SHELTER FROM COMING STORM: SOCIAL CREDIT REBORN

by Brian Simpson
They all know that it is coming… the big one. It is told in the saga of the headlines. Thus: “World Economic Turmoil Should Scare Living Daylights Out of Us: Westpac”, The Australian 1 December 2011, p.1. James Shugg, a senior economist with Westpac in London has said that economic turmoil in Europe and the US is approaching “catastrophic” proportions as the world economic growth rates have halved in only two years.
And its personal: “I’ve never been as scared about the outlook for global economy, and particularly in Europe, at any time in my past 25 years as an economist. I’ve started smoking; I can’t get to sleep at night”.

Yes, a “global catastrophe” is coming with the collapse of the European financial markets. Why, in Greece about 20,000 people now sleep rough, although the climate there is not too bad for it. Not so for much of Europe and the US. The Polish foreign minister has also said that Europe faces a “crisis of apocalyptic proportions”. Yet all of this is only a small part of the problem. As C.H. Douglas showed, the entire financial system, being based upon exponentially-expanding debt, is necessarily unsustainable. The leaky ship is patched up so it can sail on for a time, but ultimately there is a limit to how many patches can be put on, before the boat itself becomes a “patch”.

The death of the financial system as we know it is inevitable and that is why publications such as this one are devoting the time to chart a social credit and decentralised, local economy alternative. The implosion of the world financial system should be greeted by our own kind as a sign of our coming liberation.

One of the many good things about the imploding financial doomsday is that it is certain to end many local lunacies. Thus the Australian universities, committed to Asianisation, and living on the Asian Foreign Student nectar, are already facing hard times, with job cuts occurring right across the country. (The Australian 30 November, 2011, p.27) These evil institutions deserve to financially starve to death. May the homeless come to populate the deserted buildings of the dons and put them to good use. On the cold nights, may the fires of the dispossessed (in 44 gallon drums) be fed by the politically correct words of the chatterers. The fine words of liberalism, equality and fraternity will finally be realised as the smoke from their works dances in the cold, dark night skies.

At last, an economist who has done his homework! "CapitalAccount" wrote on Nov 10, 2011:
Many modern economists missed the financial crisis and the economic problems we've seen since then, such as the eurozone debt crisis. Why? Well according to economics professor and author of Debunking Economics Steve Keen, they're not really experts on the economy but experts on a model of the economy. The great tragedy according to Keen is that the model is almost completely irrelevant to the system we actually live in. And despite the learnings of the financial crisis, not much has changed. Keen says the problem is Neoclassical economics, which economists are traditionally trained in. As for the solution? Well we may just have to wait for the economists in charge to die off. In the meantime, should people be occupying the economics departments of universities along with Wall Street? Keen says absolutely. Watch here... : And here...

Further important reading: “Major Douglas’ Proposals for a National Dividend: A Logical Successor to the Wage” by Brian Burkitt and Frances Hutchinson. 

HUMBLY RELYING ON THE BLESSINGS OF ALMIGHTY GOD…

by Betty Luks
The serious complaint I have of the Peter Jackson film version of Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” is that the most important part of the story for ‘we the people’ of the 21st century to be encouraged by was left out of the film version altogether. The four hobbits, having come through the great battles at their King’s side and the Ring of Power destroyed, honoured on the field of Cormallen for accomplishing feats that seemed impossible, return to The Shire, their homeland. Transformed and ennobled in the courageous performance of their duties and their deep spiritual experiences, upon return to The Shire find they must now defeat the unexpected evil there. Their once peaceful and tranquil homeland has been despoiled and polluted and the people enslaved by men-bullies who exploit their fellow-hobbits and imprison those who break the numerous new rules and regulations.

And so too Australians have to take up the battles against the bullies who have enslaved them and imposed numerous oppressive new rules and regulations. ‘The Ring of Power’ represents the Money Power, Mammon, whatever it is now so named; with its history stretching back at least to the Sumerian civilisation and always it is the same; corrupt men gain control of the system using it to their own advantage. It is a history of fraud and corruption and criminal activities against ‘we the people’.
Further reading, “History of Monetary Crimes” by Alexander del Mar first published in 1899. $10.00 + postage.

What do we do about it?
* The first step must be to secure our own family’s position as well as possible against the approaching storm. Then look to ourselves and our neighbours to help each other, and, when/if the going gets really tough, work together to ensure the basic necessities of life.
* Get a better grasp of what the ‘social credit’ of a community really is – and make it work! Social Credit is as old as man himself and has always existed – it just didn’t have a name before Charles Ferguson gave it the name.
* A good way to examine your own posibilites and those nearest to you is to view “An Alternate Money System” by Charles Pinwill, available from Heritage Bookshop Services for $12.00 including postage. Each family, each community, will have its own local problems/ battle to deal with and then there is the national battle.

At the same time it is important that we the Australian people become clear in our own minds as to what ‘money’ really is. Being simply a ticket system it should represent the true wealth of this nation – that which ‘we the people’ actually produce.
Those bullies, with the connivance of their cronies in the political, legal and educational institutions have claimed the creation of credit and hence ‘money’ as their own.
We have to throw these bullies out of our Shire. It will be a tough fight but if we stick together, remain true to one another, and stay focussed on the target we would win the battle.

We could take our rallying cry from a speech by Mr. L. H. Hollins, (Independent M.L.A. for Hawthorn) at the joint meeting of members of the Victorian Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, held in Melbourne on November 10 and 11, 1942 who said:-

“We see in paragraph (xii) of section 51
of the Constitution that the Commonwealth Parliament already has power over currency, coinage, and legal tender. The Constitution was drawn up more than 40 years ago and it indicates the possession of some knowledge of financial problems by the men of those days. They could not be seriously blamed for not understanding that the great bulk of the money we use is financial credit. Figures show that 99.3 per cent of the money we use today is financial credit created, in the main, by the private banks, and has no existence outside the ledgers of the banks.
For that reason, if any alteration is needed in the Constitution, I suggest that it is a simple and legitimate alteration that would be supported by the great bulk of the people of the Commonwealth. If we were to insert in section
51 the words “and” before “financial credit,” and delete the word “and” before “legal tender,” the phrase would read “currency, coinage, legal tender, and financial credit." Then the Commonwealth Government would have powers which would be clearly set down, but I maintain that in section 13 all the power necessary is given…”
- - reprinted in The New Times, November 27- December 4, 1942.

But wait a moment, history has shown the party hacks can’t be trusted: A National Credit Authority should be set up and held responsible for the nation’s accounting system – on behalf of ALL Australians.

Further very important reading: National Accounting:

Also: “The Use of Money” by C.H. Douglas ready to download...

UNDERMINING OF CIVILISATION: THE METAPHYSICS OF GAY MARRIAGE

by Peter West
Homosexuality as little as fifty years ago was regarded as a mental illness and homosexual practices as deviant sexual activity. With the cultural revolution of the evil 1960s this all changed. Homosexuality was no longer considered an illness. Then we had the “gay liberation” movements and so on, right up to today to the present “gay marriage” debate. If you glance over the articles in the print media, despite a few criticisms you will see that the cultural elite want it, and want it badly. Gay marriage has been conceptualised as a “human rights” issue, and once the elites do this, acceptance is part of what it means to belong to the modern establishment.

Patrick J. Buchanan, in his new book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” is concerned to address the metaphysics of this sort of ‘trend’, behind the triumph of these Leftist movements. The decline of Christianity and belief in the Transcendent goes with the rise of secular materialism. A people become weak and corrupted in spirit when they become totally reliant upon materialism. Belief in materialism leads naturally to belief in its secular ethical philosophy, humanism. With humanism comes all of the ideologies which now oppress us.

Buchanan, as a conventional thinker, still hopes to save modernity. But I think a fall like that of Rome is inevitable and we should stop trying to save the modern world and begin to think about how man should live. With the fall of modernity with it will go gay marriage, the equality religion and other trendy beliefs.

Some from the left are well aware that modernity is unsustainable, and in fact many look forward to its fall. Thus the recent article “It’s the End of the World as We Know It… and I Feel Fine” SAWeekend, 3 December, 2011, discusses the views of former Greenpeace leader Paul Gilding, author of “The Great Disruption”. Gilding sees the end of economic growth and a great collapse, with the financial system collapsing and, possibly, mass starvation. But he sees a new world ultimately coming from the chaos, built of course on Left/Green values.

We on the other hand should also think along parallel lines, replacing the Left/Green values with Christian, Social Credit principles to rebuild European civilisation. This is indeed the moment in history for radical thought!  

WHY ICELAND SHOULD BE IN THE NEWS, BUT IS NOT

Reprinted from http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1 by Deena Stryker, 15 August, 2011:
An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. (Australians) may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.
As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperilling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here's why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain. Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking (chequing) accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbour, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn't stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)
To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria.
The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat. They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign. That’s why it is not in the news anymore.  

IN THE U.S., HERE COMES THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS!

by Peter Ewer
The Establishment, of course, is already preparing for possible protests from the White mice. Natural News.com, 29 November 2001, reports that the US Senate is moving to enact a law which would allow US troops to arrest US citizens on the soil of the US, to be thrown into secret military prisons, interrogated, tortured and held, without trial, indefinitely. The new National Defense Authorization Act in section 1031 permits indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The legislation was drafted by Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona and Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan). The legislation will allow Americans to be classified as terrorists and thrown into concentration camps. The Department of Homeland Security has defined behaviour such as owning guns, stock piling food, gold, etc., as “potential indicators of domestic terrorism,” so it looks like the concentration camps are going to be full.  

DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR THE ‘FREE SPEECH’ ELECTION

by James Reed
It is good to see continuing media concern about the Andrew Bolt case. Even globalist Paul Kelly, editor-at-large (whatever that means) The Australian 12 October 2011, p.16, sees the race hate legislation as a gold mine election gift to Tony Rabbit because it shows that the Labor Party is “ready to restrict political debate and valid expressions of view by the Australian people”.

Well, actually both Labor and Liberal allowed Keating’s legislation to pass because the super-powerful ethnic lobby wanted it, and they got it. Thus I cannot agree with Kelly that the “race hate” legislation is a “Labor law”, at least exclusively. The Liberals could have repealed it during the Howard dynasty but had no interest in doing so. Abbott, who has indicated his support of multiculturalism (=ethnic power) would not have the ‘ticker’ to tackle the issue.  

A QUESTION OF BEING REASONABLE

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
I agree with James Reed that Abbott doesn’t have the ‘ticker’ to take on the race hate legislation, nevertheless, it is good to see some within the legal profession speaking out against this legislation. Spencer Zifcak, “What’s Reasonable is a Dubious Matter for Law”, The Australian 14 October 2011, p.29, makes the point that the “reasonable to offend” test, which uses as a standard the sort of person in question likely to be offended (e.g., a light-skinned Aboriginal) rather than an ordinary person, is correct. he says it is unfair to use an ordinary person test as such a person “could not be expected to experience the harm caused by the wrongful denial of a person’s racial identity”. That begs the question at issue, for it is inevitable that such people will be offended: the threshold is far too low, and lacks objectivity.

Mr. Zifcak goes on to argue that in the case of Bolt, the factual errors made by him justified Bromberg J’s decision that the exemption of fair comment on a matter of public interest applied. In my opinion, this is again wrong because “good faith” comments in a democracy cannot and should not be expected to be error-free. Bolt made mistakes about some details, but was not wrong about most of his facts. He still raised a substantial issue. However, these points aside it is good to see Mr. Zifcak say that “in a free and democratic society we ought to be able to accommodate speech that offends or insults, even on racial and religious grounds”. For speech that humiliates and/or intimidates and speech that vilifies or incites hatred, be believes that the situation is different, and requires a “legal; limitation”.

Again I disagree. The problem with this view is that given the vagueness of all of these terms, there is no sharp dichotomy between “insulting” speech and humiliating or even intimidating speech. Further, some political views which are arguably true, for example, that Nordic (Northern Europeans) face a racial attack from X, would be caught by the legislation because it really may generate hatred for X, if true. To vary the example, if some Aboriginal activists sincerely believe that White European Australians have engaged in acts of genocide in the past, and even now against their race, in my opinion, however much I disagree with that view, they should be allowed to say it, in whatever language they choose, however much it offends, intimidates, and/or vilifies me and my kind. That is what free speech in a democracy is about.   

THE GREAT REFUGEEISM RELIGION

by James Reed
It seems that every plan to process asylum seekers offshore is frustrated. You can feel how intense the ruling elites want onshore processing and ultimately just allowing open borders. “It’s Time for a Sensible Solution” (Advertisement) The Australian 13 October 2011, p.8, doesn’t mince around. Asylum seekers that arrive by plane are processed onshore so why not everyone? Further, the advertisement says, the Vietnam refugees were dealt with rightly by Mal Fraser; incidentally one of the signers of the ad along with other leaders of the refugee movement.

Read this carefully. “As the Vietnam War came to a chaotic end, Australia faced the prospect of a huge influx of refugees from the conflict… Both Government and Opposition rose above party affiliation to act, initially, in the face of negative opinion polls”. [emphasis added]. The system created “over 20 years, dealt with the needs of more than 2.5 million Indochinese refugees. The Fraser Government alone took almost 250,000 Vietnamese as refugees and immigrants”

“The numbers were far greater than the small number arriving by boat today. The current debate all but ignores the fact that three times more asylum seekers arrive by plane than boat and are successfully processed on-shore often while living within (and contributing to) their new communities”.

Of course behind this, the refugee/open borders lobby want onshore processing so immigration/refugee lawyers ensure that most cases will be subjected to review, and court. Most asylum seekers will stay. The Immigration Reform Movement began modestly enough and only wanted the White Australia Policy modified so that only a few thousand Asians and coloured were given entry to Australia. But through the Fabian strategy of gradualism, as well as the Vietnamese refugee influx championed by Mal Fraser, we went from a country with an Anglo-Celtic population of 98% pre-world war II, to one where the percentage is probably now well below 40% taking into account ethnic intermixture.

We went from White Australia to Multicultural Australia, to Asianisation. Just as the United States will reach majority non-White by 2040, so will Australia, given the present immigration regime. The ideology of the present refugee lobby is open borders for Australia. Australia, it seems, has not done enough. As the ad says: “Make no mistake – the world is watching. The current debate is doing tremendous damage to our international reputation”.

Yes, communist China and a whole host of non-Western nations who would never put up with any of this , are supposed to be “watching”! It is time to take a stand against this open borders ideology which is demographically diluting the West. All this happened in the first place because of the affluent decadence produced by the post World War II culture. Today as the world heads crashing towards resource limits, as the standard of living is continually eroded, maybe, just maybe, the 1960s rhetoric will wear painfully thin.  

NEW ROYAL OATH - NSW PARLIAMENT EMBRACES OATH TO THE QUEEN

Politicians in Australia's largest state, New South Wales, will again be able to swear allegiance to the Queen and the royal family under moves to restore the oath after it was scrapped in 2006. The bill, proposed by an ardently pro-monarchist MP, has been backed by the new Government which won office earlier this year. It would reverse a decision to scrap the oath by the former Labor government.
Under the proposals, politicians would no longer be forced to swear loyalty to the people of NSW and Australia and could instead choose to pledge allegiance "to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law".

The change was proposed by Reverend Fred Nile, from the Christian Democratic party, who said the removal of the Queen from the oath was a "calculated snub" by Labor on the eve of a royal visit. Reverend Nile was buoyed by the most recent royal visit, which ended with jubilant scenes as big crowds came to farewell the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh after what may have been her final tour as head of state.

The change won support in the state's upper house after it was backed by the ruling Coalition, which controls the lower house with a large majority. It was opposed by Labor and the Greens, which fended off claims the 2006 change to the oath was part of a "fiendish Irish papist plot" to install a Republic.
"The 2006 reforms were neither republican nor monarchist in intent but were about ensuring that members' pledges go to where sovereignty lies in our democracy that is, with the people in our polity," said one Labor MP, Luke Foley.
The proposal to restore the Queen to the oath has drawn a mixed public response. "Fred Nile thinks the Queen is more important than the people, says it all really," said one comment on the Seven Network website.
Another said: "Does not matter what oath they take - still end up with incompetence and corruption."