Politicians Only Yield to Pressure

Australian people are having their debates and discussions stifled by the threat from the 'NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for Homosexual Vilification' and the 'Racial Discrimination Act Section 18c' on several important political issues that will affect many generations to come: 'national security', 'immigration', the 'definition of marriage' and 'Aboriginal recognition in the constitution'. Paul Coleman in his book 'Censored: How European "Hate Speech" Laws are Threatening Freedom of Speech' shows the threat to free speech is not limited to locally grown authoritarians, but all the way up the halls of power.

Several important articles in the media report the problem of stifled debate.

Continue reading


An anonymous correspondent has asked just who did the On Target journal refer to in its Vol.52 No.25 article “The Big Lies and the Long-Term Goals”.  As the article also referred to Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s “minister for public enlightenment and propaganda” one would have expected most readers to link such references to any and all such people and groups in this day and age.
In the 21st century such people and groups are not known as “ministers (with their hired underlings) for public enlightenment and propaganda”, they are now known as ‘spin doctors’ or ‘PR’ men (and women).  
In a recent conversation between Jonas E. Alexis & Vladislav Krasnov* (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/11/israel-the-united-states-russia-and-vladimir-putin-interview-with-vladislav-krasnov-part-i/), it was disclosed the German magazine Spiegel once posed this dilemma to Solzhenitsyn:
“Your recent two-volume work “200 Years Together” was an attempt to overcome a taboo against discussing the common history of Russians and Jews. These two volumes have provoked mainly perplexity in the West. You say the Jews are the leading force of global capital and they are among the foremost destroyers of the bourgeoisie. Are we to conclude from your rich array of sources that the Jews carry more responsibility than others for the failed Soviet experiment?”
Solzhenitsyn responded:
“I avoid exactly that which your question implies: I do not call for any sort of scorekeeping or comparisons between the moral responsibility of one people or another; moreover, I completely exclude the notion of responsibility of one nation towards another. All I am calling for is self-reflection.”
Jonas Alexis asked Vladislav Krasnov: What is your take on the book?

Krasnov: I think Solzhenitsyn is absolutely right in saying that the book is not about “scorekeeping.” Its driving force is more akin to the program of “Truth and Reconciliation” that was implemented in South Africa after the end of the apartheid rule there. As to whether Solzhenitsyn is fair to the Jews, there is enough blame to go around for people of all nationalities and ethnic groups who participated in the Bolshevik Revolution, both inside Russia and abroad, including the USA. Again, the book is not about blaming but about understanding what had happened in order to avoid repeating the mistake.
Jonas Alexis - I would like to quote Solzhenitsyn:
“Every people must answer morally for all of its past — including that past which is shameful. Answer by what means? By attempting to comprehend: How could such a thing have been allowed? Where in all this is our error? And could it happen again?
“It is in that spirit, specifically, that it would behoove the Jewish people to answer, both for the revolutionary cutthroats and the ranks willing to serve them. Not to answer before other peoples, but to oneself, to one’s consciousness, and before God. Just as we Russians must answer — for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, for those savage sailors.”
This is indeed a brilliant answer to a thorny question. This is what makes Solzhenitsyn different from other writers in the twentieth century because he always brings a moral dimension to thorny issues. Would you not agree?

Continue reading

The Law of Love

A favourite pastime of having to travel somewhere, is travelling through the countryside, rather than the city to get there.
As we recently drove through the meandering country roads, numerous times we needed to pass bike riders. At times there were double lines in the middle of the road designating crossing the lines was illegal, however the law has changed. Crossing these lines (in a safe manner) is now permitted whilst passing bike riders in order to ensure a safe distance is kept from the rider at all times.


Continue reading



(presented as found without comment-ed)

Affordable Energy - Climate Science


Climate change has and will continue to be used as a political agenda by politicians and self interest groups or individuals for their own gain. We cannot allow scare mongering by people such as Tim Flannery, who make outlandish statements and are not held accountable. Climate change should not be about making money for a lot of people and giving scientists money. Lets know the facts and scientific evidence to make a well informed decision as to how best to look after our environment. 

Paying a carbon tax or an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not going to wave a magic wand and stop nature changing the climate change. It will only make it harder for Australian families and businesses to make ends meet. We can address real environmental issues with legislation. Hitting struggling families and businesses with another tax has been designed to make some people a lot of money. Don't allow yourself to be misled.

Continue reading


Minister for the Environment
The Hon. Greg Hunt M.P.
Parliament House Canberra
A.C.T. 2600

Dear Mr. Hunt
 I draw your attention to the letter published in "On Target", 4th April 2014, [the weekly journal of the Australian League of Rights] written by Malcolm-leaun Roberts.  His letter refutes the reasoning being advanced by you and your Government relative to climate change, global warming, carbon [sic] pollution, [sic], etc, and he challenges you to respond to a series of questions chief of which being you provide him with empirical scientific evidence of your proof of “human induced global warming."

His published letter is in response to a letter sent by you to him.  Your Reference No: MC13-001921.

Continue reading

Remember I have already lived in your future and it didn’t work - Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky

Thought  for the Week: https://alor.org/Volume50/Vol50No22.htm

6 June 2014
Remember I have already lived in your future and it didn’t work:  It is really puzzling to me that having just buried one monster “the Soviet Union” another remarkably similar one “the European Union” is being built. 

Continue reading

Alan Jones 2GB links

Alan Jones - 94 year old caller


Alan Jones - Pauline Hanson


Continue reading

One Nation senator-elect Malcolm Roberts Now a Terrorist Threat

Michael Koziol from the Sydney Morning Herald reported this morning that: "One Nation Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts wrote bizarre 'sovereign letter' to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard"


Continue reading

A Declaration of War on a Unitary Australia by Ian Wilson LL.B.

In regard to Section 18 C: I quote from a letter to the Editor (The Australian, August 2, 2016, p.13), by Geoffrey Luck:

"Australia now risks descending into a state of two nations. The attacks which destroyed Brian Martin's ability to conduct the NT Royal Commission and the Pearson and Shorten demands for a treaty linked to the constitutional referendum represent a declaration of Aboriginal war on the tradition of a unitary Australia".

Continue reading



That great writer Geoffrey Dobbs penned in the Home Journal of Spring 1989 : "Although it is necessary to look backwards to maintain continuity with the past, this becomes urgent only with a view to carrying a living policy into the future."
It is in this context which we shall examine more deeply the Howard government's "discovery" and now "war" on Aboriginal sexual abuse. 
I have written over and over again that the plight of Aboriginal children and women in these communities is shocking. But this situation has been known of for well over ten years. It has been ignored until now. One article which I received summed it all up by saying that Howard is doing a parting favour for the mining industry, having been their faithful servant. His aim is to roll back Aboriginal ownership of tribal lands, an aim hidden under the multi-coloured cloak of humanitarianism. Although the article which I received has a left-wing orientation, I cannot but agree. But one must join the dots and go further, following the trail of the one-worlders.

Continue reading

On the Same-Sex Marriage Plebiscite by Ian Wilson LL.B.

One important thing seldom discussed in the issue of the same-sex marriage plebiscite is that it is not necessary at all to permit a change to the legal definition of marriage because our High Court has already decided that the term "marriage", "when used in section 51 (xxi),… is a term which includes a marriage of persons of the same sex". This conclusion was reached in the High Court's decision on the legality of the ACT's "Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013" on December 12, 2013: Commonwealth v  Australia Capital Territory (2013) HCA 55.

As is common in constitutional law today, there was no concern about the intent of the original framers of the Australian Constitution and a progressive interpretation was adopted without any concern at all for the connection of the law to the Christian and Western tradition. Seeing the Constitution as a "living force" allows the High Court to adopt "progressive" and leftist positions on social and policy issues.

Continue reading

Christianity and the Census

Next Tuesday night (9 August) is 2016 Census night – where we are required by law to answer all sorts of questions to help governments make decisions about such things as public transport, housing, education and hospitals.
The religion question – and its implications for the funding of school chaplains and faith-based charities, as well as tax-exempt status for churches – is all important.
The religion question is the only one that is not compulsory.  It lists six Christian denominations and three non-Christian religions, with a space for “other” – but for the first time, “No religion” is the first option.
That was the result of a quiet campaign by the Atheist Foundation of Australia three years ago. They hope that putting “No religion” at the top before any other option, they would win the “donkey vote” – and ultimately force governments to end any subsidy or recognition for the huge amount of public good done by faith-based community organisations.
They have also mounted an advertising campaign in supermarket car parks and elsewhere, urging people to mark the “No religion” box.
The problem is compounded by the fact that many non-denominational Christians mark
“No religion” because they have faith in Christ, but don’t belong to a particular denomination.  
To them, “religion” means “denomination”.
What can we do?
We can:
        Make sure we answer the religion question – by marking one of the six boxes for Christian denominations, or writing “Christian” or something similar in the space provided for “other” religion.
        Send this email to other friends and family, encouraging them to do the same.
        Pray – that the atheist campaign will fail.
May the Lord bless and guide you!

The Unpaid Work Force

Remember we wrote of the difference between the Moral Code and the Moral Law?  In the New Testament we read:  “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” which sprang to mind whilst reading about the UK government Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) scheme. Personally, the truth of that claim is clearer to me when the above is paraphrased thus: 

“The love of, that is, the preference for money, in terms of personal advancement, above all other considerations, is the root of all kinds of evil.”

Continue reading

Clexit Creeps Closer by Viv Forbes

The “CLEXIT” Campaign (CLimate Exit) which originated in Australia was inspired by the Brexit decision of the British people to withdraw from the increasingly dictatorial EU bureaucracy. Clexit is spreading world-wide (16 countries already).

 Clexit aims to prevent ratification of the costly and dangerous Paris global warming treaty which is being promoted by the EU/UN and their green army.

 This war on hydro-carbon energy has already caused massive losses to western industry. If allowed to continue as envisaged by the Paris Treaty, economic depression will follow and all nations will suffer.

 We must stop this futile waste of community savings; cease the destruction and dislocation of human industry; stop killing rare bats and birds with wind turbine blades and solar/thermal sizzlers; stop pelletising trees to feed power stations designed to burn coal; stop converting food to motor vehicle fuel; and stop the clearing of bush and forests for biofuel cultivation and plantations.

Carbon dioxide does not control the climate. It is an essential plant food and more carbon dioxide will produce more plant growth and a greener globe.

Continue reading

Australian History Not Normally Told

I have spent this past weekend going over several videos about Australian history. The first two are as relevent today as they were when originally produced in 1989 and 2001.

The Planned Surrender of Australia
ED Butler presents an historical picture of the destructive work of our politicians and elites in their deliberate efforts to destroy 'the lucky country'. He explains why philosophy (what you believe) is so important in the formation of the society in which you wish to live. The perversion of our Constitution, by judges who knew exactly what they were doing, to move us along the socialist (centralist) road. The alignment of our economy with alien trading blocks to remove our independence and self reliance, especially away from the Commonwealth.
He also walks you through Natural Law, which if you violate, will always demonstrate the truth of that law.

Continue reading

The scientific money system for the automation age of abundance by Robert E. Klinck, M.A.

From the Scarborough Sun, December 31,1970, Page 3.
The scientific money system for the automation age of abundance
by Robert E. Klinck, M.A.

In comparison with most of the major political forces operative in the world today, Social Credit is a phenomenon of recent origin. Indeed, this month (1970-ed) marks only the fifty-third anniversary of the publication of the first article on the subject by its founder and authoritative exponent, the late Clifford Hugh Douglas.

Partly because he was less concerned with personal recognition for his contribution to analyzing the defects of modern social institutions than he was with actually correcting the defects, and partly because he was cognizant—and therefore, wary—of the nonsense which frequently flows from the pens of biographers, no comprehensive biography of Douglas has ever been written. Nevertheless, sufficient information about him is available to permit us at least to sketch his remarkable career.  Douglas, being of Scottish descent, spent his latter years in Fearnan, Perthshire.  He was born, however, in Stockport, Cheshire, England in 1879.

Various comments in his writings and speeches indicate that he regarded obtaining his higher education at Cambridge University as one of the less rewarding experiences of his life.

C.H. Douglas  M.I. Mech.E., M.I.E.E.
prophet of the age of abundance

He entered the profession of engineering, in which he acquired a considerable experience as a participant in major construction projects around the globe.

He was on the staff of the Westinghouse Company of America; in India he was Chief Reconstruction Engineer for the British Westinghouse Company; in  South America he was Deputy Chief Engineer of the Buenos Aires and Pacific Railway Company. Returning to England, he became Railway Engineer of the London Post Office Tube system  and was engaged in the construction of an underground railway between Paddington and Whitehall. After the First World War, he became a yacht manufacturer.

In the course of overcoming physical obstacles as an engineer, Douglas gained an awareness of the tremendous potential in modern technology for individual human emancipation. It was, in fact, during the First World War that Douglas made a discovery which was shortly to result in his grafting onto his eminent career as an engineer those of economist and philosopher, as well.

At that time, as a Major in the British Royal Flying Corps, he was despatched to the Royal Aircraft Works in Farnborough to unravel a production problem. Its solution necessitated his carrying out an intensive investigation of costing in the factory. Applying this novel approach to broader economic considerations with rigorous use of the method of scientific induction led him to an unexpected conclusion which for decades was to be an issue of heated controversy among economists. In brief, Douglas claimed to have discovered that in a given period of time the amount of purchasing power distributed to potential consumers of goods was insufficient to allow them to purchase the goods produced in the same time. This matter will be discussed more fully in a subsequent article in this series.

One early result of Douglas’s inquiries was the publication in The English Review (December, 1918) of an article by him entitled, “The Delusion of Super- Production,” in which he attempted to demonstrate the falsity of the proposition being advanced from all quarters after the war that the key to achieving peace-time economic stability and prosperity lay in substantially increasing manufactures. Douglas argued to the contrary: he contended that, so long as existing financial provisions were retained, such productive activity would merely aggravate a technical problem which would eventually inflict a severe economic reckoning on the population. Subsequent events proved in dramatic fashion the soundness of his prediction.

After the publication of “The Delusion of Super-Production” Douglas devoted an increasing amount of time to consideration of economic issues. Nearly forty years of age, he wrote Economic Democracy, the first of numerous books. So condensed and unfamiliar were the ideas expressed in this work that it required a whole series of even longer volumes to clarify his analyses and his proposals. Although steeped in a profound philosophy, these early works were primarily concerned with economic propositions. Later—during the 1930’s and 1940’s—Douglas turned his attention towards politics and the problem of how successfully to implement his principles.

However distinguished by consistency and precision of expression Douglas’s writings may be, what is most impressive about them is the amazing way in which their author is able to cut through misconceptions, irrelevancies and emotionalism to the core of problems. In this regard, Douglas was unquestionably gifted with a singular clairvoyance.

Included as highlights in his career as an economist were his testimony at the Canadian Parliamentary inquiry into Banking and Commerce in 1923, his delivery of a paper at the World Engineering Congress in Tokyo in 1929, and his statement of evidence before the Macmillan Committee (of Great Britain) on Finance and Industry in 1930. During an immensely successful world tour, beginning in 1933, Douglas addressed enormous crowds in Australia and New Zealand, where he also testified before a Parliamentary Committee on Banking. In Western Canada he gave evidence before the Agricultural Committee of the Alberta Legislature and, in Ottawa, testified before the Committee on Banking of the Dominion Parliament. Before returning to England in 1934, Douglas proceeded to the United States where he was guest of honour in Washington at a supper for Senators and Congressmen arranged by Senator Bronson Cutting. In 1935, at the invitation of King Haakon of Norway, he addressed the King and the members of a merchants’ club in Oslo.

Some indication of Douglas’s stature as an economist can be obtained from the tribute paid him by the brilliant English editor and economist, A. R. Orage. “His knowledge of economics was extraordinary,” wrote Orage, “and from our very first conversation everything he said concerning finance in its relation to industry—and, indeed, to industrial civilization as a whole—gave me the impression of a master-mind perfectly informed upon its special subject; after years of the closest association with him, my first impression has only been intensified. In the score of interviews we had together with Bankers, Professors of Economics, Politicians and Businessmen, I never saw him so much as at a moment’s loss of complete mastery of his subject. Among no matter what experts he made them look and talk like children.”

Beside the fact of his unusual intellect, do we know anything of Douglas’s character? Better to appreciate that, it is desirable to quote at some length from another writer, L. D. Byrne, who was not only a keen student of Douglas’s thought, but also his personal friend:

“Notwithstanding a mental stature unusual in any society, Douglas’s outstanding characteristic was a profound humility—a humility which was reflected in his writings and in his life. This is the one quality which set him apart from his contemporaries and ensured him a lasting place with the truly great men in the annals of human endeavour. Where others viewed the world in terms of mankind’s struggles and achievements, and society as the creature of man’s brain and behaviour, with the realism of the engineer and the penetrating spirituality of a Mediaeval theologian, Douglas saw the Universe as an integrated unity centred in its Creator and subject to His Law.

“It was the basis of Douglas’s philosophy, of which Social Credit is the policy, that there is running through the warp and woof of the Universe the Law of Righteousness—Divine Law—which he termed ‘The Canon.’ Just as the stars in their courses, the electron in relation to the proton and the behaviour of light are obedient to it, so all Life is governed by the Canon. Because of the higher  intelligence and free-will accorded to him, Man cannot rely on instinct to guide him in his adherence to the Canon. He must seek it actively, and to the extent that he finds it and conforms to it, he will achieve harmony with the Universe and his Creator. Conversely, to the degree that he ignores the operations of the Canon and flouts it, he will bring disaster upon himself. (emphasis-ed)

“It was inherent in Douglas’s writings that he viewed society as something partaking of the nature of an organism which could ‘have life and life more abundant’ to the extent it was God-centred and obedient to His Canon. Such a social organism would be the corporate expression of the lives and relationships of its component individuals. Within it, the sovereignty of ‘God the creator of all things visible and invisible’ being absolute, there must be full recognition of the sanctity of human personality, and, therefore, of the individual person as free to live his life and, within the body social, to enter into or contract out of such associations with others as, with responsibility to his Creator, he may choose.  And no person may deny to another this relationship to God and his fellow men without committing sacrilege.” (emphasis-ed)

Surely, reading this passage, we can sense the character of Douglas and the scope and depth of his philosophy.

The man died in 1952. 

What seems amazing is the extent to which Douglas’s thought has been simply ignored. In spite of his having been one of the most talented writers and brilliant critics of the Twentieth Century, one can scarcely find a mention of him in decades of indices to the London Times. And today, while their shelves are filled with tomes on the obsolete and hate-filled doctrines of Karl Marx, booksellers refuse to display the works of Douglas, whose philosophy, respectful of the individual, held promise of achieving social harmony and whose policy was to make the vast productive potential of modern industrial nations serve rather than dominate man, to give him economic security accompanied by greater freedom to exercise his initiative and develop his personality. Douglas maintained that his proposals would produce these results—and no one ever succeeded in seriously refuting his claim.

Anti-Royal Humbug 1 & 2

The British Council was founded to create friendly knowledge and understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world. They work in more than 100 countries, connecting millions of people with the United Kingdom through programmes and services in the English language, the arts, education and society. In these ways, the British Council says that it builds links between UK people and institutions and those around the world, helping to create trust and lay foundations for prosperity and security around the world.
We are all used to members of the Royal family being crudely criticised by certain Australian republicans but the language of a staff member of Britain’s British Council beats even our republicans.  Angela Gibbins, a senior executive with the council, has taken to Facebook to refer to Prince George, who has just celebrated his 3rd birthday, as a ‘f****** d***head’. (Daily Mail - 29/7/2016)
In her savage Facebook rant — about little Prince George — she contrasts what she calls the ‘white privilege’ of his life with that of a typical three-year-old Syrian refugee and laments that the young Royal is living on ‘public money’. (Daily Mail - 29/7/2016)
As a matter of fact, neither Prince George nor his father, the Duke of Cambridge are paid from the public purse. But that is not the point. What is, is that a British Council official whose duty is to promote British culture and education has taken to the Internet to vent her warped ideology on the rest of the world.
The 52-year-old Angela Gibbins, who manages the British Council’s global property assets on a salary of £80,000 (A$140,000) a year describes herself as a ‘socialist, atheist and republican’.
The British Council is partly funded by the British taxpayer, so who is actually living on the public purse?
At only 3 years of age, Prince George cannot defend himself but we can and I urge you to write to the British Council to object to the vile language used by this self-described socialist, atheist and republican woman. You can contact the British Council in Australia to express your views as follows:
Helen O'Neil
Country Director
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Charlotte Beveridge
Communications Manager
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Erin Gale
Education Projects Manager
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Postal address
British Council
PO Box 88
Edgecliff NSW 2027
Or you can write to the British Council in the UK:
British Council
Bridgewater House
58 Whitworth Street
Manchester M1 6BB

Yours sincerely,
Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League


Continue reading

What Is Moral? - That Which Works Best! by Betty Luks

There is an interesting discussion taking place amongst Social Crediters and while it centres on Oliver Heydorn’s recently published a book "Social Credit Philosophy", it raises interesting questions for the serious student. 

Readers of OnTarget might like to consider the following for themselves:

J.S. writes:  The purpose of the book is to put Douglas' philosophy in one treatise on the subject.  In this regard, Oliver Heydorn does an admirable job. 

Anyone who has read Douglas' works knows that he only touches on the subject of philosophy, and all of his writings on the subject are scattered throughout his works. Oliver does a tremendous job pulling all of this together into a coherent whole.  As such, any serious student of Social Credit needs to read this book.

Douglas referred to Social Credit as "the policy of a philosophy".  As such, you would think that the philosophy of Social Credit would be front and centre in any of Douglas' books or articles.  On the contrary, Douglas seems to ever only mention it in passing and scattered about in segments of his works.  I believe that this is because, as Oliver points out, that Douglas was really dis(un)covering his philosophical beliefs as he proceeded.

It has been said (by B. R.) that Douglas was an exceptionally intuitive thinker, but if I have a criticism of Douglas' works [it] is that they are not laid out in a deductive, logical manner.  Because of this fact, many erroneous beliefs and statements about Douglas' ideas have been put forward even by followers of the man.

I want to touch on a point that I believe Douglas was erroneous, or at least Oliver's interpretation of that point is erroneous (I believe the former, and actually believe that Oliver interprets it correctly, and it is in fact Douglas who is wrong). 

In the book, Oliver states that "that which is moral is that which works best".  But is this true?  If my object is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, then that which works best is to detonate a nuclear device on a heavily populated area.  Is that moral?  Or does morality operate at a higher plane in that it first determines the correct course of action, and that which works best to get to that objective is merely the best way to achieve morality?  I believe that the subject of morality transcends mere engineering discoveries of what is the best method to obtain an objective.  It is morality that determines what objective we ought to follow.  The best method of achieving an objective does not determine the objective itself, but is merely a secondary question…”

Wallace Klinck responded:

“His concepts of “moral” and “good” were clearly related to man’s degree of success in understanding and relating to the Logos, being the body of law which governs the universe.  He assumed that there is such cosmic law and that we as humans can only seek and achieve an increased, if imperfect, understanding of it.  To the extent that we do discover and adhere to the Logos we will prosper.  That is realism.

On the question of intuition I believe that B. R. was certainly correct in his expressed opinion that Douglas was an exceptionally intuitive thinker.  Douglas himself mentioned that some insights seem to come as a seemingly instantaneous flash of awareness.  This introduces the question of the nature of intuition.  Does man think creatively by virtue of his own mortal cognitive powers or is he or she the recipient of imparted knowledge?  That is, is the mind of man merely a conduit for the mind of God—the Mind of the Maker?  In reality do we receive knowledge from external inspiration and have only the ability to process or utilize it?  Ask and ye shall receive.  Does man actually create or merely receive?  Let no man boast.  Something, perhaps, for the Marxists and Libertarians, whose creed is salvation through works, to ponder.”

Moral Code and/or Moral Law

Betty Luks:  I would like to add to this discussion.  When once speaking with Geoffrey and Elizabeth Dobbs they spoke of the time when Douglas was writing “Economic Democracy”.  They explained that, just as along the lines that Wallace Klinck described,  “Douglas himself mentioned that some insights seem to come as a seemingly instantaneous flash of awareness”.

Wallace also mentions “The Mind of the Maker” - Dorothy L. Sayers wrote a book with the same name.  In the chapter “The Laws of Nature and Opinion”, she writes of two distinct meanings attached to the word “law”.  The following is ‘cherry picked’ from her book:

1.  Arbitrary Law:  An arbitrary regulation made by human consent in particular circumstances and capable of being promulgated, enforced, suspended, etc., without interference with the general scheme of the universe.   

Such laws can prescribe that certain events shall follow upon certain others; but the second event is not a necessary consequence of the first.

As an example, if an Australian was to marry two wives at once, there would be a legal sanction – but only if he is found out; there is no necessary causal connection between over-indulgence of matrimony and the legal sanction.

Arbitrary law is possessed of valid authority provided it observes two conditions:-

1. Public opinion shall strongly endorse the law.

2.  Arbitrary law shall not run counter to the law of nature.

That is, when the laws regulating human society come into collision with the nature of things, and in particular with the fundamental realities of human nature.

2.  Natural Law: In its other use, the word “law” is used to designate a generalised statement of observed fact of one sort or another.  Most of the so-called “laws of the nature” are of this kind:  If you hold your finger in the fire it will be burnt”.

Such “laws” as these cannot be promulgated, altered, suspended or broken at will; they are not “laws” at all, in the sense that the laws of the nation are “laws”; they are statements of observed facts inherent in the nature of the universe.

In Whose Service is Perfect Freedom

But the word “law” is also applied to statements of observed fact of a rather different kind. 

There is a universal moral law, as distinct from a moral code, which consists of certain statements of fact about the nature of man; and by behaving in conformity with which, man enjoys his true freedom.  This is what the Christian Church calls “the natural law”. 

Much confusion is caused in human affairs by the use of the same word “law” to describe these two things: an arbitrary code of behaviour based on a consensus of human opinion and a statement of unalterable fact about the nature of the universe.

At the back of the Christian moral code we find a number of pronouncements about the moral law, which are not regulations at all, but which purport to be statements of fact about man and the universe, and upon which the whole moral code depends for its authority and its validity in practice. These statements do not rest on human consent; they are either true or false. If they are true, man runs counter to them at his own peril.  He may, of course, defy them, as he may defy the law of gravity by jumping off the Eiffel Tower, but he cannot abolish them by edict.

Regulations about doing no murder and refraining from theft and adultery belong to the moral code and are based on certain opinions held by Christians in common about the value of human personality. Such “laws” as these are not statements of fact, but rules of behaviour.

Societies which do not share Christian opinion about human values are logically quite justified in repudiating the code based upon that opinion. If, however, Christian opinion turns out to be right about the facts of human nature, then the dissenting societies are exposing themselves to that judgment of catastrophe which awaits those who defy the natural law.

The God of the Christians is too often looked upon as an old gentleman of irritable nerves who beats people for whistling. This is the result of a confusion between arbitrary “law” and the “laws” which are statements of fact. Breach of the first is “punished” by edict; but breach of the second, by judgment.

Scattered about the New Testament are other statements concerning the moral law, many of which bear a similar air of being arbitrary, harsh or paradoxical:

“Whosoever will save his life shall lose it”; “to him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath”; “it must needs be that offences come, but woe unto that man by whom the offence cometh";  “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God”; “it is better for thee to enter halt into life than having two feet to be cast into hell”, etc.

We may hear a saying such as these a thousand times, and find in it nothing but mystification and unreason; the thousand and first time, it falls into our recollection upon some vital experience, and we suddenly know it to be a statement of inexorable fact.  
The cursing of the barren fig-tree looks like an outburst of irrational bad temper, “for it was not yet the time of figs”; till some desperate crisis confronts us with the challenge of that acted parable and we know that we must perform impossibilities or perish.

Now I understand what C.H. Douglas meant when he answered that question,
“What is moral?”  by replying, “That which works best!”


Seems a responsible move on the part of the Environment Defenders Office (Qld). If you are a Queensland farmer concerned about your water rights have a look at what this group is doing – and then judge for yourself.
“Qld farmers fear loss of justice if miners can take groundwater without licence,” reports the website of the Environment Defenders Office (Qld): 
EDO Qld says time is running out for the Queensland Labor government to stop controversial LNP water reforms that will strip farmers of their right to appeal proposed mine impacts on precious groundwater supplies, risking permanent damage to the state’s water systems (ABC Radio PM, Farmers fear Queensland water reforms, Wednesday 20 July).
With reforms to water laws due to be debated in Queensland parliament as early as next
month, EDO Qld solicitor Revel Pointon said new information provided to Central Queensland grazier Bruce Currie indicates that he and other farmers stand to lose legal rights to challenge grants of groundwater water to mining companies.
 “Our office has been approached by farmers concerned about a permanent loss of vital water supply unless the government steps in and scraps the LNP laws to give statutory rights to associated water to mining companies,” Ms Pointon said.
With amendments to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 expected soon before Parliament the Government has an opportunity to protect our farmers, their objection rights and local ecosystems…”
Read further here: http://www.edoqld.org.au/news/qld-farmers-fear-loss-of-justice-if-miners-can-take-groundwater-without-licence/

Environmental Defenders Office Qld (EDO Qld) is an independent community legal centre, empowering the community to use the law to protect the environment.


Andrew Bolt reported on the Senate wash-up for the NSW Liberals, “Molan proves why Photios should go,” Andrew Bolt 26 July 2016:

The Liberals let Michael Photios, a lobbyist, interfere with their NSW preselections, promoting duds and demoting talent such as Jim Molan.  The Senate count suggests that Photios is indeed a man of poor judgement who should be drummed out of the party processes....
Dennis Shanahan (of The Australian):

Continue reading