I don’t know about you but I have a far different concept of what constitutes a ‘democracy’ than does the recently-retired American vice president, Joe Biden. According to CBNC (18 Jan 2017) the fellow had this to say to the elites attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.“The gist of his speech was simple: At a time of "uncertainty" we must double down on the values that made Western democracies great, and not allow the "liberal world order" to be torn apart by destructive forces.”
The ‘destructive forces’ being of course the world’s people wanting their lives and nations back from the control of the ‘world elite’. Biden, we read, also went after Russian President Vladimir Putin by name, saying he is using "every tool" in his power to whittle away the European project, and undermine Western democracies. Biden accused Putin of wanting to "roll back decades of progress." Biden said Russia used "cyber aggression" to meddle in the U.S. election, an assertion supported by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. He also warned that we will see further interference from Russia in the future and said the "purpose is clear" — that Putin wants to see a "collapse of the international order.""Simply put, Putin has a different vision of the future," the vice president warned…”
I recently came upon a copy of Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop's "War Diaries" published forty years after WWII. Sir Edward was one of Australia's great heroes. In the foreword British officer, Colonel Sir Laurens van der Post wrote of his brief experiences with the American and Australian soldiers of war, along with the British, in the early days of the Japanese internment and he described prison life as "the war within the War"
For the first three months and under the inspired leadership of (then) Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Dunlop, an all out effort was made to not only invest the resources available to them for "the physical well being" of the men, and to unite them as of the British-Commonwealth, but a "vast educational system was set up" to cater for their mental and spiritual well being.
It suddenly struck me that Professor Jordan Peterson and C.H. Douglas were/are really ‘on the same page’ – Douglas of course eighty years ago. Also as Jordan Peterson says in one video segment there have been great advances in the last 50-100 years in the discipline of Psychology (just as in the understanding of the social credit within societies as Social Credit teaching brings out).
In his November 1934 BBC broadcast on “The Causes of War” Douglas asked the question, “Is Our Financial System to Blame?” In answering his own question, he thought it important there should be agreement on what was meant by ‘war’ and gave the technical definition of the time:“Any action taken to impose your will upon an enemy or to prevent him from imposing his will upon you.”
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-17/davos-world-economic-forum-confronts-globalisation-revolt/8188960Technology to have a bigger impact than globalisationHowever, Mr Minack said while it may be possible — not to mention also nonsensical and painful — to reverse globalisation, it is also most likely pointless as well, given an even bigger threat to jobs and wages is coming down the tracks.Technology and the developments in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence will simply eliminate the need for many unskilled workers in both developed and developing economies."I think that globalisation has had a bigger effect than technology on incomes of unskilled and semi-skilled workers over the past 15 years," Mr Minack said."But the next 15 years will see a reversal: technology, not globalisation, will likely become a major adverse influence on less-skilled workers' incomes."In other words, the globalisation debate heating up the chilly climes of Davos may well be already out of date.Sure, the threat of trade wars and insular politics still abound, but it could all be about battles that have already be lost and won, not ones to come.The dynamics that have led to disgruntlement and alienation are only likely to intensify from here.
In Dr. Jennifer Oriel’s opinion “Politicians are elected but by no means are they representative” (The Australian 16 January 2017). In fact she thinks: “Political leaders are in a state of advanced denial about the decay of liberal democracy and their contribution to its decline. Their refusal to adopt realism in analysing the root causes of rising nationalism, popular democracy and counter-revolutionary movements is self-serving. It enables the political class to sustain denial in the face of overwhelming evidence that their old world order of supranationalism, centralised power and political correctness has done incalculable harm to the free world…”
In fact, political scientist Dr. Oriel is on record as writing: “Unless the major parties correct their course, it seems likely that a Donald Trump-style politician will rise to prominence in Australia. The appeal of populist and nationalist politicians lies in their novelty, their revival of patriotism and pride in Western culture. The five causes that fired Trump’s ascendancy are being championed by anti-establishment figures across the West. During the past week, three of those causes came to the fore in Australian politics: sovereign borders, the PC establishment and freedom of speech….” (The Australian 22 November 2016)
Joanne Nova has posted on her website an article on an American climate scientist by the name of Judith Curry, which I think bears repeating: “Judith Curry resigns — “battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide” It is sad to see that Judith Curry will not be continuing her research. The dead hand of buracademia drives out the best.
From Mark Steyn, who doesn’t hold back: “…distinguished climate scientist Judith Curry had decided to resign from her position at Georgia Tech: The superficial reason is that I want to do other things… The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.Dr Curry elaborates: A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
We must always keep the fact firmly fixed in our minds, that genuine democracy is decentralised control of policy making. This is in harmony with the Christian philosophy that all power and authority should arise from within the Individual, who should have the greatest possible self-determination.
There are two basic philosophies in the world, each diametrically opposed to the other; obviously these two philosophies and the policies arising from them, result in two different types of organisation. All organisation has to do with the association of individuals.
The following is taken from Geoffrey Dobbs’ “What is Social Credit”: “Social Credit is a name given to a certain movement of the mind and spirit (not an organisation) which stems originally from the mind and writings of a man of great insight and genius, the late Clifford Hugh Douglas. Its aim is to ‘bind back to reality’ or ‘express in practical terms’ in the current world, especially the world of politics and economics, those beliefs about the nature of God and man and the Universe, which constitute the Christian Faith, as delivered to us from our forefathers, and NOT as altered and perverted to suit current politics or economics, which stem from a non-Christian source.
If we define ‘religion’ as that fundamental belief about the nature of things which determines and directs a man’s life and behaviour (his life- policy so to speak), in such cases it is the ‘ideology’, whether of Left or Right or Centre, of this Party or of that, which is the man’s actual religion; his Christianity is a secondary matter, a mere opinion which he favours but does not ‘bind back‘ (re-ligare) to the real world.
China Watching:Beijing wants to create a nationwide ‘social credit’ system that compiles digital records of citizens’ social and financial behaviour to calculate a personal rating that will determine what services they are entitled to - and what blacklists they go on.- - Wall Street JournalIt has come to our notice that a system of surveillance planned for the citizens of Communist China was described in English as a ‘social credit’ system. Of course it sparked our immediate interest, not only by the term used but the underlying philosophy upon which it is based. But let’s mull over this news for a while - what does all this mean?
First why use the English term ‘Social Credit’ for such an Orwellian Chinese Surveillance System? A term that was coined nearly a hundred years ago and which the mainline media has avoided the use of, in relation to, and any reference to, Clifford Hugh Douglas’ writings and proposals.Of course there are a number of serious issues involved with what has happened but I think we have to ‘start at a beginning’ in order to get our minds around it all.
In 1976 biologist, philosopher and social crediter Geoffrey Dobbs presented a paper to a Science and Religion Forum (An expansion of a discussion paper read to the Science and Religion Forum on April 9, 1976, at their meeting at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor Great Park on the theme: Man’s Responsibility for Nature) in which he observed:
“Science shares with religion another dimension, beyond the cerebro-verbal plane of academic philosophy, namely that of the external world, in that its thoughts and symbols must be ‘bound back’, in detail, to an external, non-cerebral, non-verbal, reality. · It is of the essence of the scientific method that theory must constantly be checked by observation and experiment. · It is of the essence of religion that the professed faith must be put to the test of practice, both on the individual scale, and on the more visible, general, social scale. · It is of the essence of words and of symboIs of all sorts, that their connection with the referent is indirect – entirely through the human mind, and hence easily confused or diverted or even inverted.
Taken from the Social Credit Training Course by Eric D. Butler: C.H. Douglas has made it clear time and time again that Social Credit is far more than a monetary reform scheme. Speaking at Westminster in 1936 he said: “As I conceive it, Social Credit covers and comprehends a great deal more than the money problem. Important as it is, primarily because it is a question of priority, Social Credit involves a conception, I feel a true conception… of the relationships between individuals and their association in countries and nations, between individuals and their association in groups.”
In 1937 Douglas said: “In my opinion, it is a very superficial definition of Social Credit that it is merely a scheme of monetary reform….” Douglas’s first book was “Economic Democracy”, published just after the first World War. W.L. Bardsley, writing in the English “Social Crediter” of December 23, 1939, made the following comment:- “Most of ‘Economic Democracy’ had been written before the end of 1917, amid the distractions of war, and its length is barely 25,000 words, yet close study shows that no aspect of the vast subject was untouched, either fully, or in principle, or by stated exclusion. To read it after 20 years is to be amazed at its author’s complete vision of all that others have comprehended, step by step in the interval."
First an email from Canadian M. Oliver Heydorn informed his readers: “This is a very moving blog from Dr. Jordan Peterson from the "University" of Toronto who is currently being persecuted by the cultural Marxist drones in Canada for his common sense.Every Social Crediter should listen to this speech in its entirety because in several places he describes beautifully the underlying philosophy of Social Credit when it comes to the proper relationship between the individual and the group. Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University.For those who want it in text form, the presentation by Dr. Jordan Peterson is here: jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/new-years-letter/
My New Year’s Letter to the World, by Dr. Jordan Peterson Dear World: On January 16, I am going to talk with Sam Harris, on his podcast, Waking Up with Sam Harris. Dr. Harris is one of the so-called New Atheists, of which there are four. Like the other three Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins – who, by the way, I have always wanted particularly to debate — Dr. Harris is a smart guy, and I’m certainly not complaining that I will encounter him, instead of Dawkins. So I am preparing my arguments, carefully (although I have been doing so for years.) The specific ideas I am going to share with you today were obsessing me the moment I woke up, somewhat fitfully, this morning, so I dictated them to my son, and then edited them. The central problem of human beings isn’t religion, as the New Atheists insist. It’s tribalism. We know this in part because chimps, our closest biological kin, go to war, and they are not religious, although they are tribal. Tribalism also has a central problem — and it’s not competition, despite the tendency of competition to produce, at least temporarily, winners and losers. it’s cooperation, because cooperation is what allows us to exist as bounded groups. A group, by definition is a collective cooperatively aiming at something. It can’t be aimed at nothing, because nothing cannot unite. It only divides. Thus, attacks on collective purpose, because of its tendency to produce tribalism, merely divides. The politics of identity, which emerge when the central purpose is criticized too destructively, inevitably produce the situation described in the story of the Tower of Babel: Everyone fragments into primitive tribes and speaks their own language. One alternative to fragmentation is union under a banner – a collective ideal, cause, or purpose. The problem with uniting under a banner, as the postmodernists who push identity politics rightly point out, is that to value something means simultaneously to devalue other things. Thus to value is an exclusionary process. But the alternative is valuelessness, which is equivalent to nihilism – and nihilism does not produce freedom from exclusion. It just makes everyone excluded, and that is an intolerable state, directionless, uncertain, chaotic, and angst-ridden. When such uncertainty reaches a critical level, the counter-response appears: first the unconscious and then the collectively expressed demand for a leader, possessed by the spirit of totalitarian certainty, who promises above all, to restore Order. Thus, a society without a unifying principle, oscillates, unmoored, between nihilism and totalitarianism. Human beings have been wrestling with this problem since the beginning of civilization, when our capacity to form large groups, for all its advantages, also started to pose a new threat: that of the hyper-domination of the state, collective or purpose. But without the state, there is just fragmentation into smaller groups. The group itself cannot be done away with because for better or worse, human beings are social animals, not loners, like sharks or tigers. We’re team players, but being on one team means not being on others. This means that any given team sidelines, marginalizes, and alienates those who cannot play their game, as well as conflicting with other teams. In the west, starting in the Middle East, thousands of years ago, a new idea began to emerge (evolve is not too strong a word) in the collective imagination. You might, following Dawkins, consider it a meme, although this is far too weak a word. This idea, whose development can be traced back through Egypt to Mesopotamia, before disappearing into unwritten history, is that of the Divine Individual. This eons-old work of the imagination is a dramatic presentation of an emergent idea, which is the solution to how to organize social being without falling prey to nihilistic divisiveness or deceitful totalitarian certainty: The group must unite under the banner of the individual. The individual is the source of the new wisdom that updates the antiquated, nihilistic or totalitarian detritus and glory of the past. For better for worse, that idea reaches its apogee in Christianity. The divine individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual: The divine feminine is, instead, mother and child. However, it a hallmark of Christian supposition that the redemption of both men and women comes through the masculine, and that is because the masculine is the individual. The central realization – expressed dramatically; symbolically – is that the subordination of the group to the ideal of the Divine Individual is the answer to the paradox of nihilism and totalitarianism. The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be. The Divine Individual is the ideal from which deviations are punished by the group with contempt and disgrace and fidelity to which is rewarded with attention and honour. The Divine Individual is not the winner of any individual game but the player who plays fair and is therefore continually invited to play. The Divine Individual is the builder, maintainer and expander of the state, he who boldly goes where no man has gone before, and someone who eternally watches over the widows and the children. His power of direct and honest communication is that which identifies, discusses and resolves the continually emergent problems of human existence. He is the Saviour of the World. The primary image for women is not the Divine Individual, because of the heavy burden they bear for reproduction. It is, instead, the Divine Mother and Child. This is not to say that man is the Divine Individual, and woman is not, although such confusion is understandable, given the complexity of the problem. Men, like women, have the Divine Mother and Child as an element of their personality. In men, however, it’s in the background, so to speak, as the Divine Individual is in the background of the psyche for women. Men, by necessity, play a less primary role in the care of children. This frees them to act as individuals in a manner that up to now has been nearly impossible for women. Identification with these images is belief in them. Belief is not the statement of agreement with a set of facts, but the willingness to act something out, to become something, to stake your life on something. For men and women alike, this means voluntary adoption of responsibility – responsibility for oneself, family and state. In that responsibility, and not in rights, resides Meaning itself – the meaning that makes life bearable. Societies that refuse to recognize both of these elements therefore doom their inhabitants to purposelessness, unhappiness, sterility, and the aforementioned dangers of nihilistic divisiveness and deceitful, oppressive totalitarian certainty. The meaning in responsibility is the necessary meaning in life, which can serve as a counterbalance to its terrible fragility and tenuousness. People must unite under the banner, not of their group, and not of nothingness, but of the individual. This is a brilliant and intrinsically paradoxical solution to the problems of nihilistic nothingness and too-rigid group identity alike. It is the consciousness of the individual which transforms the chaos of potential into habitable cosmos, as the greatest origin stories repeatedly insist. It is that same consciousness which stands up, rebellious and revelatory, to break down the pathological and too rigid order of that cosmos when it has become old, infirm, wilfully blind, and corrupt. It is that consciousness which is the image of God. It dwells within every embodied human form. The fact of its existence is the reason that the Law of the Land itself must be bound by ultimate respect for the individual, regardless of his or her sins and crimes. It is that consciousness, not the objective material substrate of Being, which should be regarded as the ultimate reality. There is no self-evident reason why dead matter should be given ontological primacy over living spirit. Although doing so has produced a massive increase in human technological power, it has left that power in hands of an increasingly disenchanted populace, and that presents a mortal danger. Such power must be wielded by those who have truly and voluntarily accepted the responsibility of Being, lest it prove fatal. The West has long been the civilised embodiment of the idea of the divine individual, who does exactly that. That’s what the voluntarily lifting of the cross of suffering symbolically represents. For all its faults, which are manifold, the West has therefore served as a shining beacon of hope to those destined to inhabit places too chaotic or too rigid for the human spirit to tolerate. But the West is in grave danger of losing its way. The negative consequences of this can hardly be overstated. A close reading of 20th century history indicates, as nothing else can, the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. It is only the individual, after all, who suffers. The group does not suffer – only those who compose it. Thus, the reality of the individual must be regarded as primary if suffering is to be regarded seriously. Without such regard, there can be no motivation to reduce suffering and, therefore, no respite. Instead, the production of individual suffering can and has and will be again rationalized and justified for its supposed benefits for the future and the group. Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism. This has been accompanied by the rise of states sufficiently civilized so that women who inhabit them can walk the streets unaccompanied in safety. We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual. Dividing our civilization into polarized ideological camps of female group identity and male group identity is certainly not the answer. We have to be honest, male and female alike, about what we really want, as individuals, and talk it out. We know beyond dispute that societies who emancipate their women are much more productive and peaceful, and that the relationship is causal. Thus, it’s not a matter of if but how. But such emancipation places a dual burden on the now more autonomous woman, who is required to balance manifesting the potential of her individual spirit with the necessity of desire to bear and rear the next generation of mankind. To live with free women, and gain the advantages of their freedom and sophistication, men must therefore bring their shadowed psychic identification with the Divine Mother and Child into the light, without losing their Divine Individuality in the process. They must consciously, voluntarily, deliberately and strategically accept their responsibility for the relationship between autonomous female companionship, support, love, and the responsibility of producing that next generation. This means rejecting, among other things, the misbegotten idea of casual sexual gratification. Sex is either the impulsive, short-term gratification of a domineering biological impulse, or the union of two conscious spirits taking responsibility for what they are doing. The former is not commensurate with the demands of an advanced civilization, which requires the adoption of responsibility above all for its preservation, maintenance and expansion. It is for this reason that the sexualized interactions between young men and women – in universities, for example — are increasingly and inevitably falling under the harsh and tyrannical regulation of the state. In the west, we are, as well, shuttering our great cathedrals – those marvelous, monumental embodiments of the idea of the Divine Individual on which our civilisation is based. This is no mere practical, material, matter: it is a symbolic and ideational process whose importance cannot be overstated. Without that central idea, we will dissolve, and be lost. It is time for each of us to consciously realize what the great symbolic stories of the past insist upon: That we are all sons and daughters of the divine Logos, consciousness itself — Bearers of its Light – and that we must act in accordance with that great central fact, lest all hell break loose. This means, above all, to tell the truth and to care for one another, starting at the level of the individual and proceeding from that, out to the broader reaches of society itself. The alternative, as those same stories have also always insisted, is the more permanent instantiation of the horror that we already saw manifest itself in multiple forms, in the last bloody, terrible, century. We need to wake up, individual man and woman alike, and we need to do it now. Each of us must take the world on our shoulders, insofar as we are capable of that, and adopt individual responsibility for the horrors and suffering its existence entails. In that we will find the Meaning without which Life is merely the suffering that breeds, first, resentment and then the desire for vengeance and destruction. We need to take responsibility, instead of incessantly insisting on our rights. We need to become adults, instead of aged children. We need to tell the truth. We need justice and compassion, conjoined; not judgment and pity, which crush and devour. So, in the coming year, make yourself a better person. Fix what you can and would fix. Start now. There is something right in front of you, demanding repair, calling out to your conscience, if you would only attend to it, for your corrective efforts, however primitive they may yet be. Start small. As you master the process, you can safely and competently expand your reach. You will then become able to fix bigger things, instead of making them worse, in the arrogance of your ignorance. If you do this, there will be less pointless and unnecessary suffering, and the world, for all its shortcoming and faults, will be a better place. Until we can imagine better than that, that is Meaning and Purpose enough. Happy New Year, and best wishes to you all.
Thought I better be clear in my mind as to what are the current definitions of some words seen in mainstream news reports these days. Being of an older generation the terms and/or words could have had their meanings deliberately changed from when I was a girl.
Identity Politics: According to one internet source “identity politics” means: A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics. According to another source: Identity politics definition, political activity or movements based on or catering to the cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or social interests that characterize ... And then there is ‘populism’: At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. The word populism comes from the Latin word for "people," populus. Or another source: Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of population against a government seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests. The underlying ideology of the Populists can be left, right, or middle.
"It is of crucial importance that any monetary reform decentralize power over policy rather than centralize it even further in the hands of an elite few; the easiest and most effective way of achieving that decentralization is to enfranchise the individual citizens as the ultimate beneficiaries of any change in the economy’s financial infrastructure. Indeed, this is the whole aim of the Social Credit reforms."The Social Credit economic model maintains that the most urgent economic reform, the one that goes to the very heart of our tangled web of economic problems and perennial dissatisfactions, is the need to re-engineer the economy’s financial infrastructure. Changing the financial system along the lines that Social Credit indicates is not only necessary for a substantial improvement in our economic affairs, it may also prove to be sufficient for significantly reducing, if not eliminating entirely, most of the chronic symptoms of dysfunction with which we are familiar. I am thinking here of various distinct but intimately interconnected phenomena such as: poverty in the midst of plenty, servility in place of leisure, economic instability, inflation, and heavy taxation, ever-increasing and unrepayable debts, waste, inefficiency, and economic sabotage in all its forms, forced economic growth, the centralization of wealth, power and privilege, social breakdown, environmental damage, and international economic warfare leading to military war.
The specific re-engineering of the financial system that is at issue here is no arbitrary or doctrinaire alteration, but is firmly grounded on the principle that the financial system, like any system of weights and measures worth its salt, should at all times provide a symbolic representation of the physical economy that scrupulously corresponds to the actual reality. This is a functional necessity. If the money system is to adequately fulfill its purpose, the purpose for which it was invented, it must be an honest system; that is, it must provide an accurate reflection, an accurate picture, of all of the relevant physical economic facts.1
Ref: http://www.socred.org/index.php/blogs/view/dividends-instead-of-debtsJust last week, Equifax Canada, a credit reporting agency, revealed that the total outstanding consumer debt in Canada had increased 3.6% over the course of a one-year period. At the end of September 2015, Canadian consumers owed 1.587 trillion dollars in debt. By the end of September 2016, that number had risen to 1.702 trillion dollars. Cf. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/more-canadians-going-bust-as-consumer-debt-surges-36/article33235495/. The increase of 3.6%, while sounding small, actually involved a net increase in outstanding debt of 115 billion dollars. Please note that we are NOT told how much consumer debt was written off as bad debt during the same period. If that debt had not been wiped out, the total amount owing would undoubtedly have been even greater.
The steady increase in outstanding consumer debt occurs because there is insufficient consumer income to purchase all that is on offer in the economy. Relatively lower interest rates merely facilitate the increase; it is not its fundamental cause as the article seems to suggest. When people do not have sufficient money to purchase the goods and services that are available and that answer to some need or want, they can nevertheless obtain the goods if they are able and willing to pledge their future incomes as collateral for additional credit in the present. It must be stressed that this credit, which is obtained from private banks in the form of lines of credit, personal loans, credit cards, mortgages, student loans, car loans, installment buying programmes, etc., is, like the bulk of the money supply, created out of nothing in the form of intangible numbers and issued as an interest-bearing debt. Consumers who borrow are not borrowing from the rich with the bank acting as an intermediary; they are borrowing the money into existence directly from the bank as a money-creating agency. Consumer credit therefore represents an injection of new or additional money for the economy, money the economy desperately needs if it is to stave off recession or worse.
Quicunque Vult = whoever willsAnd the Catholic Faith is this : That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons : nor dividing the Substance…” - - The Creed of St. Athanasius
In his 1980 paper The Church and the Trinity Geoffrey Dobbs expressed his concern because the Christian Church, after maintaining century after century its dynamic equilibrium in the glorious revelation of the Triune nature of God, was abandoning its hold upon its own faith and policy and increasingly following an infidel world into the errors of Monopoly and Dualism.
An 1847 depiction of the Norse Yggdrasil as described in the Icelandic Prose Edda by Oluf Olufsen Bagge
Biblical Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Christianity• Saint Bonaventure taught that the medicinal fruit of the Tree of Life is Christ himself.• Saint Albert the Great taught that the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, is the Fruit of the Tree of Life. • Augustine of Hippo said that the tree of life is Christ: Augustine continued: “All these things stood for something other than what they were, but all the same they were themselves bodily realities. And when the narrator mentioned them he was not employing figurative language, but giving an explicit account of things which had a forward reference that was figurative. So then the tree of life also was Christ... and indeed God did not wish the man to live in Paradise without the mysteries of spiritual things being presented to him in bodily form. So then in the other trees he was provided with nourishment, in this one with a sacrament... He is rightly called whatever came before him in order to signify him.”
I find most articles on ‘democracy’, ‘populism’ and such like quite confusing. There is no clarity in just what is meant by the terms, and, as I have written I think Senator Pauline Hanson is confused not only by the terms but as to her Constitutional role in the Senate.
An accurate definition of the word ‘democracy’ is surely “the power of the people”? As to 'populism' - surely that relates to the will of the people clearly expressed?
How confusing are the definitions of such terms as ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic government’ : ‘populist’ and ‘populist policies’ : ‘majority vote’, ‘majority rule’ : etc., as found in modern dictionaries.John Roskam’s article in the Australian Financial Review, 2nd December 2016, “Democracy Is Not Populism” tried to clarify what is meant by such terms – but failed for me - I don’t think he got to the heart of the matter.We are now approaching the Australian League of Rights’ annual break and now is not the time for anything too heavy – but I would like to leave you with Michael Lane’s introduction to “Power and Freedom” where some answers to the matter might be found … Read full article here... http://alor.org/Triumph%20of%20The%20Past/PowerandFreedom.htm
Power and Freedom Featuring a new section, "Ownership and Control" “No writings could be more of a challenge to the reader than C. H. Douglas's of the 1940s. The style is compressed, elliptical, and allusive; the order of treatment is anything but systematic; and the transitions are bewildering. Douglas had by this time so internalized his ideas that everything is connected to everything else, and he expects the reader to make connections that are by no means obvious.
“When the restrictive powers of paper and ink, backed by legal penalties, have reached their limit, as they have long ago in the first home of Marxism, Germany, and its adopted home, Russia, their place is taken by direct methods, such as barbed wire and machine guns. The end of the process is universal slavery, which is already well on the way. The Nazis' effort, however, to establish it more or less openly under its own name, appears to be doomed to failure; it will have a better chance under the names of universal Liberty, Equality, Fraternity etc., in which guise it may deceive people longer as to its nature, and so survive longer at the bureaucratic stage.”
No political movement can exist in a moral vacuum, and Australians have traditionally accepted that it is the Christian Faith that generated our heritage of representative government. While the League maintains a small full-time staff primarily motivated by Christian service, it is the extensive network of volunteers from all walks of life who form the backbone of the Movement.
The League of Rights seeks to help create a body of dedicated men and women who serve not for their own material gain, but as custodians of those truths and values which must form the basis of all successful efforts to defeat the enemies of human dignity and freedom.
The League encourages and equips individuals to independently exercise their own initiative in the service of freedom.