we see the Wood for the Trees?
Wood represents the finer details of the knowledge of the Laws of Life
governing the Tree.
The Tree is symbolically the Body-Social man has built
up over the centuries and which is once more 'near unto death' because of its
wrote of the two education systems from which we learn about the Tree:
the heading of 'Static and Dynamic Sociology'  he wrote:
"The two systems in the Public Schools (Private Schools in Australia) are
the Classical and the Modern sides, and have their equivalent Triposes and Honours
Schools in the universities. One of these systems is Aristotelian, the second
Douglas could see that considered separately the two
systems were incompatible. The classic system is the embodiment of an attractive
and artistic concept of society and spells out the conditions under which this
ideal society lives and moves and has its being, whereas, the modern system
in essence has nothing to do with ideals at all.
This system's backbone
is that of inductive natural science, "based upon the experimental
ascertainment of fact. It refuses to admit as fact anything which cannot be demonstrated,
and, as a theory, anything which does not fit the facts." Douglas saw that
the effect of these two philosophies on the Body Social couldn't but fail to be
The Classical and Modern effects
could see that "the classical ideal lays emphasis of any observed defects
in the social organisation on defects in the characters of the persons composing
the society. Wars occur because people are wicked, poverty because people are
idle, crime because they are immoral."
Whereas, material progress, in
essence applied Science, is repulsive to the Classical mind, because it stultifies
the rigid Classical ideal. Conversely, the scientific attitude tends to the opposite
extreme, towards what is called Determinism. "People's actions, thoughts,
and morals are the outcome of more or less blind forces to which they are subjected,
and consequently, both censure and praise are out of place." Douglas thought
that "as in many controversies there is a good deal to be said for both points
of view, but it is even more probable that approximate truth lies in the appreciation
of the fact that neither conception is useful without the other."
miserable creature that I am. If greater minds than mine cannot bridge this yawning
chasm between the two systems of education, where can I turn? But wait, all is
not lost. Adelaide folk were privileged to hear Archbishop John Hepworth of the
Anglican Catholic Communion give an address on "The Contribution of Greek
Thought to Western Christian Civilisation", where he explained the importance
of Greek thought in the development of the Christian Faith.
debate should be of interest to all, including Christians who are social crediters.
In an address to the University of Regensburg last
September, Pope Benedict reminisced about his teaching years at that university.
If I have understood his paper correctly he says there is a need to bridge that
yawning gap between the two systems, and observes:
"The scientific ethos…is…
the will to be obedient to the truth, and as such, it embodies an attitude which
belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here
is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept
of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open
to humanity, we also see dangers arising from these possibilities and we must
ask ourselves how we can overcome them….
"Modern scientific reason
quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence
between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given,
on which its methodology is based…(But) The West has long been endangered
by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only
suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason,
and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which theology
grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time…"
the days when the university was made up of ordinary professors, the various chairs
had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct
contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves."
mentioned that despite the specialisations which at times made it difficult to
communicate with each other "we made up a whole, working in everything on
the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility
for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience."
there was a time when the various faculties communicated with each other. But
he is now concerned there is a "call for the de-hellenisation of Christianity,
a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since
the beginning of the modern age."
sees three stages in this programme of de-hellenisation and "two principles
which are crucial" for the issue raised.
First, only the kind
of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements
can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be
measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology,
sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity.
"A second point, which is important
for our reflections," he noted, "is that by its very nature this method
excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific
question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science
and reason, one which needs to be questioned."
He continued: "…it
must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's
claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere
fragment of its former self."
about the human questions?
"But we must say more: if science as
a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced,
for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions
raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective
reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated
to the realm of the subjective.
The subject then decides, on the basis of
his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective
"conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. He warned:
"In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs
for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason
which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and
ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of
evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate."
 (sub-headings and emphasis added)
have posed such questions as we know. C.H. Douglas for one. Nearly one hundred
years ago the world's problems presented similar seemingly insurmountable difficulties
desperately needing answers.
On the vast subject,
editor of On Target, New Zealand, Bill Daly, wrote in his Introduction
to Michael Lane's review of Dr. Tom Robertson's book "Human Ecology":
Inductive Method made possible greater boldness in the advance of certain of the
sciences…. Bacon was not anti-authority. He upheld the legitimate institutions
of government and the Church. But he rightly insisted that preconceived attitudes,
based only on established practises, must be tested against reality and if found
wanting then changed or superseded. This brings us to the heart of the social,
economic, political and scientific problems of modern mankind."
Robertson a Scottish doctor did just that
Dr. Robertson had read Douglas
and had grasped the importance of the disruptive influences of the two systems
of education. Like Bacon, Robertson sought the primary causes of the unhealthy
Body Social looking past the symptoms to grasp the facts about the primary causes.
set out to examine the Body Social's institutions, the social mechanisms, using
the Hellenic-Deductive Method which emphasised, as observed by Douglas in "Social
Credit": "any observed defects in the social organisation are defects
in the characters of the persons composing the society. Wars occur because people
are wicked, poverty because people are idle, crime because they are immoral."
as a medical doctor and homeopath, likened the Body Social to a boy who displayed
the symptoms of gluttony, laziness and a penchant for 'sweeties'. On examining
the boy in more detail by the Inductive-Baconian Method, and ascertaining the
facts, found the causes for his gluttony, laziness and craving for sweets were
to be found in his diabetic condition.
Robertson, examined the real objective of the social
mechanisms, including the Church as a social mechanism, and insisted the Church
also must re-examine its attitude to the boy, to the Body Social, because it was
'sick unto death' and the Church was also treating the symptoms and not the causes.:
"No section of the organised
Christian church has grasped the vital fact that men's relations are no longer
direct and personal but are conditioned by the interposition of social mechanisms;
and therefore all, even Christians automatically serve the ends towards which
these (social) mechanisms operate, no matter whether these ends are known or otherwise,
and no matter what the moral or spiritual status of those who use them…
majority of clergy… state that human conduct cannot be changed without first
changing human nature, or, as it is often put, changing men's hearts.
of this view, which is very important, holds that there is nothing wrong
with our social mechanisms and that if men were only good enough, these mechanisms
would work perfectly. The whole of this book is based on the thesis that it would
not matter how good men were, the money, political, or any other existing social
mechanisms, would in the long run achieve the same results as they achieve now."
Whilst writing this article I received two
phone calls from folk within the farming community. They just wanted to talk with
me because they know I understand their desperate plight. Not only are many areas
still in the grip of this heartbreaking drought but none of Australia's social
mechanisms are geared to help them in the basic causes of their plight.
yes! The leaders will appear to be concerned about those farmers 'on a knife edge'
not knowing which way to turn. They will even offer more band aids such as crisis
management help - but change the objective, the policy of the mechanism? Treat
the causes? NO! NEVER!
Those with the power and influence to set about
changes to the mechanisms would rather see the Body Social disintegrate than give
up their privileged positions based upon the present social set up.
matter how hard the farmer works, no matter how many long hours he puts in, no
matter how much he produces in the good times, the social mechanisms are so geared
that he will not be able to 'put by' for such seasons. The financial mechanism
is geared to force him further and further into debt until in such a desperate
plight he will welcome some multinational who wants to take over his farm as some
type of 'saviour'.
The political mechanism is geared to foster and
shepherd the sell-off of the nation's (the people's) assets and resources to the
alien and foreign business/financial mafia and is controlled and directed by the
What can be done
in the circumstances? We offer no magical cure but all hope is not lost. One hundred
years ago Charles Ferguson foresaw the problems we now face, but he also encouraged
his readers to look past the Trees and see the Wood.
The review of his
books by Michael Lane in "Charles Ferguson: Herald of Social Credit"
could be the start of a new way of thinking for you. Seeking the 'social credit';
the 'faithful dealings', the mutual love and co-operation from and between your
families, neighbours and friends, you could be part of the survival and regeneration
of this once great South Land of the Holy Spirit.
In the meantime, the
social mechanism - the Church - set up to Shepherd the souls of the flock needs
to realise the Body Social is dynamic not static and must re-examine its own position.
The flock is being ravaged by the ruthless financial and political wolves and
is virtually Shepherd-less.
"Social Credit": 'Static and Dynamic Sociology' by C.H. Douglas,
2. Pope Benedict's address to the University of Regensburg is online
3. "Human Ecology: The Science of Social Adjustment",
Thomas Robertson 1948.
§ "Charles Ferguson: Herald of Social
Credit," by Michael Lane: $12.00 posted
§ "An Introduction to
Social Credit," by Bryan W. Monahan: $6.00 posted
Credit," by C.H. Douglas: $15.00 posted
§ "Human Ecology and
Social Credit: The Legacy of Tom Robertson," by Michael Lane: $10.00 posted
"Releasing Reality," by Eric D. Butler: $7.00 posted - from all Heritage
DVD or Video essential
We highly recommend the DVD or Video "The Contribution
of Greek Thought to Western Christian Civilisation" by Archbishop John Hepworth.
The Archbishop wove a brilliant word picture, a panorama, of the development
of Mankind over the centuries and in particular dealt with "The Contribution
of Greek Thought to Western Christian Civilisation".
The DVD or
Video will be available in the near future from Heritage Book Services, P.O. Box
27 Happy Valley SA 5159. Advance orders taken. Price: $18.00 posted.
Tapes: Audio Tape copies of Archbishop John Hepworth's address are now
available from Mayo Tapes, P.O. Box 6, Hahndorf SA 5245 - one copy $6.00 posted.
Global Warming: The Cold,
by Timothy Ball,
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the
truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in
Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the
reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history
and the human condition." Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor
of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor
at the University of Winnipeg." For some reason (actually for many), the
World is not listening.
Here is why.
would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would
probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a
lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming
phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does
no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting
time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation
over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada
brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate
change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position
while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated
No sensible person seeks
conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are
lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there
is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently,
Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world
come to believe that something is wrong?
for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest
threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents
humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we
have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make
concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children,
our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I
am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the
phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool
period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.
These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite
easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
trends now indicate a cooling
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology
from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned
two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's
global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific
fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming
became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as
the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
dogmatic and oppressive
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress,
fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced
in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people
choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University,
where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged,
academics remain silent.
I once received a three-page letter that my lawyer
defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say
what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that
universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This
becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments
that demand a particular viewpoint. In another instance, I was accused by Canadian
environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently
he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace,
Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
A civilised - not political - debate is
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in
a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually
indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate
how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the
lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in
this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised
their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of
them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain,
often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other
imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wilderness is Richard
Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT,
renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.
He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions
at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks
out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet
nobody seems to listen.
The consensus was
reached before the research began!
I think it may be because most people
don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly
set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist
makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as
the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric
greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that
since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably
rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached
before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question
the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a skeptic, when in fact they
are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these
scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations
of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge
or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change.
Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it
threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes
it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
but is it true?
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have
no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt
to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists
in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years
ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?"
taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was
being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students
an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicized
environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific
evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.
You only realize the
extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed.
Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that
it was an assignment.
I have learned it is
a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is
the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com),
is a Victoria (Canada)-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor
at the University of Winnipeg.
He can be reached at email@example.com
Subscribe to The New Times
Survey today! For just AUS$25.00 you will receive 12 copies each month