SENATOR MURPHY'S FRAUDULENT
"HUMAN RIGHTS" BILL

A good memory is essential for Australians.
They can't possibly have some understanding of present political events, without knowing what went before..
The following article appeared in a League journal nearly thirty years ago.
The chickens have now come home to roost!

Few Australians had heard about Senator Lionel Murphy's Human Rights Bill, 1973, until some of the Church leaders protested that the wording of the legislation could result in a restriction of the freedoms of the Churches. And although the Human Rights Bill is designed to bring Commonwealth legislation into line with the requirements of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it was pointed out by the Church spokesmen that the Covenant clause concerning the rights of the family had been deleted from the Murphy legislation.

While the protests of the Churches are legitimate, they have tended to obscure the more far-reaching implications of the Bill. The Human Rights Bill recalls the famous satire, Animal Farm, by the former Communist George Orwell, in which the animals find that their Bill of Rights, written up on the farm barn door, did not protect them against the ruthless exploitation of the pigs after they had overthrown the farmer. It was true that it was still stated that "all animals are equal", but now it also read that "some animals are more equal than others!"

Under the guise of protecting Australians' rights and freedoms, successfully protected until now through the division of power and Common Law rights, upheld by an independent judiciary, the Human Rights Bill seeks to expand enormously the power of the Commonwealth at the expense of the States, and the individual. It is an attempt to violate the Federal Constitution by the use of the External Affairs power.

Clause 5 of the Human Rights Bill "binds Australia and each State". If implemented Federal officials will be able to force the States to conform to the pattern of law established by the Commonwealth. The implications are explosive.

The roots of the Human Rights Bill go back to the establishment of the United Nations, and the dominant role of the Communists.
In the numerous conferences concerning human rights, there was a clear-cut cleavage between the Western and Christian view that certain rights are inalienable, derived from God the Creator and not from the State, as argued by the Communists.
Dr. Charles Malik, Chairman of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, has pointed out that a study of the discussions of the Commission reveals how the Soviet influence dominated.
He observed that "The concept of property and its ownership is at the heart of the ideological conflict of the present day. It was not only the Communist representatives who riddled this question with questions and doubts; a goodly portion of the non-Communist world had itself succumbed to these doubts."

The Communists reluctantly permitted the right to own private property (clause 17) to appear in the wordy Declaration of Human Rights, but by the time the Covenant was drafted, clause 17 had disappeared! There is no reference to property rights in Senator Murphy's Human Rights Bill. It reflects the humanistic philosophy of those who drafted the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
If individual rights are granted by the State, then it is obvious that what the State grants it can also take away.

In view of some of the actions of the Whitlam Government, it is rather hypocritical for Senator Murphy to be stressing how concerned he and his colleagues are about the individual's rights.
They have mastered George Orwell's "double-speak". Section 11, sub-section (2) states that "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to speak, receive and impart information and ideas of all Mr. Stanley W. Johnston, head of the Criminology Department at Melbourne University, and chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations Association of Australia, is concerned that the Murphy legislation does not go far enough.
He provides, however, a picture of how the internationalists plan to give individuals the "right" of direct appeal to the U.N. Human Rights Committee.
An example is the eleven European States who have agreed to allow 150 million Europeans to approach directly the European Commission on Human Rights. No evidence is provided to show that Europeans with this right are any better off than Australians. But Mr. Johnston does see the Murphy Bill as a step in the right direction because "It might effect a transfer of certain, mainly criminal, lawmaking powers from the States to Canberra". It is this prospect which has caused even Dr. Bray, Chief Justice of South Australia, well-known for his liberal views, to join with other jurists in expressing concern about the impact of the Murphy Bill upon criminal law in Australia.

Although Geoffrey Sawyer, Professor of Law in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian University, favours "the insertion in the Australian Constitution of a comprehensive Bill of Rights", he also states that "I am against the mealy-mouthed exceptions and rhetorical declarations of policy in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and surprised at the adulation accorded that document by defenders of Senator Murphy's proposed Human Rights legislation".
In a constructively critical article in The Age of February 12, Professor Sawyer makes the important point that "The U.N. document is the result of a long process of compromise between about a hundred negotiating governments, most of which have no respect for or intention of protecting individual liberties . .

And yet Senator Murphy's supporters claim that Australia must accept his Human Rights Bill in order to "keep face" with the "international community". Do they really think that the Communist dictators, or perhaps "General" Amin of Uganda, are impressed with the passing of a Human Rights Bill in Australia!

The biggest threat to Australians' rights and liberties is the policy of centralising all power at Canberra and the destruction of the Federal system of Government, which was desigued to keep power divided between the Federal and State Governments.
Senator Murphy's Human Rights Bill, introduced into the Senate on November 21, is an attempt to further the centralising process through a misuse of the External Affairs powers of the Commonwealth Constitution. Australians concerned about their real rights and liberties should insist that their representatives at Canberra reject the Bill completely as un-Australian.

A PROPHECY FULFILLED?

Editorial The New Times vol.27, no.15 July 28, 1961

The British World at the Cross Roads
In a recent A.B.C. news commentary on the European Common Market proposals, that great Australian Sir Raphael Cilento, pointed out how President Kennedy after seeing Khrushchev in Vienna had "stayed long enough in England to tell Harold Macmillan rather bluntly to get into the European Market and waste no time about it".
Sir Raphael went on to say that "the United States has a troublesome habit of attacking the pound sterling in various ways if she doesn't get her own way".
It is significant that the Macmillan Government has suddenly announced a new economic "crisis" as it meets increasing opposition to the Common Market from all parts of the British Commonwealth.

Although it was at one time suggested that the United States of America was opposed to the Common Market scheme, this pretence has now been dropped. The Kennedy Administration is continuing the Roosevelt policy of destroying the sovereignty of the British peoples. The Common Market is designed to deliver a deathblow at the British world as a force in international affairs.

Real freedom must be based upon economic freedom. The Common Market would deprive Britain of economic sovereignty. The President of the British Board of Trade, the Rt. Hon. Reginald Maudling, has put the economic issue clearly in the following statement:
"... Whatever might happen, if we signed the Treaty of Rome, whatever the ultimate fate of our agricultural producers or indeed, our agricultural consumers, the fundamental fact is that we should no longer control our own national agricultural policy..."

The propagandists in favour of the Common Market have suggested that the proposal merely envisages the creation of a Free Trade area covering the whole of Europe, and that Britain would gain certain economic advantages by being a member of such a community. This claim is false.
But it masks the fact that the Common Market is but one of three community agreements. The ultimate objective of these agreements, to be implemented over a period of twelve years, is to create a centralised Europe in which there will no longer be any genuine national sovereignty.

In an article in the Brisbane Telegraph of July 19, 1961 Mr. D. J. Killen, M.H.R., warns that the major effects of the European Community Organisation will be:
"Nationality among member countries will be abolished. Member Parliaments will not make many laws. Law making will be done mainly by the Commissions. If Britain joins, the House of Commons will lose most of its authority. Parliamentary Government will end.

o "Throughout member countries there will be one set of laws, one standard of social services, and one economic policy.
o "Training in the professions and trades in member countries will be identical. Hours of employment and pay will be standardised."

It is clear then that if Britain joins the Common Market, the British Commonwealth will be shattered. One of the major obstructions to the creation of the World State will have been removed. Britain's entry into the Common Market would have the most serious effect upon trade between Britain and member nations of the British Commonwealth. But subversive voices are being heard suggesting that Australia and New Zealand should become part of a South-Eastern Asian Common Market. And that Canada should sink her national identity in a Common Market covering the whole of the two American continents. This is part of the worldwide policy of centralising power.
Under present economic and financial policies, if Australia loses even a portion of her export trade with Britain, there would almost certainly be a lowering of the Australian standard of living. This situation would then be used to try to force Australia to join a South-East Asian Common Market.
And one of the same arguments would be used that is being used to advance the European Common Market: that this would help provide defence against Communism. Whatever they say publicly, Communist leaders must smile privately as they hear it being suggested that intensive centralisation and the abolition of national sovereignties are defences against Communism. The very essence of Communism is the centralisation of all power.

If Australia were forced, as the result of Britain sinking her national identity, to join a South-East Asian Common Market, this would be the beginning of the end for Australia as a European nation. Such a Common Market would be used to bring increased pressure upon the White Australia policy, and those who claim that Australia is part of Asia would achieve their objective.

It is not too much to say that the whole British world faces the greatest crisis in its long history. The threat is so menacing because it is as yet little understood. But there are signs that out of this crisis could come salvation. Already there are numerous people asking why cannot the British peoples everywhere reorganise their internal economies. "Why not a Commonwealth Common Market?" is being increasingly asked.
The British Commonwealth has far greater natural resources than Europe, and all that is required is the will to use these resources to increase the freedom and sovereignty of the British peoples. A modification of economic and financial policies could lead to a revival of British influence in international affairs. The British world is now at the crossroads, and the turn taken will be decisive, not only for the British people, but for the whole world.

A SURVEY OF THE BRITISH SCENE

by Mary H. Gray
Some time after my return to my native land two years ago, Mr. Editor, you invited me, a former occasional contributor to "The New Times," to give my impressions of the British scene as I saw it. I am not so bold as to suggest that my observations are exhaustive - far from it - nor my inferences always correct; indeed I hope they may often be wrong. For I have neither the all-seeing eye nor wide opportunities for gathering information. My impressions are rather the fruit of a study of certain events and trends, and in that study I try to see a little farther than my nose.

Where shall I begin? At the moment events competing to be front-page news are: the Suez Canal hullabaloo and the mobilising of units of the three forces as if we really meant business; the Cyprus trouble, still unresolved; the "New Look" of the Soviet masqueraders; the tightening grip of the "Credit Squeeze"; automation, "redundancy" and strikes. But this must not be a mere digest of the daily news.

The above are all part of the panorama of life in these islands, it is true, but I want to look behind the scene, to find out, if I can, its hidden springs. What, we may ask, is uppermost in the public mind at this moment?
That's a hard one! The public mind, what is it? A bobbing, swirling sea of emotions for the most part- desires, hopes, fears, perplexity, frustration; a swaying mass of muddled thinking or no thought at all; a balloon blown hither and thither by the winds of propaganda yet moored to earth by the needs and practicalities of everyday life.

But the British public mind is more than that. It has a sturdy commonsense; the ability to laugh at foolishness and absurdity; the dislike of extremes and suspicion of ranting, raving agitators; albeit with a dogged purposefulness and a belief in being and remaining British. In short, a balanced, wholesome mind, capable of sensing truth and justice if only it were not so bedazzled by the untruths, half-truths, concealment and obvious contraditions that are its daily portion of "news".

Take, for example, the "Credit Squeeze".
Who can make sense of the Government's plan to halt inflation? Their argument goes like this: -"Prices continue to rise alarmingly; why is this?
It is because, employment and wages being high, there is too much money about, too great a demand for goods, and the prices of goods are what they will fetch. "We dare not reduce wages, but we can put the brake on spending. First, let us the limit use of hire purchase. It entices people to spend more than they can afford (there being too much money!). Next, we must hinder borrowing."

A nod to the Bank of "England" and up goes the Bank Rate to 4½ percent. Howls of dismay from manufacturers and other business people who find it hard to get money, in particular the Building Societies, so much a necessity to the not-so-well-to-do who want a home of their own. But the Government hears them not. Instead, they urge John Citizen to save, to buy savings certificates or gamble on Premium Bonds. But John has too much sense. He knows little about High Finance but he knows that at the rate the pound is losing value his savings will soon vanish. So he spends his surplus money on a television set or a washing machine for his wife.

But the Government still sees "too much money chasing too few goods", so they raise taxation to take away some of the "surplus" money. To crown all these artifices-significantly termed "weapons"-they call for increased exports and reduced imports, so that people will have less to spend their money on.
They cannot, or will not, see that since taxes, like other expenses are charged into prices, to raise taxation only increases prices (inflation).
Similarly, if there are too few goods, as they assert, then to export more and import less makes them fewer still. Which shows their policy is upside down. And now, with inflation well in hand (so we are told), we should be able to settle down and be happy ever after.
But, to prove them wrong, prices still keep rising. Firms who were doing a good trade before the "squeeze" now have to sack men in large numbers - or go bankrupt. Manufacturers complain bitterly about inordinate taxation and the "tightness" of money.
The building societies in conference agree either to refuse further loans or drastically to reduce the percentage advanced, while raising their rate of interest by more than half. This in spite of a woeful shortage of houses.
All the while the people, not knowing how they are being deceived, grudgingly put up with this austerity, believing it necessary.

To keep them quiet they are given a few sops - an increase in widows' pensions and an (unsought) increase in family allowances. But I need hardly relate all this; isn't it just what is happening in Australia?
The same policy in every country dominated by the Money Power. Because FINANCE has been - deliberately - elevated into a mystery, the people believe whatever they are told about it.
What would they do, if they found out how easily money is created by the banks; that the financial credit of the nation is being filched by this means and turned into debt against them; that the whole nation is being taxed to pay the colossal interest bill on the National Debt, now in the region of £30,000,000,000?
National Debt:
In a written reply to a question in Parliament in June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that whereas in 1900 it was £15 per head, last year it had reached £528 per head! No matter what may be said in defence of the practice, the MONOPOLY OF CREDIT remains the most gigantic swindle ever put over an unsuspecting world. But I am exceeding bounds in my indignation. There are so many things I want to say about the changing face of Britain; they must wait till next time.

CAN THE MYSTIC AND THE REALIST UNITE AGAINST THE MATERIALIST?

By John Mitchell, Founder of The Christian Campaign For Freedom
In a world which over a long period has become increasingly materialist and which shows many signs of continuing to become more so, there still exists a substantial minority of people who believe that a society so based and directed is fundamentally at fault.
But there is a deep cleavage of viewpoint, not inaccurately classified, I think, so far as general outlook and tendencies are concerned, as one group being Realist and the other Mystic.
This essay is written because the writer believes that Mysticism and Realism are reconcilable as parts of one Truth, and that if both groups could be brought to recognise this a great deal could be gained in effective opposition to the materialist trends which they both deplore.

Now, the Realist takes an objective view of the world and believes in Objective Truth as an aspect of cosmic law, holding that the discovery of and binding back of thought and action to Objective Truth is vitally important; whereas the Mystic takes a subjective view and believes that a knowledge of Ultimate Reality and the divine can be obtained only by intuition and an exploration of the mind below or behind the threshold of consciousness. This is to take the view that although God is transcendent, as well as immanent in the human mind, His transcendency does not apply to the material world observable to our senses; the observable world, including the materialist society which they deplore, is outside domain of cosmic or divine law. Is it?
The Realist tends to delimit the problem to the temporal world, assuming that it can be resolved within those limits. Can it?

The Core of the Problem
At the core of this problem is the question of justice to the individual and the sanctions, which operate to effect it. If a life lived out on earth has neither prior existence, in a previous incarnation or on another plane, or a post existence, in reincarnation or on another plane, then clearly, if there is such a thing as justice to the individual inherent in the nature of the Universe, the sanctions to effect it can only be found in the temporal three-dimensional world.
To accept the possibility of that is to accept the philosophy of the materialist.
And to reject the possibility while retaining a belief in justice is to acknowledge that the sanctions to affect it must be sought and can only be found in a four-dimensional world; a world where the physical and material is inseparably involved with the spiritual; a world where the law of cause and effect has continuous effect operating ante ''birth" and post "death".
Relevant to this, and I think pregnant with important meaning, are these words written by Frederick Myers, one of the founders in the last century of the Society for Psychical Research:
"Ever more clearly must our age of science realise that any relation between a material and spiritual world cannot be an ethical and emotional relation alone; that it must need to be a great structural fact of the Universe, involving laws at least as persistent as our laws of Energy and Motion".

The same thought was expressed much earlier by Plotinus: "Surely before this descent into generation, we existed in the intelligible world; being other men than now we are, and some of us Gods; clear souls, and minds immixed with all existence; parts of the Intelligible, nor severed thence; nor are we severed even now."
And was it not said of "the keys of the keys of the now."
And was it not said of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"?

Cause and effect
It is easy to see the law of cause and effect operating over centuries in the temporal world; the causative action or policy, instigated by one person or group of persons, having injurious effects often only reaped by others, perhaps generations later.
But by virtue of a structural relation between the material and spiritual worlds a vital part of us now and always, behind the threshold of consciousness, inhabits the spiritual world, and that part of us connects our actions in the three-dimensional world with effects which by the law of cause and effect are ''loosed" or "bound" in the spiritual world: thus effecting justice to the individual in a context much larger than one earth life.
The principle is personal responsibility, which we cannot escape, and the cosmic sanctions, which ensure it, operate in a four-dimensional world. In a three-dimensional world it is notorious that many people "get away" with irresponsible acts.

We have a principle, a law, and a sanction. And none of them are man-made; they are an integral part of the kingdom of God.
Now it is a characteristic feature of the Mystic group, that, accepting this, they will brand all attempts to produce a society based on recognition of these three factors as Utopianism. And curiously, it does not ever seem to occur to them that in doing so, and in refusing to help or even to take the trouble to think out the implications for society, they themselves violate the principle and put themselves in a poor position in relation to a law whose sanctions are inexorable. A distinguished leader of this group recently wrote to me, saying: it was "none of his concern".
But you do not have to be a railway engineer or a locomotive driver to decide which direction you will go or on which train you will travel, any more than you have to be a mechanic or an electrician to decide whether you want a motor car or a wireless set and what make you will have (or not have). It is your responsibility to decide "where" and "what". The principle is clear: you accept personal responsibility for deciding what you will have (or not have) and make the engineer, driver, mechanic or electrician responsible for the how and wherefore of providing it, be-cause the effect can be largely determined by the money sanction which you possess, and can dispose of, providing only that this principle is not negatived by government or monopoly control of production.

The Key to the Kingdom
The principle of personal responsibility is the key to the kingdom of God on earth: for whatsoever you bind by its correct exercise you establish for the future; and whatsoever you loose by failing to exercise it you destroy for the future.
No man who belongs to any group, institution, nation or organisation of any description can say that he has no responsibility (and therefore "concern") in regard to it, nor that that responsibility cannot be closely and correctly defined-not arbitrarily, but in relation to universal natural or metaphysical law inherent in all human relations.
And the principle of personal responsibility is opposed to collective responsibility, which is the broad road to chaos and destruction. The sanction is "built in" to the natural law, so that the effect follows irresistibly from the cause.
Can anyone say that this is even approximately so in our modern society, with its Welfare States? It can be seen to be in opposition to the natural law at almost every point.
In every field power can be seen to be exercised without responsibility and with only a narrow regard to cause or effect. This whole subject has been uncovered and analysed with unique clarity by the late C. H. Douglas, whose work has been suppressed or grossly misrepresented almost everywhere by those powerful groups whose overriding interest it is to exercise power without responsibility, in order to discourage the public from reading him.

Questions for the Mystic and the Realist
But, primarily here I am discussing the difference in attitude of the Realist and the Mystic to Materialism, to which they are both opposed. And perhaps one of the best ways of doing this is for the Realist to ask the Mystic: "what is materialism, and what sustains it?" because the Mystic has certainly not studied this properly; and at the same time for the Mystic to ask the Realist: "what do you envisage in place of materialism?", because the Mystic has "gone places" and ascertained something about the meaning of life.
I don't think either would provide an adequate or convincing answer: but if each group were to make a serious attempt to answer each other's questions I feel sure each would learn a lot which they need to know.

The two aspects of Materialism with which I am most concerned in this discussion are defined in this way by my dictionary:
(a) Theory that all the facts and phenomena of the Universe can be explained in terms of matter.
(b) Undue attachment to material aims and needs.

The Realist does not need any convincing that Materialism is triumphant in the world of today primarily, not because the public are innately foolish or blind, but because a Satanic conspiracy has blinded them and made them act foolishly. He knows this because he has taken the trouble to study the facts, which leave room for no other conclusion.
Before this century began one who was privy to the conspiracy, wrote the following words, taken from a document, which for sufficient reasons shall be nameless here. The prophetic quality of the quoted words are typical of the rest of the document and serve to elucidate the point which is being discussed:
"It is for this reason that we must undermine faith, eradicate from the minds of the 'public' the very principles of God and Soul, and replace these conceptions by mathematical calculations and material desires.
" . . . In order to give the 'public' no time to think and take note, their minds must be diverted to industry and trade . . .
"The principal object of our directorate consists in this: to debilitate the public mind by criticism; to lead it away from serious reflections calculated to arouse resistance; to distract the forces of the mind towards a sham fight of empty eloquence."

I ask the Mystic to look at the contemporary scene and ascertain what practical considerations sustain a materialist society. And to guide his mind along useful channels I suggest he considers the following:

Philosophy:
The Puritan attitude: work for work's sake.
Policy:
Full Employment. What would happen to this policy, which is upheld as sound by all politicians of all parties, all the Churches, all economists holding paid appointments, all daily newspapers and all weekly newspapers which have to pay their way, if the following were either eliminated or cut down to minimal or sensible proportions:
Armaments, Armies, Space projects, Bureaucracies, Advertising, Production of non-durable and non-quality articles to get maximum sales turnover, Production of non-durable and non-quality articles to get maximum sales turnover, Trade Unionism and all its restrictive effects.

Monopolies, State or otherwise?
Financial:
If the above happened, how would the millions of people for whom there would no longer be paid employment acquire a financial income, and on what ethical or philosophical basis?
It can be seen from the foregoing that a philosophy gives rise to a policy and a financial system, which produce in turn a social system which can only be directed to materialistic production, in which everyone is compelled by necessity to participate. As science and technology continually improve means and augment capacity, the emphasis is bound more and more to be on the superfluous, the injurious and the wasteful in order to keep people employed.

Educational:
In the educational field the result is inevitably that true education of the mind in schools and universities has to give place to a narrow technical instruction, making the victim a competent cog in a vast machine, but denying him in his most formative years the opportunity to develop his mind. Now, it can certainly be argued that it is from intuition that the Realist knows that this is fundamentally wrong; but it is from objective observation of the temporal world that he finds what is wrong.
Objective observation will show him that if people did not hold a particular philosophy they would question the rightness of the policy, which stems from it, and will also show him that they have a personal responsibility to do so.

''But" the Mystic will say, as does Gerald Heard in "The Preface To Prayer": "Solve the economic problem and you only unmask the psychological riddle".
The short answer to that is: if there is a "psychological riddle", it should be unmasked. The great fault of so many Mystics is that in their disgust with the temporal world and in their determination that pain and suffering are good for the soul, they put their heads in the clouds in an otherworldly search for Ultimate Truth, in a belief that the acorn can grow into the oak overnight. T
hey overlook the fact that growth is slow, often very slow. In their disgust and their haste they fail to observe that roots are cut, soil is poisoned and foliage blighted, and that in remedying these matters they could do far more to allow growth to proceed by its own immanent law.

If, by continued adherence to a false philosophy and an evil policy, the economic "problem" remains "unsolved", the outcome is certain, and in the not distant future; the peoples of the world enslaved in minds and bodies, controlled in every aspect of their lives from birth to death by an unchallengeable, absolute temporal world power in the form of a World Government. Spiritual growth will cease; Mystic and Realist will be liquidated. It is small consolation to say that such a situation could not last forever.

The Question of Power
The great question in the world is really POWER:
Materialism is only an aspect of it, and an aspect of it, which can only be dealt with by facing up to and resolving the central problem.
Behind the Puritan philosophy and the Full Employment policy is the financial system, which is a power system. It should not be and it need not be, but it is; and the philosophy and the policy are necessary not only to its maintenance, but to its extension and development to a point where the small group who control it at its apex achieve unchallengeable power.

The Mystic has never understood this question of power. He always misinterprets Christ's rejection of absolute, unchallengeable political power when tempted by the Devil on the high mountain.
The Gospels throughout are concerned with the right use of power, and political power is no more excluded from this than economic, financial or any other form of power.

The central theme of Christianity is expressed in the Lord's Prayer: that ultimate power belongs to and is exercised by God, The Father.
On that matter the Mystic and the Realist are in complete agreement. The thought of anyone who makes a daily practice of meditating on (not merely unthinking repetition of) the Lord's Prayer will be orientated in a certain direction. In that also they will agree.

But at this point they diverge:
the Mystic turns his thought away from the temporal scene, seeking subjectively to climb the heights in a spiritual world:
the Realist looks out on the temporal world with his powers of understanding strengthened and able to see where and how power is misused in the world-able to see what a mind not so orientated cannot see.

The Faith Healer is also with the Mystic and the Realist at their point of agreement. But he does something, which the other two fail to do: by prayer he is able to become the agent for a Power, which heals a patient in whom he has inspired faith. Can the Mystic and the Realist perform the same office in the political world?

Mystics and Realists should help one another:
In writing thus I am not advocating that the Mystic should abandon his approach, any more than I am that the Realist should abandon his. What I am urging is that by turning to each other for help they might greatly augment their effectiveness.
The interchange of credulity and puerility with fraud, which the Realist knows surrounds the economic question, is matched by a similar miasma around the psychic and mystical approach. But those who have taken the trouble to search diligently know that a genuine seam of truth can be found each way.

The Realist finds himself up against a blank wall in trying to reach the minds of people conditioned by "education" and propaganda. Can he with the help of the Mystic call in the aid of prayer and thought and reach the minds of others by other than sensory means?

What the Realist can point out to the Mystic is why and where at every point of the economic and social system there is a causative factor which is producing evil results; that factor is the use of power without responsibility. Can the Mystics, and the "Religion and Science" experimentalists who are producing such impressive results in other fields concentrate prayer, e.g., on selected key persons in the community to induce them to think and speak out to some practical purpose on this subject.
That, as a beginning would be an important advance. Are they willing to try? In the Report of the Second Conference on Science and Religion held at Oxford in 1959 there is published an interesting and instructive address by the Rev. Franklyn Loehr, head of the Religious Research Foundation, Los. Angeles.

In a series of 700 experiments carried out over three years, in which 150 people took part, it was strikingly demonstrated that four out of six people have the power of effective prayer. The experiments demonstrated beyond any doubt that impact of mind on matter. What the Rev. Loehr and others engaged on similar work are striving to do is to prove as "scientific fact" the claims of religion so far as they are able to do, because they believe that if they can prove the existence of a spiritual realm they will have an effective challenge to Materialism. But will they have?
Fifty years and more ago eminent men connected with psychical research were claiming that they had the evidence, which "proved the preamble to all religions".
There is still a wide belief in a spiritual world and in the reality of prayer, but the great majority of those who so believe, in their daily lives uphold ideas and give active support to persons and organisations whose policies implement a materialist way of life and encourage a materialist way of thinking. Unless this dichotomy in thought can be ended there is no possibility of checking materialism, which is as disintegrating to society as it is to the individual.
What is urgently needed is an integration of a belief (and the implications of a belief) in a spiritual world with a true, i.e., a Christian, philosophy and a true policy, in practice as well as in theory. Then indeed the spirit will move practical things to spiritual ends in this world. "Love enclosed in wisdom is the energy of integration which makes a cosmos of the sum of things.''

Let us all attempt to make this concentrate prayer, e.g., on selected key persons in the community to induce them to think and speak out to some practical purpose on this subject. That, as a beginning would be an important advance. Are they willing to try? In the Report of the Second Conference on Science and Religion held at Oxford in 1959 there is published an interesting and instructive address by the Rev. Franklyn Loehr, head of the Religious Research Foundation, Los. Angeles.
In a series of 700 experiments carried out over three years, in which 150 people took part, it was strikingly demonstrated that four out of six people have the power of effective prayer. The experiments demonstrated beyond any doubt that impact of mind on matter. What the Rev. Loehr and others engaged on similar work are striving to do is to prove as "scientific fact" the claims of religion so far as they are able to do, because they believe that if they can prove the existence of a spiritual realm they will have an effective challenge to Materialism. But will they have?
Fifty years and more ago eminent men connected with psychical research were claiming that they had the evidence, which "proved the preamble to all religions". There is still a wide belief in a spiritual world and in the reality of prayer, but the great majority of those who so believe, in their daily lives uphold ideas and give active support to persons and organisations whose policies implement a materialist way of life and encourage a materialist way of thinking.
Unless this dichotomy in thought can be ended there is no possibility of checking materialism, which is as disintegrating to society as it is to the individual. What is urgently needed is an integration of a belief (and the implications of a belief) in a spiritual world with a true, i.e., a Christian, philosophy and a true policy, in practice as well as in theory.
Then indeed the spirit will move practical things to spiritual ends in this world. "Love enclosed in wisdom is the energy of integration which makes a cosmos of the sum of things.''

*"Perfet Freedom," Report of The Conference on Science and Religion, held at Oxford, 1959-published by the Mind and Matter Trust. Raleigh Park Road, Oxford.