LETTER TO MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT FROM BOSTON ISLAND S.A.
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.

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. 

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!

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.”

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"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-senatorelect-malcolm-roberts-wrote-bizarre-sovereign-citizen-letter-to-julia-gillard-20160804-gqlesa.html

 
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.
 
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit.pdf

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.

Cory Bernardi (Australian liberal senator) and Jeremy Corbyn (British labor party leader) are both rallying the troops into divisive camps to support the upcoming campaign/s against those horrid opposition people who won't do as 'they' say.

Labor in Britain has recently gained (in a 48 hour window) as many as 155,000 'new members' to vote for the leader of 'their chosing' rather than allow the leader be elected by the existing labor party members. They want to have a say but the labor elites and labor politicians do not want them to, so have imposed a £25 tarriff onto the £3 membership requirements in order to vote. The payment psychology is clever in that it obliges ongoing commitment to the cause regardless of the outcome.

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.

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.

In his weekly newsletter Senator Cori Bernardi expressed his concern for the ‘state of the world’ when he wrote:

“I don’t know how many times I have written the following statement in recent years but it is succinct, accurate and more relevant than ever.  “The world has gone mad.”
Wherever you look, the signs of societal decline are evident. Acts of Islamic terror are now a seemingly everyday event. Mental health issues are increasingly prevalent. Substance abuse is growing. Respect for the rule of law and those that enforce it seem lower than ever. The children of dysfunctional families are incarcerated with little hope of a positive future…and I could go on.
These are the results of a sickness that has captured society; a culture where personal responsibility has all but disappeared, personal failings are excused by the politically correct and dangerous ideologies are dismissed with accusations of racism.
The issues we face are a direct product of the failed ‘progressive experiment’ that has deliberately sought to undermine the family, our societal structures, our education system and social mores…”
 

I have recently been reading a book titled "Philosophy In The Mass Age" by George P. Grant. Chapter 3 is  listed as 'Natural Law'. The chapter causes me to think about how I might observe natural law in action, and based on that observation adhere to it for my benefit.

The first example I use is BEES. 
In 1851, the Reverend Lorenzo Lorraine Langstroth (1810–1895), a native of Philadelphia, noted that when his bees had less than 1 cm (3/8 inch) of space available in which to move around, they would neither build comb into that space nor cement it closed with propolis. This measurement is called "bee space". During the summer of 1851, Langstroth applied the concept to keeping the lid free on a top-bar hive, but in autumn of the same year, he realized that the "bee space" could be applied to a newly designed frame which would prevent the bees from attaching honeycomb to the inside of the hive box.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langstroth_hive

I noted from scanning the main stories from this morning's news, that our main stream media has gone deftly silent on the immigration issue. Without detracting from the importance of the "NT 'in custody' issue and the calling for a royal commission of same", I suspect this issue has been sitting on the sidelines for quite some time and has been strategically rolled out to distract the community from any further discussions about immigration.
(Much of the footage shown in the ABC’s damning Four Corners program, which initiated the inquiry, was shot in 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/brian-martin-reconsiders-leading-nt-royal-commission/news-story/17efce1242090aee1edd0394713588b0)
This tactic of media silence is intended to stifle further debate.

So what can we (I) do about it? This question has many answers, and whomever gives an answer may do so in accordance with their knowledge, capacity and station in life.
But one answer at least is possible from even the most humble:

http://spectator.com.au/2016/07/kruger-is-right-muslim-immigration-should-be-carefully-considered/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/eric-abetz-calls-for-open-frank-debate-on-future-of-immigration/news-story/067f237247be0db0210274e641e8a116

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=anthony+sutton+pdf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=IJCWV9_TEMLN8gf-sLrYBQ#q=anthony+sutton+youtube

I have just spent about one hour searching the Internet to dis- uncover seven titles in PDF by Professor Anthony Sutton. I also did a search on YouTube, you can use the link above, to also dis- uncover many videos and audio archives of this man's work.

https://www.amazon.com/Social-Credit-Philosophy-Oliver-Heydorn/dp/1530390923

Clifford Hugh Douglas originally delivered an address on “The International Idea” to a  London audience and it was later reproduced in "The New Age," Jan. 14th, 1932. 

 http://www.alor.org/Library/Douglas%20CH%20-%20The%20International%20Idea.htm

 Upon reading Jo Nova’s website article:  “Wind Power Sucks Money and Electricity in South Australia”, our thoughts went to what Douglas observed all those years ago.

The main points of Douglas’ address bearing on Jo Nova’s article are dot pointed here. Keep in mind, in this modern money-economy no large or small enterprise can ‘get off the ground’ without the necessary financial/banking backing:

· Society at the present time is a battle ground of two fundamentally opposed ideas and the future of society (now civilisation ..ed) likely to be determined by which of those ideas shall prevail.

· One of these ideas, is the breaking down of all differences, social and national, and the setting up of a world state.

· And evidence to the contrary offers no evidence or argument to the Internationalist.
The idea is impervious to the assault of fact.

· There is a perfectly straightforward and practical explanation of this propaganda for internationalism, and for practical purposes one does not really need to look far.

· Hardly a day passes without a leading article in leading newspapers remarking, as though it were axiomatic, that the world is one economic unit, and that no adjustment of the present discontents can be expected which does not proceed from international agreement.

· This opinion, is never argued; it is always stated as though it were obvious to the meanest intellect.

· The simplest explanation of this is that if you only make a subject large enough and involve a sufficiently large number of people in the solution of it, you can rest assured that you will never get a solution.

· If you can super-impose upon that by means of a controlled Press, Broadcasting, and other devices of a similar nature, something that you call "public opinion'' (because it is the only opinion which is articulated) you have a perfect mechanism for a continuous dictatorship.

· A dictatorship with power but not responsibility.

· Almost equally obvious, and probably equally true - local sovereignty, particularly as it extends to finance, is a barrier to the supremacy of international finance.

· The mentality which is attracted by the Internationalist idea is incapable of distinguishing between numbers, things, and individuals.

· It is a type of mentality which is fostered and ultimately becomes inseparable from people who deal with nothing but figures, and is, the reason why the banker in particular is fundamentally unsuited for the position of reorganiser of the world.

· No banker as such, has any knowledge of large undertakings. He thinks he has, because he deals with large figures, and he mistakes the dealing with large figures as being equivalent to dealing with large numbers of things and people.

· The idea at the root of the International Idea - you can obtain an elaborate series of statistics regarding the populations of the world and put a committee down at Geneva, or elsewhere, to legislate for them on the basis of statistics. (italics added…ed)

· An idea never accepted by anyone who has ever run or organised a small business,

· The qualifications for organising the whole world have never been checked by any kind of laboratory experiment. They are, in fact, in exactly the position of a would-be bridge builder who is ignorant both of the Theory of Structures and the Strength of Materials.

The word 'religion' comes from two Latin words: the prefix ‘re’ as in repay, return, etc., and ‘ligare’ which means ‘to bind’. A ligament, which is a fibrous tissue connecting bones or cartilages, stems from the same Latin root as ligare, from which comes the English word 'religion'.  In medicine a ligature is a thread used to tie or bind a vessel.

Therefore, when I think of 'religion' (the noun) I am thinking of a 'set of beliefs' by which a person is guided, a 'set of beliefs' which he 'binds back to' - and applies in his life (‘religion’ the verb).  One should clearly distinguish between the noun and the verb.

Even atheists and agnostics have their own 'religion', their own ‘binding back’ to a ‘set of beliefs’. Just because they don't believe in a higher spiritual Being, or a spiritual dimension of Life, doesn't mean they don't have their own belief system!  And what about the 'fruits' of party politics?

Fabian socialist labor prime ministers of Australia, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating most certainly had a set of beliefs, out of which stemmed the policies they imposed upon this nation. They most certainly did apply their 'religion'! Just as liberal prime ministers Malcolm Fraser and John Howard continued with the very same set of beliefs and as Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘Liberals’ will now also do.

http://alor.org/Library/Hawke%20RJ%20-%20Address%20to%20the%20Fabian%20Society%20.html

 I came across another article about the poor financial status of the younger generation.
http://theconversation.com/stark-divide-between-young-and-old-as-australian-household-incomes-and-wealth-stall-62534

The article subliminally attempts to divide the young and the old, pitting the generations against each other, as if one generations good fortune is the fault that causes the other generation to miss out. This is the Marxist dialectic - the Marxist philosophy. It is the way the Marxist views the world, their reality. It is not my reality of an abundant world, a world where there is more than enough and my cup runneth over.

The article fails to realistically look at the abundance of the material world. The author presents their point of view (philosophy) that there is a shortage, that there is a scarcity, (of which there is not enough building materials, land, initiative and of course finance) so these young may never own their own home, and it is the fault of the older generation. This is a religious point of view, dialectical materialism or puritanism. Both capitalist and communist have this same point of view.

The article does not look at finance as a 'policy of a philosophy', but that is what it is. The financial policy is formulated to always present a shortage, a scarcity to the community in order to ensure they are always kept poor in order to control them.  Had the financial policy being based on a philosophy of abundance, then there would be sufficient finance to purchase what each community is capable of producing. The material wealth of each generation would be based on what is physically possible by that generation. The wages of the younger generation have stagnated and not followed the increased cost of houses. But have houses really cost more to produce (materials and energy), or is that an outcome of financial policy? There is no question of the disparity of wages and final costs of production - (A & B theorum), only of charts and trends.

With automation, advanced control technology, robotics, computer science and the like, we are able to set machines to do the tasks of many, many men. The curse of Adam has been lifted. We must open our eyes to see it, to place our Faith (our outworking of our philosophy) into a 'new financial system' that reflects the abundance, the wonderful provision that is before us.