DO YOU WANT TO HEAR A FILTHY STORY?

by James Reed
The story of money is the most filthy of stories. U.S. President James Madison said: "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."

Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple that he tipped over their tables and drove them out of the temple with a whip. This is the only time in the New Testament that Jesus acts aggressively, with a weapon.
The temple tax had been paid with a half ounce of pure silver coin called a shekel. This was said to be the only coin "acceptable to God". The money changers had economic control over the half shekel market and used their monopoly to make huge profits. This situation rightly appalled Jesus.

Goldsmiths in medieval England also got in on the same type of scam. People left their gold and silver with them for safe keeping and received a receipt as a record of the transaction.
Noticing that only a small fraction of depositors ever came to demand their gold and silver at any one time the goldsmiths made out receipts for gold and silver which did not exist. Not only that, but they sought interest as well. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
This is the philosophical basis of the modern banking system, known as "Fractional Reserve Banking".

Banks can loan out 'credit' up to their "capital adequacy ratio"- usually 10 times the amount of reserves they are actually holding - with interest being the exponential icing on the 'credit' creation cake. It makes black magic look white!
However, some rulers did attempt to produce money which was not controlled by the money changers. King Henry 1st produced 'tally sticks'. (It may have been the origin of the term "it doesn't tally"). The tally sticks were specially polished sticks with notches on them. The stick was split lengthwise so that a record of the denomination could be made. One half went into circulation, the other half was kept by the king's treasurer. Counterfeiting was prevented by the king keeping half of one tally stick. This system of money worked until the establishment in 1694 of the Bank of England which ended the system.

Of course England had to be softened up for this, which was done by the English Revolution of 1642, financed by the money men backing Oliver Cromwell. After the smoke of the battles had cleared, the politicians climbed over the rotting bodies of their countrymen to get loans from the financial sharks of their day. They wanted a private bank - the Bank of England - and they got it.

This has been the model for national banking ever since. Central banks are the real governors of society. The Reserve Bank of Australia tells Johnny Howard what the interest rates will be. Nations sell bonds to these banks to raise funds that it cannot secure by taxation.
The banks 'pay' for the bonds out of money produced from foul air. Governments pay interest on this borrowed 'money' and continue the process. Debts are never paid and spiral out of control. Societies crumble, the financial vultures pick the bones and fly on - to the next carcass.

Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope (1966) has said:
"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole."

This is the diabolical vision which social credit hopes to combat. You can do your part by educating yourself on the money question. The League has a very comprehensive series of books on this issue for readers at all stages of "awakening".
Ask for a list of books and videos on the subject. We suggest you start with: "The Money Trick" $13.00 posted.
Professor Carroll Quigley's book, "Tragedy and Hope" is also available.

$2.5 MILLION TO 'SMACK' DROUGHT-SUFFERING FARMERS?

by James Reed
One will no doubt soon see headlines like the above if the present madness continues. Across the nation farmers are hurting like never before: the drought is killing their livelihood. If ever there was a time when silly spending on politically correct nonsense should stop so that full energies could be devoted to matters of national importance it is now. But still the Nanny State continues with its paternalism. We are told each night on TV to report "violence" against women - which is itself defined so broadly as to be meaningless, so that real violence, the sort seen in Aboriginal communities, gets drowned in the white middle class noise from guilt-wringing hands. And "violence against men" - what's that?

Now the government wants to spend $2.5 million on a campaign to tell parents not to smack their children. Yes - so they grow up to be adult brats, narcissistic personality disordered robots, who will replicate the madness of their creators. Does anyone feel like screaming? Well don't, for no doubt it probably aids global warming. And soon, it too will be illegal

AMERICANS FASCINATED

Source: from David Flint's Opinion Column:
"Although he is soon to go to Iraq, staff at a US air base in Britain failed to recognise a uniformed Prince Harry during a visit with British army friends, according to a report in the (Australian) Sunday Telegraph on 11 March 2007.
The report said that one of the Prince's friends tried to buy an iPod from the store, but was turned away because he was not a US serviceman or a relative of one.

A US forces spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel David Konop said:
" The girl at the till just did not recognise the prince at all. We're just really proud and pleased that Prince Harry chose to step on to our base and in the store. As you can imagine, the visit has created a lot of interest on the base as most Americans are fascinated with the British royal family.""

O.T. Comment:
Huh? What's that you say John? You're thinking of sending your son to Iraq as well? To fight for 'freedom and democracy' and 'Australia's (?) interests'? Good on yer John!
It will seem a little fairer and more balanced to those American, British and Australian mothers whose sons' souls and bodies - the next generation of our young people - have been wasted in bloody massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for those families whose sons and husbands are returning home but are mere physical and mental shells of their former selves.
John, another thing.
Please tell me, I would really like to know - just what are "Australia's interests" in Iraq and Afghanistan? And who is this "Australia"… I haven't sighted him as yet.

CREATING A MARKET FOR 'SECURITY'

by Paul Craig Roberts: Paul Craig Roberts, AntiWar.com, 12 April, 2007:
"The War on Terror is a marketing campaign for security industries and terrorism experts. The latter are pulling in the consulting fees, and the former are rapidly inventing new products that enable "our" government to watch our every move and to know our location at every moment. Although it should be working on its corporate ethics, BAE Systems is working on an "Onboard Threat Detection System." The system consists of tiny cameras and microphones implanted in airline seats.
The Onboard Threat Detection System records every facial expression and every whisper of every passenger, allowing watchful eyes and ears to detect terrorists before they can strike. BAE says its system is so sophisticated that it can differentiate between nervous flyers and real terrorists.

Think about this for a moment:
Aside from the Big Brother aspect, the Onboard Threat Detection System is either redundant or the security authorities have no confidence in the expensive and intrusive airport security through which passengers are herded.
We have reached the point where we can no longer fly with more than three ounces of lotions, shampoo, toothpaste, and deodorants, because the government pretends that we might concoct a bomb out of the ingredients. Three ounces of shampoo is safe, but three and one-half ounces blows the airliner to smithereens.
We must shed coats, shoes, and belts to pass through airport security. We are wanded and patted down. Luggage is x-rayed and searched. IDs and boarding passes are endlessly checked as we proceed from check-in to gate.
And we still need an Onboard Threat Detection System to monitor our expressions and words.

All this to 'protect' us from terrorists:
Other firms are developing chip implants that identify a person to scanning machines and allow our movements to be monitored by GPS systems.
Still others are developing ID cards that have retina scans and our DNA. No doubt we will be required to have both.
All of this is to protect us from terrorists. No thought is given to whether the intrusion from the protection is a greater threat than possible terrorist acts by foreigners protesting American hegemony over their own lives.
If American hegemony has this big a price, I can do without it. Some of us remember when it was possible to read a book in an airport while waiting on a flight. Today it can't be done without ear plugs. TVs blaring the latest propaganda compete with incessant repetitive terrorist warnings interrupted by announcements of flight cancellations and gate changes. The cacophony of sound is maddening.
If only we could go back to the days of crying babies and screaming children. Once a terrorist warning is produced, it lives forever. Every US airport endlessly plays the same ancient warning from decades ago instructing passengers to carefully watch their luggage and not to accept items from other people to carry aboard flights.
This warning dates from pre-security days when the parcel from a stranger to carry to a person waiting at the flight's destination. Allegedly, the parcel was a bomb.
To hear this warning today thirty or forty times after passing through security makes a person wonder about the efficiency of airport security. Were all those warrantless searches pointless? Just what are they doing in Afghanistan?

Bush 'primed the market' for invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan:
The greatest problem confronted by marketers of anti-terrorist products is the shortage of terrorist attacks. The only terrorist events Americans have experienced are the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

As for 9/11, we still don't have a good explanation of how so much security failed in one morning.
To prime the market for anti-terrorism products, the Bush administration used 9/11 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration has been attempting to occupy both countries for several years at a cost to taxpayers estimated at one trillion dollars.
The main result of the military action has been to stir up resentment among Muslims in the hopes that the resentment will find expression in terrorist acts in the US. We have been made less safe in order that entrepreneurs can make big bucks protecting us with new security products. It would have been much better just to give the trillion dollars to the security firms and not invaded the two countries.

Keep that in mind when you are being monitored in your airliner seat and are blinking too much because you still wear the old hard contact lenses or are suffering from allergies. Excessive blinking is a telltale sign of stress and means that the blinker is about to commit a terrorist act.
When you are arrested don't bother arguing with the foolproof Onboard Threat Detection System. Just be thankful that your senators and representative received enough campaign donations from security firms to be concerned with your security."

NO COMPREHENDO

by Brian Simpson:
As James Reed has noted previously, immigration has its own social costs. Professor Bob Birrell ("Implications of Low English Standards Among Overseas Students at Australian Universities," People and Place vol.14, 2006) has discussed in detail the problem and costs of one set of migrants.

Overseas students who obtained permanent resident visas in 2005-06 after graduating, were greedily accepted by our system as new migrants. But at least one third of them scored below the level that is normally necessary for professional employment. The response from Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop was "It has been an extraordinary attack by Professor Birrell on our universities. International students must reach international benchmarks in language in order to get a place in a university in Australia."

The answer is that many foreign students with poorer English skills gain entry through "pathway programmes" with lower English standards. So, in other words, students who were not competent English speakers to start with, were let into the system. Chinese students comprise the greater number of a particular ethnicity gaining permanent residence, but 43 per cent of these students failed to obtain a competent level of English. All this is just another pothole on the decaying highway of Australia's great immigration scam.

WATER 'RIGHTS'

From a letter circulated by Mr. Greg Cameron, Urban Rainwater Systems, Benalla Vic.
Re: The right to take water:-
On April 3rd, I asked the Minister for Environment and Conservation, Hon Gail Gago, "Is water that falls on a person's roof in South Australia captured and controlled by that person, and is water in a person's rainwater tank the property of that person?" That e-mail was copied to Mayors and the purpose of this e-mail is to answer questions raised by local councils.

South Australia's government explained its position in 2002, when it said:
"Perhaps one of the most important points to make about 'ownership' in any discussion on water rights is that there is a difference between ownership of water, and the ownership of a "right to take" water. Water itself, while still forming a part of the natural resource, can not be said to be 'owned' by any body. It is considered a public commodity. However, once water has been legally captured from its natural source and taken under a person's control, that person could then be said to own that particular water."
Source: Explanatory Documents, Supporting Papers for State Water Plan 2000, South Australia Department of Water Resources, September 2000, Page 2.

It is common sense that water is captured and controlled when it drops on a person's roof thereby enabling that water to enter a rainwater tank: water enters a person's rainwater tank by no other means.

South Australian government's position:
The state government's position is that the water that falls on a person's roof is not the property of that person, because it is "surface water". This can only mean that the water that falls on a person's roof is not captured and controlled by that person. On December 16th 2005, the former Minister for Environment and Conservation, Hon John Hill, said, "The state government does not own surface water. In fact, no-one owns surface water as such."
The legal meaning of "surface water" is "water flowing over land. The legal meaning of "land" is land - and includes any building or structure fixed to land. Because of these legal meanings, the state government deduces that water can be collected in a rainwater tank from "land" - or to be precise, from the surface of the ground. Common sense is that a building occupies land, but is not land, and, water cannot be collected from land - the surface of the ground - in a rainwater tank.
The occupier of land is entitled to take "surface water" from the "land" for any purpose. This does not mean that a person must take surface water, indeed, it gives a person the right not to take surface water. However, where the taking and use of surface water are mandatory, plainly, a person's "entitlement" has been revoked.
The government can tax the use of surface water provided the source of the water is a "surface water prescribed area".
The state government mandates the collection of water from roofs for rainwater tanks, and the use of such water, by all person's renovating a house or building a new house. If water that falls on a person's roof is surface water, it is common sense that the mandatory use of that water revokes that person's legal entitlement to take that water.

The law in other states is clearer.
In New South Wales, the state's rights extend to the control, use and flow of all water occurring naturally on or below the surface of the ground, all water in rivers, lakes and aquifers, and all water conserved by any works that are under the control or management of the Minister. The words "surface of the ground" are used in section 392(1)(c) of the Water Management Act 2000 and have a clear meaning. For the period that water remains on a person's roof, or is stored in that person's rainwater tank, it is not water "on or below the surface of the ground".
Consequently, rights to water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks in NSW are not the state's water rights. The NSW government confirms that the water that falls on a person's roof is considered the property of that person.

In Queensland:
In Queensland, the state's rights extend to the use, flow and control of all water in Queensland within the meaning of water given in the Water Act 2000. The meaning of water specifically "does not include water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks". This means that, for the period that water remains on a person's roof, or is stored in that person's rainwater tank, no rights to that water are vested in the state. The state government has been asked to confirm this position.

In Victoria:
In Victoria, the state's right to the use, flow and control of water extends to all water in a waterway and groundwater. The terms "waterway" and "groundwater" are defined in the Water Act 1989.
For the period that water remains on a person's roof, or is stored in their rainwater tank, it is not water in a waterway or groundwater. After water has left a person's roof or that person's rainwater tank, it may become water in a waterway or groundwater. Consequently, no rights to water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks in Victoria are vested in the state.
The Victorian government confirms that the water that falls on a person's roof is the property of that person.

Greg Cameron, Urban Rainwater Systems Pty Ltd, PO Box 498, Benalla VIC 3671

POST-INDUSTRIAL MADNESS : SOCIAL CREDIT TO THE RESCUE

by James Reed
To put it mildly: all is not well in the world of work. According to a recent UN report by Dorothea Schmidt, the service sector, rather than agriculture and industry, is now the world's largest source of employment. About 40 per cent of the world's workers now service the service sector, while 38.7 per cent sweat on in agriculture and 21.3 per cent in industry.

According to the International Labor Organisation, this trend of de-industrialisation, or post-industrialisation will continue. Global unemployment hit 195.2 million in 2006, a rate of 6.3 per cent. Unemployment rates in the Middle East and Africa is higher at 12.2 per cent. There are also 1.37 billion working poor, people living on less than US$2 a day.

In Australia the mining sector of Western Australia and Queensland, fuelled by the Chinese boom, is doing well. However regions such as Sydney are struggling because of a decline in manufacturing. The property boom of recent years now seems to have burst, leaving many households facing bankruptcy. Mitchell and Bill (People and Place vol.14, 2006) say that "substantial deindustrialisation of the Australian economy in the 1970s and 1980s increased unemployment and neighbourhood inequality in many regions, trends which persisted over the next decade." (p.17)

As well as all this, most Australians are working longer hours for less. About one in five Australians work more than 50 hours a week. Marriages and health are imploding and children are suffering.

From a social credit perspective this sort of suffering is both needless and pointless. It is inevitable and desirable that mechanisation leads to less and less jobs in industry. The "unemployed" should be able to engage in creative community work - funded by a social dividend, a financial representation of the creative potential of society.

From an orthodox economic perspective the "end of work" scenario will lead to major social dislocation; but so much the worse for orthodox economics. Social Credit opens the door to a window of freedom and opportunity.

THESE TRIALS DRIVEN BY HATRED AND REVENGE

by Betty Luks
On Armistice Day, 11th November 1991, Sir Walter Crocker, former career diplomat and nine years lieutenant governor of South Australia, joined with League of Rights folk outside the Adelaide Magistrate's Court. They were protesting at the first Australian 'war crimes trial' of Adelaide man Mr. Ivan Polyukhovich.

Sir Walter had earlier issued a press release which included the following:
"…I am much concerned about the way the trial has been brought about. Our federal government, in spite of including a number of men of undoubted integrity and ability, has agreed to the trial through giving into pressures of a lobby which represents very few Australians and no Australian interests, but which is buttressed with great wealth, with exceptional self-centred persistence, and with ruthless cleverness. A connected lobby has been operating with similar effects in England, Canada and France.
Its propaganda, accepted by large segments of the mass media has confused and misled Australians, even those normally well informed…. This and related trials are not driven by justice but by hatred and revenge. The events at issue took place half a century (now over sixty years…ed) ago. The nature of evidence available is dubious…. The accused committed no crimes in Australia during their years here… the accused committed no crimes against Australians anywhere…"

Mr. Ivan Polyukhovich was eventually found 'not guilty' and years later we learned he had lived out the rest of his life in Adelaide in peace.

CHARLES ZENTAI
Now another very elderly (85-year old) gentleman, Charles Zentai, is threatened with extradition to Hungary to face 'war crimes' charges.

Nigel Jackson has closely followed the case of Mr. Zentai and has appealed to Australians to come to Mr. Zentai's aid.

To the Editor, The Australian, 17th April 2007:
It is certainly to be hoped that Charles Zentai will be able to appeal to the High Court ('Accused war criminal, 85, loses appeal against extradition', 17/4) and that he will be strongly supported in his appeal by Australians generally.
The many reasons why he cannot be assured a fair trial in Hungary have been amply raised in public and remain unanswered. His age and health are also obvious reasons why no extradition should occur. Moreover, a strong presumption has been established that this extradition is being sought for ideological gain and not merely to punish crime.
As with the David Hicks case, the big issue here is preventing our Government from failing in its bounden duty to protect its citizens from unjust treatment by other political powers and interests. Allowing the unjustified extradition of any citizen sets a precedent that betokens the arrival of totalitarian tyranny.
It is in the interests of all of us that this far-too-belated pseudo-crusade against Zentai be terminated and exposed as fundamentally unlawful.

- - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

HISTORIAN'S 'MEMORY LAPSE'

by Betty Luks
Whilst browsing through my 1990s media files of Polyukhovich's committal hearing, where it was argued he should stand trial for 'war crimes', I was reminded of the number of prosecution witnesses flown to Australia and wined and dined at the taxpayer's expense, who suffered 'memory lapses' between the first video-recorded interviews conducted by Australian detectives back in their homeland, and their statements on the witness stand in the Adelaide magistrate's court in 1991. After all, it was nearly fifty years after the alleged events!

No 'slip of the tongue' here:
According to The West Australian ("Historian's nazi terror claim shattered by letter," 5/3/07) Australian historian Manning Clark had a similar problem in later life.
The article said: "As an old man looking back on his life, Manning Clark claimed to have seen with his own eyes the horrors of Kristallnacht." This was no one-off slip of the tongue, he told the story on radio, TV and in newspapers and even wrote a version for his memoirs.

The story went like this:
He claimed he arrived at the railway station at Bonn am Rhein on the morning of Kristallnacht, "That was the morning after the storm-troopers had destroyed Jewish shops, Jewish businesses and the synagogues… I saw the fruits of evil, of human evil, before me there on the streets of Bonn."
But his biographer discovered a time-factor problem with that account. Whilst checking Manning Clark's diary entries against a letter from his future wife, Dymphna Lodewyckx, who had witnessed the destruction, he discovered Manning Clark couldn't have been in Bonn that morning. The letter and diary entries proved him to have been in Oxford, and he didn't reach Germany for another fortnight.

McKenna had no doubt Clark set out to deceive:
"I am convinced Clark chose deliberately to place himself on the streets of Bonn, knowing full well he was not there. This was Clark's inner lie… and traded on his audience's trust in him as a historian."

Who was it said (written) history is bunk?