WHAT IS ‘THE STATE’ FOR? by Betty Luks

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)

Well, not only have they done incalculable harm to the free world – they are sleep-walking when it comes to facing the realities of the fast-approaching Robotic Revolution.

The developments in the ‘computer world’ are roaring down the tracks of progress and it is not only the political ‘elites’ who are trying to avoid the inevitable consequences.  If they are aware of the developments then they are frantically working to find the least troubling answers for themselves and the rest of the ‘them’, whilst at the same time striving to keep the ‘plebs’ in their place.  Of course they must keep the State’s systems functioning (however poorly) otherwise it will all descend into revolution and chaos!

The following email from Canada to a Social Credit discussion group speaks for itself:

“I'm coming from a Computing Science background here, so maybe there is a bit of bias, but from what I have seen, the newest tech progress isn't like anything that has come before it.
During the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, the movement of labour went from the manual loom to the automatic loom, which was bad for the loom operators, but it lead to the creation of all of the jobs surrounding the current textile industry.
The main difference between the automation that we're experiencing today with our computers is that there is not going to be any labour that a computer won't beat a human at doing. Everything from physical labour to solving problems can be done better by a computer. One of the talking points that people come back to is "who will program the computers?" The answer is computers. Yes, there is currently research going on in my own department that is working on heuristically creating software to solve problems.
The issue is very, very real. Everyone I've spoken to in my circle of Computing Science grads can see it coming, and it's going to come fast. The second implementing a system becomes cheaper than paying an employee, automation will happen. Hell, look at McDonald's and just about every grocery store in Canada and the self serve lanes.
As for the UBI (Universal Basic Income… ed) issue. The current iterations are doomed to fail, they'll be sold to the public like welfare and people won't understand them at best. At worst, the immoral capitalists will take advantage of giving people a paltry sum in exchange for absolutely gutting public service.  But hey, at least the budget will be "balanced" right?”

We ask our readers - Don’t you think it is way past time we began to ‘think outside the box’?

I have been giving some ‘airing’ to the work of clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson by featuring his videos on particular subjects.  And here is another one.  But this time I want to tie it in with Robert Klinck’s excellent social credit video “The Cultural Inheritance”.  To my knowledge Professor Peterson has never heard of Social Credit, and he comes at such subjects as the importance of the individual within the group and also from a Christian philosophy.

On this video he speaks on what he understands the State/Government is for. There are so many areas where Social Credit teaching ‘slots into’ his concepts it is a delight for me. Watch his 10 minute video and then take the time and trouble to insert the Social Credit teaching (below) into the categories he lists.


“Social Credit is the Policy of a Philosophy”. What does this mean? It simply means that every action we take towards a certain policy is the result of a philosophy. There are two kinds of basic philosophies in the world, and because these philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other, they give rise to conflicting policies.
The first philosophy is one which conceives of all power and authority arising from a point EXTERNAL to the individual.
The second philosophy conceives of all power and authority arising from WITHIN the individual.
The first philosophy automatically gives rise to policies which necessitate a certain type of organisation in order to impose certain conditions upon the individual. This philosophy results in the individual being subordinated to the State, the System, or some other abstraction. It can be termed a false philosophy, because it gives rise to policies which conflict with the natural desires of the individual.
This false philosophy is helped by many people who may even be opposed to one another. For example there is the alleged conflict between Communism and Fascism. We must learn to look beyond labels to the reality behind the labels. The second philosophy, which conceives of reality as an environment in which the individual can make the greatest progress towards self-development, gives rise to a social structure in which there is the greatest possible decentralisation of all policies, including financial policies. Jesus of Nazareth stated the Christian – the realistic philosophy, when he said: “The Kingdom of God is within you.”
When we clearly understand the difference between the two basic philosophies we have mentioned, we can see how dangerous it is to label all money reformers as Social Crediters. Social Credit advocates the changing of the present financial rules in order that the individual may have greater freedom, and greater security….
Developing further the statement that Social Credit is a Policy of a Philosophy, Douglas dealt with the term Philosophy: “It is something based on what you profoundly believe – what at any rate, I profoundly believe, and hope you will – to be a portion of reality. It is probably a very small portion, but we have glimpsed a portion of reality and that conception of reality is a philosophy, and the action that we take based upon that conception is a policy, and that policy is Social Credit… in many cases, it is no use arguing with many people about the techniques of Social Credit, because they don’t agree with your philosophy….” (The Policy of a Philosophy”, 1937)
The Social Crediter’s conception of a Reality is that the individual was not born into this world to be a serf to external authority, but was born to be free. We can therefore say that Social Credit is based upon a philosophy of individual freedom, the belief that, while as Douglas says, the end of man may be unknown, he will develop most rapidly towards that end as he is removed from all external authority.
Without going into details here, it can be pointed out that man’s physical environment has, in the past, been an obstacle to his self-development.  The physical environment was one of scarcity and the necessity to work hard to survive. There was no leisure for self-development. But today increasing leisure could easily be available to all….”

Conclusion: The State

Mitigate the Consequences of relative Poverty
- - Ensure justice, that serves stability and hope
The State and All its Relevant Organs provide a Story
By Providing a Story, we need to know

Who We Are
Where We Are Going
How We Will Get There

How We Will Transform Along the Way

The Story is Essentially a Fair Game.  
The rules are somewhat arbitrary but everybody has agreed on the rules that defines a fair game

That everyone can play
That some will win
Where those who don’t can thrive and play again. These people aren’t disenfranchised 



Also watch:

Bring on the National Dividend!
Senator Culleton, the Kangaroo Court & Skippy the ...