A NATION 'S BALANCE SHEET

by Wallace Klinck, Canada
Social Credit holds that the purpose of production is consumption and the more efficiently production can be carried out the better. This means a continuing displacement of human input by technology which would/should translate into increasing leisure for humanity. The cause of disappearing "jobs" from a Social Credit standpoint is the replacement of human effort by non-human factors including the increasing productivity of ever-refining technology.

The purpose of production is to provide goods and services for people - not work. The Consumer Dividend and Compensated Price are the central Social Credit instruments to achieve this end. Social Credit is not work-oriented. It is consumption and leisure-oriented.
If we want to create work for mankind from dawn to dusk we can just scrap all the achievements of civilisation and go back to living in caves. "Toil not, your Heavenly Father knows you have need of these things, etc."

C. H. Douglas saw no problem whatsoever as early as the 1920s in deriving the essential statistics for implementation of the Social Credit Consumer Dividend and Compensated Price. Denis Byrne prepared comprehensive documentation of this nature in “The Case for Alberta: Parts I and II”, for the Province of Alberta some six decades ago without the help of modern computing systems. This is simply a task for professional paid accountants to perform.
The statistical and issuing agency required for accounting the Nation's assets and dispensing the Consumer Dividend and credits re the Compensated Price would be a statistical body operating as a government agency but, as with the judiciary, constitutionally protected from political interference in its ongoing operations.

By accepted practice, the Bank of Canada today is supposed to operate in this fashion although it is in fact an agency of orthodox financial policy which no politician has shown either the intelligence or integrity to question.

The factor which stands in the way of adopting Social Credit financial policy is not a difficulty with statistics. It is an intellectually and morally misguided, partly ill-informed but often complicit, stiff-necked, conceited and arrogant establishment which is convinced that freedom for humanity would spell the end of civilisation--for their own precious sinecure, at least, in respect of control over the resources of the earth.  

CHINA IS THE THREAT

by James Reed
The Chinese have reacted against the defence white paper, which in a nutshell foresees a potential threat from China. Chinese officials have said that Australia increasing its defences is likely to incite a regional arms race. Excuse me, but there is already such a race and China has started it. Only political correctness and the cult of Asia-worship – especially the crass economic motive of flogging off raw materials to China – has prevented a more open recognition that China, not global warming, is Australia’s greatest threat.

The white paper cautiously notes: “Shows of force by rising powers [China is not named explicitly] are likely to become more common as their military capacities expand. Growing economic interdependence does not preclude inter-state conflicts or tensions short of war, especially over resources or political differences”.

A headline in the Sydney Morning Herald (2-3/5/09, p.1) is more explicit “America will not protect us, warns Rudd: Arms build-up to face China”. Rudd rightly sees an end to US primacy in the Asia-Pacific region. The article says: “The change, caused by the rise of new great powers such as China, is set to produce growing regional tensions and a ‘sudden deterioration’ in Australia’s security”.

If defence logic were divorced from economics, we would see the utter folly of feeding China raw materials and allowing this power to grow by buying its goods. What sense is there to our globalised economy if, a few decades down the track, China invades and wipes us out – thanks of course to our ‘yellow Australia’ immigration policy. These sorts of civilisation-survival strategies are a long way away from how our elites think.

Thus Doug Ritchie, global head of strategy at Rio Tino (“Foreign Money Built the Country”, The Australian, 5/5/09, p.101) argues that Chinese investment should be welcomed because, well, the country was built on foreign money.
But this begs the question as to whether there are alternative ways of nation-building without being an eternal colony (there is – social credit) and in any case, whether what was true of the past (if true) will necessarily be true of the future. If Martians wanted to buy our resources at top dollar for the point of building a disintegrator ray, which they were likely to use to annihilate us, would it be rational to sell?  

CALIFORNIA IS THE FIRST TO FALL

by Brian Simpson
California, the world’s sixth largest economy, is broke and facing a US$21.3 billion budget shortfall. Of course we mean ‘broke’ in conventional economic terms but at present, until people awake to the sanity of social credit, this is the only game in town.
Although the press likes to blame things on the system of direct ballot initiatives, the truth is that the ‘needs’ and ‘greeds’ of minorities and millions of illegal aliens has significantly contributed to California’s plight.

Indeed, Presidents from Clinton to Bush supported the idea of home loans to people, often the ‘disadvantaged’ who had poor credit histories. Consequently, the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
But back to California. Former muscle-bound Arnold Schwarzenegar is losing support by the day as he slashes government spending. The good news is that his days as governor of America’s majority non-white state are coming to an end. California will be given back to Mexico.

CARBON TRADING SCHEME: VENT MY FRUSTRATION

by Terence Holmes
The concept of a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme can be seen from a variety of perspectives. The most compliant and politically correct person sees it as an instrument of environmental protection, an advantage to those who are sensible about their practices. The sceptic sees it as another tax.

Being a Social Crediter and, I hope, a realist, I see it differently again. I perceive it as another example of the type of control which is attempted by the manipulation of finance.

As revealed so eloquently by Thomas Robertson in his book “Human Ecology,”… Finance, which should be the measure of wealth and the servant of economic life, has been reversed in its role and now dictates what it allows to be physically possible!
Rather than it being a measure of wealth and the medium for its distribution, finance has again been given the place of pre-eminence and is used here to influence the market itself – to enforce sanctions against undesirable practices.

Who would disagree that pollution should be discouraged? But to drive it by the power to issue and/or withhold credit takes another measure of freedom and responsibility away from the individual (capitalist) and places it in the lap of the law and thereby, the State. This, my friends, is another step towards Socialism.

How long will we continue to exchange our freedoms for someone else's proposition of economic security? Pretty soon, we will all be ‘nice’ - not because of its moral attribute, but because it will cost us dearly to be otherwise!

FREDRICK TOBEN WINS RIGHT TO APPEAL

by Betty Luks
The June Adelaide Conservative Speakers’ Club proved a most interesting night. Not only did I have the opportunity to present Part II of the paper “Financial Crisis: Catastrophe or Opportunity?”* but we had the pleasure of Dr. Fredrick Toben’s company for dinner. It was the night before Dr. Toben’s application for permission to appeal to both the finding of the contempt of court charge and the sentence (three months imprisonment) came before the Federal Court in Adelaide.

The chairman of the CSC gave Dr. Toben an opportunity to share some of his experiences over the last fifteen years as a ‘historical revisionist’. This included the time he spent in a German prison, because he dared to think otherwise than the official version of the ‘Holocaust’, according to the laws of Germany.
I have to say, having met Dr. Toben once again after a number of years interval, I found his ‘inner growth’ and ‘inner peace’ inspirational and encouraging.

I can report, Justice Anthony Besanko suspended the arrest warrant until the date of that hearing - August 13 - and deferred the gaol term to allow Dr. Toben to file appeal papers. The judge did remind Toben of his promise not to leave South Australia except to see his Melbourne-based lawyer.

* The audio tape of the address “Financial Crisis: Catastrophe or Opportunity ? Part II” by Betty Luks is now available from Mayo Tape Library, P.O. Box 6 Hahndorf South Australia 5245. Price $6.00 posted.

THE CONSTITUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS IDEOLOGIES

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Catherine Branson, president of the Australian Human Rights Committee (The Australian, 8/5/09, p.27) has argued: “There is a way around constitutional problems with courts and any human rights act.” I suppose there is a way around anything if you stretch things enough. Branson says that there is no constitutional barrier to a human rights act because the Australian Human Rights Commission had a round-table with constitutional and human rights lawyers and unanimous agreement was reached that a constitutionally valid human rights act can be drafted. That doesn’t convince me: a gathering of like minds is always likely to deliver the ‘party line’.

Opponents of a human rights act have argued that the courts could use such an act to make laws contrary to the intention of parliament. Branson argues that there is ‘no constitutional impediment to a human rights act requiring courts to interpret federal legislation consistently with the human rights identified in the act, so long as that interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the legislation’. Well this is a long way from what many want, where human rights can be used as a universal standard for assessing law. Later passed laws, inconsistent with the human rights act may on this account not be necessarily invalid.

Branson is concerned that a trespass on fundamental rights and freedoms has occurred. No, she is not thinking of the freedom of speech of Dr Fredrick Tobin, but things like mandatory detention, things that the new class don’t like. Presumably the idea of human rights is to knock over things like mandatory detention and sedition laws. So the courts would have usurped legislative power after all – and that violates the separation of powers from where I stand! Give me Rudd any day – at least we can vote him out!

THE LAWYER 'S BONANZA: A BILL OF RIGHTS

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
It was good to see Bob Carr, Premier of NSW, 1995-2005, put the case against a bill of rights (The Weekend Australian, 9-10/5/09, p.20). The argument against such a bill is simple: it will give unprecedented power to unelected judges (that is, lawyers). As Carr puts it “a character is filled with decorous generalities or abstractions but judges determine what the words mean”.

Carr shows that countries with a bill of rights, contrary to the likes of lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, who supports a bill of rights, are generally less, not more, free than nations with them. Parliaments, as shown by Britain, make “decisions shaped by fear of being overruled by court action on human rights grounds”.
This means that judges and lawyers would effectively have more power than politicians. And, as I see it, if there is a group in society that should not be given more power, it is lawyers.

AUSTRALIA IS NOT A CROWNED REPUBLIC

by Philip Benwell
A large number of enquiries from members have been received asking about whether we are a ‘crowned republic’. My personal opinion is that we are not any sort of republic. We are a constitutional monarchy which protects the people in a way far better than any republican constitution could ever do.

Whilst our constitutional monarchy is vested in the people and comprises many safeguards that republicans would like to see, but can never achieve in a republic, that does not in any way mean that our system is republican.

I believe that monarchists are unwise to use the term ?crowned republic? as it can always be construed as meaning ‘half-way towards a republic’. If we are to use terminology, we should say we are a ‘crowned democracy’.
- - Mr. Benwell MBE is National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League.

ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS! GOOD NEWS!

by James Reed
Who says that I report and comment only on bad news? Universities are bleeding to death! Who says that I wallow in despair like a pig in mud?
Well, here is some good news: “Australia’s biggest universities have been ravaged by the global financial crisis’ and are ‘bleeding millions’," (The Australian, 6/5/09, p.1).

This financial crash of the universities is, I believe, to be welcomed as these institutions have led the charge in the promotion of every evil that has engulfed this Anglo-Australia nation.
These institutions crash freedom of speech in their pursuit of the overseas dollar. Critics of immigration, multiculturalism etc., have been subjected to campaigns of intimidation since the 1970’s. These evil institutions need to bleed to death. Australia would be better off without them.

More has been done by the Australian League of Rights, in my opinion, in the preservation of our people, race and culture, than by the universities. The works of Eric Butler are, in my opinion, far superior to the scribbling of our so-called learned professors.

MISSION: TARGET 'ALL WHITE PEOPLE '

by Brian Simpson
The Guardian (19/2/09) reported that on the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe “full scale urban warfare erupted.” First the protests by blacks were against high prices and low wages. Then protesters turned to white tourists as they “demanded an end to colonial control of the economy.”
Protestors “turned their attention to rich white families who they blame for their poor standard of living.”
“All white people” were targeted and the French media described this as a “civil war.”

“Race war” would have been a better description but political correctness did not permit this. People were shot, shops looted, cars torched and people bashed. Y
ou see, people were upset by public criticism of mixed-race marriages by wealthy white landowner Alan Huyghues-Despointes, who said that he wanted to “preserve his race.”

In reality, I suppose most people would not have cared a hoot about this – the real cause was that the colonial descendants own 90% of the wealth. But if these people go and take their wealth with them, will the blacks of Guadeloupe ultimately be any better? Already tourists are avoiding the place like the plague (or swine flu). These are the sorts of agonising dilemmas that multiracial societies end up in.

GREG SEES THE END OF RACE BUT PENNY JUST RACES ON

by James Reed
According to journalist Greg Sheridan, a long-term champion of the Asianisation of Australia “We’ll all win when race comes last” (The Weekend Australian Review, 23-24/5/09, p.38). Well, according to Sheridan “Nothing seems so central to our cultural consciousness these days as race”.

Once liberals looked forward to the day when ‘race’ would not exist – but with multiculturalism, race is more important than ever. For Sheridan, race should not count for much. So much then for his protests about people who wanted to restrict Asian immigration on race grounds – that ground should not count for much either!

Greg should have consulted with climate change guru Penny Wong, featured in The Weekend Australian’s magazine. This Asian lesbian we are told, has been “driven by [combating] racism” (“Racism Driving Force for Wong”, The Weekend Australian, 23-24/05/09, p.4).

Funny isn’t it how all these successful ethnics always cry about how ‘racist’ Australia is, the nation that accepted them in as migrants and provided the opportunities for their success? Would an Anglo-Saxon ‘Penny Wrong’ be permitted to become a citizen of China, or any other Asian nation, and slam China in print?

My top prediction is that Wong is being groomed by the elites to replace Rudd to be Australia’s first Asian-born lesbian Prime Minister.

ON AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY

by Len the Cleaner and James Reed
Here is an interesting piece by political scientist Dr Dean Jaensch, “Australian Identity Comes First” (The Advertiser, 30/4/09, p.18). Jaensch was “annoyed” by being called a “non-indigenous person” at a function. He had his “identity defined as a negative.”
Reflecting on this, Jaensch says that before 1945 Australia was a “mono” British society, but because of post World War II migration, today “we are one of the most multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies on earth, producing a real multicultural population, involving a broad range of ethnic and social lifestyles.”

Predictably enough, Jaensch goes on about how our diets have gained diversity. Supposedly in the 1950’s, all that one could eat at Hindley Street cafes were pies, fish and chips. Now the ethnics have given us their wonderful food.
Well, go down Hindley Street today and one will primarily find junk food, much of it ethnically/overseas based. High in sugar and fat. The claim that the only food available in the 1950’s was pies, fish and chips is absurd. Grills, salads and vegetables were freely available and far better healthier food than what multiculturalism has given us (and this includes American fast food and high fat/MSG Asian food).

Jaensch concludes with a weak nod to nationalism, that “it is important that all people should feel a strong sense of national identity”, for there ‘are too many countries in the world that are riven by ethnic and racial problems.” Well, how did they get them Dean? Precisely by embracing multiculturalism and multiracialism!

Jaensch says that we are all “Australians”, but what possible meaning can that have when our heritage is being eroded? There can be no Australian identity with such differences. To use Len’s immoral words: under multiculturalism, nations just become vast public conveniences.

SEEN ANY GOOD HOLOCAUST /ANTI-NAZI MOVIES LATELY?

by Peter West
Hello, I haven’t been contributing lately as I have been working in the bush doing fencing contracting work. There in the scrub, the peace and quiet eventually got to me. Of all things, I felt the desire to see a movie – any movie.
When I got back to Melbourne I found that I could spend an entire day watching Holocaust/anti-Nazi movies at the cinema. There was “Good” with “Lord of the Rings” star Viggo Mortensen, “Defiance”, with James Bond star Daniel Craig and “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas”. What an abundance of riches!

In “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas”, two boys sitting on opposite sides of a German death camp fence become friends. But why was the Jewish boy permitted to go so close to the boundary fence? In all camps, inmates would have been kept back from the fence behind a ‘no-go’ line (and wasn’t this a ‘death camp’ anyway?)

People coming up to the fence from outside, as close as Bruno, would have been shot by the guards. The movie is nonsense in my opinion. As for the other two, I can’t really review them as I found both of them so boring that I fell asleep about 20 minutes into them. Having ‘seen’ these movies I have been cured of my desire to enter another cinema and am happy to return to work in the bush.

THE JOY OF GUN OWNERSHIP

by John Steele
How about here we exercise what remains of our right to free speech and say something positive about owning guns? I am moved by Anne Davies’ article “Mean Men, Ammo and Guns Galore” the Sydney Morning Herald, 2-3/5/09, p.13.
The article gets off to a good start by noting that in the US, gun owners don’t trust Obama. Well, they are not the only ones. Obama, the most leftist of all presidents has gun control firmly in his sights. He will tackle it after he deals with the economy. Dream on man.

The Davies’ article has a colour picture of an SLR assault rifle (as we called them in the army, a truly beautiful gun) with a column “Out of Control”. The statistics go: each day 84 people die in the US from “gun violence” 34 of them murdered. Source: Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence!
No data presented on how many lives in the US are saved each day because of gun ownership. Eighty-four dead is a small price to pay for freedom in the jungle that liberals have made America.

Another statistic: the presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of a homicide. How could this be and how could it be known? Most gun owning homes are homicide-free. Only if there was intent to first commit homicide would this be an issue. The gun is not the cause of the homicide.

Finally, these statistics are cited: in 2007 the Australian murder rate was 1.3 per 100,000 and US rate 5.6 per 100,000. Presumably we are to blame guns for this. But these sorts of cross-cultural comparisons are invalid because no statistically rigorous test is made for guns as the cause of the difference. The different rates could be due to other factors such as race.

Gun ownership is the ultimate expression of individualism and self-reliance. Liberals hate these values and that is why the likes of Obama want to ban guns. That is why Howard did so in 1996. The joy of gun ownership is the joy of freedom. I say ‘don’t hug trees, hug guns!’