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.
I enjoy reading articles by Israel Shamir even if I do not always agree with him. Before the Christmas Season, he began his article by describing the northern hemisphere’s weather conditions:
“It is so dark now in the North. The Sun rises at 10 am to go down at 3 pm. White and plentiful snow and glorious stars outside and Christmas trees indoors make this darkness bearable – just. Here one understands why the people of the North had viewed Yuletide with great anxiety: they never were quite sure whether the Darkness would actually lift and pass away and the Day would gain this year, too. Last year it worked, but who can be sure that this year the Undead creatures won’t keep the Sun in eternal captivity?...”
Coming from the land of sunshine, Australia, I have to use my imagination to picture what it must be like to live in a snow-bound Darkness for days, even weeks, on end.
I can still remember the small cramped grocery-cum fruit/lolly corner store near my childhood home. The owner/manager gave personal service and would deliver the goods when requested to do so. That corner store disappeared from the local scene many years ago and we now have huge shopping complexes – which I have to admit I try to avoid. I don’t like having to fight my way through the crushes of people, usually going in the opposite direction and just as frustrated as myself. Next is my intense dislike of peak-hour motor traffic excruciatingly slowly making its way in and out of a city’s business district. Well, it looks like technology could be coming to the rescue of such suffering cities. In fact one economist’s blog thinks technology could even kill off such cities as we now know them.
According to Thomas The Thinkengine Blog: The Big Picture: What if technology is going to kill the city as we know it? Many companies are releasing technology to make working from home easy. If you find one that works, pay very close attention. If working from home becomes functional, many office workers may no longer have to live near their offices, or even in the city at 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.
"Psycho-politics is perhaps the most dangerous single weapon in the armoury of Communist psychological warfare which has been used relentlessly in the last twenty years, not only by the Communists, but by all propagandists of the Left (and now the ‘Right’…ed) who quickly spotted a weapon that could be fired with deadly effect against the habitual honesty and trustfulness of the ordinary citizen." - - Ivor Benson, in “The Opinion Makers”.
Source: 21 April 1972. http://alor.org/Volume8/Vol8No14.htm
"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
This video is about how orthodox economic theory (an outgrowth of Puritanism) misinterprets and distorts reality and how for decades proposals for rectification have been systematically ignored and suppressed.
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.”
It is not just 'freedom' alone that we want. Freedom must be balanced by responsibility and accountability - not only on the part of the elected representative, but also by the Australian people themselves. The Senator (Rod Culleton) has worked hard for this. It is now up to the Australian people to put pressure on their own political representative and get behind Rod Culleton's fight on their behalf.Listen to Rod's video explanation:https://www.facebook.com/RodCulletonOneNation/Well the BIG NEWS this morning is that George Christensen is ready to cross the floor over banks’ commission of inquiry. WE ARE SO CLOSE! This is a result from people power and the Australian people telling their politians what they WANT. But we need more pressure - take a listen and share this message: https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/royalcommission?source=feed_text&story_id=557848524424708https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/auspol?source=feed_text&story_id=557848524424708https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/canberra?source=feed_text&story_id=557848524424708https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/peoplepower?source=feed_text&story_id=557848524424708https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/georgechistensen?source=feed_text&story_id=557848524424708
Senator Rod Culleton explains the background to his High Court challenge on his eligibility to sit in the SenateIt seems the good Senator will at the same time introduce many Australians to the Commonwealth Constitution.I am sure we will all await the High Court's decision with great interest.
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.
So Rod Culleton didn’t please Party leader Pauline Hanson by ‘crossing the floor’ on a Backpacker’s Tax Bill. The headline reads: “Hanson angry at Culleton as MPs head home”. “Senators are leaving Canberra for the long summer break with tensions frayed in One Nation.Leader Pauline Hanson is angry her colleague Rod Culleton would not support the party's position on the 15 per cent backpacker tax, instead siding with cross benchers Derryn Hinch (Victoria) and Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania). "I was so annoyed that Rod Culleton actually crossed the floor," she told Sky News. In the end, Senator Culleton backed 13 per cent but the government won the day for its 15 per cent rate with support from the Greens and the three other One Nation senators…”
Pauline, I think the question you have to ask yourself is this: Did the people who voted for Rod Culleton vote for him to represent their interests and the interests of West Australia first – or did they vote for him expecting him to ‘toe the party line’ even though it meant going against that which was in that State’s interest?Might the electors have been naïve enough to think the Senator was in the Senate – the House of Review - to represent the interests of West Australia and West Australians?
Posted to Occidental Observer’s website and Professor Kevin MacDonald’s article “America as Promised Land for Jews …”. He writes:
“… There is a very long liberal tradition in America, going back, most importantly, to the Puritan strand of American culture that dominated America really until the 1960s and the rise of Jewish power. This tradition prized individualism which I think has an ethnic basis. Individualists are relatively less ethnocentric, and they tend toward assimilating other groups rather than erecting strong barriers between groups…An important strand of this type of American individualism has been to develop wildly optimistic and idealistic theories of the American future. Liberal theorists of the nineteenth century saw a future America as dominated by people who looked and thought exactly like themselves: Even people from different races would ultimately become White Anglo-Saxon and Protestant no matter what their racial or religious background…”
“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.