Thought Crimes: The Race Hate Regime
by Brian Simpson
The Sword of the Prophet
Just between you and me: do you believe that Islam is a threat to the
West and the world because Islam really does want to conquer the world
and that Muslims believe that only their religion is the true path to
salvation? In Australia, as we will soon see, voicing such thoughts
in public could land one in much trouble with the law. But in other
jurisdictions such thoughts can be voiced. Even in repressive Britain,
Anthony Browne was able to say essentially that in The Spectator
of 24th July, 2004 ("The Triumph of the East"). Browne cited
the example of Saudi Arabia whose embassy in Washington recommends the
home page of its Islamic Affairs department. There it is stated: "The
Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad [Holy War] in order
to make the Word of Allah supreme in the world." Arabic TV channels
frequently discuss the best way of conquering the West and largely agree
that immigration and conversion are the best strategies. Browne sincerely
believes that Islam is on the road to conquering the West.
Islamic immigration has met with a backlash in
the Netherlands, once home to liberalism in its most extreme form and
all things involving White racial suicide. In Dutch cities such as Amsterdam,
Rotterdam and the Hague, ethnic minorities outnumber native Dutch in
the under 20 year old category and very soon will be in absolute majority.
The Dutch accepted migrants from former colonies such as Morocca and
especially encouraged family reunion migration. The Dutch even paid
for mosques and special religious schools, and granted dual nationality
to Moroccans. Issues of crime and ethnic conflict were ignored in the
name of political correctness, until very recently. After a series of
violent incidents about 40 per cent of people polled said that they
hoped that Muslims no longer feel at home in the Netherlands. The number
of asylum seekers admitted per year has been slashed from 43,000 per
year to 10,000 and 90 per cent of these applications are rejected. Or
so we are told.
Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament,
living in safe-houses because of Islamist death threats has said: "I
believe we have been far too tolerant for far too long, especially being
too tolerant of intolerance, and we only got intolerance back."
Barry Madlener, town councillor of Rotterdam has said: "If you
say, 'I reject the Western lifestyle and I don't want to fit in your
way of life' then I say 'Keep away". These are a few of the typical
comments coming from Europe. Even former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt
has said: "Multicultural societies have only
in authoritarian States. To that extent it was a mistake for us to bring
guest workers from foreign cultures into the country at the beginning
of the 1960s."
The Winter 2004-2005 edition of The Social Contract, an American journal
is devoted to the issue of the threat of Islam to the West. All contributors
to the issue are aware that not all Muslims have a radical agenda. But
as Brenda Walker who produces the website www.ImmigrationsHumanCost.org
points out, extremist-run mosques are the norm not the exception in
the US, with an estimated 80 per cent of mosques following the radical
Islamist Wahhabist line. The Council of American Islamic relations (CAIR)
has recognised links to terrorist organisations. In 1998 CAIR's chairman
Omar M. Ahmad said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any
other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran
should be the highest
authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
The Social Contract edition goes on to present substantial argument
and evidence in the words of Daniel Pipes, that the US Muslim population
"includes within it a substantial body of people - many times more
numerous than the agents of Osama bin Laden - who share with the suicide
highjackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately,
to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant
These themes discussed in The Social Contract are discussed in a number
of scholarly books, also reviewed in that edition: Robert Spencer, "Islam
Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith,"
(Encounter books, San Francisco), Steven Emerson, "American Jihad:
The Terrorist Living Among Us," (Free Press, New York) and Dale
M. Herder, "Common Sense Rediscovered: Lessons from the Terrorist
Attack on America," (DMH and Associates, Lainsburg, Michigan),
and Serge Trifkovic, "The Sword of the Prophet: The Politically
Correct Guide to Islam: History, Theology, Impact on the World,"
(Regina Orthodox Press, Boston). Surely then there is a legitimate academic
scholarly and public interest question about Islam's potential threat
to the West? The authorities quoted may be right or may be wrong but
there seems to be a material question here that should be discussed
- at least in a free society. Australia however, is not a "free"
Religion and Vilification in Australia
The sentiments about Muslims stated above by the selected authorities
may constitute thought crimes under Australia's federal and state race
hate legislation. In December 2004 Danny Nalliah, pastor of the Christian
fundamentalist church, Catch the Fire Ministries was found guilty of
breaching Victoria's Racial and religious Tolerance Act 2001 by Judge
Michael Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal
(VCAT). The case was brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria and
pertained to a seminar, newsletter and website article which was held
to have demeaned the religion of Islam and incited fear and hatred of
Muslims. Specifically it was claimed by the defendant that the Quran
promoted violence and killing and that Muslims had a plan to conquer
the West, including Australia. The decision was "welcomed"
by the Catholic and Uniting Churches and the "Jewish community":
see: D. Hoare, "Pastor Found guilty of vilifying Muslims,"
The Australian, 20th December, 2004, p.5.
"Law Report" 2005
In a transcript of the ABC radio "Law Report" 1st February,
Waleed Aly, a commercial solicitor in Melbourne, and a member of the
executive committee of the Islamic Council of Victoria, the organisation
that brought the complaint, states that the main objection by Muslims
was "that there was some kind of conspiratorial plot that Muslims
would be trying to take over Australia at some point by violent means."
Judge Higgins said that the seminar did not constitute a serious discussion
of Islamic religious belief. Although the Racial and Religious Tolerance
Act 2001 (Victoria) permits exceptions for academic, religious or scientific
purposes, or in the public interests - the proviso is that such purposes
must be conducted "reasonably and in good faith." These vague
type of phrases allow adequate scope to find that almost statement -
however much in the public interest and of an academic, religious or
scientific purpose - is not reasonable or in "good faith".
Most controversial political statements made about "hot" issues
such as the Jews, race, homosexuals and so on by leading historical
figures could be easily argued to constitute vilification. Shakespeare,
for an example, is a raging racist and anti-semite by the politically
correct standards that constitute "reasonable" and in "good
faith" today in our politically correct Leftist universities.
Judge Higgins did not decide the question of whether the conduct was
for a genuine religious purpose or in the public purpose because he
found that the conduct was not reasonable or in good faith. The defendants
gave cause to be regarded as unreliable witnesses and relied unduly
on Biblical quotations. By the standard of the "reasonable"
Australian person, arguably Judge Higgins made the right decision. In
the present politically correct culture of Australia polite people don't
talk about the "hot" topics that Shakespeare, Jesus and Schopenhauer
and other great thinkers spoke about. Certainly in an atheistic culture
such as Australia's, basing judgements on Biblical quotations indicates
something very "unreasonable". This is not a problem with
Judge Higgins' reasoning but a problem intrinsic to the reasonable person
test, and hence with the legislation. Ultimately it is a problem with
the "new class" status quo.
For example, applying the "reasonable person" test to "victims"
in our most unreasonable and arguably insane (consider for example Eric
Fromm's The Sane Society which argues that modern capitalism is mentally
ill) society, yields the result that almost any criticism will offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate a "victim" group. All criticism
in a culture that makes tolerance mandatory is by definition derogatory,
even if true.
Any criticism can be viewed as offensive in a culture that devalues
freedom of speech and rational debate. For this reason, Judge Higgins
correctly judged the intellectual standards of mainstream "reasonable"
Australian culture. Civil liberty critics are therefore wrong to blame
the Judge for making a faulty interpretation of the legislation. The
legislation and the intellectual culture which produced it is flawed.
The intention of race hate legislation has always been to limit freedom
of speech. The legislation was introduced to deal with a 'race hate"
problem - typically to deal first with criticisms of Asian immigration
to Australia. Token "protection" clauses were added to them
legislation to permit scientific, artistic and academic discussions,
and matters in the public interest. This was never done to really allow
a sincere debate, but merely to deflect civil libertarian criticism.
These protection clauses are weak because of the qualification that
the conduct must be reasonable and in good faith. As I have argued,
this reasonable person test is highly culturally relative and ultimately
leads to the paradoxes of jurisprudence which the Catch the Fire Ministries
Statements in the public interest and made for
the best scientific and academic purposes, if made with heated political
passion - as is likely in a political debate - will be seen as unreasonable,
intemperate and not in good faith. In our existing repressive culture,
all such critics would be viewed by "victims" as hostile.
The claims made by British journalist Anthony Browne, Geert Wilders,
Helmut Schmidt and especially the writers in the Winter 2004-2005 edition
of The Social Contract, if made with passion at a political seminar,
could probably lob the speaker in the same situation as Catch the Fire
Ministries. The statements made by Catch the Fire Ministries may seem
extravagant, but some scholars have argued for such a position. In the
context of a religious seminar concerned with how to proselytise Muslims,
exaggerated or extravagant statements are to be expected. So the lesson
for Christians must not be to proselytise Muslims. Religion by definition
relies on faith for its basis rather than rationality, so many religious
discussions by their very nature will fail the rationality test.
The defendants Catch the Fire Ministries argued
that there are passages in the Quran, Hadith and Suras which could,
and do, incite believers to violence and hatred of non-Muslims. This
is also the view of many academic critics who see Islam as equivalent
to Fundamentalist Islam and incompatible with Western liberalism. It
is beyond question that Islamic Fundamentalists justify their actions
by reference to various quotations from their religious texts such as
the Quran (Believers, make war on infidels that dwell around you"
[9.5]). The complainants argued that to suppose that Islam was a religion
of extremism was an unlawful smear on all Muslims. The judge agreed
with this view. In the opinion of this writer the critics of Islam cited
earlier in this paper would also so offend, no matter how many references
were attached in footnotes.
The defendants were asked not to quote from the Quran because this could
vilify Muslims. Thus no matter what was in the Quran, no defendant could
mount an effective defense because the primary evidence could not be
considered. In all other cases not involving race/religion, this would
constitute an abuse of process and an unfair trial. However the judge
once again understood the role of race hate legislation in our "multicultural
society". It is intrinsic to the doctrine of multiculturalism that
"intolerance" cannot be tolerated - even in a legal defence.
As in Germany, in cases of Holocaust denial, even mounting a defence
may constitute a new act of denial and a new offence. Likewise no defence
referring to violent passages in Islamic sacred texts would legitimately
fall under the permitted exceptions of the Act. In a multicultural society
negative comments about races, ethnic groups and religions, provided
that they are not Northern European Christians are unbalanced and unreasonable.
The new class have now made this a matter of definition.
In summary then, Justice Higgins did make a correct
legal judgement within the present cultural context of politically correct
multi-cultural Australia. It is however not the learned Judge's reasoning
which is at fault, but the legislation itself and the intellectual culture
which produced it. The judge has merely followed the letter of the law.
But in so doing we can see clearer than ever before the extreme oppressiveness
of race hate legislation.
Where Did PC Come From?
Frank Ellis is an academic in the Department of Russian and Slavonic
Studies, University of Leeds, England. In his paper "From Communism's
"Enemy of the People" to PC's "Hate Criminal," The
Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (vol.30, no.1, 2005),
Ellis explores the question of the origin of political correctness.
Communists from Lenin onwards devoted considerable energy towards suppressing
politically undesirable thought. Mao, during his red terror dug out
"enemies of the people" and at the barrel of a gun enforced
"correct thinking." Completely innocent people frequently
had to confess to the Soviet KGB and Mao's Red Terror to a variety of
absurd politically incorrect "crimes". While this was done,
Stalin's Terror Famine in the early 1930's alone resulted in over 11,000,000
peasants being shot and starved to death. Mao in the late 1950's killed
as many as 50,000,000 people. Yet unlike Germany, China has never apologised
for its past and continues to build up its military might. In Australia
it's not "polite" to endanger trade by discussing the possibility
of a "China threat".
Political correctness, Ellis argues, originated
in the Soviet Union and after undergoing various mutations, grew in
Western universities and law schools. Ellis believes that this process
took place in the 1990s, but there is a case that the seeds of political
correctness were sown in the cultural revolution of the 1960s in the
West, beginning with the Civil Rights and immigration reform movements
and the ascendancy of Leftist thought and activism. In any case, for
the Leftist the hate figure of the ruthless capitalist was replaced
in the new Leftist demonology by the White, heterosexual, middle class
male, the new enemy of the "people". The "people"
now were increasingly becoming through mass immigration, people of colour
of the Third World.
The working class of the West failed to be good
Leftist pawns and "make revolution" like breeding dogs. The
working class has thus been replaced as heroes of the Left by a new
heterogeneous class of victims: homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities
and women. As Ellis puts it, multiculturalism has an unholy trinity
of damnation: homophobia, sexism and racism. These are the ultimate
evil that must be destroyed at all costs. Racism permeates White civilisation
so White civilisation must be transformed by the cleansing powers of
non-White immigration and inter-racial unions.
Race hate legislation which criminalises an entire spectrum of ideas
is necessary in this demonology to socially sanction and reinforce thought
codes and to eliminate resistance to what essentially amounts to White
racial suicide. The mere threat of imprisonment or massive fines promotes
self-censorship. A Ellis notes, forcing people to believe that their
undemocratically instituted multiracial, multicultural societies are
the epitome of ethnic harmony typically leads to the Yugoslavia situation
at some point when "resentments and festering hatreds" erupt
in an "orgy of genocide". This apparently was what race hate
legislation specifically, and multiculturalism in general, was to avoid.
"Legislators in the West who think that
the West will always be immune from such violence overestimate the extent
to which human behaviour can be manipulated by ill-conceived laws. People
do not become favourably disposed to one another because of hate crime
legislation. Public displays of tolerance are not enough to hold a multicultural
society together. Without that essential feeling that the "other"
belongs in my tribe, the "other" will always be an outsider.
The more governments coerce public opinion, the bigger will be the divide
between the private and public spheres. The more I am told that I must
accept the "other," the more I will come to resent and eventually,
to reject him. Denied the option of expressing my rejection of multiculturalism
in public, I can give free rein only within the four walls of my home.
And what happens when eventually the barriers come down, as they must,
between what I really think and feel, and between what I am expected
to say in public? The obedient arrows of my hatred, lovingly made and
crafted, will do my bidding. (p.104).
Waking in Fright
One of the articles published in The Social Contract, Winter 2004-2005
by Ilana Mercer is entitled "Muslim Immigration: A Time bomb that
is Ignored by American Jews". Mercer states that American Jewry
(and by implication all Jews in the West although it is too late for
their European, British and Canadian brethren") are threatened
by Muslim immigration. She cites the work of leading US Jewish intellectual
Stephen Steinlight in his paper for the Centre for Immigration Studies,
"High Noon to Midnight: Does Current Immigration Policy Doom American
Jewry". Both authors state that the US Muslim community is the
most anti-semitic in the US. As Mercer puts it: "The violent assaults
on Jews and their property in Europe and Canada are almost exclusively
the handiwork of an old hatred, nurtured within Islamic countries, whose
religion, unlike Christianity and Judaism, has not undergone an Enlightenment".
Steinlight also agrees and the following quote should be compared to
the judgement in the Catch the Fires case:
"It is virtually impossible to be reared
in classical Islam and not be educated to hate Jews - based on a literalist
reading of the Koran, where many of the Suras concerning Jews are monstrously
hateful, murderous, terrifying, as well as the literature of the Sunnah.
These texts also regard Jews as a spiritually fraudulent entity - all
the prophets and great figures of the Hebrew Bible, according to Islamic
teaching, were Muslims, not Jews
With the exception of a tiny
group of courageous American Muslims
who have spoken out and condemned
anti-Semitism, the 'Muslim Street' in the U.S. has yet to show its disapproval
of this philosophical and political agenda."
Remember, that statement is by a leading Jewish intellectual.
Unfortunately there is little that can be done
about it by us in Australia to help prevent this outbreak of anti-Semitism,
an outbreak described by these Jewish intellectuals. For us race hate
legislation now restrains our thoughts and actions. Ironically, it was
the Jewish community that lobbied hard and relentlessly to have such
legislation put in place in the first place. We conclude by citing Ellis
"Free speech is one of the most important
weapons the citizenry have to defend themselves against dictators and
tyrants, which is why they [multiculturalists] want to destroy it
Hate crime legislation
[is] designed to intimidate opponents and
where that fails to punish them and to deter further dissenters."
GOVERNMENT BY MONEY
The internet is 'running hot' with discussions
and news about 'money'. It seems more people are awakening to
the facts about the fraudulent history of money (mammon) and
the extraordinary, world-wide power and privilege (bestowed
on the banking systems by governments around the world) of private
banking systems to create it (i.e., money) out of nothing. In
other words the banking systems' exclusive right to monetise
the real wealth of the nations upon terms determined by the
C.H. Douglas' observations in Warning Democracy, 1931
are of interest:
"I suppose that we are all familiar with such phrases as
"The Power of Money," and others to the same effect,
but the Government by Money to which I wish to draw your attention
is something much more concrete than that.
Our thoughts of governments usually range over such subjects
as Houses of Parliaments, laws, and at the other end of the
scale, policemen. But this sort of government is largely negative,
and is almost entirely concerned with telling you what you must
not do. Even in these law-ridden days, after the long-suffering
citizen has taken out about eighteen licences of various sorts
to permit him to move about, to stay still, to listen-in, and
so forth, he does not come very much in contact with the law.
But from the moment that he arises in the morning to the moment
that he goes to bed at night, or, more comprehensively, from
the moment that he draws breath to the moment of his death,
and after, his activities are governed and limited by the money
His clothes, his food, his house, his education, either in the
more literal sense or in the broader sense of ability to travel
and see the world, his avocation in life, and the rapidity with
which he progresses in it, are largely matters of money, and
very often nothing but money. Further than that, a lack of money,
if sufficiently pronounced, is pretty certain to bring him up
against either the legal system, or starvation and death, and
it is in no sense an exaggeration to say that in all civilised
countries (so called), and the more civilised the more true
is the statement, the individual lives entirely by grace of
the money system.
- To promote service to the Christian revelation of God, loyalty
to the Australian Constitutional Monarchy, and maximum co-operation
between subjects of the Crown Commonwealth of Nations.
- To defend the free Society and its institutions -- private
property, consumer control of production through genuine competetive
enterprise, and limited decentralised government.
- To promote financial policies which will reduce taxation,
eliminate debt, and make possible material security for all
with greater leisure time for cultural activities.
- To oppose
all forms of monopoly, either described as public or private.
- To encourage
all electors always to record a responsible vote in all elections.
- To support all policies genuinely concerned with conserving
and protecting natural resources, including the soil, and an
environment reflecting natural (God's) laws, against policies
of rape and waste.
- To oppose all policies eroding national sovereignty, and to
promote a closer relationship between the peoples of the Crown
Commonwealth and those of the United States of America, who
share a common heritage.
Such a pervasive system needs to be understood
Any system or institution which is so all-pervasive in its effects,
is a government, whether conscious or unconscious, and one would imagine
it to be a matter of the first consequence to understand the principles
upon which it is based. So far from this being the case, however, a
very large number of people regard it as almost a matter for pride that
they know nothing about finance, and if my own experience can be taken
as a guide, any exact knowledge of the general system is confined to
a number of persons in every country who might be numbered on the fingers
of both hands, a lack of knowledge only paralleled, unfortunately, by
the confidence with which the existing system is regarded by those who
do not understand it. It is, in fact, one of the most astonishing experiences
which comes to anyone who seriously interests himself in these matters
to find the perversity with which intelligent people will put forward
any explanation, on earth or off the earth, from sun spots to the viciousness
of human nature, for the economic misfortunes which attack nations and
individuals, rather than question or allow to be questioned the practical
perfection of the money system.
Clearly, if money is of such importance, the first point to which to
direct an inquiry in regard to it must concern its point of origin,
and it is one step towards this end to recognise the fact that you do
not make money by making goods or by working.
Some years ago I made this statement at a luncheon of quite important
manufacturers in the North, and only their politeness to a guest obviously
restrained them from considerable hilarity. I then asked them to imagine
themselves doing business with each other round the table at which we
sat, and to explain to me how it was possible that at the end of a given
period of such business there could be more money round the table than
there was when they started. (emphasis added
Naturally, nobody could tell me. Similarly, you do not make money by
agriculture. If I grow a ton of potatoes and sell them for money, I
merely get the money that somebody had before in return for my potatoes,
and the coming into existence or the disappearance by consumption of
those potatoes does not make the slightest difference to the amount
of money in existence; it merely affects its distribution
He went on to pinpoint the necessary second step in their education:
"The second step to realise is that only to a very limited extent
does money proceed from the State
(The full text of Douglas' book Warning Democracy is currently being
prepared for pasting on to our website: www.alor.org)
A lawsuit against the banks' money creation
Having spent the last fifty years writing and recording information
on the power of banks to 'create money out of nothing' you can imagine
the following news was of interest to writers within the League of Rights:
"Mr. John Ruiz Dempsey BSCr, LL.B., a criminologist and forensic
litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the people
of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal
creation of money".
"The complaint filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia at New Westminster, alleges that all financial institutions
who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate
scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which
are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin
Dempsey claims that creation of money out of nothing is ultra vires
these defendants' charged or granted corporate power and therefore void
and all monies loaned under false pretence contravenes the Criminal
The suit which is the first of its kind ever filed in Canada which could
involve millions of Canadians alleges that the contracts entered into
between the People ("the borrowers") and the financial institutions
were void or voidable and have no force and effect due to anticipated
breach and for non-disclosure of material facts.
Dempsey says the transactions constitutes counterfeiting and money laundering
in that the source of money, if money was indeed advanced by the defendants
and deposited into the borrowers' accounts, could not be traced, nor
could not be explained or accounted for
Mr. Dempsey's reference to real money is of interest:
"Rather than real money being received by the borrowers, "electronic"
or 'digitally created money," created out of nothing, at no cost
to the financial institutions are entered as "loans" into
their customers' accounts. The borrowers are then required to pay criminal
interest rates for the money they never received. The suit alleges that
the defendants effectively turn consumers into virtual debt slaves,
forcing them to pay for something they never received, and then seizing
their properties if they can no longer pay the banks with real money.
There is no law in Canada that could remotely suggest that the defendant
financial institutions have the legal right to create money out of nothing.
Dempsey says: "Only God has the power to create anything out of
But, as Wallace Klinck of Canada explains, banks are issued government
charters to perform the function of creating credit.
"In his first book Economic Democracy Major Douglas refers to money
in this manner: "Money in its various forms of cash and financial
credit, so far as they are convertible, has been defined by Professor
[Francis A.] Walker in his Money [in its Relation to] Trade and Industry
as any medium which has reached such a degree of acceptability that
no matter what it is made of, and no matter why people want it, no one
will refuse it in exchange for his product. So long as this definition
holds good, it is obvious that the possession of money, or financial
credit convertible into money, establishes an absolute lien on the services
of others in direct proportion to the fraction of the whole stock controlled,
and further that the whole stock of financial wealth inclusive of credit,
in the world, should by the definition be sufficient to balance the
aggregate book price of the world's material assets and prospective
Thus, money as discussed herein is, or has the attribute of, effective
demand or purchasing-power.
The acceptability of money relates to the degree which it is fungible
(meaning: the quality of being capable of exchange or interchange) and
the less it is associated with material substance, the better. In the
modern economy, financial credit originating in bank loans is the primary
form of money in that this credit functions as money and does the "money
thing". The banks are issued government charters to perform the
function of creating credit which serves the function of money and economic
transactions are carried out by the use of this bank credit. Sellers
and creditors are not compelled to accept other than account payments,
created by issue of bank loans, and, rather insignificantly, notes and
coin in settlement of obligations.
And payment can be enforced in law by the courts in this bank-created
medium which has maximum acceptability or fungibility because its creation
is sanctioned by state-licensing of banking institutions of issue. (emphasis
A sound money system, which Social Credit professes to offer as a suitable
alternative to the present financial system, which Social Credit regards
as unsound, would properly reflect the real physical wealth of the nation
and, ultimately, only this quality can be the basis for its compete
acceptability by the community at large."
WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE OF 'MONEY'?
by Betty Luks
What do these people think real money is? What
do they think is the real nature and purpose of money? (As an aside,
the English word 'money' derives from the Latin 'moneta'. The Romans
minted coins in the temple dedicated to the goddess, "Moneta".
Another use for the temple was that of a 'counting house' - the ancient
version of a treasury and 'bank').
In "Warning Democracy," Douglas wrote: "Money and the
money system now occupy the place of religion." Quite so!
We agree the banking system should not have the power and privilege
of monetizing the real wealth of the nations.
But modern man finds it hard to distinguish between the real thing and
the means by which the real thing is accounted for and distributed within
the community, the nation.
The true basis of all growth, of sustaining and maintaining the Life
of the community, the nation, is the distribution of the produce, the
fruits of the earth - to all. The absolute origin of any economic activity
has its organic roots in the soil and in nature.
A study of the early developments of communities and city/states could
help the reader to 'see' this.
In his research into the ancient civilisation of Sumer, archaeologist
Sir C. Leonard Woolley, describes in The Sumerians, the business-like
approach of these people to their public records:
"Practically every act of civil life, of buying and selling, loans,
contracts, legacies...was a matter of law and as such was duly recorded
in writing and confirmed by the seals of witnesses... The temple officials
duplicated in title and in function those of the king's palace; besides
the priests proper, there were Ministers of the Harem, of War, of Agriculture,
of Transport, of Finance, and a host of secretaries and accountants
responsible for the revenues and the outgoings of the temple.
To the Great Storehouse ... the countrymen would bring their cattle,
sheep and goats, their sacks of barley and rounds of cheese, clay pots
of clarified butter and bales of wool - all would be checked and weighed
and the scribes would give for everything a receipt made out on a clay
tablet and would file a duplicate in the temple archives, while the
porters would store the goods in the magazines which opened off the
Here we have an account of the authorities keeping an accurate record
of the physical facts of their economic system. The merchants of those
ancient city/states, the agents of the Temple Corporations, such as
in Sumer, plied their trade and commerce along well established trade
routes; at times to far distant outposts or colonies - much of it on
very modern lines. Although no coined money existed in that day (3500BC),
gold and silver (by weight) had become the standard of value for reckoning
of accounts between merchants and traders. Locally, barter was still
the way of exchange and the values of the produce were generally reckoned
Can the reader grasp what Sir Charles is saying here? Money, in this
case, in the form of gold and silver, was originally created for the
very purpose of facilitating trade and commerce. It was a means of recording,
of accounting, helping the flow of goods and services.
In this day and age 'money' can be a 'blimp' on a computer, or ink on
a bank statement, or a cheque, or to a very limited extent, paper bank
notes and coins made out of cheap metals.
To say that we are short of 'money' is the same as saying we don't have
enough numbers to number the pages of a book, or figures to record and
account for all of a nation's economic activity and commerce and trade.
The problem is not that 'money' is created out of nothing. The problem
is we can't see the wood for the trees. We can't distinguish between
the real wealth and the man-made financial/accounting system, and we
haven't come to grips with the question of who should be controlling
that system and who should be benefiting from it.
For thousands of years kings and bankers have created the 'money out
of nothing', just as in ancient times scribes would 'create figures
out of nothing' as they recorded and accounted for (on their parchments
or clay tablets) the real wealth of the community or city/state.
One ray of hope in a very gloomy scene is the faith of the poorest of
the poor in Madagascar and the Philippines who have set up their own
'love' banks and formed their own Social Credit communities. Their banker/scribes
will keep accurate records which will reflect the real, the physical
facts. As their Bishop wrote, all they can lose is their abject poverty.
In the meantime, we won't hold our breath waiting for other princes
of the Christian churches to come out on the side of those opposing
Banks supply 99pc of 'money' lending in China
Journalists Richard McGregor in Beijing and Geoff Dyer in Shanghai sent
a report to The Australian 30/5/05, explaining bank lending accounted
for 99 per cent of all business financing in China in the first quarter
of this year.
Where do you think this 'money' came from and what form did it take?
What was it made of? Just as the banks in Canada 'created money out
of nothing' the private banks financing China's businesses have done
REALITY IS ALL ONE PIECE
There is an active Social Credit group-discussion
operating on the internet. People from all walks of life and backgrounds,
and even nations and religions, are participating. Some who are looking
at Social Credit for the first time fail to see the relationship between
a 'religion' and the problems of the 'real world'. In fact as the following
correspondent explains he sees studying religious sources as a sheer
waste of time.
John L Perkins wrote:
"The suggestion that religious sources provide any credible aid
to understanding the real world, let alone economics, serves only to
indicate the author's susceptibility to delusion.
Religions are nothing more than cultural mythology. Fairy stories for
grown ups. Stop pretending.
Please desist from this futile and nonsensical pursuit. Religions are
a curse, the scourge of humanity, and an increasingly psychopathic mass
psychosis. Please use your obvious intelligence to ask your self why
you are a victim of this mass deception and mental corruption and strive
to overcome it. The problems facing the world are such that the need
for rational cognitions has never been greater. Devote what time you
have left on this planet to trying to solve its problems not making
them worse by perpetuating such nonsense.
Veteran social crediter Wallace Klinck responded:
"The term "religion" derives from the Latin meaning to
"bind back". Religious belief is a philosophy of life offering
methodology by which individuals attempt to "bind back" to
reality. The degree of success by which a society, based upon some religious
concept, is able to generate increments from their association which
redound to individual satisfaction can be said to be a measure of the
realism of that religion.
The (above) message seems to suggest that human action can proceed successfully
without any guiding reference to principle. So soon as we accept any
body of principles by which to base our activities and relationships,
we are by definition adhering to a "religion."
The challenge for us as conscious humans is to discover and follow realistic
religious principles. This is admittedly no mean task but it is an unavoidable
The message seems to suggest that human action can proceed without any
over-riding sense of values - i.e., in a moral and ethical vacuum. History
certainly provides ample evidence of misguided religious belief, or
abuse of religious principle, which has occasioned much human hardship.
This, however, is hardly any basis for rejecting the fundamental concept
and value of religion, per se.
Surely, it should provide increased incentive for discovering principles
which are grounded in reality.
How does the writer of this message propose that he can proceed in any
program of action without having any notion as to whether or not it
is good or bad - whether it may have the potential for generating desirable
or undesirable outcomes?
If he turns for guidance to any philosophical reference point, he is
by definition engaging in a religious exercise.
A case in point:
Some people regard "full-employment" as a desirable social
objective, while some believe that the facilitation of maximum "leisure"
is the appropriate social goal. How would one seek one or the other
of these opposite policies without a philosophical position regarding
the nature and purpose of mankind?
Just because one has become frustrated by the past injuries committed
in the name of various religions -- or persons who have controlled or
used religions for injurious purposes - one is hardly justified in rejecting
the whole concept of religion, in toto. One may point to the negative
results of religious belief and policy in the past - but one might also
ask what life might have been like in the complete absence of any belief
systems for the guidance of human activity and association.
The writer's position seems to emanate from frustration and disillusionment
which has resulted in a blind and sweeping rejection and condemnation
of all values - which policy, if universally adopted, would simply lead
to the complete collapse of all social institutions and of any meaningful
human life on this planet."