TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE PRESS FROM PETER DAVIS

To: The Prime Minister, Hon. Kevin Rudd MHR,
Parliament House Canberra 2600

Reference: Reserve Bank of Australia/Interest rate increase.

Dear Mr. Rudd,
During the recent election campaign both you and Mr. Howard and your respective treasurers clearly indicated that the R.B.A. is not directed nor under the control of the Government of Australia; that it is independent of Government. This means that for all intents and purposes yours is not the sovereign Government of Australia.

It was Mayer Amschel Rothschild who stated back in 1838, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."

Surely the issuance and control of money is the most important role of the national government, not some private, autonomous body. Australia did once have a Government Bank. Labor M.P. Andrew Fisher delivered the "People's Bank" in 1912, which for a few short years delivered the people of Australia huge benefits under Sir Denison Miller's leadership.

It was conservative Prime Minister Stanley Bruce back in the late 1920s who began the emasculation of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, completed by Paul Keating with the final full privatisation of the C.B.A.

Which brings us to today: The two factors within the C.P.I. that have been identified as giving rise to inflationary pressures are banking charges and rising fuel prices. Clearly the average wage earner is not responsible for these pressures, yet he is blamed for causing 'rising demand'. It can be predicted with absolute certainty that if the privately controlled R.B.A. does increase interest rates this week many thousands of your electors will suffer unfairly and unnecessarily.

Yours sincerely, P.W. Davis,
The Mayor's Parlour,
Tasman Terrace,
Port Lincoln S.A. 5606

Editor's comment: It has been reported the latest interest hike financially impacts on 300,000 ordinary Australian families.

THE TRUTH CAN SET US FREE

by Betty Luks
It much occupies my mind that many people find it hard to 'see' the Social Credit that exists and has existed in all societies as long as people have lived and worked together in mutual love and co-operation. It was a man named Charles Ferguson, who, in the early 1900s, first coined the term social credit. He could see the abundance and potential abundance of the western nations which he said had resulted from the 'social credit' of the people. But it took Clifford Hugh Douglas' practical mind to take the matter further and offer practical mechanisms, based on the social teachings of the Christian Faith, for the just distribution of such abundance.

Social Credit is defined as:
"The power (the energy, the efficiency) of human beings in association to produce the result intended, measured in terms of their satisfaction." Look around you reader. Can you not see the incredible growth, increments and benefits, that have resulted from the mutual associations of fellow Australians, past and present, that has contributed to the physical and intellectual and spiritual benefits for modern Australians? While the aim of most serious social crediters is to study and understand, to the best of their individual ability, a limited number of matters, one being the development and growth of a modern economy, (i.e., those things involving a nation's housekeeping matters) the question of 'money' must come into their consideration because all now live in a 'money' economy.

Social Credit asks:
What was, and still is, the true purpose of a 'money' system? What does the study of the history of 'money' down through the centuries reveal to us? What is the true purpose of a nation's money system? What is the true nature of a nation's money system?

Why cannot people 'see' this thing called social credit?
The main reason of course is that they are so indoctrinated with the perceptions and concepts of the world of Mammon they cannot 'take in' any other perceptions and concepts that differ from what they believe to be 'the real world'. They have accepted an abstraction as part of reality, as real, and simply cannot see the real woods and trees. Let me give some examples.

Headlines on the present 'financial crisis':
"Housing Flameout: California falls into the sea". I ask: Really? Truly? In reality?
If I take that as a literal statement, literal meaning: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something, then I am to believe the land mass known as 'California', again a portion of the land mass known as the United Sates of America - has fallen into the sea and the houses on it have fallen into the sea in a fearful blaze of great intensity.

Or another headline:
"California Housing Falls Off a Cliff." Well that is clear - is it not? Houses built too close to the edge of cliffs abutting the sea on a section of the land mass known as California, have fallen into the sea.

Reader, what do you make of this statement?
"We are now beginning to see the first signs that the listless housing bubble has sprung a leak and is careening towards earth…"
I imagine a house in the shape of a bubble, dispiritedly floating in space, is now coming into view. Alarmingly, the bubble-house has sprung a leak (air escaping?) and is careening, that is, lurking, reeling, towards earth. I better watch out!

This abstraction called 'money' under present rules (and upheld by legislation) bears no relation to the real world in which we live. But it must be made to appear that it does. Hence the references to real things like the sea, cliffs, land masses, houses, even bubbles. It is time you were dehypnotised.

THE ROMANTIC THEORY OF INFLATION

by Anthony Cooney
I regard the definition, "Inflation is too much money, chasing too few goods," as the Romantic Theory of Inflation. It supposes either a degree of intelligence exchange between retailers which simply does not happen, or alternatively a uniform reaction of retailers to a measurable increase in public spending power; which is to suppose a great deal indeed!

This Romantic Theory of Inflation was a staple of U.K. Ministry of Information propaganda throughout the last war. There was even a cartoon character who, observing two people looking at the same article in his otherwise empty shop window, hastened to change the price tag to a higher one.

"Too much money chasing too few goods" became a mantra which is evidently still causing us problems. Oddly enough nobody could find the "too few goods". Shop windows and counters remained reasonably full and I have never met anyone who considers that they have too much money!

In fact, the fallacy was exploded in 1948 when Dior introduced the 'New Look' in women's fashions. The ready-made clothing industry was faced with disaster, for, as quickly became manifest, not merely the Department Stores, but also the Warehouses, were stacked with clothing, withheld from the consumer by rationing, and not by "too much money." Clothing coupons were abolished, literally overnight, by announcement on the B.B.C. and the department Stores launched mammoth sales to get rid of obsolescent stock.

Realistic definition of Inflation:
So, what is the (C.H.) Douglas definition of inflation? It is "An increase in the supply of money accompanied by an equal increase in prices."
That is not a Romantic Theory, it is a mathematical theorem which can be demonstrated by the A+B Theorem which shows that all costs (including taxation) must be recovered in prices. Increased costs result in increases in prices as cause to effect.

Either C.H. Douglas was right or Douglas was wrong. If Douglas was wrong that does not mean that either Keynes or Friedman were right. The results of implementing their theories argue strongly that they too were wrong.

It might be that everyone is wrong, which leaves us with the Copernican/Lockian theory that money is a natural phenomenon, subject to the Laws of Nature as much as are the wind and tides. In which case there is nothing anyone can do about it except endure The Tragedy of Human Effort. Is there anyone who still propounds the Copernican/Lockian theory?

Further essential reading:
C.H. Douglas' books and booklets.
Anthony Cooney's series on Social Credit.
Eric D. Butler's booklets.

Send for a list from your nearest Heritage Book Services and/or Veritas Publishing Company, W.A.

BILLIONS FOR ISRAEL WHILE AMERICAN CITIZENS GO HUNGRY

Bush budget launches new Israel aid. Institute of Historical Review website 4/2/2008:
The Bush administration launched its new $30 billion defence aid to Israel in its proposed 2009 budget. The $3 trillion budget, released Monday, includes $2.55 billion in defence assistance for Israel. That will increase in increments until 2013, when it will settle at $3.1 billion a year until 2018.

Israel this year received its final $2.4 billion payment in a $24 billion defence assistance package launched in 1998. The Bush administration increased the amount partly as compensation to Israel for a planned $20 billion in U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its Arab neighbours.

The administration defends the overall package as necessary to contain Iranian hegemony and to spur Israel and moderate Arab nations to support Israeli-Palestinian peace. Who said America is not the tail of the Israeli dog?

KEVIN RUDD PM AND HIS 'COLLECTIVE GUILT' WEAPON

by Betty Luks
I must admit to wondering if Piers Ackerman has a personal dislike of PM Kevin Rudd. Be that as it may, Mr. Ackerman has rightly brought up the question of what strings will be attached to the Rudd Labor government's "gallop to claim moral superiority over the previous Australian government with a pledge to say sorry to a group of Australians, self-described as the Stolen Generations, in a yet-to-be revealed form of words on behalf of the current government." (Daily Telegraph 3/2/08)

Not only is Mr. Rudd posturing on the high moral ground in the affair, but he is pressuring the Opposition leader Brendan Nelson to act in a bi-partisan manner and agree to the 'apology'. Rightly, Mr. Achkerman refers to the ABC as the "Labor Party's electronic media arm" which "has barely concealed its contempt for opposition politicians such as the spokesman on Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, for making the not-unreasonable decision to wait to see what the Government proposes before issuing an endorsement."

Part of a Marxist agenda:
But I want to ensure Mr. Rudd clearly understands that not all Australians have been conned into believing the 'apology' policy can claim the high moral ground. It is, in fact, firmly historically based on Marxist manipulation of the Aboriginal 'land rights' movement as outlined in Geoff MacDonald's 1982 book "Red Over Black". As for Mr. Rudd and his Fabian Socialist (read Marxist) government's psycho-political crusade to bring down a mantle of collective guilt upon the shoulders of all decent Australians let's make the matter quite clear to him.

If you agree, write to your Federal Member and P.M. Rudd along the following lines:
"I, and my fellow Australians, are not responsible for 'sins' claimed to have been committed by previous generations of Australians against Aboriginal Australians. We are not responsible for past generations' faults. We are responsible for our own. You do not have my consent to vote (as my representative) in favour of the Labor Party's 'apology'." That is enough.

Piers Ackerman refers to "Rudd and his Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin have attempted to assuage concerns in the community that any official apology on behalf of the Government will not usher in a new round of handouts to those who believe they are owed some compensation for the past policies of long-gone governments."

Marxist hardliners most certainly do have an agenda:
But make no mistake about it. Not only do the hardliners hope to clog up the systems with compensation claims but eventually to fragment the Commonwealth of Australia by setting up a separate nation or nations.
In a preface to Geoff's book, former Victorian RSL president Mr. Bruce Ruxton wrote:
"Mr. McDonald develop(ed) his central theme that Australia's future as a free Western nation was seriously threatened by two movements: one to use the Aboriginal 'land rights' issue to eventually establish a separate Aboriginal nation under communist domination; and the second to fragment a homogenous and stable Australia by a breaking down of the traditional immigration policy, and by the deliberate fostering of a multiculturalism which could only end with the Balkanisation of Australia."

Tell me reader, have you looked at the racial mix in our capital cities lately? Do you think 'Australians' now have a sense of homogenous cohesiveness? Have you looked at what the landmass now known as 'Australia' would look like if only half the land rights claims were granted and those lands 'hived off' for a separate Marxist Aboriginal nation?
One wonders how long Communist leaders in such land-hungry nations as China would let the 'Aboriginal' nations remain free on this great land mass? A rich but weak nation would be a 'sitting duck' for such power-hungry regimes.

I wonder how many Aboriginal Australians understand what they are really being used for? They might have an inkling of what to expect by taking a good hard look at what has happened to the continent of Africa. Would they like to live under Marxist Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe? What about Kenya - now a troubled Black nation under a brutal regime. What about Mbeki's South Africa?

Further reading:
Geoff MacDonald's book "Red Over Black" available from all Heritage Book Services. $15.00 posted.
"Here We Go Again," by Douglas Collins. Doug Collins was hounded by the thought police and wrote of his experiences to warn his fellow Canadians of what to expect. $25.00 posted.
"Truth Out of Africa," by Ivor Benson. $15.00 posted.

ROYAL RATINGS SOAR

From David Flint's Opinion Column:

"A Year with the Royal Family" triumphs and the Nine Network wins the evening!

The interest in matters in our Royal Family is truly extraordinary. And after years of republican propaganda. The evidence is in the ratings last (Monday) night. 'A Year with the Royal Family' attracted 1.33 million viewers across the nation.
This led the more serious programmes, 'Borderline' with 0.989 viewers, 'Top Gear' with 0.799 and the return of Kerry O'Brien to the '7.30 Report', with 0.657 viewers. Only the light entertainment on 10, 'So You Think you Can Dance', attracted more, 1.616 million.

Perhaps the republicans could counter this with some riveting series, say, about Australia becoming a republic. What a pity this is the subject about which Malcolm Turnbull indicated in 1999 is of absolutely no interest.
The programme showed something which probably hundreds of thousands have experienced, a conversation with The Queen. The film with Helen Mirren, The Queen, had already revealed an aspect of Her Majesty which some did not know, and too many had forgotten - that sense of duty which is the principle upon which she tries to lead her life. This episode confirmed that.
I predict that it will eventually be accepted, more and more, that if Prince Charles has inherited anything from his mother and father, it is precisely that same sense of duty.

Using Cate Blanchet as the narrator was a clever move by the Nine Network. She was just right, and not at all intrusive. Nine has been wise to buy this series for it clearly answers a strong interest. Nine incidentally won the overall ratings last night. The Nine Network had earlier indicated that it would use this series to spearhead its return. Good Royal programmes do rate well.

Gratuitously insulting review...how to drive away your readers
And as to some of our newspapers, why or why when they are reviewing programmes such as this, do they choose a reviewer who obviously despises the subject of the programme? People reading reviews want to know more about the programme, not a cursory and nasty dismissal. Such was the TV review in The Guide from Sydney Morning Herald for 4 February, 2008. It is not the first time I have read a nasty review about a programme on royalty.

One reader, contrasted the graciousness of "all the Americans" to the Queen's visit portrayed in the programme with the "gutter-level" and "gratuitously insulting" review by Tim Elliott. "It made my skin crawl," he said.
Another reader said he would like to write to cancel his subscription. He can't because he reads it on the web.
Now I know people who have actually cancelled their subscriptions for similar reasons.
A frequent reason I hear is about the quality of the letters for publication, or rather the lack of their quality.

Newspapers are in bigger trouble than they admit. Go to the airports and hotels and see the piles of free newspapers. Are they included in the circulation figures? Many newspapers have in the past ridiculed monarchists on the ground of their alleged age.
Doing that, they ridicule their own subscribers- not a wise thing to do when you have a dwindling subscription base as a proportion of the population.
It reminds me of a photograph of a meeting of republicans I saw not so long ago. It was an attempt to bring together supporters of the different models. It was certainly not a meeting of youngsters, of the middle aged or even of the early retired. And that is not a criticism of these good people. Just a reminder to some republicans in the media. Be professional.

WAR BY OTHER MEANS

from Philip Benwell
Mr. Benwell is National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League:
"We need to keep a close watch on the lead up and agenda of the 2020 Summit of 1000 people to be called together in April by Prime Minister Rudd, particularly since it will be discussing: 'Government: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the media's role), the structure of the federation, and citizens' rights and responsibilities.'

Whilst a republic is not specifically mentioned, 'the structure of the federation' is. Furthermore a spokesperson for Mr Rudd has said: "if people wanted to put the republic issue forward it would be discussed."

May I also urge your readers to apply to your Federal Member of Parliament for a picture of The Queen and a copy of the Constitution. Whilst some republican MPs will refuse to service requests of this nature, it is nevertheless hoped that this will provide an impetus to the Government to continue producing these two items."