought and consciousness, modern man’s abstract thinking which was ‘disconnecting’* him from the real world, and his discovery that language contains within it a record of the evolution of human consciousness.) Be that as it may, Barfield approached Douglas’ analysis of the lack of purchasing power within the industrialized English nation from another angle and I quote:
But when it is a question of distributing this potential wealth, when it is demanded of us, therefore, that we think in terms of flow and rate of flow, we cannot even begin to rise to it. The result is that our 'labour-saving' machinery produces, not leisure, but its ghastly caricature, un- employment,* while nearly every civilised and half-civilized nation of the world sits helplessly watching the steady growth within itself of a malignant tumour of social discontent. And this increasingly rancorous discontent is fed above all things by a cramping penury, a shortage of the means of livelihood, which arises, not out of the realities of nature, but out of abstract, in-elastic thoughts about money! It is a startling thing to go back to poetic writers such as Ruskin or Shelley and to find them forestalling already, out of the living thinking that was in them as artists, the most advanced and intelligent criticism that is being directed today upon the financial mechanism of distribution in our industrial civilization.
It is startling,
but it is not very consoling. For what effect did their intuitive foreknowledge have on the problems upon
which it was directed? About as much as Cassandra's. It is no longer enough that an occasional artist here
and there should see his parcel of truth and speak it out,
while the actual direction taken by civilisation continues
to be wholly determined by a soi-disant (e.g., as claimed by and for yourself often without justification) scientific method
* Do watch the videos “Social Dynamics” on the League’s website or send for a full definition DVD, $12.00 + postage.
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF TREASON GENTLE READER?
by Betty Luks
Dr. Ann Kent, currently a visiting fellow at the Australian National University asked in the Sydney Morning Herald, 25/11/2012, “What is the secret of Cubbie?” and insists: “Australia must stand up and protect its national interests just as strongly as China does its own. There is something odd about Australia. Our politicians expend huge resources and even more hot air wrangling over how to exclude a pitifully small number of legitimate Asian and Middle Eastern refugees from our shores, while they allow, almost without a murmur, the purchase of Cubbie Station, the largest landholding in the country, comprising a number of properties the size of the ACT, by a consortium headed by a Chinese enterprise, Shandong Ruyi.
Recently reconfigured as a ''private enterprise'' from a state-owned enterprise, Shandong Ruyi still has to obtain permission from the Chinese government before it can proceed, even after the Australian government has approved the purchase. This is a quite unusual requirement for the normal ''private enterprise''. Not only does this purchase involve vast tracts of land but Cubbie Station boasts Australia's biggest water licence, a huge parcel of water that is also critical to the healthy functioning of the Murray-Darling river system. (emphasis added...ed)
Even with the very broadest interpretation of sovereignty, this purchase by a foreign corporation backed by an authoritarian state lacking a rule of law, represents a threat to Australia's national interests that would have been more apparent had the application to purchase Cubbie been made in the environment of severe drought we were experiencing up to a few years ago, rather than during the recent unusual couple of years of relative lushness…”
Line up Ann Kemp’s observations,and the local ‘representative’s’ self-congratulations on the Basin Plan against Senator Barnaby Joyce’s misgivings: “ALP generosity stops short of Murray Darling Basin residents. If you live overseas and spruik the climate change line then the generosity of our government knows no bounds. If you live in the Murray Darling Basin affected by a government decision which has a detriment to your own economic livelihood, then you discover a government that is parsimonious.
If the ALP is serious about the livelihoods of the Murray Darling Basin’s 2.2 million people, it would cap water buybacks. The next anomaly is that the Labor Party is standing behind a policy that ultimately spends approximately $12 billion in bringing back the Murray Darling back to health. But it will remove funding for the Sustainable Rivers Audit that actually judges whether this is happening.
The Sustainable Rivers Audit is a well respected study that determines the biota of a river whether its health is better or worse than other rivers in its area”. Read more:
Australians are either going to learn to control their so-called ‘representatives’ by insisting they are in parliament to represent the will of their own people (the electorate) or they are going to taste slavery as do so many of the Chinese people themselves.
FREEDOM IS THE CAUSE, NOT OF A DAY, BUT OF A LIFETIME
An address by Canadian Doug Christie to Canadian Association for Free Expression.
Toronto, December 2, 1012.
Challenging Canada's Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: "Why can't there be 'anti-Semitism?' Anti-Christianity is rampant. There's a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam." Under Canadian law, he noted, "you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion". He noted that some years ago he was called "a perverted monster" for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. "A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment", he explained.
"Opinions should be allowed," free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself". "Truth will offend," the Battling Barrister also noted. "Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?" There's low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added.
"If you disagree, why not debate him. If we're not free to debate, what are our brains for?" he asked. "A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding." In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, "the complaint of 'discrimination' does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals," he explained. "But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation encourages offended homosexuals to say: 'You've offended me. So, I'm taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'"
Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is "a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced 'diversity' where people don't have a common understanding". But we're not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we'll go to court and academics and 'experts' at great expense will talk about 'human rights,' but what they practise is really tyranny," he said. "We've delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality. We're seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate 'lifestyle' to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief".
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says "context" is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to "marry" two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual "marriage" violates his faith. "He belongs to the state," Mr. Christie concluded.
Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case -- the constitutional challenge to the constitutionality of Sec. 13, (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13 but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: "It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13's extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you've expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias".
Mr. Justice Mosley "is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36," an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "Now he's adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting" and which he assured the media was constitutional. Indeed, Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley", he added.
In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie said:
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|