Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Home Blog Freedom Potentials The Cross Roads Veritas Books
OnTarget Archives Newtimes Survey Podcast Library Video Library PDF Library
Actionist Corner YouTube Video Channel BitChute Video Channel Brighteon Video Channel Social Credit Library

On Target

14 November 2014 Thought for the Week:
Decentralised Power: A correspondent to the Toowoomba Chronicle referred to the three levels of government in the Commonwealth federation - but does not define their functions or role or history. It all came from the lessons of those who went before us. Worse, he neglected to mention the dynamics of – money. Without a dynamic it is all talk and bluff leading to disaster.

Hopefully, if my letter to the Editor of the paper is published then another councillor or two might examine the role of the original Commonwealth Bank. Always noting that Sir Denison Miller died suddenly, unlike Gough*!

*Former PM and Fabian Socialist Gough Whitlam died recently, aged 98 years.

Letter to the Editor, The Chronicle Toowoomba.
Dear Sir,
How timely a reminder from Cr Mackenzie (T.C. 20/11/14) as the would-be destroyer of our once de-centralised governments has passed away. Australia was the most successful nation in history when we built up from a penal colony via local government to finally a federal government, in less than 150 years.

It started by the creek or river where the locals built their own village, houses and grew their own food. What could be done locally took place under the control and direction of the local committee. The rail, ports and connecting roads came into existence under the guidance of the State committees. Both did what the other could not accomplish as easily. The only impediment was money.

The missing part of a trinity was the defence of the whole continent, mail post and the emerging telegraph and telephone systems, which encompassed the two first divisions. Navigation and later air navigation also needed a federal committee. After federation we sped as fast as was physically possible, until 1924, when the federal government turned its new Commonwealth Bank over to private control on the death of its governor Sir Denison Miller, who had died suddenly! Since then it has been arrested development.

Prior to 1924 the federally owned bank financed all the common infrastructure on the continent, including local government. What was physically possible and desirable the Commonwealth Bank made financially possible. There was never any shortage of invisible capital then. The bank made its money a licence to act.

Then onto this successful and bounteous scene came Gough Whitlam in 1974 who told us he was going to turn the whole continent into a system of regional government under Commonwealth government control. A disastrous replica of the tyrannical Soviet Union. May both R.I.P.
Yours truly, J. Brett Highfields.

Gough Whitlam was not my favourite politician.
The Editor, Numurkah Leader.
Dear Sir, He arrived on the scene with the slogan ‘It’s Time’ and swept a lacklustre Coalition from office. After 23 years of a tired Liberal/Country Party coalition government the electorate agreed ‘It’s Time’, too.

Whitlam’s time as Prime Minister was characterised by an ‘egotistical man with a vision’ and what a vision it was. He straight away set about ‘socialising Australia’, recognising every little ‘two-bit’ communist regime to bring this country into their orbit.

Before the election he said he would end Australia’s involvement in Vietnam. This was commendable but he also said “Australian troops would come home unheralded and unsung” ... in my opinion this was unforgivable and despicable treatment of our loyal Defence Forces; involvement in Vietnam was not of their making.

In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam characterized the Queensland Premier as "a Bible-bashing bastard". Not exactly the words of a gentleman… but whoever said he was?

Edward Gough Whitlam’s government was elected on December 2, 1972 and was the first Labor administration in 23 years. Elected in a national mood of hope and anticipation, the government was steeped in controversy from the outset. Re-elected eighteen months later, then it was gone in just under three years. It was a government frustrated by the Senate, dismissed by the Governor-General, and then massively repudiated by the electorate.

The ‘dismissal’ (although the term is not strictly true) raised a number of important constitutional, parliamentary and political issues, most of which remain unrecognised by leftist elements of the mass media to this day.

Should the Senate have the right to block money bills? How should a government respond when this happens? Should the Governor-General intervene in conflicts between the houses? When should the Governor-General intervene?

We could spend some time discussing these questions but it should always be kept in mind— if you cannot, in some way, check a politician or government, then you have created a despot. Unfortunately, since 1972 successive governments, whatever persuasion, have continued down the ‘Socialist Road’ towards the world communist state. What Whitlam started did not end with his death and reminds me of the words quoted from William Shakespeare’s, Julius Caesar — “The evil men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones”. The story of the Whitlam years is the story of a political system tested to its limits and it withstood his onslaughts… we must never forget and should always defend our present system of government to our utmost.

Next November 11th is Remembrance Day and 39 years since the Governor General prorogued (suspended without dissolving) the Australian Parliament pending an election. We are indebted to Mr Whitlam for causing a demonstration of effective democracy through our ‘constitutional instrument’ leading to a change of leaders without bloodshed.

How many countries have this wonderful facility?
Louis Cook, Numurkah Victoria - 26 October 2014

The Smile of the Tiger: "Australian businessmen were challenged to sell more products to China following a big industrial modernisation plan started by the Chinese Government." The Age (Melbourne) May 5th (1978). It was the late Nikita Khrushchev who said that trade to Communist nations, was more important for its political advantages than for economic necessity. The same goes for the Communist power men in Peking.

With the ominous shadow of a general Western economic collapse spreading across our horizon, the dangers involved in any Australian "dependence" on trade with Communist China should be obvious. With no alternative trade outlets, Australia, and any other country in the same position, would be at the mercy of Peking, which could then dictate terms, e.g., no more trade unless an Independent Black State is allowed across the North of Australia. What do you think of that? Don't you think it could happen?!

What makes the overall picture so murky is that the Red Chinese are modernising their plants in industry to do all this with credits made available by "American" banks, with full encouragement by the "American" Government. Philip Lynch, Federal Minister for Industry & Commerce, has been in Red China getting the red carpet treatment and is now enjoining Australian manufacturers to "go Chinese" at full speed. Our Phil is patting himself on the back, but the Tiger is smiling behind him.”
On Target Vol.14 No.1, 1978


By Peter Ewer.
News is in from the Biennial Constitution Values Survey and it’s not good for the Establishment. (The Australian 10 October 2014, p.1) Faith in the federal government took a battering with Gillard knifing Big Kev Rudd in the back for the top job, and this faith has been tumbling down ever since. Federal government is now ranked third behind State and Local Government in terms of trust, and it can’t go lower. Only 52.5 per cent of people surveyed said that they had faith in the federal government to operate well.

Although championing a politically correct, multiracial globalist Australia, Nick Bryant’s “The Rise and Fall of Australia: How a Great Nation Lost Its Way” (Random House, 2014), documents this loss of faith. Bryant gives a good overview of the Gillard-Rudd war, and he is particularly critical of Gillard’s misogyny speech. He has two chapters that give the game away: Chapter 6: “The Slow Death of British Australia” and Chapter 7: “The Rise of Asian Australia”.

As I read Chapter 6, even though there have been great attacks upon “British Australia”, Bryant still notes that even given Asian immigration “British arrivals continue to be surprised – startled even – by the resilience of Australia’s Anglocentrism and how ‘the British way’ retains its permeating influence in so many realms of national life”. (p.194)

All this sharply contrasts with the rise of Asian Australia, especially Asian money, which has transformed Western Australia into a “quasi-independent realm”. (p.223) At the universities “the curriculum is slowly being altered so that courses have more of an Asian bent”. (p.227) We can add to this that “China is now the biggest source of foreign investment in real estate in Queensland” (The Australian 13 October 2014, p.3), making this state a virtual colony of China. Further, student visas are now just part of the mass immigration/Asianisation programme, with arrivals reaching 123,100 by 30 June, 2008. Net overseas migration will reach 536,400 over the four years from December 2014. Virtually all of these people will be Asians, in turn producing endless chains of migration of relatives.

Despite all of this Bryant ridicules the claim that Australia is being “swamped by Asians”. (p.236) This said even though he states that in “2009, the Chinese overtook the UK and New Zealand as Australia’s biggest source of immigrants”. (p.236) Sydney is home of Australia’s largest Chinese community although allegedly only 3.4 per cent of that population was born in China. (p.237) Yes, they were born elsewhere.

I visited Sydney recently and even coming from multiracial Melbourne, was stunned at the number of Chinese in the CBD. I did a rough survey of people walking by me on, I think it was George Street, and found that Chinese were the majority, about 70 per cent!

The conflict between Australia’s existing Anglo population, and the coming displacement by Asian culture, as represented by China, from demographics, to economics and culture, is the real “clash of civilisations” which needs discussion.

Bryant says “ “The question for Australia… is whether this Anglo-bent is sustainable, especially in the conduct of its foreign affairs, as the rise of Asia continues”. (p.239) He notes that there is a major conflict between Australia’s economic relationship with China and being a partner in defence with the United States, but does not explore the issue in detail, merely continuing Donald Horne’s absurd idea that we are “all Asians now”. Well, if we are by geographical definition “Asians” then let us be “Anglo Saxon” Asians!


A Step in the Right Direction by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Family First Senator Bob Day has introduced a private member’s bill to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, following Tony Abbott’s cave-in to the ethnic-multicultural lobby. The bill proposes removing the terms “offend” and “insult” from section 18C, which gives a balance between free speech and protection of ethnics. Most of us would prefer to see section 18C in its entirety eliminated, but that won’t happen for some time. It will be an acid test of the Liberals to see if they stand up to the politically correct anti-liberals in their own party and run with this, or whether they collapse into illiberal heap again, or to vary the metaphor, a puny puddle of political correctness.

Those supporting Senator Day should write/email him to see if he will support a Constitutional amendment referendum guaranteeing a right of free speech to Australians along the lines of the US First Amendment. That proposal should be put up as an alternative to the ‘feel good’ Liberal guilt-based “Recognise” campaign. How better to “recognise” anyone than to give them the fundamental gift of democracy, the right to freedom of speech.


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
It was the great English poet, John Keats (1795-1821) who said: “I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters” (from H.L. Mencken. “A New Dictionary of Quotations on Historical Principles”, 1942). People should be aware of a long tradition of mistrust of the lawyering class, when approaching the “Recognise Referendum”, for “recognition” of Aboriginals in the Constitution. This referendum is very much a new class creation.

Indeed, the Recognise movement, aims to do much more. Two out of the three options served up to Mr. Multiculturalism, Tony Abbott, include provisions banning racial discrimination. The Committee chairman Ken Wyatt has been quoted as saying that all of the options would allow Aborigines to push for “sovereignty” or a “treaty”. So it is clear where all of this is leading to. (The Australian 28 October 2014, p.4) The informative little booklet by Geoff Mc Donald, “The Evidence” (Veritas 1986) has been well confirmed: that the Aboriginal land rights movement has arisen under the shadow of Lenin and : “The charge of racism is to provide the ‘evidence’ to rationalise a decision by the United Nations to support recognition of the land right areas as a separate nation”.

McDonald observed back in the ’80s that, “The people under attack in Australia on a racial and colour basis are the white people. Australians of Anglo Saxon-Celtic background have been the subject of an enormous campaign of slander.” (p.7) For this reason alone, Anglo Australians must oppose the Recognition referendum, campaigning for the ‘No’ case. Let “No” be a “No” to what the elites have done to this nation since the end of World War II.


by Chris Knight
The “Ship of Theseus” was one of many paradoxes that challenged ancient Greek philosophers. If the planks of the wooden ship are gradually replaced so that after a time, the entire ship is made of different wood, is it the same ship? And if it is, because identity is a product solely of form and function, then why not replace the planks with plastic planks. Is it the same ship then?

Race globalists contend that replacing Anglo Australians by Asians or the multicult, would not change Australia’s identity. Ted Sallis, in his paper “The Ship of Theseus: Fidelity of Identity”, The Occidental Observer vol. 14, Summer 2014, considers such racial replacements arguments. He says that is like putting on display “the knife which killed Caesar”, only both the handle and blade have been replaced.

Sallis rightly observes “… although the individuals making up a people change over time and gene frequencies can change within a narrow range constrained by genetic population structure, the essence of these biological entities can remain intact. However, large-scale immigration, particularly when coupled with admixture, will permanently alter the genetic makeup of a people in a way not consistent with their defining essence… wholesale race replacement and major future admixture… will alter the English people in ways inconsistent with a maintained English identity. Race replacement is analogous to the material replacement in the replica of Theseus’ ship – it is actually worse, for here even form, function and process would be lost along with the genetic continuity.”

Immigration across the West, and that includes Australia’s immigration programme, constitute the racial ships of Theseus. The main difference is that the elites know that a change in racial identity is occurring and openly advocate it. And for them, it does not matter that the genetically modified racial ship of Theseus crashes.


by James Reed.
How many times a day do we hear them, that free trade, open borders, unending mass immigration, and unrestricted foreign investment will make us all richer? This is the chant of the globalist money class, for isn’t it amazing how such ideologies so neatly justifies the global capitalist world view?

Bjorn Lomborg
Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg (“Free Trade Will Make the Whole World Richer” The Australian 30 October 2014, p.12) cites research from a “top Australian economist” allegedly showing that free trade would make the Third World $8 trillion richer by 2030, lifting 160 million people out of extreme poverty. Free trade will mean that countries will, by the “logic” of Jewish economist David Ricardo, known as comparative advantage, focus on what they do best, thus resulting in “efficiency”. The Third World generally have a comparative advantage in agriculture and textiles and should, by Ricardo’s “logic” focus on them.

The problems with this argument are many. For a start, Ricardo assumed that nations existed as discrete entities that could be compared so that there were no free flows of labour (via immigration) or of capital. That assumption is directly inconsistent with globalisation, which is all about free flowing everything.

Worse, economists never address the situation where there is nothing that a country has a comparative advantage in - what should it produce? Just die? Further, Ricardo’s comparative advantage argument begs the question in favour of globalism. Why accept this analysis at all? It precludes national development, locking countries into being banana republics. Even a country with a comparative advantage, in say agriculture, should pursue technological development for kick-on benefits in nation building. Economics should not be given special importance. Economies exist to serve man, not vice versa.

The claim made by Lomborg that free trade gives the alleged benefits he claims it does is controversial because the proposal does not control for the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, which certainly does benefit all. Free traders though are “things” persons, concerned with hard copy goods.

As a matter of fact it took only two minutes on Google scholar to find an academic paper refuting Lomborg: F. Jaumotte (et. al.), “Rising Income Inequality: Technology, or Trade and financial Globalization?” IMF Economic Review, vol.61, no.2, 2013 International Monetary Fund. Now that is a source that Lomborg and The Australian should take seriously. But here is the abstract which refutes Lomborg:
“The paper examines the relationship between the rapid pace of trade and financial globalization and the rise of income inequality observed in most countries over the past two decades. Using a newly compiled panel of 51 countries over a 23-year period from 1981 to 2003, the paper reports estimates that supports a greater impact of technological progress than globalization on inequality. The limited overall impact of globalization reflects two offsetting tendencies: whereas trade globalization is associated with a reduction in inequality, financial globalization – and direct Foreign investment in particular – is associated with an increase in inequality.”

Beyond these economic considerations Pepe Escobar in “Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War” (Nimble Books, 2007), details that the global dream is really a nightmare because the attempt at integration is really like bringing two north-north or south-south magnets together, creating forces which ultimately will destroy the structure. Globalism: a bad idea which if consistently practised will destroy the world.


by M. Oliver Heydorn
The founder of Social Credit, C.H. Douglas cited five main causes for this deficiency of consumer purchasing power in his booklet “The New and the Old Economics”. They were: profits, savings, the re-investment of savings, deflationary policies on the part of banks, and the difference in circuit velocity between cost creation and price liquidation. This last cause, which is the main cause, is also known as the A+B theorem. Basically, the idea is that modern industrial production involves overhead costs and these overhead costs (because of the way in which real capital – machines and equipment - is financed and its costs accounted for) build up costs without distributing an equivalent volume of income (in the form of salaries, wages, and dividends).

Apart from any question of theory, the claim that there is a gap between consumer prices and consumer incomes is one that can be (easily) verified by consulting the economic statistics of any developed country. Take a look, for example, at these statistics from the Canadian and American economies in 2008. In 2008, the GDP in the US was a little over 14 trillion, while total incomes that were earned (wages, dividends, and salaries) were a little over 8 trillion dollars. This means that there was a gap of 5.9 trillion. In Canada, in 2008, the GDP was 1.2 trillion, while the total incomes were 770 billion. Thus there was a gap of 436 billion. So we see that in these two countries there was a disparity between consumer prices and consumer incomes and it was significant, it was not small. Now, just a word of caution, I don’t believe that these statistics tell the whole story; I think the situation is more complex. So don’t take these figures as revealing the exact nature and size of the gap because that would be somewhat misleading. The important thing is that, whatever its various causes, a significant gap exists.

So, there is an imbalance that lies at the root of the modern economy and this imbalance must be consistently overcome or compensated for to some substantial degree because, if it isn’t, the economy would enter into a downward recessionary spiral and would eventually collapse. If additional purchasing power is not drawn on from some source to equate the prices of existing consumer goods with available incomes, businesses will scale down production, more people will be unemployed, and this will decrease available incomes even further thus intensifying the original problem. Additional effective purchasing power that is not derived from existing production must be provided from some source. There are essentially two ways of providing the additional purchasing power. There are the conventional methods, the palliative measures that are employed by economies the world over. And then, there are the Social Credit methods.

The conventional methods rely mostly on the creation of new money in the form of debt to fill the gap. Incomes derived from new production, especially capital production and production for export, and incomes or purchasing power derived from additional government expenditure, and purchasing power derived from consumer loans (credit cards, lines of credit, car loans, mortgages, etc.) help to offset the consumer prices that are currently on the market, but only at the cost of increasing public, corporate, and consumer debt.

The problem with relying on debt-money to fill the gap is that it does not liquidate the outstanding consumer costs; it merely transfers the obligation to pay them to a future point in time. But that future point in time will also have its own gap costs to meet. Since consumer incomes in the future will be eroded by the additional debt servicing charges, they will be even less adequate to meet the recurring gap. The increased lack of liquidity translates into an even greater need to borrow in order to meet the needs of the moment. So what ends up happening is this: debts are paid off at slower rate than new debts are contracted. This leads to an ever-increasing mountain of debt which is, in the aggregate, unpayable.

Dr. Oliver Heydorn used America’s present situation as an example US Economy & GDP

Under the current system, the richer a country becomes the more indebted it must be; it is penalized for making use of its real credit with a millstone of debt. The United States, constituting as it does the richest country in the world in real terms, is also the most indebted. The total debt outstanding in the United States (public, corporate, and personal) is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 61.6 trillion dollars or roughly 193,000 dollars per citizen and is steadily increasing.

The U.S. National Debt alone is around 17.7 trillion or 55,000 USD per citizen and is likewise increasing (this figure represented a federal debt to GDP ratio of 105%). The money supply, on the other hand, is only about 11.4 trillion (M2). Indeed, if all of the money in circulation were used to pay off as many of these debts as possible at any one point in time, the US would have no money supply whatsoever and yet massive quantities of debt would still remain.

A good source for these kinds of statistics is the USdebtclock website: The information it provides is enough to boggle the mind. The financial situation in the United States is not different in kind from that of any other country.

Dr. Heydorn’s full paper is published in the October edition of the New Times Survey – $30 pa from National Headquarters: A
ustralian League of Rights, G.P.O. Box 1052, Melbourne 3001. Phone: 03 9650 9749; Fax: 03 9650 9368



by Peter West
Earlier this year I was taken to task for a book review which I did (published just before Easter) which mentioned archaeological evidence challenging the historicity of the Old Testament. I was criticised by many folk for such a review, as if the quest for seeking the Truth should be suppressed if our own beliefs (if they are our “own” own beliefs) are challenged. In, I think, unpublished replies, I argued that a strictly literalist/fundamentalist viewpoint from, say Genesis, ran into problems if evolution is true in some shape or form (not necessarily Darwinian selection of random genetic mutations).

The problem is that of evil: if death and entropy (even of physical matter via the second law of thermodynamics) predated the Fall, of both man and Lucifer, then free will cannot be a satisfactory response to the problem of evil. Even eating an apple produces disorder/waste/ entrophy.

I have recently read Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs’ paper “Religation”. Dr. Dobbs is one of the respected intellectuals of this movement while I am but a minor contributory.

I note with interest on the point of our debate his words:
“Meanwhile, the idea of Creation had become identified with a shaman-like process of instant verbal magic, under the terms ‘Special Creation’, in which one recognises what has been called ‘the technique of the essential adjective’. For differentiation is necessarily of the essence of creation, which can mean only that every creature must be ‘special’ - of distinctive character and marked off by distinguishing features - so that ‘Special Creation’ is a tautology meaning no more than ‘Creation’ if taken literally. But when this term is applied to a childish conception of the Creation based upon the literal interpretation of the words of Genesis, which is then superseded by a more mature conception involving time and continuity, it is not only the idea of conjuring into existence by verbal edict which is discredited, but to some extent also the idea of Creation and of a Creator altogether, in so far as the verbal situation is not consciously analysed.

Thus, what for some was the greatest enlargement and enrichment of the idea of the Creator for centuries, for others was the greatest retreat in history. For if ‘Creation’ is taken to mean that all species were brought into existence and fixed for ever by divine edict in 4004 B.C., which we can now see to be manifestly untrue, then ‘Creation’ ceases to be credible, and we must seek another religion. For many scientists this religion has been achieved not only by substituting the fascinating and awe-inspiring impersonal process of evolution for the Creator, but further, since this process is held to culminate in Man, by substituting Man, or the Mystical Lump of Mankind, for God, as the Supreme Being of the Universe.” In other words, literalism, dogmatically held to, has contributed itself, Dobbs seems to be saying, to an intellectual discrediting of the Christian account of Creation, something which atheistic humanism and liberalism of all shapes and ugly forms has capitalised on. This weakness has also enabled the growth of evolution into a religion of its own, a form of atheistic-materialist dogma, Dr. Dobbs describes.

Equally of interest Dr. Dobbs is critical of the cult of mathematicising the world and society, attempting to capture reality by mathematical models. “The trouble is, of course, that mathematical processes need have no relation to reality”. Perhaps climate science and economics best illustrate this, where so-called computer models spin out all sorts of nonsense, without empirical/experimental verification. Science too, may have gone the way of literalism.


Vladimir Putin
Putin takes part in final session of 11th
Valdai International Discussion Club meeting

Paul Craig Roberts’ recent description of Vladimir Putin was as “The Leader of the Moral World” ( roberts/‎). Roberts’ words were inspired by Putin’s recent remarks to the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in the Russian city of Sochi.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:
“Vladimir Putin’s remarks at the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club are worth more than a link in my latest column. These are the remarks of a humanitarian political leader, the like of which the world has not seen in my lifetime. Compare Putin to the corrupt war criminal in the White House or to his puppets in office in Germany, UK, France, Japan, Canada, Australia, and you will see the difference between a criminal clique and a leader striving for a humane and livable world in which the interests of all peoples are respected. In a sane Western society, Putin’s statements would have been reproduced in full and discussions organized with remarks from experts such as Stephen F. Cohen. Choruses of approval would have been heard on television and read in the print media. But, of course, nothing like this is possible in a country whose rulers claim that it is the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country with an extra-legal right to hegemony over the world. As far as Washington and its prostitute media, named “presstitutes” by the trends specialist Gerald Celente, are concerned, no country counts except Washington. “You are with us or against us,” which means “you are our vassals or our enemies.” This means that Washington has declared Russia, China, India, Brazil and other parts of South America, Iran, and South Africa to be enemies. America - financially bankrupt This is a big chunk of the world for a bankrupt country, hated by its vassal populations and many of its own subjects, that has not won a war since it defeated tiny Japan in 1945 by using nuclear weapons, the only such use of such terrible weapons in world history…” Read further here…. Putin’s speech can be read here…)

Putin is suggesting ‘New Rules of the Game’ for the ‘World Order’, rather than risk a ‘Game Without Rules’. It appears to me the world order Putin envisages is still based on the present order of international corporations and institutions with the benefits only ‘trickling down’ to the masses, they will still have to scramble for the crusts thrown to them. Putin says nothing about the privately controlled debt-financial system that has burdened the American nation with astronomical debts bringing that nation to its knees.

During WWII Eric D. Butler warned the western world:
“The world-conflict which we see today enters into every aspect of human affairs - military, political and economic. This conflict is, broadly speaking, a final clash between totalitarianism and democracy. Basically, it is an issue which has been fought throughout past centuries. It has now reached a crisis, the outcome of which will decide the future of mankind for centuries to come. It cannot be ignored; we must think about it, we must clearly understand the problem…” (The Money Power versus Democracy)


The Blogspot provided a summary of Putin’s speech by a Russian blogger named ‘chipstone’:

According to this Russian blogger, the most salient points of Putin’s speech were:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favours a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a saviour of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people. To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?


“Neither Vladimir Putin nor any other “blind leaders of the blind” is going to “save the world” so long as this increasingly divisive and defective financial system remains in place. Putin does seem to have a genuine desire to resolve international problems and probably deserves as much or even more credibility than most other world “leaders”. Unfortunately, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” and there is no substitute for correct action instead of unsound actions based upon sincerely held but wrong conceptions. Putin holds some sound ideas but does not perceive the crux of the problem nor possess, therefore, the key to its effective and lasting solution.

So long as the world holds to financial accountancy conventions which drive a growing wedge between effective consumer incomes and final prices, necessitating the incurring of escalating debt and wasteful production, the whole planet inexorably will be driven to increasingly prioritize foreign trade wherein all nations are forced into attempting to export more than they import in order to compensate growing internal inadequacies of consumer purchasing-power. This process leads to vicious and unethical business practices and hypocritical and aggressive government policies amidst an unnatural and uncivilized competition for foreign markets wherein nations are compelled to seek lower production costs by pirating and pillaging the human and physical resources of other nations.

All nations, economic, social, cultural entities and individuals are turned into enemies one of the other in the context of a situation where governments attempt to provide economic and social stability by redistributing a growing insufficiency of financial income. Because of the entirely desirable physical process of the elimination of the need for human input into production consequent to the increasing use of artificial intelligence and automation, a shrinking body of income earners will be requisitioned to support the growing numbers of those who are no longer working for financial remuneration. Economic and social chaos can be the only result of such insanity.

President Putin seems to be a reflective individual. I think that perhaps the most constructive action on the part of Social Crediters at this time might be to get Oliver Heydorn’s new book Social Credit Economics into his hands and into those of some of his advisors. I was both surprised and elated when Russian Television recently featured a presentation which claimed that the Americans were working themselves to death and damaging their health in the process. There may be more potential in Russia for advancing Social Credit ideas than we might suppose. Remember Peter Propotkin who opposed authoritarian socialism and denounced artificial scarcity! We have now established new contacts in Japan and in Spain—let’s take our message right to the top in Russia! You can write to the Russian President. His address is posted on the Internet. America’s efforts to discredit President Putin and to isolate Russia are a despicable and transparent act of hypocrisy and demonstrate the extent to which the United States is an “occupied” nation - occupied by those of a pervasive element which seeks to realize its own self-serving objectives by utilizing the resources of the nation whose institutions its members have white-anted and subdued.

Paul Craig Roberts writes some very perceptive and focussed articles. Unfortunately, his economic prescriptions seem quite orthodox and to reveal an ignorance of the pivotal role of finance in national and world affairs and of the basic philosophical concepts which should underpin our modern economic activities. We should place Oliver’s book in his hands also. He could become a great ally if convinced of the soundness of Social Credit. Why should the world genuflect in perpetuity before the flawed and failed policies of John Maynard Keynes rather than recognize the sanity of Douglas? Why indeed?”

Email address of President of Russia:
There are protocols so please read them here… Please read the letter protocols carefully before you send any letter addressed to the President of Russia

Postal Address for sending messages via ordinary mail: 
 23, Ilyinka Street, 
Moscow, 103132, Russia.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159